articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/220727-u-s-leveraged-finance-q2-2022-update-corporate-borrowers-brace-for-slow-growth-recession-12451423 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

U.S. Leveraged Finance Q2 2022 Update: Corporate Borrowers Brace For Slow-Growth Recession

COMMENTS

S&P Global Ratings' Metal Price Assumptions: Coal Down, Gold Up

COMMENTS

Instant Insights: Key Takeaways From Our Research

COMMENTS

European Auto ABS Index Report Q1 2025

COMMENTS

European And U.K. Credit Card ABS Index Report Q1 2025


U.S. Leveraged Finance Q2 2022 Update: Corporate Borrowers Brace For Slow-Growth Recession

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Our baseline economic forecast is for the U.S. to suffer a "slow-growth recession," with corporate borrowers bracing for a sharp reversal in business conditions in the second half of 2022 and additional headwinds in 2023. Some shifts are already underway, evidenced by the slower quarter-on-quarter profit growth in the first quarter in most sectors. In this report, we examine the factors behind our latest ratings movements into and out of the 'CCC' category and analyze credit trends such as leverage, interest coverage, and free operating cash flow (FOCF) within our U.S. speculative-grade corporate ratings portfolio. We also review the trends in first-lien recovery ratings.

Three Factors Sparked Downgrades To The 'CCC' Category

During the second quarter, we lowered ratings on 14 issuers into the 'CCC' rating category. Downgrades to the 'CCC' category ('CCC+' and lower) from the 'B' category (comprising 'B+', 'B', and 'B-') were primarily driven by three factors.

Foremost were looming debt maturities, often posing the most immediate liquidity and default risk if operating performance is weaker than expected.   A potential recession, rising rates, and investor risk-off sentiment have made it difficult for highly leveraged companies to refinance at affordable rates. The average all-in-spread of new institutional loans by 'B' and 'B+' issuers rose to 627 basis points in June, the highest reading in 10 years and up from 418 in January, according to Leveraged Commentary and Data. The sharply rising borrowing cost could make some capital structures, especially these of 'B-' issuers unsustainable. For example, we lowered our rating on CareerBuilder LLC two notches to 'CCC' from 'B-' because of narrowing liquidity buffers and the impending July 31, 2023, maturity of its first-lien term loan, which was trading about 60%-70% of par as of July 21, 2022. Financing conditions became increasingly challenging in the second quarter. In this case, we believe a payment default could occur without improving operating performance, a timely refinancing or maturity extension, or a strategic alternative such as asset sales or equity infusion. We are also concerned that in a recession scenario, liquidity could tighten further due to springing revolver financial maintenance covenants, which increases the risk of default.

The second contributing factor was the inability to pass through higher costs or delays in doing so.   Companies in this category typically already had thin margins before costs surged. Waste and recycling equipment manufacturer Wastequip LLC (downgraded to 'CCC+' from 'B-'), for example, has a stretched liquidity profile, primarily because of increased working capital requirements amid persisting inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints. Similarly, P&L Development Holdings LLC (PLD), which we downgraded to 'CCC+' in June, also faces unprecedented inflationary pressures in sourcing raw materials, including an active ingredient chemical-grade propylene (which is used to produce isopropyl alcohol and is among the most important inputs in PLD's manufacturing process). As a private-label producer and contract manufacturer of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, PLD has little pricing power and could struggle to raise prices to offset input cost inflation.

Lastly, changing consumer preferences, though less common are equally damaging.   Technology service provider Intrado Corp. (which we downgraded to 'CCC+' from 'B-') engages in traditional conferencing and telecommunications services. Advanced and more flexible and cloud-based communications platforms such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom are disrupting Intrado's core services.

