December 21, 2024

AAA Rating Is a Rarity in Business

Scores of big corporations have lost their AAA status in recent years — only four non-financial companies continue to hold the rating — as it became seen in board rooms as more of a straitjacket than a path to riches. Just as many consumers relied on their credit cards to finance a higher standard of living, companies took on more debt to reap bigger returns.

The choice did not appear to hurt them. The borrowing costs of companies with AAA ratings and those one level below are not that far apart. Investors, in other words, do not see much difference in quality.

“It’s like you are going from a Rolls-Royce to a Mercedes — not from a Rolls-Royce to a Yugo,” said Chris Orndorff, a senior portfolio manager for the bond giant Western Asset Management. “That’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

More and more, in fact, companies have found that a AAA credit rating is not something worth aspiring to if a more conservative approach means lower profits.

Today, markets often render credit judgments before the rating agencies can take out their pens, so a downgrade has a less noticeable effect. By that time, many of the traditional benefits of being deemed AAA, like lower borrowing costs and reputational glow, have evaporated.

In the early 1980s, around 60 companies had AAA credit. By 2000, the number of AAA companies was about 15. Today just four corporations— Automatic Data Processing, Exxon Mobil, Johnson Johnson and Microsoft — can claim those once-coveted three initials. (Five big insurers and several government affiliated organizations can too.)

Analysts say corporate buyouts and acquisitions accelerated the trend. Many AAA companies lost their ratings when they were taken over and their new owners loaded them with cheap debt to help pay for the deal. Other strategic decisions also triggered downgrades.

UPS, for example, struck a long-term agreement with its union workers in fall 2007 that raised pay and benefits but froze certain pension obligations. Soon after, the ratings agencies started knocking down the company’s credit rating to AA because of the new pension arrangement.

“Maintaining a AAA rating is not a financial goal of this company,” a UPS spokesman said at the time. Investors barely reacted. In the three months after the downgrade, yields on UPS bonds responded by increasing about 0.4 percentage point from 5.32 percent. Today, with borrowers enjoying ultra-low interest rates, the bond yields are back to their levels in late 2007.

Meanwhile, the financial crisis and deep recession laid into several of the sturdiest pillars of American capitalism. Berkshire Hathaway, General Electric and Pfizer all lost their AAA ratings.

Still, a funny thing happened when these companies were sent down to AA. Investors shrugged off the change; the markets had already rendered their verdict. Borrowing costs for General Electric and Berkshire actually fell in the weeks after they were downgraded in spring 2009, amid a broader market rally.

“The rating agencies were late to the party,” said Mr. Orndorff, the bond investor.

Ratings for companies and countries are viewed differently, even if they are evaluated in much the same way.

For most Americans, the prospect that the government could lose its AAA credit rating is almost unthinkable — a blow to national pride and consumer confidence that could turn out to be more damaging than any increase in borrowing costs.

That is why even after President Obama signed a law on Tuesday that lifted the debt ceiling, some in Washington were worried that the plan’s spending cuts were not deep enough to appease all the major rating agencies.

For now, all three major rating firms continue to give the United States a AAA rating. But on Tuesday, Moody’s said its outlook was negative after putting the government on notice last month that it could be downgraded. Fitch said on Tuesday that it planned to complete another review of the government’s finances by the end of this month, and Standard Poor’s has warned that the United States might lose its rating if it did not sharply rein in the deficit.

It helps, of course, that the dollar remains the world’s leading currency, ensuring that demand for United States debt is strong in spite of the nation’s myriad financial challenges.

But the truth is, even as the government maintained its AAA grade, the markets suggested long ago that the United States was no longer deserving of such a high rating.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=862ecbf25a8d5504f4710bc7b76ee052

Higher Prices Buoy Profits as Oil Companies Scramble for New Fields

HOUSTON — Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell reported large increases in second-quarter profits on Thursday, benefiting from oil and gasoline prices that have been propelled upward by political turbulence in the Middle East and North Africa.

It was the strongest quarter for Exxon since it set a corporate quarterly earnings record in 2008, when crude oil prices approached $150 a barrel before collapsing as the world economy slowed.

Exxon, the biggest American oil company, reported earnings of $10.7 billion for the quarter, up from $7.56 billion the year before, but a bit less than Wall Street had been expecting. Shell, the largest European oil company, posted profits of $8.7 billion, up from $4.4 billion a year ago.

The results of Exxon and Shell, as well as ConocoPhillips and BP earlier in the week, highlighted the oil majors’ dependence on high oil prices for profit growth at a time when they are straining to pick up new reserves to increase or even sustain future production.

