trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ul6vlttc4belm4xm8exlvg2 content
BY CONTINUING TO USE THIS SITE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO OUR USE OF COOKIES. REVIEW OUR
PRIVACY & COOKIE NOTICE
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

 /


Looking for more?

Contact Us

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *

* Required

In this list

Both sides in Clean Power Plan case upbeat after oral arguments

Street Talk Episode 40 - Digital Banks Take a Page Out of 'Mad Men'

Broadband Only Homes Skyrocket In 2018 Validating Top MSOs Connectivity Pivot

Power Forecast Briefing: As retirements accelerate, can renewable energy fill the gap?

2019 Credit Risk Perspectives: Is The Credit Cycle Turning? A Fundamentals View


Both sides in Clean Power Plan case upbeat after oral arguments

Supporters and detractors of the Clean Power Plan think theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared to agreewith them as it delved into state and industry groups' legal challenge of theU.S. EPA's carbon-cutting rule, making the Clean Power Plan's fate difficult topredict.

The court held nearly seven hours of oral Sept. 27 to consider demandsby half of the U.S. states and several coal and power industry groups to vacatethe EPA rule. Petitioners allege that the rule, which sets state-specificcarbon emissions rate limits for existing power plants, exceeds the U.S. EPA'sauthority to regulate emissions by encouraging a major shift in generation fromcoal plants and other higher-emitting sources to lower-emitting renewable andgas-burning facilities. They also have argued that EPA cannotregulate carbon emissions from existing plants under Section 111(d) of theClean Air Act if those sources are already regulated under Section 112, whichpertains to hazardous air pollutants.

"Most of the judges seemed to believe that the CleanPower Plan is a 'transformative' rule with 'vast economic and politicalsignificance'," said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at law firm Bracewell LLPwho is representing the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in thecase. "Under a number of Supreme Court decisions, this means that EPA mustshow it is authorized by a 'clear statement' from Congress, but EPA was notable to point to any such clear statement."

Holmstead added that determining if a judge is "simplyplaying devil's advocate or revealing his or her predilections" isdifficult to know at this point, with the answer to be revealed only when thecourt rules in the case, which many expect not to occur until early 2017.

Industry petitioners also maintained that the court's raredecision to have an en banc panel of judges hear the case, and the length ofthe oral arguments, "surely demonstrates that the judges on the D.C.Circuit have profound misgivings about the statutory and constitutionalunderpinnings of the rule," said Scott Segal, a partner with Bracewell'sPolicy Resolution Group who is representing the Electric ReliabilityCoordinating Council in the Clean Power Plan litigation. Segal added that thejudges had "particular concerns" with whether the EPA asserted itsauthority beyond the emissions sources the Clean Power Plan is meant to controland said the final rule was never subject to meaningful public comment.

But supporters of the rule also concluded that the judgeswere on their side. Clean Power Plan critics have said language from the U.S.House of Representatives' 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act barred "doubleregulation" of existing plants under Sections 112 and 111(d), the latterof which was created to cover non-hazardous pollutants. But defenders of therule, including 18 states, said that was not Congress' intention in draftingthose sections, and that EPA properly interpreted the 1990 amendments to allowregulation of different pollutants from the same source.

The court "certainly seemed to think that the Houseamendment is ambiguous," Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel for SierraClub, said at a press gathering after the oral arguments. "That is in EPA'sfavor because … EPA interpreted the House amendment reasonably to essentiallylook at the exclusion as a pollutant-specific exclusion."

David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil's Climate and Clean Air Program, repeated an analogy from D.C. CircuitJudge Cornelia Pillard, who said calling simultaneous oversight under Sections112 and 111(d) "double regulation" would be the same as calling itdouble regulation to make motorists drive on the right side of the road whileobeying the speed limit.

The groups also dismissed arguments that EPA is oversteppingits authority by allowing plant operators to shift generation to lower-emittingsources as a compliance option, saying the practice is already underway and isnot a "transformative" action that would require direct approval fromCongress.

