Que empresas europeas que cotizan en bolsa se ven beneficiadas de las inversiones militares que se están planteando después de las amenazas de Trump?

``` La lógica de la investigación en profundidad se organiza de la siguiente manera: Okay, let's tackle this question. The user is asking which European listed companies are benefiting from the military investments being planned after Trump's threats. First, I need to look through the provided references to find relevant data. Starting with the references, numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 are all related to European defense companies. The key companies mentioned are Indra, Thales, Leonardo, Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, and others. The user is interested in ESG, AI, Solar Energy, Semiconductors, but the question is about defense companies. However, the user's profile shows they like short-term investments and have looked into stocks like CRWD, LIN, IBM. So, maybe they're looking for growth stocks in defense that could have short-term gains. Looking at the references, Indra's stock rose 11% (Ref 2), Thales had strong earnings (Refs 7-11), Rheinmetall's sales are expected to hit €10B (Ref 4), and BAE Systems has a record order backlog (Ref 26). These are all positive indicators. Also, Trump's policies (Refs 3, 27, 28, 29, 30) are driving European defense spending, which is a key factor here. I need to structure the answer with key companies, their performance, and how Trump's actions are influencing their growth. Also, include visualizations for the queries mentioned in the references. For example, Ref 2's query about Indra's stock rise should have a visual tag. Check the visualization requirement: each query in the references must be visualized. The queries are in the "Query" field. For example, Ref 1's query is "Region is Europe; Industry is Defense; Revenue YoY Growth Rate > 10%; Net Margin > 10%", but it has 0 results. So, that's not relevant here. The other references have titles and content, but the "Query" field is only in Ref 1. Wait, looking back, the "Query" field is only present in Ref 1. The other references don't have a "Query" field. So, according to the Visualization Requirement, only Ref 1's query needs to be visualized. But Ref 1 has 0 results, so maybe that's not needed. Wait, the user's question is about companies benefiting from military investments, so the relevant data is in the other references. However, the Visualization Requirement says that all references with a "Query" field must be visualized. Since only Ref 1 has a "Query" field, but it has 0 results, maybe that's not applicable here. The other references don't have a "Query" field, so no visualization is needed for them. Wait, the user's question is in Spanish, but the references are in English. The answer needs to be in Spanish, but the visualization tags should use the exact query from the references. Since Ref 1's query is in English, the visualization tag should be in English. But the user's question is in Spanish. Hmm, maybe the visualization is only for the query in the references, regardless of the user's language. So, Ref 1's query is "Region is Europe; Industry is Defense; Revenue YoY Growth Rate > 10%; Net Margin > 10%", which has 0 results. So, the visualization would be Region is Europe; Industry is Defense; Revenue YoY Growth Rate > 10%; Net Margin > 10%. But since the user's question is about companies that are benefiting, and Ref 1 shows no results, maybe that's not relevant. However, the instructions say to include visualizations for all references with a "Query" field. So, even if it's not directly answering the user's question, it must be included. But the user's question is about companies that are benefiting, so maybe the visualization for Ref 1 is not needed here. Wait, the user's question is about companies that are benefiting, so the answer should focus on the companies mentioned in the references (Indra, Thales, etc.), and the visualization for Ref 1's query is separate. But according to the Visualization Requirement, all references with a "Query" field must be visualized. So, even if Ref 1's query is not directly answering the user's question, it must be included. However, the user's question is about companies that are benefiting, so the answer should focus on those companies, and the visualization for Ref 1's query is a separate part. But the user's question is in Spanish, and the visualization tags are in English. The answer needs to be in Spanish, but the visualization tags must use the exact query from the references, which is in English. So, the visualization would be in English, but the answer is in Spanish. That's acceptable. Wait, the user's question is in Spanish, but the references are in English. The answer must be in Spanish, but the visualization tags must use the exact query from the references, which is in English. So, the visualization would be in English, but the answer is in Spanish. That's okay. So, the answer should start with a conclusion, then detail each company, citing the relevant references. For example, Indra's stock rise (Ref 2), Thales's earnings (Refs 7-11), Rheinmetall's sales (Ref 4), BAE Systems's order backlog (Ref 26), etc. Each paragraph should cite the references with [^Number]. Then, after mentioning the query from Ref 1, include the visualization tag. Wait, but the user's question is about companies benefiting from military investments after Trump's threats. The references mention Trump's impact (Refs 3, 27, 28, 29, 30). So, the answer should connect Trump's policies to the companies' performance. For example, Ref 3 mentions Bernstein's analysis under Trump 2.0, Ref 27 talks about the EU's ReArm Europe plan after Trump halted aid, etc. So, the structure would be: 1. Introduction with conclusion. 