In Some Sectors, Rising Consumer Demand Prompted Upgrades From The 'CCC' To 'B' Category

Upgrades out of the 'CCC' category have been closely tied to the continuing recovery in the travel and leisure industry as consumers shift spending budgets to services and experiences and away from goods. The upgrade list in the second quarter includes:

  • Resort owner and operator Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V., which we upgraded to 'B' on strong lodging demand and average daily room rates;
  • Fitness club operator Fitness International LLC, which we upgraded to 'B-' on positive membership trends since all club locations have reopened); and
  • Jazz Acquisition Inc., which we upgraded to 'B-' on higher commercial airlines travel volume that is increasing demand for aircraft parts.

In most cases, reviving consumer demand led to breakeven cash flow and/or a successful refinance.

Credit Statistics Downshift For Speculative-Grade Corporates

We assessed the effect of increased rates coupled with increased input costs in some speculative-grade companies' credit metrics, including leverage, profit growth, FOCF to debt, and interest coverage. Specifically, we reviewed how these metrics have transitioned over the past 12 months. The sample covers 1,056 rated U.S. and Canadian public and private companies that had reported first-quarter 2022 financials by late June.

Fading tailwinds slow profit growth
  • Unsurprisingly, EBITDA didn't grow in first-quarter 2022 as much as it did in 2021 as the economy recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. Median last-12-month (LTM) EBITDA growth fell for a third consecutive quarter, slowing to 2.8% at the end of March from 3.8% three months earlier (tables 1 and 2). That is only a quarter of last year's peak increase of 10.7% in mid-2021. More than 60% of companies in the sample saw gains in LTM EBITDA in first-quarter 2022. The share was about the same in 2021 but with more significant EBITDA growth.
  • Profit growth continues to be broad-based, but sector-level momentum has contracted, and 13 of the 16 sectors we tracked registered slower growth, with seven sectors exhibiting slowing growth of 2 percentage points or more.
  • Three sectors saw mild profit contractions in first-quarter 2022. Declines were most acute and persistent in the consumer products sector, indicating that supply chain and labor market constraints have squeezed profit margins. Softening consumer spending, coupled with inflation and supply chain bottlenecks, could further pressure credit quality of consumer products issuers in 2023.
  • Telecom is another sector experiencing higher leverage due to EBITDA contraction. The downward shift reflects idiosyncratic challenges as a handful of small issuers navigate secular demand headwinds not experienced sector-wide. Telecom is among the sectors least disrupted by the pandemic, evidenced by its modest swings in median EBITDA.
  • Oil and gas, as well as mining and minerals, benefited from favorable commodity price trends and were top year-over-year performers, with increases of 183% and 78% in LTM EBITDA, respectively. Both sectors held on to their double-digit expansions in the first quarter of 2022.
  • Profit recoveries plateaued for 'CCC+' rated companies in the past two quarters.
  • EBITDA may still have room to grow in 2022 at a slower pace. Our base-case economic forecast estimates U.S. GDP growth of 2% this year and 1.6% in 2023. Airlines are likely to see a solid profit rebound for the rest of 2022 based on robust pent-up demand for travel, but they are not without challenges such as staff shortages and rising jet fuel prices. Broadly, record-high inflation could dampen the outlook for cyclical sectors exposed to falling consumer confidence.

Table 1

Median EBITDA Growth By Issuer Credit Rating
--Median EBITDA percent growth, reported last 12 months--
Issuer credit rating Entity count First-quarter 2021 (qoq) Second-quarter 2021 (qoq) Third-quarter 2021 (qoq) Fourth-quarter 2021 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (yoy)
BB+ 100 5.0 10.4 4.3 4.3 3.6 23.4
BB 112 4.3 11.3 5.7 1.9 2.1 20.9
BB- 89 6.8 14.4 3.7 2.5 2.1 26.3
B+ 162 7.8 15.0 6.5 6.3 4.0 30.9
B 223 5.3 9.8 5.7 2.9 2.7 19.2
B- 262 4.6 8.3 4.2 4.4 2.8 21.4
CCC+ 80 (0.3) 5.6 2.2 0.2 0.1 20.0
CCC 23 2.2 3.3 (6.0) 8.9 4.2 21.0
CCC- 3 (5.9) 33.6 (5.0) (3.4) 1.9 6.4
CC 2 (11.1) 5.8 (10.6) (10.3) (2.6) (18.2)
Total 1,056 5.0 10.7 4.5 3.8 2.8 21.9
Ratings as of June 28, 2022. Reported EBITDA is without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "Data Used In This Report" section. qoq--Quarter over quarter. yoy--Year over year. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 2

