Like it or not, debt negotiations and shutdowns are integral to the political process, recurring over the past 50 years. The fear of a budget impasse, shutdown, default, and debt downgrade has again gripped the markets. However, it is unlikely that lawmakers will allow a debt default, following instead a familiar pattern of bipartisan argument, brinksmanship, and, finally, compromise.

While an outright U.S. government debt default is improbable, we should emphasize quality due to its numerous benefits. Durable, flexible, and predictable firms tend to fare better in uncertain times. In contrast, financially weak firms are more susceptible to government default or downgrade.

Default Unlikely

Defaulting on U.S. Treasury debt, leading to a downgrade, would raise the cost of government funding and impact various entities. The concept of Treasury bonds as “risk-free” would be challenged, causing rating agencies to downgrade U.S. debt ratings and increase interest rates. This would harm borrowers, dent asset values, and weaken confidence. The consequences of a disorderly default on U.S. debt would be far-reaching, affecting both sides of the political divide.

It is more probable that a compromise or a deal will be reached before the X-date, when the Treasury exhausts its funding ability, or after a period of discretionary federal spending shutdown. However, a prolonged impasse would almost certainly increase market volatility, raising funding costs for entities, especially those closely tied to the government or with weak financials. Thus, limiting the scope of any potential default is incentivized to avoid missed interest payments and resolve the situation promptly.

Although a U.S. government default is unlikely, focusing on quality remains crucial. The central idea behind the “quality” theme is understanding and managing risk effectively. Risk is inherent in investing and can present opportunities, but not all risks are adequately rewarded. Global debt, disruptive technologies, and political instability exemplify such risks.

Redouble Focus on “Quality”

While risks cannot be entirely avoided, minimizing exposure to unrewarded and unexpected risks is essential. Even holding cash carries dangers like theft or inflation eroding purchasing power. A U.S. debt default would almost certainly qualify as a situation where unrewarded and unexpected risk would surface. Even a protracted battle that rattles markets, but where an outright default is ultimately avoided, could take a toll on confidence. Pivotal players in this process are rating agencies and their reaction to a perceived threat of default. So, it is important what rating agencies think about the prospects of default.

Moody’s Investors Service is one such agency and they recently issued a report on the U.S. debt-limit standoff. The report concludes, not surprisingly, that financially weak firms are most vulnerable to a government default or downgrade1:

“Lowest-rated issuers are most vulnerable to heightened market uncertainty between now and the X-date.”

Moody’s Investors Service, 4 May 2023

We agree with this assessment but take our own approach to defining quality. The 2008 financial crisis showcased the limitations of rating agencies’ debt ratings when venerable firms with high investment-grade ratings collapsed. We conducted our own fundamental analysis, therefore, to evaluate companies based on asset profitability, indebtedness, and consistency, assigning them to different quality groups (“A” and “F” Quality). Notice in the chart below, that financially strong, high-quality stocks (“A” Quality) held up better under stress than low-quality ones (“F” Quality).

A strong correlation exists between fundamental quality and stock price performance during turbulent times. Investors tend to favor high-quality assets in times of uncertainty or economic downturns. Therefore, prioritizing quality is paramount in assessing risk for equity investing, followed by growth, valuation, and yield considerations.

In conclusion, while an outright U.S. government default is unlikely, focusing on quality is crucial for two reasons. First, investors seek durability, flexibility, and predictability (i.e., “quality”) in uncertain times. Second, financially weak firms are most vulnerable to a potential government default or downgrade.

Despite the messiness of debt negotiations, the process nonetheless does prompt needed public discussion, ensuring government accountability to the people it serves.

1Scenario analysis: US debt-limit standoff elevates credit risk for various debt issuers, Moody’s Investors Service

Kevin R. Caron, CFA
Senior Portfolio Manager

Chad Morganlander
Senior Portfolio Manager

Matthew Battipaglia
Portfolio Manager

Steve Lerit, CFA
Senior Risk Manager

Tom Serzan

Suzanne Ashley
Internal Relationship Manager

Eric Needham
Director, External Sales and Marketing

Jeffrey Battipaglia
Client Portfolio Manager


The information contained herein has been prepared from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed by us and is not a complete summary or statement of all available data, nor is it considered an offer to buy or sell any securities referred to herein. Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice and do not take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual investors. There is no guarantee that the figures or opinions forecast in this report will be realized or achieved. Employees of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated or its affiliates may, at times, release written or oral commentary, technical analysis, or trading strategies that differ from the opinions expressed within. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Indices are unmanaged, and you cannot invest directly in an index.

Asset allocation and diversification do not ensure a profit and may not protect against loss. There are special considerations associated with international investing, including the risk of currency fluctuations and political and economic events. Changes in market conditions or a company’s financial condition may impact a company’s ability to continue to pay dividends, and companies may also choose to discontinue dividend payments. Investing in emerging markets may involve greater risk and volatility than investing in more developed countries. Due to their narrow focus, sector-based investments typically exhibit greater volatility. Small-company stocks are typically more volatile and carry additional risks since smaller companies generally are not as well established as larger companies. Property values can fall due to environmental, economic, or other reasons, and changes in interest rates can negatively impact the performance of real estate companies. When investing in bonds, it is important to note that as interest rates rise, bond prices will fall. High-yield bonds have greater credit risk than higher-quality bonds. Bond laddering does not assure a profit or protect against loss in a declining market. The risk of loss in trading commodities and futures can be substantial. You should therefore carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. The high degree of leverage that is often obtainable in commodity trading can work against you as well as for you. The use of leverage can lead to large losses as well as gains. Changes in market conditions or a company’s financial condition may impact a company’s ability to continue to pay dividends, and companies may also choose to discontinue dividend payments.

All investments involve risk, including loss of principal, and there is no guarantee that investment objectives will be met. It is important to review your investment objectives, risk tolerance, and liquidity needs before choosing an investment style or manager. Equity investments are subject generally to market, market sector, market liquidity, issuer, and investment style risks, among other factors to varying degrees. Fixed Income investments are subject to market, market liquidity, issuer, investment style, interest rate, credit quality, and call risks, among other factors to varying degrees.

This commentary often expresses opinions about the direction of market, investment sector, and other trends. The opinions should not be considered predictions of future results. The information contained in this report is based on sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed and not necessarily complete.

The securities discussed in this material were selected due to recent changes in the strategies. This selection criterion is not based on any measurement of performance of the underlying security.

Washington Crossing Advisors, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary and affiliated SEC Registered Investment Adviser of Stifel Financial Corp (NYSE: SF). Registration with the SEC implies no level of sophistication in investment management.