+1 Added to my documents.
Please be aware your selection is temporary depending on your cookies policy.
Remove this selection here

Why does investment by US companies remain so low?


Despite the economic recovery underway in the United States since 2009, non-residential investment is in a slump. This is really quite surprising after nearly a decade of extremely accommodative monetary policy, reflected in very favourable financing conditions offered to US businesses.

Over the past few years, they have been able to raise massive amounts of capital on the financial markets – bond markets and equity markets alike. As a result, there has been a sharp rise in the gross debt of US corporations. However, investment expenditure has proved to be something of a disappointment when compared the amount of capital raised, with the exception of certain highly specialised sectors (notably the mining sector). The capital raised mainly fuelled a noticeable revival of M&A activity and share buy-backs. The most plausible explanation for such low investment may be that Great Recession has been permanently etched in memory of business leaders, who are now far more hesitant than before about making irreversible investments. As economic theory makes clear, uncertainty reduces the responsiveness of investment to demand shocks and therefore weakens the responsiveness of firms to any given policy stimulus.





Despite the economic recovery in the United States underway since 2009, business investment is in a slump. This is puzzling after nearly a decade of extremely accommodative monetary policy: the fed funds rates have been virtually zero for seven years and the Fed has purchased $3.5 trn in assets since late 2008. In the two previous cycles, the Fed raised its Fed funds rate around two years after the resumption of non-residential investment. While the Fed will move toward hiking the fed funds rates in late 2015, private sector nonresidential investment still accounts for only 12.7% of US GDP, well below the highs of previous cycles, and even contracted in Q1 2015 (its worst quarter since 2009). We therefore feel justifi ed in deploring the fact that such aggressive monetary policy has had so little impact on private investment.

The environment is favourable

Corporate fundamentals are enjoying overall good health and are in no way impeding a dynamic recovery in investment. Corporate earnings posted strong growth in previous quarters: today profits make up more than 10% of GDP, an unprecedented level. In addition, margins are at record-setting highs. Balance sheet items are also favourable: debt remains far below peak cycle levels and cash on hand has reached amounts that have never been seen before.

Furthermore, financing conditions via bank lending and especially via the markets have been very accommodating. Bear in mind that US corporations get their funding mainly through the bond market. The transmission channels of monetary easing are therefore more efficient than in Europe. What’s more, corporations have enjoyed stronger investor appetite, stimulated by a low rate environment and ample liquidity. Financing on the bond market over the past few years has been easy and comparatively cheap.

Businesses have been able to raise massive amounts of capital on the financial markets

If measured only by the massive amounts of capital companies have been able to raise over the last few years, the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy stance has been very effective:

  • On the primary bond market, the volume of new non-financial issues set a record in 2014 at more than $1.1 trn. The size of the IG bond market has almost doubled since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, reaching $4.7 trin last year. As a result, there has been a sharp increase in gross corporate debt in many sectors of the US economy.
  • On the equity market, businesses are increasingly turning to share issues for funding, with more than $300 bn raised in 2014. These issues were mostly the work of existing listed companies.

Relative to the massive amounts of capital raised, investment expenditure has proved to be something of a disappointment.

However, the rebound in business investment remains disappointing

It is very important to note that businesses have widely different attitudes about investment depending on the sector. Although some sectors have levels of investment far above their pre-crisis levels (mining sector, agriculture, natural gas and electric power suppliers), other sectors have levels of investment that are well below their pre-crisis levels (real estate, accommodation and restaurants, and water supply).

As a side point, it has to be mentioned that the mining sector, strictly speaking, is responsible for at least 15% of the increase in non-residential investment since the all-time low recorded in Q4 2009 and perhaps significantly more if you factor in all the ancillary activities. Falling oil prices and, more broadly, the uncertainly about their future will weigh on investment in the mining sector.

In light of the modest increase in business investment expenditure, we might reasonably question the usage of the capital that has been raised.

Businesses have primarily shown a preference for share buybacks...

Businesses have piled up record amounts of cash on their balance sheets over the past few years, reaching $2 trn at the end of 2014 (vs. $820 bn in 2006). A significant portion of this liquidity is frequently held overseas to avoid double taxation of profits. This trend is expected to intensify unless the US authorities adopt a more stringent tax system. This cash is concentrated primarily:

  • in the high-tech (38% of the total), healthcare (14%), convenience goods (9%) and energy (8%) sectors;
  • in companies such as Apple ($147 bn), Microsoft ($68 bn), Google ($48 bn), Pfizer ($47 bn) and Cisco ($46 bn).

An increasing portion of this liquidity is being channelled back to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks. The longer the high levels of cash combined with low debt continue, the stronger the shareholder pressure will be. The high-tech, healthcare and convenience goods sectors are at issue here. It is important to understand that businesses went into debt to finance shareholder dividends. The Fed’s unconventional monetary policy has driven bond yields to all-time lows, widening the gap between the cost of borrowing and the cost of equity.

