Here, S&P Global Ratings ranks global chemical companies that it rates, from strongest to weakest. We rank companies, in turn, by the rating, outlook, stand-alone credit profile (SACP), business and financial risk profile, and liquidity assessment. Investment-grade companies are ranked by business risk profile, then financial risk profile. Speculative-grade companies are ordered by financial risk profile, then business risk profile. Companies are then listed in alphabetical order, if not distinguished by these factors.
In line with our corporate rating methodology, the final rating may differ from the SACP, where government, group, or rating above the sovereign considerations apply. Where the SACP differs from the anchor, as it does for more than a quarter of the ratings, we have applied one or more modifiers, which may include that for liquidity. We've noted the anchor and active modifiers of each company for informational purposes only. For our more detailed analysis, please refer to the company-specific pages on RatingsDirect via the hyperlinks below.
As we show in the charts and comments at the end of this report, most of our business risk assessments are closely correlated with the corresponding competitive positions. Where they diverge, it is usually because we consider country risk higher, and this constrains the competitive position. Government or group ownership or sovereign rating is an explicit rating factor for about 12% of the companies.
For our sector outlook and analysis, please refer the Related Research section at the end of this article.
Table 1
Global Chemical Companies, Strongest To Weakest | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ranking | Company | Foreign currency LT | Outlook | SACP | Business risk profile | Financial risk profile | Liquidity | Anchor | Modifier | |||||||||||
1 |
Industries Qatar QSC |
A+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [1] Minimal | Strong | a- | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
2 |
Linde plc |
A | Stable | a | [1] Excellent | [3] Intermediate | Strong | a+ | Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
3 |
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. |
A | Stable | a | [1] Excellent | [3] Intermediate | Strong | a | ||||||||||||
4 |
BASF SE |
A | Negative | a | [2] Strong | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | a- | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
5 |
L'Air Liquide S.A. |
A- | Positive | a- | [1] Excellent | [4] Significant | Adequate | a- | ||||||||||||
6 |
Saudi Basic Industries Corp. |
A- | Stable | a+ | [2] Strong | [2] Modest | Strong | a+ | ||||||||||||
7 |
Koninklijke DSM N.V. |
A- | Stable | a- | [2] Strong | [2] Modest | Strong | a | Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
8 |
Ecolab Inc. |
A- | Stable | a- | [2] Strong | [3] Intermediate | Strong | a- | ||||||||||||
9 |
Corteva, Inc. |
A- | Stable | a- | [3] Satisfactory | [2] Modest | Strong | bbb+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
10 |
Sika AG |
A- | Negative | a- | [2] Strong | [3] Intermediate | Strong | a- | ||||||||||||
11 |
Evonik Industries |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [2] Strong | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb+ | ||||||||||||
12 |
Akzo Nobel N.V. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [1] Minimal | Strong | a | Financial policy: Negative (-2 notches) | |||||||||||
13 |
Formosa Plastics Corp. U.S.A. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [1] Minimal | Strong | a- | Management & governance: Fair (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
14 |
NewMarket Corp. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [1] Minimal | Strong | a- | Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
15 |
Arkema S.A. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [2] Modest | Strong | bbb+ | ||||||||||||
16 |
Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [2] Modest | Strong | bbb+ | ||||||||||||
17 |
Formosa Petrochemical Corp.* |
BBB+ | Stable | N.A | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
18 |
Nan Ya Plastics Corp.* |
BBB+ | Stable | N.A | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
19 |
Formosa Plastics Corp. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
20 |
LG Chem Ltd. |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
21 |
Borealis AG |
BBB+ | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb | ||||||||||||
22 |
Sinochem International Corp. |
BBB+ | Stable | bb- | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | ||||||||||||
23 |
PPG Industries Inc. |
BBB+ | Negative | bbb+ | [2] Strong | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb+ | ||||||||||||
24 |
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LLC |
BBB+ | Negative | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | ||||||||||||
25 |
PTT Global Chemical Public Co. Ltd. |
BBB+ | Negative | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
26 |
DuPont de Nemours Inc. |
BBB+ | Watch Neg | bbb+ | [2] Strong | [4] Significant | Adequate | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
27 |
Solvay S.A. |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [2] Strong | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb | ||||||||||||
28 |
LANXESS AG |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb | ||||||||||||
29 |
Incitec Pivot Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb | ||||||||||||
30 |
Orica Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb | ||||||||||||
31 |
Yara International ASA |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | ||||||||||||
32 |
Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb | ||||||||||||
33 |
Nutrien Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | bbb | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
34 |
Hanwha Total Petrochemical Co. Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
35 |
Shanghai Huayi (Group) Co. |
BBB | Stable | bb+ | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | Capital structure: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
36 |
China National Chemical Corp. Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b+ | Diversification effect: Moderate (+1 notch). Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
37 |
China National Bluestar (Group) Co. Ltd. |
BBB | Stable | b+ | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b+ | ||||||||||||
38 |
EQUATE Petrochemical Co K.S.C.C. |
BBB | Negative | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Strong | bb | ||||||||||||
39 |
Eastman Chemical Co. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [2] Strong | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
40 |
RPM International Inc. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [2] Strong | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
