Presenting The Companies Most Exposed To A Slowdown In Government Spending

Tyler Durden's picture

Following the release of the yesterday's revised CBO projections, we, together with anyone with half a brain, were stunned by the ridiculous assumption that somehow the US government can grow its revenue by 50% (!) in the span of 3 years. Since absent a wholesale increase in taxes, which won't happen ahead of the Obama presidential elections, this has a snowball's chance in happening, the only recourse to the government is to cut spending. But where? Most major governmental expenditures are non-discretionary, yet spending has to be cut... Which brings us to the topic of this post: most likely the biggest sacrificial lamb will be companies on the dole of not only the US government, but certainly foreign governments (where unlike in the US, austerity is rampaging without mercy). Courtesy of data prepared by Lehman's (now Barclays after the Blue Light special rushed purchase of Lehman NA in bankruptcy court) Matt Rothman we present the companies whose revenues are comprised at least 50% of sales to governments, both foreign and domestic.

Rothman explains:

In this note, we highlight the companies that are most at risk in a broad scope to slowdown in government spending. Specifically, we list 127 companies [TD: we present just the top 78] within the Russell 3000 that have the largest part of their revenues derived from U.S. government sources.

This data is culled from the recent annual revenues released by the companies. In these annual filings, companies are required to list all customers that account for over 10% of their annual revenues and the amount of revenues that they derive from each of these customers. We have searched for all government sources, separating out revenues from foreign governments, the U.S. federal government, state governments and local municipalities.

As shown in Figure 1, the companies are concentrated within Industrials (50 companies), Health Care (46 companies) and Technology (24 companies) sectors. As further broken down in Figure 2 to the Industry Group level, we find a preponderance of companies within Capital Goods (44 companies) and Health Care Equipment and Services (41 companies) and a tailing off into Software (12 companies) and Technology Hardware (11 companies).

Obviously, the degree of risk for each individual company is a complex matter that must be studied carefully on a case-by-case basis and our work here is best used as a starting point for that analysis. Nonetheless, we do believe the companies shown in Figure 3 do represent names where revenues may be at risk should a material cut in government spending materialize.

We won't recreate the entire list: we focus only on the 78 top companies whose revenue from governments is at least 50% of total. We are confident this should provide a large enough basket to express a bearish outlook on government largesse (or, inversely, bullish on fiscal prudence and/or austerity).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
vote_libertarian_party's picture

Thats a lot of tech spending.

Alcoholic Native American's picture

It's not government spending if it's contracted out and a fair share goes to the wall street union thugs and the "Big Bonus" bosses.

Unions are destroying the country!

JohnnyR2121's picture


I'm surprised Zerohedge has not posted this video. It won't be on the evening or in China

Nedly66's picture

Only makes sense to people who keep up with China. Otherwise its just a gory angry rabbit cartoon.


BTW the video is huge in China, the censors took it down after it was up for a few days there

hedgeless_horseman's picture

Following the release of the yesterday's revised CBO projections, we, together with anyone with half a brain, were stunned by the ridiculous assumption that somehow the US government can grow its revenue by 50% (!) in the span of 3 years. Since absent a wholesale increase in taxes, which won't happen ahead of the Obama presidential elections, this has a snowball's chance in happening, the only recourse to the government is to cut spending. But where? Most major governmental expenditures are non-discretionary, yet spending has to be cut

I ran this through Google translator and this was the output:

The USA is fucked.

EscapeKey's picture

I predict the US will grow her revenue by 200% over the next 3 years.

In nominal terms, of course.

Hephasteus's picture

Then you won't be able to afford any noms in nominal terms. Is that like nondenominziation.

Yen Cross's picture

 Look @ Amgen. Bobbing and weaving through the 56-58 spike range

6 String's picture

Well, I think it's all a mute point since we're in a fiscal trap (a term that will soon become far larger than deleveraging during the financial melt-down). In any case, I wouldn't short the 100% derived from Govt spending companies. Unless, for e.g., you thought we can do away with prisons altogether.

Jasper M's picture

We can demonstrably do with a lot less of them, as the rest of the world does. oOr as California was forced to do.

blindfaith's picture

CC of America is bankrupting California along with the 'law enforcement' union.  This is not my opinion, this is from the legislators and Arnold.

Yen Cross's picture

 I'm just going to load up on Citi.

mynhair's picture

Scratch FRPT.  The klowns will need all the protection they can get.

whatz that smell's picture


          parse headline: Presenting The Companies Most Exposed

To A S[lowdow]n In [Go]vernment [Spend]ing;

                   result: buy dow;


Yen Cross's picture

It's all ball bearings these days. Gotta love Mr. Chase

Alcoholic Native American's picture

In other news, Al-Qaeda said to be the number 1 job creator in the U.S.

slewie the pi-rat's picture

$trillion$ for healthcare.

zero for defense. 

these "categories" {industrial, tech, consumer, & health} seem vanilla.

the whole idea that these revenooo,000s may be "at risk" due to fiscal prudence is kinda cute, tho.

some may be postulating other scenariooo,000s.

reflation, e.g.


Black Forest's picture

zero for defense.

