Want to see AVD full AI Analyst Report?
American Vanguard (AVD) Risk Analysis
Risk Overview Q2, 2026
Risk Change Over Time
- Innovation / R&D - Risk 1The development of Agentic AI tools may overtake the efficacy of available cybersecurity defense tools and, as such, could put the Company's computing systems at risk.
Fueled by enormous investment and activity from competing global developers, agentic AI solutions are evolving at a rapid pace and becoming increasingly powerful. By contrast, cybersecurity defense tools are evolving at a slower rate and are largely configured to defend against traditional, pre-agentic AI threats. Thus, it is possible that the strength of existing defense tools will soon be exceeded by that of new, agentic AI tools. While the Company is taking extensive measures to ensure that its computing systems are well-defended, there is no guarantee that agentic AI tools, whether on their own or in the hands of threat actors, will not breach these systems, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's operations or financial performance.
Risk Highlights Q2, 2026
Risk Word Cloud
Risk Factors Full Breakdown - Total Risks 28
- Regulation - Risk 1Several of the Company's organophosphates are subject to a petition to revoke tolerances under the FFDCA which, if granted, could result in the limitation and/or cancellation of one or more registrations for such products.
Presently, several of the Company's organophosphate products are under registration review before the USEPA and, at the same time, subject to a petition to revoke tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA"). The Company continues to provide data and other analysis to USEPA in support of its registrations and in response to that agency's requests for clarification. Pursuant to a petition filed by NGOs NRDC and PANNA in 2007, USEPA revoked tolerances for chlorpyrifos (an OP not sold by the Company) finding that food residues from that product could not be deemed with reasonable certainty to cause no harm. Consequently, the agency cancelled the registrations for chlorpyrifos. The cancellation was appealed and subsequently overturned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal in 2023, which noted that the agency had exceeded its authority in canceling even uses that had been shown to be within applicable safety tolerances. That said, there is no guarantee that USEPA will not make a similar finding with respect to one or more of the Company's OPs, and that some or all uses of the Company's OP products could be limited or cancelled. Accordingly, the Company intends to take all action necessary to defend its registrations. Such limitations and/or cancellations could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial performance in future reporting periods.
- Regulation - Risk 2Use of the Company's products is subject to continuing challenges from activist groups.
Use of agrochemical products, including the Company's products, is regularly challenged by activist groups in many jurisdictions under a multitude of federal, state and foreign statutes, including FIFRA, the Food Quality Protection Act, Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the Clean Water Act, to name a few. These challenges typically take the form of lawsuits or administrative proceedings against the USEPA and/or other federal, state or foreign agencies, the filing of amicus briefs in pending actions, the introduction of legislation that is inimical to the Company's interests, and/or adverse comments made in response to public comment invited by regulatory agencies in the course of registration, re-registration or label expansion. The most prominent of these actions include a line of cases under which environmental groups have sought to suspend, cancel or otherwise restrict the use of pesticides that have been approved by USEPA on the ground that that agency failed to confer with the National Marine Fishery Service and/or the Fish and Wildlife Service under the ESA with respect to biological opinions relating to the use of such products. While industry has been active in defending registrations and proposing administrative and legislative approaches to address serious resource issues at the affected agencies, these cases continue to be brought. It is possible that one or more of these challenges could succeed, resulting in a material adverse effect on the Company's financial performance in future reporting periods.
- Regulation - Risk 3PFAS lawsuits and legislation continue to spread among many states.
Over the course of the past few years, many states have introduced or passed legislation limiting the use of products or packaging containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). Further, litigation relating to PFAS has grown dramatically. The definition of what compounds are contained within the ambit of "PFAS" varies from state to state. While the Company does not sell products that contain PFAS, there is no guarantee that the Company or its products will not be brought either into legal actions or within the scope of legislation.
- Regulation - Risk 4The trend of passing pesticide "ban-bills" in various states could put one or more of the Company's products at risk.
In certain states, including Maryland and New York, state and/or local legislatures have passed legislation banning the use of specific pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos, or pesticides in general, in spite of valid registrations at USEPA and/or the equivalent state agency. Further, despite the fact that some states have passed shield laws to limit failure-to-warn cases for EPA-approved pesticides, the federal circuit courts are split on the question of whether FIFRA pre-empts state failure-to-warn claims. This question is now before the US Supreme Court. While the Company does not sell chlorpyrifos products, there is no guarantee that one or more of its registered products will not be targeted in state or local legislation of this nature or that FIFRA pre-emption will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Further, such legislation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial performance in future reporting periods.
- Regulation - Risk 5The manufacturing of the Company's products is subject to governmental regulations.
The Company currently owns and operates six manufacturing facilities which are located in Commerce, California; Axis, Alabama; Hannibal, Missouri; Marsing, Idaho; Clackamas, Oregon; and Etchojoa, Mexico (the "Facilities"). The Facilities operate under the laws and regulations imposed by relevant country, state and local authorities. The manufacturing of key ingredients for certain of the Company's products occurs at the Facilities. An inability to renew or maintain a license or permit, or a significant increase in the fees for such licenses or permits, could impede the Company's manufacture of one or more of its products and/or increase the cost of production; this, in turn, would materially and adversely affect the Company's ability to provide customers with its products in a timely and affordable manner.
See a full breakdown of risk according to category and subcategory. The list starts with the category with the most risk. Click on subcategories to read relevant extracts from the most recent report.