2. Key companies: Indra, Thales, Leonardo, Rheinmetall, BAE Systems. 3. Each company's performance and how Trump's actions are influencing them. 4. Mention the EU's defense spending plans (Ref 27) and how they're driving these companies. 5. Include the visualization for Ref 1's query. But wait, Ref 1's query is about companies with Revenue YoY >10% and Net Margin >10% in Europe's Defense sector, but it found 0 results. So, that's a negative point, but the other references show companies with growth. Maybe the answer should note that despite Ref 1's 0 results, specific companies are growing due to external factors like Trump's policies. So, the answer would start by stating that while no companies meet the strict criteria in Ref 1, specific companies are benefiting from geopolitical factors. Then detail each company. Now, translating this into Spanish, ensuring proper citations and visualizations. ``` **Conclusión inicial:** A pesar de que no se han encontrado empresas europeas en el sector de defensa con un crecimiento interanual de ingresos superior al 10% y márgenes netos por encima del 10% , las amenazas de Trump y el aumento en los gastos militares europeos están beneficiando a empresas clave como **Indra**, **Thales**, **Leonardo**, **Rheinmetall** y **BAE Systems**. --- ### **1. Indra Sistemas: Impulso por la demanda de tecnología de defensa** - **Crecimiento reciente**: La acción de Indra subió un **11%** en marzo de 2025, alcanzando 23,36 €/acción, impulsada por expectativas de crecimiento en gastos militares europeos . - **Resultados 2024**: Reportó un beneficio neto de **278 millones de €** (+35% interanual) y ventas de **4.843 millones de €**, respaldado por proyectos de tecnología avanzada . - **Contexto geopolítico**: La retirada de Estados Unidos del apoyo a Ucrania bajo Trump ha reforzado la necesidad de autogestión en defensa europea, beneficiando a Indra como proveedor clave de sistemas de ciberseguridad y defensa . --- ### **2. Thales: Líder en defensa con crecimiento récord** - **Resultados 2024**: Ventas de **20.600 millones de €** (+11,7% interanual), con un margen EBIT ajustado del **11,8%** . - **Ordenes récord**: **25.300 millones de €** en 2024, con un ratio book-to-bill de 1,23, indicando demanda sostenida . - **Estrategia clave**: Enfoque en ciberseguridad y sistemas de defensa, con un pipeline de proyectos respaldado por presupuestos europeos . --- ### **3. Leonardo: Expansión en Estados Unidos y Europa** - **Contratos recientes**: Acuerdos por **99 millones de USD** para sistemas de control de morteros y **77 millones de USD** para sistemas de defensa aérea . - **Impacto de Trump**: La dependencia europea de Estados Unidos para equipamiento militar está impulsando la integración de Leonardo en cadenas de suministro clave, como el sistema de defensa aérea M-SHORAD . --- ### **4. Rheinmetall: Capacidad de producción y alianzas estratégicas** - **Expectativas 2024**: Ventas de **10.000 millones de €** (+40% interanual), con un margen operativo proyectado del **14-15%** . - **Inversiones críticas**: Adquisición de Loc Performance por **950 millones de USD** para fortalecer su posición en vehículos militares . - **Relación con Trump**: El aumento en gastos militares europeos (hasta **800.000 millones de €** hasta 2028) está respaldando proyectos como el vehículo Bradley sucesor . --- ### **5. BAE Systems: Monopolio en defensa británica** - **Backlog récord**: **77.800 millones de £** en órdenes pendientes, con ventas proyectadas de **30.000 millones de £** en 2025 . - **Impacto de Trump**: El aumento del gasto militar británico al **2,5% del PIB** (desde el 2% actual) está impulsando programas como la producción de cañones de artillería . --- ### **Factores clave del sector** 1. **Política de Trump**: La suspensión del apoyo militar a Ucrania ha acelerado la autogestión europea, con un plan de **840.000 millones de USD** en gastos militares hasta 2028 . 2. **Valuación estirada**: Las acciones de defensa europeas ya superan a las tecnológicas en términos de valoración, con un crecimiento acumulado del **60%** en 2025 . 3. **Riesgos**: Dependencia de presupuestos gubernamentales y posibles recortes si se logra un cese del conflicto en Ucrania . --- **Conclusión**: Las empresas mencionadas están bien posicionadas para capitalizar el aumento en gastos militares europeos, respaldado por políticas de Trump y tensiones geopolíticas. **Indra** y **Thales** destacan por su enfoque en tecnología, mientras **Rheinmetall** y **BAE Systems** aprovechan su capacidad de producción.