RTX (RTX) Risk Analysis

Our international sales and operations are sensitive to changes in foreign national priorities, foreign government budgets, and regional and local political and economic factors, including wars and armed conflicts, political or civil unrest, volatility in energy prices or supply, inflation, interest rates, changes in threat environments and political relations, and geopolitical uncertainties. Our international sales and operations are also sensitive to changes in U.S. or foreign government laws, regulations, and policies, including those related to tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, export and import controls, other trade restrictions, and trade agreements. Events such as increased trade restrictions, retaliatory trade policies, or regime change can affect demand for our products and services, the competitive position of our products, our supply chain, and our ability to manufacture or sell products in certain countries. Further, operations in emerging market countries are subject to additional risks, including volatility in rates of economic growth, government instability, cultural differences (such as employment and business practices), the imposition of exchange and capital controls, and risks associated with exporting components manufactured in those countries for incorporation into finished products completed in other countries. While these factors and their impact are difficult to predict, any one or more of them could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. In addition, given the role of our defense businesses in the support of the national security interests of the U.S. and its allies, we are subject to risks and uncertainties relating to policies of the U.S. and its allies, as well as other countries, including those that are or become regarded as potential adversaries or threats. We engage in both direct commercial sales, which generally require U.S. government licenses and approvals, as well as foreign military sales, which are government-to-government transactions initiated by, and carried out at the direction of, the U.S. government. Changes in budgets and spending levels, policies, or priorities, which are subject to geopolitical risks and threats, may impact our defense businesses, including the timing of and delays in U.S. government licenses and approvals for sales, the risk of sanctions or other restrictions, as well as potential human rights issues associated with the use of our defense products. These risks and uncertainties may directly or indirectly impact our commercial businesses as well. In February 2023, China announced sanctions against Raytheon Missiles & Defense (RMD) (a former RTX Corporation (RTX) business segment, which became part of Raytheon as a result of the July 1, 2023 RTX segment realignment), and previously announced it may take measures against RTX, in connection with certain foreign military sales to Taiwan. The Chinese sanctions against RMD included a fine equal to twice the value of the arms that RMD sold to Taiwan since September 2020. Since that time, China has announced additional sanctions against the Raytheon business and a Collins Aerospace (Collins) joint venture. If China were to impose additional sanctions, enforce announced sanctions, or take other regulatory action against RTX, our suppliers, affiliates, or partners, it could potentially disrupt our business operations. Any impact of these or other potential sanctions, or other actions by China, is uncertain. Our businesses have sold, and are expected to sell in the future, additional defense products to Taiwan from time to time in alignment with U.S. government policy, and we are unable to determine the potential impact, if any, of any future sanctions or other actions by China in response to these sales. Moreover, the Chinese government has generally expanded its ability to restrict China-related import, export and investment activities, which may have an adverse impact on our ability to conduct business or sell our commercial aerospace products in China. In addition, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. government and the governments of various jurisdictions in which we operate have imposed broad economic sanctions and export controls targeting specific industries, entities, and individuals in Russia. The Russian government has implemented similar counter-sanctions and export controls targeting specific industries, entities, and individuals in the U.S. and other jurisdictions in which we operate, including certain members of the Company's management team and Board of Directors. These government measures, among other limitations, restrict transactions involving various Russian banks and financial institutions and impose enhanced export controls limiting transfers of various goods, software, and technologies to and from Russia, including broadened export controls specifically targeting the aerospace sector. These measures have adversely affected and could continue to adversely affect the Company and/or our supply chain, business partners, or customers. We continue to closely monitor potential impacts to RTX's business, customers, suppliers, employees, and operations in Israel, the Middle East, and the region at large due to continued regional instability and tensions.