41 |
Sherwin-Williams Co. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [2] Strong | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
42 |
Syngenta AG |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [2] Strong | [4] Significant | Adequate | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
43 |
Albemarle Corp. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [2] Strong | [5] Aggressive | Strong | bb+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
44 |
The Dow Chemical Co. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [2] Strong | [5] Aggressive | Strong | bb+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
45 |
Orbia Advance Corp. S.A.B. de C.V |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
46 |
Cabot Corp. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bbb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
47 |
Imerys SA |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
48 |
Celanese US Holdings LLC |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
49 |
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
50 |
Westlake Chemical Corp. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
51 |
FMC Corp. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
52 |
ICL Group Ltd. |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
53 |
Clariant AG |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
54 |
PhosAgro PJSC |
BBB- | Stable | bbb- | [4] Fair | [2] Modest | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
55 |
Huayi Group (Hong Kong) Ltd. |
BBB- | Stable | b- | [6] Vulnerable | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
56 |
SK Global Chemical Co. Ltd. |
BBB- | Negative | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
57 |
UPL Corp. Ltd. |
BBB- | Negative | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
58 |
The Mosaic Co. |
BBB- | Negative | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | ||||||||||||
59 |
OCP S.A. |
BBB- | Negative | bbb- | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
60 |
Sibur Holding PJSC |
BBB- | Negative | bbb- | [4] Fair | [2] Modest | Adequate | bbb- | ||||||||||||
61 |
Alpek S.A.B. de C.V. |
BB+ | Stable | bb+ | [4] Fair | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bb+ | ||||||||||||
62 |
Huntsman Corp. |
BB+ | Stable | bb+ | [4] Fair | [3] Intermediate | Strong | bb+ | ||||||||||||
63 |
J.M. Huber Corp. |
BB+ | Stable | bb+ | [4] Fair | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bb+ | ||||||||||||
64 |
Braskem S.A. |
BB+ | Stable | bb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bbb- | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
65 |
CF Industries Inc. |
BB+ | Stable | bb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bb+ | ||||||||||||
66 |
SPCM S.A. |
BB+ | Stable | bb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb+ | ||||||||||||
67 |
INVISTA Equities, LLC |
BB+ | Stable | bb | [5] Weak | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
68 |
Orano |
BB+ | Stable | b+ | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Strong | b+ | Liquidity: Strong (+1 notch). Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
69 |
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. |
BB+ | Negative | bb+ | [3] Satisfactory | [4] Significant | Strong | bb+ | ||||||||||||
70 |
GCP Applied Technologies Inc. |
BB | Stable | bb | [4] Fair | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bb+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
71 |
Orion Engineered Carbons S.A. |
BB | Stable | bb | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Strong | bb | ||||||||||||
72 |
Synthomer PLC |
BB | Stable | bb | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
73 |
Minerals Technologies Inc. |
BB | Stable | bb | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
74 |
H.B. Fuller Co. |
BB | Stable | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Strong | bb | ||||||||||||
75 |
Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. |
BB | Stable | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
76 |
Avient Corp. |
BB | Negative | bb | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Strong | bb | ||||||||||||
77 |
CYDSA, S.A.B. de C.V. |
BB | Negative | bb | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
78 |
Cabot Microelectronics Corp. |
BB | Negative | bb | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
79 |
Methanex Corp. |
BB | Negative | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Strong | bb | ||||||||||||
80 |
OCI N.V. |
BB | Negative | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
81 |
W.R. Grace & Co. |
BB | Negative | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb | ||||||||||||
82 |
Ineos Styrolution Holding Ltd. |
BB | Watch Neg | bb+ | [4] Fair | [3] Intermediate | Adequate | bb+ | ||||||||||||
83 |
Ineos Group Holdings S.A. |
BB | Watch Neg | bb | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Strong | bb | ||||||||||||
84 |
EuroChem Group AG |
BB- | Positive | bb- | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
85 |
Albaugh LLC |
BB- | Stable | bb- | [5] Weak | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb- | ||||||||||||
86 |
Messer Industries GmbH |
BB- | Stable | bb- | [3] Satisfactory | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb | Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
87 |
Yingde Gases Group Co. Ltd. |
BB- | Stable | bb- | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | ||||||||||||
88 |
Nufarm Ltd. |
BB- | Stable | bb- | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | b+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
89 |
Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC |
BB- | Stable | bb- | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | b+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
90 |
Element Solutions Inc. |
BB- | Negative | bb- | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | ||||||||||||
91 |
Olin Corp. |
BB- | Negative | bb- | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
92 |
NOVA Chemicals Corp. |
BB- | Negative | b+ | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b+ | ||||||||||||
93 |
Inovyn Ltd. |
BB- | Watch Neg | bb- | [4] Fair | [4] Significant | Adequate | bb | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
94 |
Uralkali PJSC |
BB- | Watch Neg | bb- | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | ||||||||||||
95 |
Specialty Chemicals International B.V. |
B+ | Stable | b+ | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
96 |
Composite Resins Subholding B.V |
B+ | Stable | b+ | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | b+ | ||||||||||||
97 |
Unigel Participacoes S.A. |
B+ | Stable | b+ | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | b+ | ||||||||||||
98 |
Nouryon Holding B.V. |