The organizations further said EPA is on solid groundprocedurally. Among other complaints, parties suing to overturn the Clean PowerPlan said EPA illegally includedspecific national emission rate limits for coal and gas plants in the finalrule without first proposing it. But Doniger said rule critics "got whatthey asked for" and were well aware of comments submitted to EPA on theproposed rule on the potential inclusion of subcategory-specific rates in thefinal regulation.

Petitioners also attacked EPA's record demonstrating therule is achievable. The rule is projected to cut power sector carbon emissionsby 32% from 2005 levels by 2030, a level that many states and industry groupsfear cannot be achieved without boosting electricity costs and threateningreliability.

But Clean Power Plan proponents say that goal is feasible. "Ithink the record is strong… and the court defers to an agency unless itsfactual propositions are arbitrary and capricious, and I don't think the otherside met the burden of showing that," Doniger said.

In a new report, FBR & Co. mentioned comments fromHarvard Law professor Richard Lazarus that he saw at least five votes from theD.C. Circuit in favor of EPA, suggesting more support for the agency thanpetitioners. But FBR said the court could agree with Clean Power Plan opponentson some of their "non-existential" challenges and remand the rule toEPA to be fixed, which the investment firm said could take more than a year.And if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal of the D.C. Circuit'sdecision, FBR estimated a ruling from the high court may not come until summer2018.


Listen: Street Talk Episode 40 - Digital Banks Take a Page Out of 'Mad Men'

Mar. 20 2019 — Some fintech companies are making hay with digital platforms that tout their differences with banks, even though they are often offering virtually the same products. In the episode, we discuss with colleagues Rachel Stone and Kiah Haslett the deposit strategies employed by the likes of Chime, Aspiration and other incumbent players such as Ally Financial, Discover and Capital One. Those efforts conjure up memories of a Don Draper pitch in Mad Men and likely will enjoy continued success.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P).


Technology, Media & Telecom
Broadband Only Homes Skyrocket In 2018 Validating Top MSOs Connectivity Pivot

Highlights

The segment stood at an estimated 23.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2018, accounting for 24% of all wireline high-speed data homes.

The following post comes from Kagan, a research group within S&P Global Market Intelligence.

To learn more about our TMT (Technology, Media & Telecommunications) products and/or research, please request a demo.

Mar. 20 2019 — The U.S. broadband-only home segment logged its largest net adds on record in 2018, validating Comcast Corp.'s and Charter Communications Inc.'s moves to make broadband, or connectivity, the keystone of their cable communication businesses.

The size and momentum of the segment also put in perspective the recent high-profile online-video video announcements by the top two cable operators as well as AT&T Inc.'s WarnerMedia shake-up and plans to go toe-to-toe with Netflix in the subscription video-on-demand arena in the next 12 months.

We estimate that wireline broadband households not subscribing to traditional multichannel, or broadband-only homes, rose by nearly 4.3 million in 2018, topping the gains from the previous year by roughly 22%. Overall, the segment stood at an estimated 23.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2018, accounting for 24% of all wireline high-speed data homes.

For perspective, broadband-only homes stood at an estimated 11.3 million a mere four years ago, accounting for 13% of residential cable and telco broadband subscribers.

The once all-powerful, must-have live linear TV model, which individuals and families essentially treated as a utility upon moving into a new residence, increasingly is viewed as too expensive and unwieldy in the era of affordable, nimble internet-based video alternatives. This has resulted in a sizable drop in penetration of occupied households.

As a result, continued legacy cord cutting is baked in and broadband-only homes are expected to continue to rise at a fast clip, with the segment's momentum in the next few years compounded by Comcast's, Charter's and AT&T's ambitious moves into online-video territory.

Note: we revised historical broadband-only home estimates as part of our fourth-quarter 2018, following restatements of historical telco broadband subscriber figures and residential traditional multichannel subscriber adjustments.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

Q4'18 multichannel video losses propel full-year drop to edge of 4 million

Learn more

Q4'18 multiproduct analysis sheds more light on video's fall from grace

Learn more

Watch: Power Forecast Briefing: As retirements accelerate, can renewable energy fill the gap?