We are subject to a variety of litigation and legal compliance risks. These risks relate to, among other things, product safety and reliability, personal injuries, intellectual property rights, contract-related claims, government contracts, taxes, environmental matters, the use of chemical substances, the use of artificial intelligence, export control, sanctions, employment matters, securities laws, competition laws, and laws governing improper business practices. We or one of our businesses could be charged with wrongdoing as a result of such matters. If convicted or found liable, we could be subject to significant fines, penalties, repayments, or other damages (in certain cases, treble damages). Product recalls or other supply disruptions and product liability and warranty claims can result in significant damages and costs, including fines, as well as other harm to our business as discussed above. As a global business, we are subject to complex laws and regulations in the U.S. and in other countries in which we operate. Those laws and regulations may be interpreted in different ways. They may also change from time to time, as may related interpretations and other guidance. Changes in laws or regulations could result in higher expenses. Uncertainty relating to laws or regulations may also affect how we conduct our operations and structure our investments and could limit our ability to enforce our rights. We use hazardous substances and generate hazardous wastes in our operations. We also rely upon the use of chemical substances that are heavily regulated in connection with our products, manufacturing processes and operation of our facilities. As a result, we are subject to potentially material liabilities related to potential non-compliance and both personal injuries or property damage that may be caused by hazardous substance releases and exposures. Personal injury lawsuits may involve individual and purported class actions alleging that contaminants originating from our current or former products or operating facilities caused or contributed to medical conditions, including cancers or other illnesses incurred by employees, former employees, third-parties' employees, or residents in the area, and environmental damage or diminution of real estate values. For example, we are investigating and remediating contamination related to past practices at a number of properties and, in some cases, have been named as a defendant in related "toxic tort" claims. We are also subject to laws and regulations that: (1) impose requirements for chemical substances and the proper management, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; (2) restrict air and water emissions from our operations (including U.S. government-owned facilities we manage); and (3) require maintenance of a safe workplace. These laws and regulations can lead to substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations, and may require the installation of costly equipment or operational changes to limit pollution emissions, decrease the likelihood of accidental hazardous substance releases, and/or reduce the risks of injury to people. We incur, and expect to continue to incur, capital and other expenditures to comply with these laws and regulations. A criminal violation of certain U.S. environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act could result in suspension, debarment, or disqualification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A facility determined to be in violation of the criminal provisions of these statutes can be prohibited from performing any U.S. government contract work until the violation has been corrected and the EPA approves the reinstatement of the facility. Even in litigation where we believe our liability is remote, there is a risk that a negative finding or decision in a matter involving multiple plaintiffs or a purported class action could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity, in particular with respect to environmental claims in regions where we have, or previously had, significant operations. In addition, new laws, regulations, or governmental policies, sudden changes in the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws and regulations, the discovery of previously unknown contamination, or the imposition of new clean-up standards could require us to incur additional costs in the future that would have a negative effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. In addition, the FCPA and other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to U.S. and non-U.S. officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. These laws apply to companies, individual directors, officers, employees, and agents. U.S. companies also may be held liable for actions taken by strategic or local partners or representatives. The FCPA also imposes accounting standards and requirements on publicly traded U.S. corporations and their foreign affiliates, which are intended to prevent the diversion of corporate funds to the payment of bribes and other improper payments. Certain of our customer relationships outside of the U.S. are with governmental entities and are, therefore, subject to the FCPA and other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, including the anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws of non-U.S. countries. Our policies mandate compliance with these anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws. Despite meaningful measures that we undertake to ensure lawful conduct, which include training and internal control policies, these measures may not always prevent violations of the FCPA or similar laws. As discussed above and as previously disclosed, in October 2024, the Company entered into a DPA with the DOJ and consented to the entry of an SEC Administrative Order to resolve investigations related to conduct that, among other things, violated the FCPA. We have been subject to regulatory investigations for alleged violations of anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, and could be subject to such investigations in the future, which could result in criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement, further changes or enhancements to our procedures, policies and controls, personnel changes, or other remedial actions. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, cause reputational harm, involve significant management attention, and result in a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and data security and protection laws and regulations are evolving and present increasing compliance challenges, which may increase our costs, affect our competitiveness, cause reputational harm, and expose us to substantial fines or other penalties.

We could encounter threats to our physical security, including our facilities and personnel, and threats from workplace violence, civil unrest, terrorism, or similar acts, any of which could disrupt our business. In addition, our business, and the businesses of our suppliers, subcontractors, service providers, and customers, could be disrupted by public health crises, such as pandemics and epidemics, and governmental, business, and individual actions taken in response, damaging weather or other acts of nature, physical attacks due to proximity to nation-state conflicts, cyber-attacks on IT infrastructure and products, or other events outside of our control. Any such business disruption could subject us to production downtimes, operational delays, supply chain challenges, other detrimental impacts on our operations or ability to provide products and services to our customers, decreased demand for our products, decreased defense budgets, financial losses from remedial actions, the diversion of management's attention and resources, or loss of business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity. The impact of any such business disruption is difficult to predict.