B+ | Stable | b+ | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Strong | b+ | ||||||||||||
99 |
PQ Corp. |
B+ | Stable | b+ | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b+ | ||||||||||||
100 |
Rain Carbon Inc. |
B+ | Negative | b+ | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
101 |
The Chemours Co. Co. |
B+ | Negative | b+ | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
102 |
Ferro Corp. |
B+ | Negative | b+ | [4] Fair | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | bb- | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
103 |
Kraton Corp |
B+ | Negative | b+ | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | b+ | ||||||||||||
104 |
Consolidated Energy Ltd. |
B+ | Negative | b+ | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable rating analysis: Positive (+1 notch) | |||||||||||
105 |
Nitrogenmuvek Zrt. |
B | Stable | b | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Adequate | b+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
106 |
Innophos Holdings Inc. |
B | Stable | b | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
107 |
Root Bidco S.a.r.l. |
B | Stable | b | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
108 |
Cyanco Intermediate 2 Corp. |
B | Stable | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
109 |
ASP Emerald Holdings LLC |
B | Stable | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
110 |
K+S AG |
B | Negative | b | [3] Satisfactory | [6] Highly leveraged | Less than adequate | b+ | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
111 |
Allnex (Luxembourg) & Cy SCA |
B | Negative | b | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
112 |
Koppers Holdings Inc. |
B | Negative | b | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Less than adequate | b | ||||||||||||
113 |
CVR Partners, LP |
B | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
114 |
BCP VII Jade Topco (Cayman) Ltd. |
B | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
115 |
Seqens Group Holding |
B | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
116 |
PLZ Aeroscience Corp. |
B | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
117 |
Trinseo S.A. |
B | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
118 |
Tronox Ltd. |
B | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
119 |
Tata Chemicals North America Inc. |
B | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [5] Aggressive | Weak | b+ | Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch). Liquidity: Weak (-1 notch). Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
120 |
Momentive Performance Materials Inc. |
B | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | Financial policy: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
121 |
Braskem Idesa, S.A.P.I. |
B | Watch Neg | b | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
122 |
OQ Chemicals International Holding GmbH |
B- | Stable | b | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
123 |
Pandita Industries Ltd. |
B- | Stable | b- | [6] Vulnerable | [5] Aggressive | Less than adequate | b | Capital structure: Negative (-1 notch). Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
124 |
Rohm HoldCo II GmbH |
B- | Stable | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
125 |
Atotech UK Topco Ltd. |
B- | Stable | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
126 |
Monitchem Holdco 2 S.A. |
B- | Stable | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
127 |
Aruba Investments Holdings LLC |
B- | Stable | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
128 |
Diamond (BC) B.V. |
B- | Stable | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
129 |
Archroma Holdings S.à r.l. |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
130 |
Centrient Holding B.V. |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
131 |
Venator Materials PLC |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
132 |
Fire (BC) S.a r.l. |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
133 |
Ignition Topco BV |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
134 |
AgroFresh Inc. |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
135 |
CPG Intermediate LLC |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
136 |
Innovative Chemical Products Group |
B- | Stable | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
137 |
Kronos Worldwide Inc. |
B- | Negative | b | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | ||||||||||||
138 |
SK Blue Holdings LP |
B- | Negative | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
139 |
SK Invictus Intermediate II S.a r.l. |
B- | Negative | b- | [4] Fair | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b | Comparable ratings analysis: Negative (-1 notch) | |||||||||||
140 |
Perstorp Holding AB (publ) |
B- | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
141 |
ASP Chromaflo Holdings LP |
B- | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
142 |
Calumet Specialty Products Partners L.P. |
B- | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
143 |
Hexion Inc. |
B- | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
144 |
Solenis UK International Ltd. |
B- | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
145 |
Cornerstone Chemical Co. |
B- | Negative | b- | [5] Weak | [6] Highly leveraged | Less than adequate | b- | ||||||||||||
146 |
Road Infrastructure Investment Holdings Inc. |
CCC+ | Watch Pos | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
147 |
Grupo Idesa, S.A. de C.V. |
CCC+ | Stable | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
148 |
PMHC II Inc. |
CCC+ | Stable | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
149 |
DCG Acquisition Corp. |
CCC+ | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
150 |
Flint HoldCo S.a r.l. |
CCC+ | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
151 |
FXI Holdings, Inc. |
CCC+ | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
152 |
Vantage Specialty Chemicals Inc. |
CCC+ | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
153 |
Zep Inc. |
CCC+ | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
154 |
LSB Industries Inc. |
CCC | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
155 |
Polymer Additives Holdings, Inc. |
CCC | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
156 |
TPC Group, Inc. |
CCC | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
157 |
UFS Holdings Inc. |
CCC | Negative | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | ||||||||||||
*The core operating units of the Formosa Plastics group have not been assigned an SACP. LT--Long term. SACP--Stand-alone credit profile. N.A.--Not available. |
The table and charts in this publication provide an overview of the 157 entities we rate in the global chemical industry. We rate 60 entities as investment grade ('BBB-' and above) and 97 entities as speculative grade ('BB+' and below).
