Key Takeaways
- Credit quality improvements in the North American midstream energy sector since 2016 give these companies more flexibility than some other issuers to redeem hybrids without replacing them.
- Improved creditworthiness is one of cases in which we don't expect an issuer to replace a redeemed hybrid.
- Amid higher interest rates, companies are now looking at preferred and other hybrid securities.
- Calling a hybrid without replacing it leads us to review the equity content of the issuer's other hybrids in most situations.
To replace, or not to replace, that is the question.
While it is safe to assume that Hamlet never pondered such a temporal thing, the question is top of mind for many investors focused on the midstream energy industry and midstream companies alike. When a company with improved creditworthiness either partially or fully redeems a hybrid security without replacing it, how do we assess equity content on the hybrid securities that remain outstanding?
Since late 2016, the North American midstream energy industry has embraced more conservative financial policies, mostly out of necessity. The master limited partnership model of raising debt and equity and paying out virtually all free cash flow after financing costs and maintenance capital spending was no longer viable. Since then and through the COVID-19 pandemic, most midstream energy companies reduced growth spending and dividends and used excess cash flow to repay senior debt and strengthen balance sheets. They have balanced debt reduction and more conservative credit measures with an increased focus on shareholder returns with buybacks and higher dividends. Against higher interest rates, companies are now looking at their capital structures and redemptions of preferred and other hybrid securities as a possible use of capital.
Here we address hybrid replacement decisions by corporate midstream energy issuers when credit quality improves and how we balance these financial policy choices in the context of our views on issuer intent to keep hybrid capital instruments (or their replacements) outstanding for sufficiently long periods and use them to absorb losses or conserve cash when needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does S&P Global Ratings expect an issuer to replace a hybrid if it redeems it?
A key part of our analysis of hybrids--including our ability to provide equity content in our ratio analysis--is our assumption that the issuer will keep its hybrids in the capital structure long enough to provide equity-like benefits if the company faces credit stress. In short, they are not a quick fix. Therefore, calling a hybrid--without replacing it with another or issuing new common equity--leads us to review the equity content of the issuer's other hybrids, apart from some specific situations outlined below. Where they don't apply, we would likely assign no equity content to the other outstanding and future hybrids because the issuer's action would likely change our view of its intent toward hybrid capital. No equity content would mean that the hybrids would be treated wholly as debt in our financial metrics. (See "Credit FAQ: How We Look At Corporate Hybrid Call And Replacement Decisions," June 8, 2022, for more details.)
When an issuer doesn't replace a hybrid, we may still regard the remaining outstanding hybrid issues as having intermediate or high equity content and continue to assign equity content to future hybrid issuances in particular scenarios. These are:
- Creditworthiness has improved and the lack of replacement will not cause us to lower the long-term credit rating on the issuer or revise the outlook to negative (or to stable from positive at the same rating);
- The hybrid was redeemed due to an external event (for example, a change in tax law); or
- The redemption is immaterial in the context of the capital structure (including where this is because the issuer's balance sheet has undergone a transformation).
What does "creditworthiness has improved" mean and how do we assess it?
The most straightforward example of improved creditworthiness is when the issuer credit rating on a company is higher than at the time of the most recent additional hybrid issuance (excluding hybrids issued as refinancings) than at redemption. One such recent example is global truckmaker AB Volvo, which redeemed a hybrid with no replacement. We had raised our issuer credit rating two notches since the instrument issuance.
Generally speaking, the improvement in creditworthiness has to be more than marginal. We'd assess the company's pro forma credit quality and credit ratios after the redemption as part of the determination. Furthermore, we would expect the hybrids to have been outstanding for at least five years. A shorter period could have us question management's intentions for its remaining hybrids to be available as a cushion to protect senior noteholders during stress by conserving cash (for example by deferring coupons).
A less clear-cut situation is when there has not been an upgrade but we still consider that overall creditworthiness has improved. This can be measured in notably stronger financial credit measures or in some instances a better business risk profile. The analysis needs to be company-specific and is typically supported by our assessment of the issuer's ratios in light of metrics that are typical for particular rating categories, peers, and industry trends. We don't focus on a single metric in isolation, but evidence could be a permanent and meaningful reduction in leverage, headroom against ratios guidance, a shift toward a more conservative financial policy, or an improved business risk profile because of a strategic change in the business mix or contract profile of the issuer. Recently Enterprise Products Partners L.P. partially redeemed its series D junior subordinated notes with cash instead of a replacement hybrid. Although the rating on the partnership did not change since it issued the notes in 2017, its debt-to-EBITDA ratio improved a full turn to 3x, which is among the best in the midstream industry. Management publicly announced its intent to target a 3x ratio over the long term, a policy far more conservative than its peer group.