The termination of one or more of our U.S. government contracts, or the occurrence of performance delays, cost overruns, product failures, shortages in materials, components, or labor, contract definitization delays, or other failures to perform to customer expectations and contract requirements, could negatively impact our reputation and competitive position, results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. U.S. government contracts with prime contractors generally permit the government to terminate the contract, in whole or in part, without prior notice, at the U.S. government's convenience or for default based on performance. If one of our contracts is terminated for convenience, we would generally be entitled to payments for our allowable costs incurred, termination costs, and would receive some allowance for profit on the work performed. If one of our contracts is terminated for default, we would generally be entitled to payments for work accepted by the U.S. government. A termination arising out of our default could expose us to liability and have a negative impact on our ability to obtain future contracts and orders. In addition, we are a subcontractor on some programs, and the U.S. government could terminate the prime contract for convenience or otherwise, without regard to our performance as a subcontractor. We may not be able to offset lost revenues resulting from contract termination. Moreover, because the funding of U.S. government programs is subject to congressional appropriations made on a fiscal year basis even for multi-year programs, programs are often only partially funded initially and may not continue to be funded in future years. Appropriation bills may be delayed, which may result in delays to funding, the collection of receivables, and our contract performance due to lack of authorized funds to procure related products and services. The timing of contract definitization can be affected by factors specific to the U.S. government, including staffing limitations. Under certain circumstances, we may use our own funds to meet our customer's desired delivery dates or other requirements, but we may not be reimbursed. Further, if appropriations for one of our programs become unavailable, reduced, or delayed, the U.S. government may terminate for convenience our contract or subcontract under that program. In addition, our U.S. government contracts typically involve the development, application, and manufacture of advanced defense and technology systems and products aimed at achieving challenging goals. As a result of untested or unproven technologies, or modified requirements or specifications, we may experience technological and other performance difficulties (including delays, setbacks, cost overruns, or product failures), our attention or resources may be diverted from other projects, and our future sales opportunities may be impacted. Additionally, as our customers demand more mature solutions, we may be required to invest in development prior to contract award with no guarantee of award. Our profitability could be negatively affected based on the mix of our U.S. government contracts and programs and the costs incurred of performing the work, especially if we are unable to control costs or if our initial cost estimates are incorrect, particularly under fixed-price development contracts. Our U.S. government contracts are typically either fixed-priced contracts or cost reimbursement contracts. Fixed-price contracts are predominantly either firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts or fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts. Under FFP contracts, we receive a fixed price irrespective of the actual costs we incur, and we therefore carry the burden of any cost overruns. Under FPI contracts, we generally share with the U.S. government savings for cost underruns less than target costs and expenses for cost overruns exceeding target costs up to a negotiated ceiling price. We carry the entire burden of cost overruns exceeding the ceiling price amount under FPI contracts, which may result in a cumulative adjustment in the period our estimates change. Under cost reimbursable contracts, we are reimbursed for allowable costs and are typically paid a fixed or performance-based fee, but we are generally not reimbursed for unauthorized costs exceeding a cost ceiling amount or costs not allowable under the contract or applicable regulations. Excess costs on cost reimbursable contracts could also result in lower profit rates. We may incur unexpected costs for various reasons, including technical and manufacturing challenges, schedule delays, the timeliness and availability of materials, components, or labor, the inaccuracy of initial contract cost estimates, internal and subcontractor performance or product quality issues, inability to achieve expected cost reduction, digital transformation, manufacturing, operating, and other strategic initiatives, inflation, inability to pass on tariff costs, and changing laws or regulations, natural disasters, and public health crises. We may also experience cost underruns which would reduce contract value and related expected revenues, and we may be unable to expand the contract scope or secure additional work to offset the resulting lost revenues. While contracts for development programs with complex design and technical challenges are often cost reimbursable, they can be FFP or FPI, which can significantly increase our risk of a potential negative profit adjustment, as development contracts by nature involve elements that have not been undertaken before and, thus, are highly subject to future unexpected cost growth. In addition, other contracts in backlog are for the transition from development to production, which includes starting and stabilizing a manufacturing and test line while the final design is still being validated. Moreover, over the past several years, the DoW has increased its use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements, under which it awards certain prototypes, research, and production contracts without all of the procurement requirements that typically apply to DoW contracts, including justification of sole source awards. OTAs may use fixed-price contracting during all phases of the contract, or mandated contract cost sharing. They may also require non-traditional subcontractor participation and impose other requirements that differ from our other DoW contracts. Our business may be negatively impacted if we are unable to bid for OTA work and/or perform on our OTA agreements, including any applicable non-traditional requirements. In addition, in order to support U.S. government priorities, we may begin performance on an undefinitized contract action with a not-to-exceed price before completing contract negotiations on the terms, specifications, or price between the parties. The U.S. government has the ability to unilaterally definitize contracts, which would obligate us to perform under terms and conditions imposed by the U.S. government without our agreement. Uncertainties in final contract price, specifications and terms, or loss of negotiating leverage associated with particularly long delays in contract definitization may negatively affect our profitability. Our U.S. government contracts also require us to comply with extensive and evolving procurement laws, rules and regulations and subject us to potential U.S. government surveillance, audits, investigations, and disputes. We are also involved in programs that are classified by the U.S. government, which have security requirements that place limits on our ability to discuss our performance on these programs, including any risks, disputes, and claims.