Major oil companies are finding it difficult to acquire new reserves because countries rich in oil and gas have become increasingly grudging in their dealings with foreign companies, striking production-sharing agreements that offer them a smaller share of the profits. That is prompting oil companies to drill deeper below the ocean’s surface and explore in the Arctic for oil — expensive propositions that put pressure on profits — or drill for less profitable gas.

“We are going into a world where finding the oil and gas is going to be more complex,” Shell’s chief executive, Peter R. Voser, acknowledged as his company released its results. “It needs more money.”

Smaller oil and gas companies like EOG Resources and Cabot Oil and Gas have proved to be more nimble than the giants in recent years, moving into shale oil and gas fields in the United States and booking new reserves at a far faster rate. The major companies have tried to follow suit over the last two years, but a glut of natural gas from rising production has weakened the profitability of some fields.

Growth in oil company profits for the rest of the year is uncertain, given that oil and gas prices are strongly tied to the health of the global economy. Demand in the United States for diesel, gasoline and other petroleum products has eased in recent months after starting the year strongly, and the growth in Chinese oil demand has slowed somewhat.

“If the economy does not grow faster, earnings growth in the energy sector is obviously going to be limited,” said Fadel Gheit, a senior oil analyst at Oppenheimer Company. “You can’t grow energy demand in a flat economy.”

The Energy Department reported on Thursday that United States oil demand in May fell by nearly 2.5 percent from the same month the year before, representing a decline of 464,000 barrels a day. The department also reported that oil inventories last week were up by 2.3 million barrels from the week before, suggesting a less-than-robust summer driving season.

Oil prices have eased more than 10 percent since the spring, when crude prices peaked because of the loss of 1.3 million barrels of oil a day of production caused by the turmoil in Libya and fears that instability could spread to major producers like Saudi Arabia and Algeria. Since then, increased production in Saudi Arabia and the release of oil from strategic reserves in the United States and other industrialized countries have helped prevent shortages.

Even if oil demand and prices increase, large oil companies will strain to keep up production.

ConocoPhillips reported a 90,000-barrel-a-day decline in oil and gas production for the quarter on Wednesday, though earnings were higher anyway as a result of higher oil prices. Shell also reported a decline of 100,000 barrels of daily oil and gas production for the quarter, in part because of permitting delays in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP accident last year.

Exxon’s earnings were lower than analysts had expected despite strong revenue growth, reflecting a record $10.3 billion in capital and exploration expenditures in new oil and gas projects, up 58 percent from the second quarter of 2010.

Exxon’s purchase of XTO Energy last year to become the nation’s biggest natural gas producer has been questioned by some investors in light of low gas prices, but the acquisition helped Exxon’s oil and gas production to increase by 10 percent from a year ago.

Exxon is continuing to invest heavily in natural gas, purchasing 317,000 acres for $1.7 billion in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale field in June. It is also drilling deep in the Gulf of Mexico, and last month announced the discovery of a new deepwater field holding the equivalent of 700 million barrels of oil.

Edward Westlake, an analyst at Credit Suisse, said Exxon profits were hurt by the shutdown in production in several oil fields and refineries around the world for maintenance reasons. He said he was optimistic about the company’s prospects because of an increase of annual capital expenditures from $21 billion in 2007 to around $35 billion currently, along with its aggressive acquisition of oil and gas acreage.

“One day this will pay off,” Mr. Westlake added.

While Exxon has tried to buy reserves, Shell has invested heavily over the last decade in complex projects, particularly in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. Its $20 billion Pearl project, which will produce liquid fuels out of natural gas on an enormous scale, has been going through final tests this year and should begin to produce profits in coming months.

For Shell, “earnings and cash flow should greatly improve over the next few years,” said Brian M. Youngberg, an oil analyst at Edward Jones.

Julie Werdigier contributed reporting from London.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=011c6a620632986f21be5a07ce7ac94f

Stock Surge in Early Trade on Optimism Over Greece

Europe stepped up efforts to draft a second bailout package for Greece, with private sector participation still an option to help relieve the country of its huge debt burden.

Rising expectations of a second aid package for Greece sent crude oil 2.3 percent to $102.88 a barrel in the United States. Exxon Mobil added 1 percent to $83.49, and Chevron gained 1.7 percent to $104.95.

The firming of the euro supported metals prices, with copper rising to a four-week high. The mining company Freeport-McMoRan Copper Gold rose as much as 1.7 percent to $52.63.

“The news out of Europe is propelling the market higher in pretrading, following the rest of the global markets. News regarding a Greece bailout is basically fueling the optimism,” said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners in New York.

“It is causing the dollar to go back down, strengthening the euro, so that is inviting risk back into the marketplace.”