Median EBITDA Growth By Industry
--Median EBITDA percent growth, reported last 12 months--
Industry Entity count First-quarter 2021 (qoq) Second-quarter 2021 (qoq) Third-quarter 2021 (qoq) Fourth-quarter 2021 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (yoy)
Aerospace/defense 32 (1.2) 3.6 4.6 3.7 (0.6) 11.9
Auto/trucks 35 14.8 34.6 3.7 3.5 3.3 37.3
Business and consumer services 91 3.0 5.5 3.3 3.0 2.7 14.8
Capital goods, machinery, and equipment 108 3.6 4.2 1.9 1.9 3.6 13.4
Chemicals 33 6.7 12.1 5.5 4.9 2.3 46.4
Consumer products 90 7.4 8.1 1.6 0.3 (1.1) 9.2
Forest products, building materials, and packaging 41 6.2 11.4 0.7 0.6 7.4 23.3
Health care 98 8.5 6.9 3.2 0.7 0.0 12.9
Media, entertainment, and leisure 152 3.4 26.3 9.4 5.8 4.7 63.4
Mining and minerals 47 6.6 22.1 15.3 11.9 11.6 78.2
Oil and gas 68 (0.6) 38.0 27.3 36.3 19.0 182.6
Restaurants and retailing 85 9.5 27.8 0.9 3.1 0.4 29.6
Real estate 20 4.6 7.1 4.6 5.6 3.6 21.7
Technology 88 5.8 4.7 1.7 0.6 1.9 9.8
Telecommunications 42 3.5 2.9 1.4 (0.5) (1.6) 1.9
Transportation 26 (1.8) 22.3 12.2 10.6 1.3 59.9
Total 1,056 5.0 10.7 4.5 3.8 2.8 21.9
Reported EBITDA is without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "Data Used In This Report" section. qoq--Quarter over quarter. yoy--Year over year. Source: S&P Global Ratings.
Leverage reduction resumed as debt growth ebbed
  • Median LTM leverage ended first-quarter 2022 at 5.4x, marginally lower than 5.6x at year-end 2021 (tables 3 and 4). The median issuer in the sample grew LTM EBITDA by 2.8% (quarter over quarter) in the first quarter of 2022, while debt amounts were relatively unchanged since 2021, which we expected, given the scarcity of recent debt borrowing activities. Meanwhile, debt repayment activities, which gained traction in the second half of 2021 as companies focused on balance sheet repairing, also dwindled.
  • Issuers in the 'CCC' category led leverage reduction in the quarter. Overall, 'CCC+' rated issuers shed more than half a turn (0.7x) of leverage in the first quarter after it had surged nearly six turns during the pandemic. The median leverage of 'B-' rated issuers is now 0.5x more than it was pre-pandemic.
  • We believe EBITDA growth could outpace debt growth in the near term, relieving some credit strains, especially in sectors strongly rebounding from the pandemic. A few subsectors, including homebuilders and many retailers, are coming off a great year of operating performance and have built a cushion to withstand some demand softness.
  • Still, five sectors saw median leverage of more than 6x--and as high as 8.2x in health care and 7.5x in technology. Building materials saw an uptick in leverage in the first quarter that was partly attributable to scale expansion through acquisitions at the expense of increased leverage and debt. Expense related to new debt issuances, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and leveraged buyout (LBO) activities was also a key factor in delaying leverage reduction in 2021.