I see LMT and GD and ...

JW n FL's picture

when someone says...


Trillion, healthcare...


0 defense...


They really are saying a lot, about themselves.

Ludwig Van's picture


"$trillion$ for healthcare"

...with the largest portion of the total revenue stream represented by health care *insurers.*


thepigman's picture

Where are the POMO zombie TBTF banks?
Hell... no POMO, no ramp, no income.

thepigman's picture

Someone tell me a good lie about their

loan growth. Wanker?

bbucks's picture

Capitalism????  HAHAHA!  This is fascism plain and simple.  Mussolini would be proud. 

buzzsaw99's picture

Mussolini was a piker.

savagegoose's picture

if i type gubmint into a spell checker it selects gunpoint! as correct spelling

thepigman's picture

Fucking Japan, bitchez.

thepigman's picture

cept for CAT, of course. diligently building

ghost cities in China. lol

CitizenPete's picture

And supporting Zionism, one Palestinian house at a time.

irishgurl4's picture

Oh hell, my company is on that last list ...

LehmanRefugee's picture

I did this analysis last year where I examined the possibility of going short a basket of defense contractors where the thesis was that hard fiscal times over the next few years will be bad for their business. Boy I am happy that I never did that trade. These stocks are up significantly from 9 months ago. The problem here is that these programs never get cut. Take C-17, F-22, Marine EFV even when the Pentagon says it doesn't need or want these fancy toys, Congress keeps appropriating money to keep the programs open. Also, most contractors are now so diversified that actual procurement of hardware is less than half of their business. They make their money by providing contract employees to the Govt and managing these programs. Here is a statistic that blew my mind. The federal government for all it's gloat has 2M federal workers. Can anyone guess how many off the book contract workers does the government have? The answer is that the government itself is unable to track it but at last count there were 12M of them. This is a game that has been played for too long now where government has been paying primarily large defense contractors to hire people to do essential government functions. It's a win win. These contractors charge the govt 2-3x what it would pay a direct hire at the same time the government can show congress that there has been very little growth in the federal work force.


If someone wants to play the fiscal theme, I think short treasury is a better way to do it.

6 String's picture

This is great information, Lehman. Thanks for sharing. This is the problem, eh? I mean, really. If the government really gets down to business we'll be looking at what for u6, or even u3, employment?

While this is rather small anecdotal evidence, it's a vision into how the real economy would look if the life-support (deficit spending) was actually taken off. The economy, no doubt, would go the way of AMZN afterhours.

Which, of course, is impossible. Because the U.S. would then have to admit there's no way to pay off the debts and default would happen sooner, rather than the kick the can down the road later approach we're on.

the rookie cynic's picture

Inflating away the debts via monetary easing is the most politically expedient option. Remains to be seen if it can be done without a currency failure. The politicos will kick the can down the road and will only respond after a crisis. By then it will be too late to fix anything, however.  Some combination of defaults, spending cuts, and phoney-fication of the dollar will ensue. None of it pretty. T-bills might go up in price for a few months here and there, but I don't see anything on the horizon to dissuade me from the opinion that T-bills are no "the new and improved toxic asset." Full-tilt TLT.

Devore's picture

Exactly, much ado about nothing.

The problem is these programs never get cut. What will get cut, are the programs that give money/services to the little people. These gigantic contractors will see no material changes.

cougar_w's picture

I think this is backwards. The companies with the most gov revenues perhaps also have the greater lobbying effort going on. They are therefore unlikely to be cut, esp if they have large market caps. Smaller companies with large gov sales (by percent) might get the ax, but if so they are too small to worry about then.

LehmanRefugee's picture

yeah agreed. That has been my experience. see my post above. Short of an armageddon scenario (which might eventually happen but not in our life times) don't count on spending cuts.

ThirdCoastSurfer's picture

No Housing?

DR Horton reported a loss of $20.4 million,  reporting  sales of 3,363. 

 3,000 * $10,000 = $30 million.  

The average new sales home price in Texas is $395,000 while the overall average sales price of all homes is $153,990.

Lookout Mexico, here we come.  

While there's a lot of talk about gun purchases, if you're rich, like in Mexico, now would also be a good time to buy or maintain: a high quality generator, a water filtration system, a security system and a Range Rover or other such vehicle not susceptible to bad terrain like permanent pot holes. 

thepigman's picture

Oh gee, emperor has no goddamn

clothes...what a friggin surprise.

thepigman's picture

bernanke will pay you a 30 aggregate p/e for

your shitty equity. What a nitwit. They

taught him nothing at Princeton and


thepigman's picture

Banksters will fuck him.

slewie the pi-rat's picture


but hanky pankie taught him well:

throw a 'tarp' over it!

Salinger's picture

WellPoint CfO, Wayne Deveydt on Bloomberg just now

ObamaCare  will be good for our top line and our bottom line as we will have more healthy bodies in the pool - scale matters


the only surprise for me was how candid he was

ShankyS's picture

I am long CXW, looking at is a down payment on a future residence.

thepigman's picture

hey shanky, when is the

crash of this monstrosity?

It's overdue:)