In midmorning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 81.36, or 0.7 percent, to 12,522.94. The Standard Poor’s 500-stock index was up 7.2 points, or 0.5 percent, at 1,338.30, and the Nasdaq composite index was up 13.97 points, or 0.5 percent, at 2,810.83.

On the economic front, the S.P. Case-Shiller Home Price Index for 20 large cities, not seasonably adjusted, fell 0.8 percent in March from the month before, as expected. It was the eighth decline in a row and left prices down 33.1 percent from the July 2006 peak.

The Institute of Supply Management Chicago said its index of Midwest business activity fell in May to 56.6 from 67.6 in April. Economists had forecast a reading of 62.6.

In another report, consumer confidence slid in May as consumers turned more pessimistic on the outlook for the labor market and inflation worries rose, according to the Conference Board. The report said that its index of consumer attitudes fell to 60.8 from a revised 66.0 in April. The reading was below economists’ forecasts for 66.5.

The chemicals maker Ashland said it would buy the privately held International Specialty Products for about $3.2 billion in cash to expand in high-growth markets such as personal care, pharmaceutical and energy. Ashland’s stock rose 10 percent.

European shares rose 1 percent on optimism over a possible Greece deal, with banks among the biggest gainers.

Asian stocks were mostly higher Tuesday, with the Nikkei lifted 2 percent by an upbeat outlook from Japan’s manufacturers and a weaker yen, while regional solar stocks gained after Germany said it would phase out nuclear power by 2022.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/business/01markets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Oil Executives, Defending Tax Breaks, Say They’d Cede Them if Everyone Did

At a three-hour Senate Finance Committee hearing that was largely political theater interrupted occasionally by a serious tax policy discussion, the oil industry executives said their current tax breaks were not subsidies but legitimate tax deductions, shared in some cases with other industries.

Rex W. Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobil, said that the provisions, such as a tax deduction for certain types of manufacturing, were not “special incentives, preferences or subsidies for oil and gas, but rather standard deductions applied across all businesses in the United States.”

He said that eliminating the provision just for the oil industry would be “misinformed and discriminatory.”

Under questioning from Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the panel’s chairman, Mr. Tillerson said that he would support repeal of the manufacturing tax credit and other tax incentives, as long as all businesses were treated the same.

“Repeal it for everybody, gone,” he said. “Everything for everybody everywhere ought to be on the table.”

At issue was a Democratic-sponsored bill to rescind roughly $2 billion of the $4 billion in tax incentives the oil industry now enjoys annually, with the money dedicated to deficit reduction. Mr. Tillerson shared the witness stand with top executives of the four other biggest multinational oil companies, John S. Watson of Chevron; Marvin E. Odum of the United States division of Shell; H. Lamar McKay of BP America; and James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips.

Collectively, the five companies reported more than $35 billion in first-quarter profits, and are on a pace to set record profits for the year. Their profits, their tax treatment and gasoline that in many areas is over $4 a gallon have made them juicy targets for Democrats seeking political points and painless revenue.

The bill, which is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next week, is unlikely to command a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Even if it passes, it has little chance in the Republican-dominated House, which seems more inclined to provide the oil companies more access to public lands and waters than to clamp down on their tax incentives.

The House passed the third of three Republican pro-drilling bills on Thursday. The measure would force the Interior Department to open large tracts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts to oil exploration and to set annual production goals. The administration and most Democrats opposed it, saying that the Deepwater Horizon accident a year ago demonstrated the dangers of offshore operations.

The Senate tax bill’s chief sponsor, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, demanded that Mr. Mulva apologize for a ConocoPhillips press release on Wednesday that called the tax proposal “un-American.”

“I think that’s beyond the pale,” Mr. Menendez said. “I was hoping you would come here and apologize for that.”

“Nothing was intended personally,” Mr. Mulva said.

“So the bottom line is you’re unwilling to apologize,” Mr. Menendez said. “So I’ll continue to take offense.”

Most Republicans, along with Democratic senators from energy-producing states, appear sure to oppose the plan. One oil-state Democrat, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, said this week that oil and gas subsidies accounted for less than 13 percent of all United States energy subsidies.

The ranking Republican on the finance committee, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, suggested that Democrats were playing a cynical game, seeking to blame oil companies while, he asserted, intending to raise gasoline prices to force reduced consumption.

“So while the American people ask Congress to do something about high gas prices,” he said, “the response of Democrats is to rail against oil executives, to mask the fact that their policy is actually to make the price at the pump more painful.”

He called the hearing a “dog and pony show” and displayed a blown-up picture of a dog riding a pony, to underscore his argument that the hearing was just a chance for Democrats to score political points, without doing anything about high gas prices or a sensible energy policy.