Table 3

Median Gross Leverage By Issuer Credit Rating
--Median gross leverage (x), reported last 12 months--
Issuer credit rating Entity count 2019 First-quarter 2020 Second-quarter 2020 Third-quarter 2020 Fourth-quarter 2020 First-quarter 2021 Second-quarter 2021 Third-quarter 2021 Fourth-quarter 2021 First-quarter 2022
BB+ 104 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 3.1 2.9
BB 117 3.3 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.0
BB- 97 3.9 4.0 4.4 4.3 3.5 3.8 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.4
B+ 168 4.8 5.5 6.1 5.6 5.6 5.1 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.1
B 228 5.6 6.4 6.8 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
B- 264 7.7 8.3 8.4 8.4 9.5 9.2 8.7 8.7 8.3 8.2
CCC+ 81 9.0 9.9 14.8 13.9 14.6 14.6 13.0 13.8 14.0 13.3
CCC 23 9.2 10.3 36.0 20.0 11.9 12.5 11.7 15.9 28.0 21.9
CCC- 3 6.0 6.4 16.5 15.4 8.9 9.5 9.8 10.6 11.1 10.8
CC 2 7.7 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.5 6.4 6.0 7.2 7.9 7.5
Total 1,087 5.3 6.1 6.7 6.4 6.4 6.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4
Ratings as of June 28, 2022; Leverage is calculated as reported gross debt over reported EBITDA, without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "Data Used In This Report" section. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 4

Median Gross Leverage By Industry
--Median gross leverage (x), reported last 12 months--
Industry Entity count 2019 First-quarter 2020 Second-quarter 2020 Third-quarter 2020 Fourth-quarter 2020 First-quarter 2021 Second-quarter 2021 Third-quarter 2021 Fourth-quarter 2021 First-quarter 2022
Better: Improved or reduced leverage compared to year-end 2021
Media, entertainment, and leisure 159 5.0 6.3 8.7 8.8 8.7 9.0 7.1 6.4 6.5 5.8
Mining and minerals 48 3.1 3.4 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 3.3 2.6 2.2 2.0
Transportation 26 4.0 4.4 6.7 8.4 9.3 9.7 6.9 5.9 6.0 5.3
Worse: Leverage increased from year-end 2021
Aerospace and defense 32 4.6 4.6 6.1 5.4 5.8 7.1 6.4 5.8 5.8 6.8
Capital goods, machinery, and equipment 110 5.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.8
Forest prodcuts, building materials, and packaging 42 4.6 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.8
Technology 94 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.0 6.9 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.5
Telecommunications 44 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.6 5.1 5.7
Leverage remained relatively flat since year-end 2021
Auto and trucks 35 3.8 4.3 6.8 6.3 5.7 5.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.1
Business and consumer services 92 6.6 7.2 7.2 7.0 7.0 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.3 6.2
Chemicals 33 5.6 6.1 7.4 7.1 7.4 5.2 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.2
Consumer products 90 6.1 6.3 6.3 5.9 6.2 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.2
Health care 100 7.1 8.1 8.3 8.0 8.1 7.5 6.9 7.2 8.1 8.2
Oil and gas 69 2.9 3.0 4.1 5.0 5.0 5.6 4.1 3.0 2.0 1.9
Restaurants and retailing 85 4.8 5.7 6.9 5.9 5.7 5.1 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.8
Real estate 28 7.1 8.5 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.1 6.5 6.6 5.4 5.4
Total 1,087 5.3 6.1 6.7 6.4 6.4 6.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4
Leverage is calculated as reported gross debt over reported EBITDA, without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "Data Used In This Report" section. Source: S&P Global Ratings.
Cash flow remains a pressure point
  • Free cash flow generation is a significant concern: Median LTM FOCF to debt dropped another 1.1 percentage points in the first quarter, down from 3.9% in 2021 and 7.1% the same period last year (tables 5 and 6). Except for oil and gas, all sectors compare unfavorably to year-end 2021. While liquidity generally remains adequate for most issuers, many are retreating from large investments and debt-financed shareholder distributions as they brace for demanding operating conditions.
  • Given the high volume of transactions last year as a result of favorable financing conditions, FOCF was depressed in 2021 by sizable one-time transaction fees associated with M&A and LBOs, and to a smaller extent, opportunistic bolt-on acquisitions. We expect some improvement in FOCF absent these costs.
  • 'B-' rated issuers are feeling the pinch as their median FOCF to debt plunged further into negative territory in the first quarter. About 9% or 24 issuers rated 'B-' within our sample have a negative rating outlook, and almost all of them exhibit persistent negative FOCF, making them downgrade candidates in the absence of improved cash flow and a sufficient excess cash cushion. Support from sponsors in the form of capital injections served private equity-owned issuers well during the past downturn, but this support may not recur.
  • The oil and gas and mining and minerals sectors have the best-positioned FOCF-to-debt ratios, followed by restaurants, retailing, and technology. Many retailers performed well in 2021, raising prices to offset material, labor, and freight cost inflation, though conditions are shifting quickly for many companies.
  • The real estate sector lagged behind others with a negative 6.6% FOCF-to-debt ratio in the first quarter. The sector's consecutive declines, however, are primarily by companies' choice. The robust housing demand during the pandemic delivered one of the best years for homebuilders and developers. As a result, inventory (of land, homes, and communities for sale) declined faster than expected. These companies have spent more than usual on land and development to replenish their inventories. That said, rising mortgage rates are slowing demand for new homes.