Mar. 19 2019 — Steve Piper shares the outlook for U.S. power markets, discussing capacity retirements and whether continued development of wind and solar power plants may mitigate the generation shortfall.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

Credit Analysis
2019 Credit Risk Perspectives: Is The Credit Cycle Turning? A Fundamentals View

Mar. 15 2019 — On November 20, 2018, a joint event hosted by S&P Global Market Intelligence and S&P Global Ratings took place in London, focusing on credit risk and 2019 perspectives.

Pascal Hartwig, Credit Product Specialist, and I provided a review of the latest trends observed across non-financial corporate firms through the lens of S&P Global Market Intelligence’s statistical models.1 In particular, Pascal focused on the outputs produced by a statistical model that uses market information to estimate credit risk of public companies; if you want to know more, you can visit here.

I focused on an analysis of how different Brexit scenarios may impact the credit risk of European Union (EU) private companies that are included on S&P Capital IQ platform.

Before, this, I looked at the evolution of their credit risk profile from 2013 to 2017, as shown in Figure 1. Scores were generated via Credit Analytics’ PD Model Fundamentals Private, a statistical model that uses company financials and other socio-economic factors to estimate the PD of private companies globally. Credit scores are mapped to PD values, which are based on/derived from S&P Global Ratings Observed Default Rates.

Figure 1: EU private company scores generated by PD Model Fundamentals Private, between 2013 and 2017.

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.2 As of October 2018.

For any given year, the distribution of credit scores of EU private companies is concentrated below the ‘a’ level, due to the large number of small revenue and unrated firms on the S&P Capital IQ platform. An overall improvement of the risk profile is visible, with the score distribution moving leftwards between 2013 and 2017. A similar picture is visible when comparing companies by country or industry sector,3 confirming that there were no clear signs of a turning point in the credit cycle of private companies in any EU country or industry sector. However, this view is backward looking and does not take into account the potential effects of an imminent and major political and economic event in the (short) history of the EU: Brexit.

To this purpose, S&P Global Market Intelligence has developed a statistical model: the Credit Analytics Macro-scenario model enables users to study how potential future macroeconomic scenarios may affect the evolution of the credit risk profile of EU private companies. This model was developed by looking at the historical evolution of S&P Global Ratings’ rated companies under different macroeconomic conditions, and can be applied to smaller companies after the PD is mapped to a S&P Global Market Intelligence credit score.

“Soft Brexit” (Figure 2): This scenario is based on the baseline forecast made by economists at S&P Global Ratings and is characterized by a gentle slow-down of economic growth, a progressive monetary policy tightening, and low yet volatile stock-market growth.4

Figure 2: “Soft Brexit” macro scenario.5

Source: S&P Global Ratings Economists. As of October 2018.

Applying the Macro-scenario model, we analyze the evolution of the credit risk profile of EU companies over a three-year period from 2018 to 2020, by industry sector and by country:

  • Sector Analysis (Figure 3):
    • The median credit risk score within specific industry sectors (Aerospace & Defense, Pharmaceuticals, Telecoms, Utilities, and Real Estate) shows a good degree of resilience, rising by less than half a notch by 2020 and remaining comfortably below the ‘b+’ threshold.
    • The median credit score of the Retail and Consumer Products sectors, however, is severely impacted, breaching the high risk threshold (here defined at the ‘b-’ level).
    • The remaining industry sectors show various dynamics, but essentially remain within the intermediate risk band (here defined between the ‘b+’ and the ‘b-’ level).

Figure 3: “Soft Brexit” impact on the median credit risk level of EU private companies, by industry.

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. As of October 2018.

  • Country Analysis (Figure 4):
    • Although the median credit risk score may not change significantly in certain countries, the associated default rates need to be adjusted for the impact of the credit cycle.6 The “spider-web plot” shows the median PD values for private companies within EU countries, adjusted for the credit cycle. Here we include only countries with a minimum number of private companies within the Credit Analytics pre-scored database, to ensure a robust statistical analysis.
    • Countries are ordered by increasing level of median PD, moving clock-wise from Netherlands to Greece.
    • Under a soft Brexit scenario, the PD of UK private companies increases between 2018 and 2020, but still remains below the yellow threshold (corresponding to a ‘b+’ level).
    • Interestingly, Italian private companies suffer more than their Spanish peers, albeit starting from a slightly lower PD level in 2017.

