New US tariffs will affect US chemical producers mainly through their impact on demand rather than trade, according to equity research analysts, as per Chemweek.
“For chemicals, the most important impact of the US tariff policies is the net impact on demand,” said Laurence Alexander, equity analyst at Jefferies LLC, in a research note issued on April 3.
Alexander cited estimates that the new tariffs will increase the effective rate on $3.3 trillion in US imports from 2.3% to 23%-29%, translating to a 3% reduction in US consumers’ disposable income. “As a structural hit to spending power, the knock-on effect for real GDP will likely be ~0.6% in the first year, ~1.2% in the second, and ~1.5% in the third,” the note states. Retaliation tariffs could reduce US GDP in the first year as much as 1.5% and global GDP by 0.5%, he added.
“With normal multiplier effects, this would turn into a ~0.8% sales headwind and ~2.5% EBITDA headwind for the broad chemical sector, and as much as a 5%-6% headwind for upstream chemicals serving durables, clothes, motor vehicle or clothing end markets,” Alexander said. “A demand shock of such a magnitude would trigger, all else being equal, a 4%-5% headwind for broad GDP-linked chemicals and a ~10% headwind for pricing for chemicals such as [acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene] that are directly tied to durable goods and automotive markets.”
Alexander highlighted several other potential knock-on effects, including retailer destocking, an uptick in inflation, less-efficient supply chains, additional delays in capital expeniture decisions and a dampening of chemical research and development as customers turn their attention from innovative functional properties to cost management.
Vincent Andrews, equity analyst at Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, likewise focused on demand in a research note issued on April 4.
The “chemicals industry serves a diverse set of end markets, with high concentration in agriculture, automobiles, building & construction, consumer durables, consumer staples (packaging), electronics, health care, general industrial, et al.,” said Andrews. “As such, we see the impact from tariffs on demand in these varied end markets as likely the most important [key performance indicator], particularly for those products that the US is a net importer of.”
Andrews pointed to fertilizers, mainly from the Middle East; crop chemical inputs as well as generic crop chemicals, mainly from India and China; lithium, primarily from South America and Australia, but also in batteries from China; and MDI and epoxy, mainly from China, as the imports most relevant to the companies covered by Morgan Stanley analysts.
“The US is a large importer of fertilizer, but potash from Canada has already been exempted under the [United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement],” noted Andrews. “Nitrogen (urea) prices were up on Thursday on tariffs, but we won’t be surprised to see nitrogen and phosphate ultimately excluded from tariffs as — like in potash — the US has no capability of self-sufficiency in either phosphate or nitrogen. […] It is unclear to us whether crop chemical inputs and/or generic crop chemicals will face tariffs to enter the US — we can read the disclosure in Annex II either way at present, so we await further clarity.”
Andrews was relatively sanguine regarding the impact on US petrochemicals.
Where “companies are a low-cost producer and a net exporter of petrochemicals, what other countries do to retaliate against US exports will matter,” he stated. “However, given that these are bulk commodities, in some cases, trade flows will simply adjust over time, but this will come with an increase in freight and logistics costs, as producers will no longer be shipping to their lowest cost to serve destination. In other cases, it is possible that some exports will not be able to find a suitably economic alternative route and US operating rates may need to decline to keep the market in check.”
An April 3 note by Hassan Ahmed, equity analyst at Alembic Global Advisors, observed that most bulk chemical products appeared to be exempt from the tariffs by inclusion in Annex II. Ahmed also reiterated his view that US polyethylene exports to China are unlikely to be significantly affected by retaliatory tariffs.
“In the previous Trump presidency, China offered importers waivers on certain tariffs imposed on US polyethylene and other plastics and chemicals imports,” Ahmed stated. “For various types of US high-density PE (HDPE) and linear low-density PE (LLDPE), on which a 34% tariff rate applied, Chinese importers could apply for a waiver and instead pay the pre-trade war duty of 6.5%. We do not see any reason why such a scenario would not reemerge if China were to impose retaliatory tariffs.”
The US chemical industry remains overall “quite insulated” from the negative effects of a trade war, Ahmed concluded. “That said, the chemical industry is highly global GDP sensitive — any slowdown in global economic growth as a result of trade wars would certainly have a negative demand impact.”
mrchub.com