About 62% of chemical companies carry ratings below 'BBB-'. About 40% of these companies are owned by financial sponsors and carry comparatively higher financial risk.
Chart 1
Our current outlook bias is negative. About 40% of ratings either have a negative outlook or are on CreditWatch negative, mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and falling crude oil prices. Both these factors have put significant strain on companies' financial position, especially that of speculative-grade issuers.
Chart 2
Our business risk profile assessments typically mirror our view of competitive position in this sector (see chart 3). Where they diverge, it is usually because we consider country risk higher, and this constrains the business risk profile.
Chart 3
The most common financial risk profile assessments in this sector are significant and highly leveraged (see chart 4). Over 65% of the issuers with significant assessments have relatively high business risk assessments of satisfactory or above, and about 60% of them carry an investment-grade rating.
The highly leveraged assessments typically reflect companies with stretched balance sheets and sponsor-backed holding company loans. Companies with stretched balance sheets are most vulnerable in an economic crisis. About 90% of companies with a highly leveraged assessment are rated 'B+' or lower.
Chart 4
Roughly 37% of the ratings incorporate one or more modifiers. Most often, this is the comparable ratings analysis that we use for credit considerations that we have not already factored into the ratings. In the remaining cases, our assessment of a company's financial policy refines the view of a company's risks beyond the conclusions arising from the standard assumptions in the cash flow/leverage assessment. This could, for example, capture the risks related to a company's appetite for large-scale debt-financed mergers and acquisitions or shareholder distributions that cannot be confidently predicted with regard to amount and timing.
We consider most of our rated chemical issuers to have liquidity that is adequate or better (see chart 5). This reflects the sector's good access to debt markets. Typically, the amount of cash that chemical companies maintain, combined with their cash generation and liquidity resources, will cover the uses of cash to which they have committed over the next 12 months by 1.2x or more.
Chart 5
The ratings and scores in this document are as of Dec. 31, 2020.
Related Criteria
- Group Rating Methodology, July 1, 2019:
- Rating Government-Related Entities: Methodology And Assumptions, March 25, 2015
- Corporate Methodology, Nov. 19, 2013
- Corporate Methodology: Ratios And Adjustments, April 1, 2019
Related Research
- Industry Top Trends 2021: Chemicals, Dec. 10, 2020
- Top 20 EMEA Chemical Companies And COVID-19: The Credit Impact Relies Largely On Subsector Exposures And Responses, Oct. 22, 2020
- Specialty, Commodity Chemicals Recovery Stuck Behind Autos In Slow Lane, Sept. 30, 2020
- Q&A: EMEA Chemicals Face A Long Climb Back From COVID-19 Disruption, June 29, 2020
- COVID-19 Hurts U.S. Chemical Credit Quality, May 20, 2020
- ESG Industry Report Card: Chemicals, Feb. 11, 2020
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Oliver Kroemker, Frankfurt + 49 693 399 9160; oliver.kroemker@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contacts: | Paul J Kurias, New York + 1 (212) 438 3486; paul.kurias@spglobal.com |
Danny Huang, Hong Kong + 852 2532 8078; danny.huang@spglobal.com | |
Felipe Speranzini, Sao Paulo + 55 11 3039 9751; felipe.speranzini@spglobal.com | |
Research Contributor: | Raju Sharma, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai |
Additional Contact: | Industrial Ratings Europe; Corporate_Admin_London@spglobal.com |
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). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.