How did we treat recent hybrid redemptions without replacement by midstream companies?
Most redemptions in the sector over the last few quarters have not caused us to revise our treatment of their remaining hybrids. This is because these companies' creditworthiness had improved since these securities were issued, reflected through higher issuer credit ratings.
Table 1
| Midstream Industry Hybrid Redemptions | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Security | Transaction | Impact on remaining securities | Rationale | ||||||
|
DCP Midstream L.P. |
Series A preferred units | Fully redeemed $500 million | None | Improvement in creditworthiness | ||||||
|
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. |
Junior subordinated notes series D due in 2077 | Partial redemption of $350 million | None | Improvement in creditworthiness | ||||||
|
MPLX L.P. |
Series B 6.875% preferred units | Fully redeemed $600 million | None | Improvement in creditworthiness | ||||||
|
Targa Resources Corp. |
Series A 9.5% preferred shares | Fully redeemed $750 million | N/A | Improvement in creditworthiness | ||||||
| N/A--Not applicable. | ||||||||||
Is there a limit on how much hybrids can be redeemed without replacement in cases of improved credit quality?
Under those specific circumstances of unequivocal improved creditworthiness, there is generally no limit to the amount and timing of hybrids that can be redeemed without replacement. This is as long as the creditworthiness has still improved on a post redemption basis and these actions don't change our view of the issuer's intent toward hybrids as a layer of the capital base. A limit is however reached when any further redemption would put the issuer credit rating at risk or outweigh improved leverage.
At the extreme, an issuer that has demonstrated improved creditworthiness might be able to redeem substantially all of its hybrids without that affecting equity content, although management's future intent regarding hybrid securities could come into play. In this situation, the emphasis is less on the amount being redeemed and more on the motivation for the redemption and how we expect the issuer to use hybrids in the future. If we believe the issuer's strategy toward hybrids is opportunistic or a temporary measure to receive equity credit to bolster ratios in times of stress, future hybrids will likely be assigned no equity content and viewed as 100% debt, regardless of whether the terms could be viewed as having equity-like features. A public statement implying that redemption without replacement is the favored route on future first-call dates also could lead us to consider withdrawing equity content on the entire hybrid stack.
Repeated instances of redemption without replacement could also cast doubt on an issuer's commitment toward hybrid instruments even if creditworthiness has improved. For example, an issuer that has improved credit quality with multiple tranches of hybrids and staggered first call dates could be at risk of losing equity content on those securities if we believe it does not remain committed to the layer of hybrids. This reassessment of equity content could occur if we have uncertainties about whether the issuer intends to allow the hybrids to absorb losses or conserve cash during stress, including by keeping the layer of hybrid capital on the balance sheet.
What do we think about an issuer not replacing a hybrid that has lost or never received equity content?
If we have assigned no equity content to a hybrid from when it was issued, treating it as debt in our analysis, then we don't expect an issuer to replace it with another hybrid on redemption. However, if a hybrid was initially assigned high or intermediate equity content but then loses it (for example, due to the passage of time), we would still expect it to be replaced with a hybrid that has equal or greater equity content. This reflects how a hybrid kept on the balance sheet after it loses equity content can still provide meaningful qualitative credit benefits to the issuer: It remains a subordinated, long-dated source of funding that provides cushion and protection for senior noteholders, for example due to the optional deferability of the coupon. This sets hybrids apart from standard senior debt. We still recognize that the instrument structure is more equity-like than senior debt despite no longer receiving a quantitative benefit in the credit measures. We would still expect it to be replaced with a similar instrument. (Otherwise an issuer could circumvent replacement intentions by allowing the hybrid to lose equity content due to the passage of time.)
Do we expect any negative rating actions in the midstream energy sector from these redemptions without replacement?
In our opinion, some midstream energy companies are likely to consider redemptions of these higher coupon securities, some of which have reset to floating at much higher rates in the current interest rate environment, by using excess cash rather than refinancing them. Many companies with upcoming call dates have been generating surplus operating cash flow over the last 18 months and used it to both reduce outstanding debt and repurchase their common equity. As a result, credit ratios have steadily improved from 2020 levels across the sector. This has led to either upgrades or companies building excess ratio cushion compared to specific downgrade triggers.