Table 5

Median Free Operating Cash Flow To Debt (%) By Issuer Credit Rating
--Median free operating cash flow to debt (%), reported last 12 months--
Issuer credit rating Entity count 2019 2020 First-quarter 2021 Second-quarter 2021 Third-quarter 2021 Fourth-quarter 2021 First-quarter 2022 First-quarter 2022 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (yoy)
BB+ 100 13.2 17.9 21.3 19.6 19.1 15.7 14.1 (0.5) (5.0)
BB 112 12.4 17.0 16.2 16.5 17.8 14.2 14.3 (0.6) (0.1)
BB- 89 10.1 19.0 19.9 17.6 14.0 11.0 7.9 (2.2) (9.6)
B+ 162 6.6 8.3 9.1 9.3 8.6 7.0 7.1 0.0 (1.3)
B 223 3.6 6.7 7.6 6.2 4.1 3.9 2.3 (1.0) (3.4)
B- 262 0.6 3.1 2.8 1.6 0.7 (0.4) (1.0) (0.6) (4.0)
CCC+ 80 (3.6) (1.8) (1.3) (2.9) (4.2) (4.2) (4.7) (0.9) (3.8)
CCC 23 (1.7) 1.5 0.5 (3.4) (5.9) (5.9) (4.6) 0.4 (5.5)
CCC- 3 3.3 (4.0) (5.5) 1.7 3.6 2.4 (2.6) 0.3 (4.5)
CC 2 (9.0) (0.1) 1.9 4.0 8.2 3.0 1.4 (1.6) (0.5)
Total 1,056 4.3 6.6 7.1 6.3 4.7 3.9 2.8 (0.7) (3.4)
Ratings as of June 28, 2022. FOCF is free operating cash flow, as reported and without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "Data Used In This Report" section. qoq--Quarter over quarter. yoy--Year over year. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 6