Mr. Odum of Shell said in an interview after the hearing that he was disappointed that the discussion focused on the relatively small value of the oil industry’s tax breaks and not on the broader question of how to address the deficit and expand domestic production of oil and gas.

“The piece I take the most exception to, once you get past some of the theater aspects of the setting, is that it’s such a narrow view,” he said. “If the purpose is to address the deficit and the long-term health of the economy, the bigger picture is more important. And that is to produce more oil and gas and get the revenue streams and jobs from that.”

Brian Knowlton contributed reporting.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=db6688b9e99f87132f62d2e1813b14b8

Ukraine Looks to Texas for an Energy Path

By drilling in the scrubland and vacant lots in and around the city of Fort Worth, American energy companies have demonstrated that they can produce natural gas economically from shale — a form of sedimentary rock previously considered all but worthless.

Now, despite environmentalists’ opposition to the water-polluting potential of the shale-gas extraction method known as fracking, the technology’s proponents are heading abroad. And Ukraine, which sits atop tantalizingly large shale deposits, is eager to do business.

Already this year, Ukraine has opened talks with three Western energy giants — Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell — to search for shale gas. Ukraine’s Parliament has also passed investor-friendly legislation aimed at opening its domestic natural gas market to shale gas producers.

Meanwhile, the nation’s president, Viktor F. Yanukovich, has signed a shale-gas exploration agreement with the United States and reached an accord with the European Union on energy transport that opens Ukraine’s pipeline system to Western companies.

Along with the energy companies courting it, Ukraine sees shale as potentially altering the geopolitics of natural gas, lessening global reliance on Russia and the Middle East. Today, just three countries — Russia, Iran and Qatar — hold 54 percent of the world’s conventional gas reserves. But shale is found in many other places, including Eastern and Western Europe, India, China and Australia.

A 2009 study by the International Energy Agency estimated the world holds nearly as much gas recoverable through new techniques like shale gas, or another known as coal-bed methane, as through the traditional sort obtained by conventional drilling. The agency estimated there might be 380 trillion cubic meters of natural gas that could be recovered through these new techniques, compared with 404 trillion cubic meters obtainable through traditional means.

The energy agency has also predicted that unconventionally produced gas will rise from 12 percent of the global total in 2008 to 19 percent in 2035.

Although Ukraine already produces some natural gas by conventional means, it remains highly dependent on imports from Russia’s state-owned gas monopoly, Gazprom, the world’s biggest producer. Twice in the last five years, Gazprom has halted supplies to Ukraine country in politically tinged pricing disputes.

And yet, as a legacy of the Soviet era, Ukraine controls the pipelines through which Gazprom transports its natural gas to its Europe. It is a mutual dependence that at times seems more like a standoff: Russia has the gas; Ukraine has the pipes.

Ukraine, by finding a greater source of its own natural gas, would be hoping to reduce Russia’s leverage in that relationship.

The shale gas industry, for its part, could erode Russia’s once seemingly untouchable monopoly pricing power on natural gas, if the industry can duplicate Fort Worth-scale results from a belt of shale deposits in Poland and Ukraine that in some cases lie right under the pipelines carrying Gazprom’s gas.

Right now, Russia produces about 40 percent of the natural gas imported into the European Union, selling it mostly under long-term contracts that are linked to the price of oil — which has been soaring lately.

Gazprom says its average wholesale price in Europe in the first quarter of 2011, the latest figures available, was $346 for 1,000 cubic meters. By comparison, the benchmark price for natural gas in the United States at the Henry Hub in Louisiana last month averaged $153.30 for the same volume.

Ukraine’s national energy company pays 30 percent less than the European rates, through an agreement Mr. Yanukovich signed last year to let Russia use a naval base on the Crimean Peninsula for 25 years. But that is still higher than the price in the United States.

 “Unconventional gas will be a game-changer throughout Europe,” said James Hill, vice president at BNK Petroleum, one of the companies that pioneered the technology in the United States and is now expanding in Europe. “We’re the mouse that roared.”

Poland is three or so years ahead of Ukraine in its shale gas industry, with exploration wells already drilled. But it is less sensitive to Gazprom’s monopoly, because Poland consumes far less gas than Ukraine. And Poland is geographically less critical for the transmission of natural gas to Western Europe than Ukraine, which transports about 80 percent of Gazprom’s exports to Europe.

Ukraine has four major, largely unexplored shale deposits, according to Valerii Berezhnoi, chief geologist for Vikoil, a Ukrainian seismic exploration company studying unconventional natural gas deposits. Nobody pretends to know how much gas they might hold. But as energy companies speculate on Ukraine’s potential, they point to the deposits that lie under Fort Worth, called the Barnett Shale.

Clifford Krauss contributed reporting from Houston.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=816e0c749c9c60eb481f471af0fd93ff