Most U.S. midstream companies do not have large percentages of hybrid securities in their total capital structures compared to our 15% threshold. It's unlikely that we would take a negative rating action if one of these companies took an action that would cause us to remove intermediate equity content treatment on its remaining hybrids. In contrast, Canadian issuers typically run higher balances of hybrids in their capital structures, but tend to redeem and replace them because there is a much deeper market in Canada for such securities. They have a demonstrated track record of using them as ongoing pieces of their capital allocation strategies.
Do we view a company's use of free cash flow to redeem hybrids as equivalent to replacing them with new equity?
No. Financing the redemption out of cash resources is not the same as issuing new common equity, even if the cash flow represents profits. Although midstream issuers continue to repay debt and buy back stock with excess cash, we view cash as fungible and to be used for many competing corporate priorities. While consistently generating excess cash flow and running higher cash balances is credit supportive, it alone is not sufficient to conclude that a company has a stronger credit profile. Additionally, the redemption with cash raises the question of issuer intent for remaining or future hybrids. That said, using excess cash to redeem hybrids would have no impact on the remaining hybrids as long as it's a situation in which we don't expect replacement i.e., creditworthiness has improved, the security was redeemed due to an external event, or the redemption is immaterial in the context of the capital structure, for example due to a transformation of the balance sheet.
How do coupon step-ups and resets affect when a hybrid loses equity content?
When a company contemplates a hybrid issuance, we review the rate resets and any embedded step-up in rates in the documentation when determining the equity content at issuance. If a hybrid's terms have multiple step-ups that we'd view as cumulatively punitive (i.e., would likely incentivize a company to redeem the hybrid at a future date), we'd likely assign no equity content after a certain date or at the time of issuance, depending on the circumstances. For example, TransCanada Trust has issued fixed-to-fixed-rate junior subordinated notes with terms of 60 years. The notes are typically structured with a rate step-up of 25 basis points (bps) in year 10 and another 75 bps in year 30. We view the cumulative 100 bps increase as material and assign intermediate equity content until year 10 only, at which point there are 20 years of term left until the more substantial 75 bps rate hike. Such a hybrid receives intermediate equity content for a 10-year period only based on the structure the issuer has chosen. (The hybrid would continue to receive qualitative benefit in our analysis even after it is no longer classified as having intermediate equity content, however.)
We often get asked about other types of rate resets such as fixed-to-floating in which rates convert to floating after their optional first call date. Floating rates can fluctuate due to overall market conditions, as they have recently due to base rate hikes resulting from monetary policy actions. For example, an issuer may choose to redeem a hybrid without replacing it due to its view that the coupon is too high and therefore very expensive capital. Such a decision could have us question the issuer's intent regarding the remaining hybrids and its commitment to keep hybrids in the capital structure. While we acknowledge that a pending reset to a higher floating rate could incentivize an issuer to consider a redemption due to the higher interest rate expense, we assign equity content to hybrids based on them remaining in the capital structure over the long term and therefore expect costs to be higher at various points in the rate or credit cycle.
Table 2 summarizes our treatment of most of the hybrids issued by North American midstream energy companies.