Median Free Operating Cash Flow To Debt (%) By Industry
--Median free operating cash flow to debt (%), reported last 12 months--
Industry Entity count 2019 2020 First-quarter 2021 Second-quarter 2021 Third-quarter 2021 Fourth-quarter 2021 First-quarter 2022 First-quarter 2022 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (yoy)
Aerospace and defense 32 4.2 4.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.5 2.4 (0.3) (1.9)
Auto and trucks 35 6.5 8.5 8.3 11.8 1.8 (0.2) (2.2) (0.9) (7.9)
Business and consumer services 91 5.1 6.2 7.9 6.2 4.6 3.6 2.7 (0.9) (5.0)
Capital goods, machinery, and equipment 108 3.0 8.4 9.3 5.6 2.9 0.9 (0.3) (1.4) (8.5)
Chemicals 33 3.9 4.6 5.0 5.3 7.4 4.9 1.1 (0.6) (2.3)
Consumer products 90 5.5 8.3 8.4 5.8 3.8 2.6 0.9 (1.5) (4.5)
Forest products, building materials, and packaging 41 10.3 14.1 14.6 9.5 4.0 3.1 0.2 (2.4) (15.6)
Health care 98 1.7 5.0 7.2 4.6 2.9 2.0 1.1 (0.8) (6.3)
Media, entertainment, and leisure 152 6.4 4.4 4.7 7.4 6.2 5.1 4.7 (0.2) 0.6
Mining and minerals 47 6.1 6.4 8.2 6.0 5.9 9.8 9.1 (0.1) 1.6
Oil and gas 68 0.2 2.7 4.4 4.2 5.8 9.9 11.8 3.4 7.0
Restaurants and retailing 85 4.3 13.0 14.3 14.4 11.6 9.6 6.7 (2.5) (5.2)
Real estate 20 5.7 9.9 11.6 6.9 (0.3) (3.1) (6.6) (0.4) (4.8)
Technology 88 3.8 8.1 8.6 7.9 8.7 6.3 5.9 (0.8) (2.1)
Telecommunications 42 2.1 4.1 6.1 5.5 3.8 3.0 2.5 (0.6) (2.0)
Transportation 26 1.7 (1.8) (1.2) 1.3 0.7 3.4 3.3 (0.0) 3.0
Total 1,056 4.3 6.6 7.1 6.3 4.7 3.9 2.8 (0.7) (3.4)
FOCF is free operating cash flow, as reported and without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "Data Used In This Report" section. qoq--Quarter over quarter. yoy--Year over year. Source: S&P Global Ratings.
EBITDA interest coverage was resilient in the first quarter, but higher interest costs are pending

Interest coverage is still benefiting from EBITDA growth tailwinds and limited effect from higher interest rates through the first quarter, and it improved to a healthy 3.4x at the end of March 2022. A decelerating economy has not significantly changed the LTM figures thus far. We expect the rapidly rising benchmark rates and widening credit spreads to bite deeper in 2023. This could have a large impact on the health care and technology sectors, both of which are most levered and hence weakest in interest coverage. Slowing earnings growth will make it much more challenging for them to maintain interest coverage levels (and put further pressure on free cash flow).

Table 7

Median EBITDA Interest Coverage By Issuer Credit Rating
--Median EBITDA interest coverage (x), reported last 12 months--
Issuer credit rating Entity count 2019 2020 First-quarter 2021 Second-quarter 2021 Third-quarter 2021 Fourth-quarter 2021 First-quarter 2022 First-quarter 2022 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (yoy)
BB+ 100 6.3 6.1 7.2 8.2 9.1 8.7 9.0 0.2 1.6
BB 112 5.5 5.1 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.2 7.9 0.3 2.2
BB- 89 4.9 4.7 5.3 5.8 6.6 6.6 6.9 0.2 1.7
B+ 162 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.3 4.2 0.1 1.2
B 223 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 0.1 0.7
B- 262 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 0.0 0.3
CCC+ 80 1.3 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.3
CCC 23 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.5
CCC- 3 2.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.0 0.1
CC 2 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 (0.0) (0.3)
Total 1,056 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.4 0.1 0.7
Ratings as of June 28, 2022; coverage is calculated as reported EBITDA over reported interest expense, without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "The Data Used in This Report" section. qoq--Quarter over quarter. yoy--Year over year. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Table 8