Figure 4: “Soft Brexit” impact on the median credit risk level of EU private companies, by country.

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. As of October 2018.

“Hard Brexit” (Figure 5): This scenario is extracted from the 2018 Stress-Testing exercise of the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the Bank of England.7 Under this scenario, both the EU and UK may go into a recession similar to the 2008 global crisis. Arguably, this may seem a harsh scenario for the whole of the EU, but a recent report by the Bank of England warned that a disorderly Brexit may trigger a UK crisis worse than 2008.8

Figure 5: “Hard Brexit” macro scenario.9

Sources:”2018 EU-wide stress test – methodological note” (European Banking Authority, November 2017) and “Stress Testing the UK Banking system: 2018 guidance for participating banks and building societies“ (Bank of England, March 2018).

Also in this case, we apply the Macro-scenario model to analyze the evolution of the credit risk profile of EU companies over the same three-year period, by industry sector and by country:

  • Sector Analysis (Figure 6):
    • Despite all industry sectors being severely impacted, the Pharmaceuticals and Utilities sectors remain below the ‘b+’ level (yellow threshold).
    • Conversely, the Airlines and Energy sectors join Retail and Consumer Products in the “danger zone” above the ‘b-’ level (red threshold).
    • The remaining industry sectors will either move into or remain within the intermediate risk band (here defined between the ‘b+’ and the ‘b-’ level).

Figure 6: “Hard Brexit” impact on the median credit risk level of EU private companies, by industry.

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. As of October 2018.

Learn more about Credit Analysis
Click Here

  • Country Analysis (Figure 7):
    • Under a hard Brexit scenario, the PD of UK private companies increases between 2017 and 2020, entering the intermediate risk band and suffering even more than its Irish peers.
    • Notably, by 2020 the French private sector may suffer more than the Italian private sector, reaching the attention threshold (here shown as a red circle, and corresponding to a ‘b-’ level).
    • While it is hard to do an exact like-for-like comparison, it is worth noting that our conclusions are broadly aligned with the findings from the 48 banks participating in the 2018 stress-testing exercise, as recently published by the EBA:10 the major share of 2018-2020 new credit risk losses in the stressed scenario will concentrate among counterparties in the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and Germany (leaving aside the usual suspects, such as Greece, Portugal, etc.).

Figure 7: “Hard Brexit” impact on the median credit risk level of EU private companies, by country.

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. As of October 2018.

In conclusion: In Europe, the private companies’ credit risk landscape does not yet signal a distinct turning point, however Brexit may act as a pivot point and a catalyst for a credit cycle inversion, with an intensity that will be dependent on the Brexit type of landing (i.e., soft versus hard).

1 S&P Global Ratings does not contribute to or participate in the creation of credit scores generated by S&P Global Market Intelligence.
2 Lowercase nomenclature is used to differentiate S&P Global Market Intelligence credit scores from the credit ratings issued by S&P Global Ratings.
3 Not shown here.
4 Measured via Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth, Long-term / Short-term (L/S) European Central Bank Interest Rate Spread, and FTSE100 or STOXX50 stock market growth, respectively.
5 Macroeconomic forecast for 2018-2020 (end of year) by economists at S&P Global Ratings; the baseline case assumes the UK and the EU will reach a Brexit deal (e.g. a “soft Brexit”).
6 When the credit cycle deteriorates (improves), default rates are expected to increase (decrease).
7 Source: “2018 EU-wide stress test – methodological note” (EBA, November 2017) and “Stress Testing the UK Banking system: 2018 guidance for participating banks and building societies”. (Bank of England, March 2018).
8 Source: “EU withdrawal scenarios and monetary and financial stability – A response to the House of Commons Treasury Committee”. (Bank of England, November 2018).
9 As a hard Brexit scenario, we adopt the stressed scenario included in the 2018 stress testing exercise and defined by the EBA and the Bank of England.
10 See, for example, Figure 18 in “2018 EU-Wide Stress Test Result” (EBA November 2018), found at:https://eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/2419200/2018-EU-wide-stress-test-Results.pdf

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

2019 Credit Risk Perspectives: Is The Credit Cycle Turning? A Market-Driven View

Learn More