Table 2
| Treatment Of Hybrids Issued By North American Midstream Companies | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Hybrid instrument | Equity content | Expected equity content revision date | Principal (Mil. $) | Currency | Hybrids with equity content as % of total capitalization | ||||||||
|
Crestwood Midstream Partners L.P. |
Preferred units | No equity content |
n/a |
500.0 | USD | 0.0% | ||||||||
|
DCP Midstream L.P. |
Series A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 489.0 | USD | 11.2% | ||||||||
| Series B preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 156.0 | USD | 11.2% | |||||||||
| Series C preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 106.0 | USD | 11.2% | |||||||||
| Junior subordinated notes | Intermediate | 5/21/2023 | 550.0 | USD | 11.2% | |||||||||
|
Enbridge Inc. |
Preference shares, Series A | Intermediate | -- | 125.0 | CAD | 13.4% | ||||||||
| Preference shares, Series B | Intermediate | -- | 500.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series D | Intermediate | -- | 450.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series F | Intermediate | -- | 500.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series H | Intermediate | -- | 350.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series L | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series N | Intermediate | -- | 450.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series P | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series R | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 1 | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 3 | Intermediate | -- | 600.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 5 | Intermediate | -- | 200.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 7 | Intermediate | -- | 2,500.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 9 | Intermediate | -- | 275.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 11 | Intermediate | -- | 500.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 13 | Intermediate | -- | 350.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 15 | Intermediate | -- | 275.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Preference shares, Series 19 | Intermediate | -- | 500.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2016-A due 2077 | Intermediate | 1/15/2027 | 750.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2017-A due 2077 | Intermediate | 7/15/2027 | 1,000.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2017-B due 2077 | Intermediate | 9/27/2027 | 1,000.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2018-A due 2078 | Intermediate | 3/1/2028 | 850.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2018-B due 2078 | Intermediate | 4/15/2023 | 600.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2018-C due 2078 | Intermediate | 4/12/2028 | 750.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2020-A due 2080 | Intermediate | 7/15/2030 | 1,000.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2022-A due 2082 | Intermediate | 1/19/2032 | 750.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2022-B due 2083 | Intermediate | 1/15/2028 | 500.0 | CAD | 13.4% | |||||||||
| Fixed-to-floating subordinated notes Series 2022-C due 2083 | Intermediate | 1/15/2033 | 600.0 | USD | 13.4% | |||||||||
|
Energy Transfer L.P. |
Series A redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 950.0 | USD | 7.4% | ||||||||
| Series B redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 550.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Series C redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 450.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Series D redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Series E redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 700.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Series F redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 500.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Series G redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 1,100.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Series H redeemable preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 900.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
| Junior subordinated notes due 2066 | Intermediate | 11/1/2046 | 600.0 | USD | 7.4% | |||||||||
|
EnLink Midstream LLC |
Series B preferred units | No equity content | n/a | 750.0 | USD | 5.3% | ||||||||
| Series C preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | USD | 5.3% | |||||||||
|
Enterprise Products Operating LLC |
Junior subordinated notes C due June 1, 2067 | Intermediate | 6/1/2047 | 300.0 | USD | 4.0% | ||||||||
| Junior subordinated notes D due Aug. 16, 2077 | Intermediate | 8/16/2057 | 700.0 | USD | 4.0% | |||||||||
| Junior subordinated notes E due Aug. 16, 2077 | Intermediate | 8/16/2057 | 1,000.0 | USD | 4.0% | |||||||||
| Junior subordinated notes F due 2078 | Intermediate | 2/15/2058 | 700.0 | USD | 4.0% | |||||||||
|
Equitrans Midstream |
Series A preferred stock | No equity content | n/a | 600.0 | USD | 4.7% | ||||||||
|
Ferrellgas Partners L.P. |
Senior preferred units | No equity content | n/a | 700.0 | USD | 4.7% | ||||||||
|
FTAI Infrastructure Inc. |
Series A preferred equity | No equity content | n/a | 300.0 | USD | 4.7% | ||||||||
|
Genesis Energy L.P. |
Class A convertible preferred units | No equity content | n/a | 750.0 | USD | 4.7% | ||||||||
|
Gibson Energy Inc. |
Unsecured hybrid notes | Intermediate | 12/22/2030 | 250.0 | CAD | 11.0% | ||||||||
|
Global Partners L.P. |
Series A preferred limited partners | Intermediate | -- | 67.2 | USD | 7.3% | ||||||||
| Series B preferred limited partners | Intermediate | -- | 72.3 | USD | 7.3% | |||||||||
|
Inter Pipeline Ltd. |
Subordinated notes Series 2019-A due 2079 | Intermediate | 3/26/2029 | 750.0 | CAD | 10.3% | ||||||||
| Subordinated notes Series 2019-B due 2079 | Intermediate | 11/19/2029 | 700.0 | CAD | 10.3% | |||||||||
|
Keyera Corp. |
Subordinated notes Series 2019-A due 2079 | Intermediate | 6/13/2029 | 600.0 | CAD | 14.0% | ||||||||