Median EBITDA Interest Coverage By Industry
--Median EBITDA interest coverage (x), reported last 12 months--
Industry Entity count 2019 2020 First-quarter 2021 Second-quarter 2021 Third-quarter 2021 Fourth-quarter 2021 First-quarter 2022 First-quarter 2022 (qoq) First-quarter 2022 (yoy)
Aerospace and defense 32 3.1 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3 0.0 0.7
Auto and trucks 35 3.3 2.5 2.9 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 (0.0) 0.9
Business and consumer services 91 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.9 0.1 0.5
Capital goods, machinery, and equipment 108 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.5 0.1 0.6
Chemicals 33 2.8 2.3 3.0 3.4 4.4 4.0 4.1 0.2 1.0
Consumer products 90 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 (0.1) 0.3
Forest products, building materials, and packaging 41 3.9 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.8 5.1 4.8 0.2 0.8
Health care 98 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 (0.0) 0.2
Media, entertainment, and leisure 152 3.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.1 1.1
Mining and minerals 47 4.6 2.9 3.2 4.7 5.1 6.1 7.0 0.7 3.1
Oil and gas 68 5.6 2.6 2.6 3.5 4.6 6.3 7.6 1.2 5.1
Restaurants and retailing 85 2.8 2.1 2.8 3.7 3.6 3.9 4.1 0.1 0.9
Real estate 20 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.9 0.1 0.1
Technology 88 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.1 0.4
Telecommunications 42 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.7 (0.0) 0.1
Transportation 26 4.3 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 0.0 1.7
Total 1,056 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.4 0.1 0.7
coverage is calculated as reported EBITDA over reported interest expense, without adjustment by S&P Global Ratings. The sample in this study is rebalanced each quarter following selection criteria, as detailed in the "The Data Used in This Report" section. LTM--Last 12 months. qoq--Quarter over quarter. yoy--Year over year. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

First-Lien Recovery Expectations Remain Below Historical Levels

Volatility and risk aversion are hurting deal volumes in the leveraged finance market. Second-quarter 2022 was one of the quietest periods in new issuance, with a total of 152 new issues. Average recovery expectations for first-lien debt issued in the quarter, as measured by our recovery point estimates that are part of our recovery rating, were unchanged from the prior quarter at 64% (chart 1).

First-lien recoveries declined over the past decade relative to the historical average. Data collected from North American companies that exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy showed actual recoveries of first-lien debt averaged 78% before 2020 (2008-2019), and 68% from 2020 to second-quarter 2021). Aggressive structures led by high secured leverage and little junior cushion have diminished first-lien recovery prospects.

New-issue recovery ratings often fluctuate with shifts in investor risk tolerance, as reflected in the mix of borrower quality. About 20% of first-lien debt instruments in second-quarter 2022 were issued by 'BB' category-rated entities, up from 14% in the prior quarter, reflecting lender preference for higher-quality assets. Recovery is positively correlated with issuer credit rating. The average recovery estimate of 'BB' category issuers was 74% in the second quarter, notably higher than the 60% average of 'B' category issuers.

Chart 1

image

We continue to see a high concentration of '3' recovery ratings (indicating an estimated recovery of 50%-70% in the event of a payment default), which composed two-thirds of the total. The growing share of '3' recovery ratings reflects a balance of increasingly aggressive debt structures and the need for collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) to satisfy their collateral quality tests (e.g., a maximum weighted-average recovery rate). As there is a high concentration of '3' recovery ratings among first-lien debt, credit rating mix has also shifted toward lower-rated issuers: Issuers rated 'B' and below now represent more than 60% of our speculative-grade credit portfolio. The expansion was led by 'B-' rated issuers, which now account for about 26% of all speculative-grade issuers.

Chart 2

image

Related Research

Primary Credit Analyst:Hanna Zhang, New York + 1 (212) 438 8288;
Hanna.Zhang@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Minesh Patel, CFA, New York + 1 (212) 438 6410;
minesh.patel@spglobal.com
Steve H Wilkinson, CFA, New York + 1 (212) 438 5093;
steve.wilkinson@spglobal.com
Research Contributor:Maulik Shah, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai
Analytical Group Contact:Ramki Muthukrishnan, New York + 1 (212) 438 1384;
ramki.muthukrishnan@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.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in