Share buybacks have accelerated, reaching the soaring levels seen prior to the crisis. US businesses now divert more than 30% of their cash flows into buying back their shares. In fact, the portion of revenue set aside for buybacks has doubled in the past ten years while investment spending has declined from 50% to 40%. Total share buybacks have increased by more than $2,000bn since 2009.

...and M&A transactions

The M&A market has also clearly been revived, especially in the United States. Volumes have returned to peak cycle levels. This is mainly the result of the proliferation of large-scale transactions in the healthcare, telecommunications and energy sectors. The market recovery has also been characterised by an explosion of cross-border transactions, an efficient means of using capital held in foreign countries.

Corporate cost-cutting is taking precedence over business investment. Against a backdrop of sluggish economic growth, safeguarding revenue and margins remains a challenge for businesses. Executive motivation is very different from that avowed before the Lehman bankruptcy. They have to contend with low demand and deflationary pressures, which are putting a heavy strain on margins. Acquisitions are in line with the industrial strategies of cost-cutting, consolidation and winning market share.

The uncertain business climate is influencing investment decisions

As we have just seen, access to financing is not the reason why US companies are investing so little. There is no doubt that they are taking advantage of favourable funding, but mostly to finance share buybacks or M&A transactions. A far more plausible explanation for such low levels of business investment is that the Great Recession has been permanently etched into the memory of business leaders, who are now far more hesitant about making irreversible investments. It is now clearly established in economic theory that uncertainty reduces the responsiveness of investment to demand shocks and therefore the responsiveness of firms to any given policy stimulus (“Uncertainty and Investment Dynamics”, Bloom, Bond and Van Reenen, Review of Economic Studies). One of the most frequently used measures of economic policy uncertainty by major international institutions is that developed by Baker, Bloom and Davis (www.policyuncertainty.com), where one of the indicators counts the frequency of the terms “uncertainty” or “uncertain” in articles discussing the economy in major US newspapers. This indicator is still well above its pre-crisis levels and, more generally, its levels between 1995 and 2007.

Business leaders are still relatively pessimistic about the economic outlook and harbour doubts about the profitability of any plans they might have. Surveys of small business leaders (NFIB Survey) confirm that very few of them, in absolute terms and compared to previous decades, are planning capital outlays and/or think it is not an opportune time to expand. The most frequently cited reason for not investing or expanding more was the weak economy. Almost none reported that financing was a problem for them.

Some sectors, particularly high-tech, healthcare and convenience goods, are reporting record amounts of cash on their balance sheets, coupled with low debt. These businesses benefited from the exceptionally favourable financing conditions resulting from unconventional monetary policies. The large amounts of capital raised on the markets were used to buy back their shares, raise dividends and finance acquisitions. The cash that is often held in foreign countries will continue to grow. This is rational behaviour in the context of sluggish world growth. Expectations of soft growth and uncertainty account for the low level of business investment.



Publication (Download)

Article in English

Article en Français

Cross Asset of May 2015 in English

Cross Asset de Mai 2015 en Français

Back up

AINOUZ Valentine , Deputy Head of Developed Market Strategy Research
DRUT Bastien , Senior Strategist at CPR AM
Send by e-mail
Why does investment by US companies remain so low?
Was this article helpful?YES
Thank you for your participation.
0 user(s) have answered Yes.
Related articles
2019.12 - Slider Cross Asset
2019.12 - Slider Cross Asset
06.12.2019 - Monthly Cross Asset

Corporate fundamentals are at the centre of the game

Over the last decade, easy financial conditions encouraged an increase in sovereign and corporate debt. Indeed, the leverage of American companies has reached record high levels and US corporate debt has been used for financial risk-taking to fund corporate payments to investors, as well as for mergers and acquisitions. At the opposite, the leverage of European companies has remained at low levels as European companies have remained more cautious over this cycle. In 2019, we have evolved in a new regime: the global economy has entered a synchronised slowdown and major central banks have returned to an easing stance. What are the risks for companies in this new context? We are following closely: The downgrade risk in the US Investment Grade universe. Net leverage for US issuers have resumed their upward trajectory in recent months. In 2020: (1) companies to make a trade-off between maintaining share buy backs and the stability or their debt (2) the downgrade risk to increase among firms facing increase pressure on profits. The default rate risk for low-quality high-yield bonds. Sluggish earning growth poses the biggest threat for companies to pay interest on their debt despite the low cost of financing. Indeed, at this stage of the cycle, we think that interest coverage is more closely related to earnings than to its interest expense: interest coverage could be quickly eroded by a hit to earnings. A selective approach is required in the low-rated Euro and US High Yield segments.

Valentine AINOUZ

Deputy Head of Developed Market Strategy Research