| Subordinated notes Series 2021-A due 2081 | Intermediate | 3/10/2031 | 350.0 | CAD | 14.0% | |||||||||
|
MPLX L.P. |
Series A convertible preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 984.0 | USD | 5.3% | ||||||||
|
NGL Energy Partners L.P. |
Class B preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 212.8 | USD | 7.7% | ||||||||
| Class C preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 46.0 | USD | 7.7% | |||||||||
| Class D preferred units | Minimal | n/a | 600.0 | USD | 7.7% | |||||||||
|
NuStar Energy L.P. |
Series A perpetual preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 200.0 | USD | 15.0% | ||||||||
| Series B perpetual preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 371.5 | USD | 15.0% | |||||||||
| Series C perpetual preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 166.5 | USD | 15.0% | |||||||||
| Series D convertible preferred units | No equity content * | n/a | 447.0 | USD | 15.0% | |||||||||
| Subordinated notes due 2043 | No equity content * | n/a | 402.5 | USD | 15.0% | |||||||||
|
Pembina Pipeline Corp. |
Series 1 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 250.0 | CAD | 10.9% | ||||||||
| Series 3 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 150.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 5 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 250.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 7 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 250.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 9 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 225.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 15 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 200.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 17 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 150.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 19 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 200.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 21 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 400.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Series 25 Class A preferred shares | Intermediate | -- | 250.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
| Subordinated notes Series 1 due 2081 | Intermediate | 1/25/2031 | 600.0 | CAD | 10.9% | |||||||||
|
Plains All American Pipeline L.P. |
Series A preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 1,500.0 | USD | 10.9% | ||||||||
| Series B preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 800.0 | USD | 10.9% | |||||||||
|
Summit Midstream Partners L.P. |
Series A preferred units | Intermediate | -- | 300.0 | USD | 4.0% | ||||||||
|
TC Energy Corp. |
Cumulative first preferred shares Series 1 | Intermediate | -- | 360.0 | CAD | 14.3% | ||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 2 | Intermediate | -- | 179.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 3 | Intermediate | -- | 246.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 4 | Intermediate | -- | 97.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 5 | Intermediate | -- | 294.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 6 | Intermediate | -- | 48.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 7 | Intermediate | -- | 589.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 9 | Intermediate | -- | 442.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Cumulative first preferred shares Series 11 | Intermediate | -- | 244.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
|
TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. |
6.35% junior subordinated notes due 2067 | Intermediate | 5/15/2047 | 1,000.0 | USD | 14.3% | ||||||||
|
TransCanada Trust |
Trust notes Series 2015-A due May 20, 2075 | Intermediate | 8/20/2025 | 750.0 | USD | 14.3% | ||||||||
| Trust notes Series 2016-A due Aug. 15, 2076 | Intermediate | 8/15/2026 | 1,200.0 | USD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Trust notes Series 2017-A due March 15, 2077 | Intermediate | 3/15/2027 | 1,500.0 | USD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Trust notes Series 2017-B due May 18, 2077 | Intermediate | 5/18/2027 | 1,500.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Trust notes Series 2019-A due Sept. 15, 2079 | Intermediate | 12/19/2029 | 1,100.0 | USD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Trust notes Series 2021-A due March 4, 2081 | Intermediate | 3/4/2031 | 500.0 | CAD | 14.3% | |||||||||
| Trust notes Series 2022-A due March 7, 2082 | Intermediate | 3/7/2032 | 800.0 | USD | 14.3% | |||||||||
|
USA Compression Partners L.P. |
Series A preferred units | No equity content | n/a | 500.0 | USD | 0.0% | ||||||||
| n/a--Not applicable. *NuStar's series D preferred units and 2043 subordinated notes qualify for intermediate equity content but are accounted for as minimal because the company's total hybrids are above the 15% threshold. | ||||||||||||||
Related Criteria
- Hybrid Capital: Methodology And Assumptions, March 2, 2022
- Corporate Methodology: Ratios And Adjustments, April 1, 2019
Related Research
- Credit FAQ: How We Look At Corporate Hybrid Call And Replacement Decisions, June 8, 2022
- Guidance: Hybrid Capital: Methodology And Assumptions, July 1, 2019
- Guidance: Corporate Methodology: Ratios And Adjustments, April 1, 2019
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analysts: | Michael V Grande, New York + 1 (212) 438 2242; michael.grande@spglobal.com |
| Mike Llanos, New York + 1 (212) 438 4849; mike.llanos@spglobal.com | |
| Secondary Contacts: | Stephen R Goltz, Toronto + 1 (416) 507 2592; stephen.goltz@spglobal.com |
| Eric Tanguy, Paris + 33 14 420 6715; eric.tanguy@spglobal.com | |
| Additional Contact: | Divya Singh, Mumbai (91) 22-4040-2966; divya.singh@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 acknowledgement 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 nonpublic 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.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.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.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.