Stop the Swap

We have received from subscribers who have been approached by fixed income marketers suggesting swaps out of seven-year high-coupon corporate senior bonds into 10-year subordinated bonds of the same issuer, often with lower coupons. The typical yield pick-up has been in the 60 basis point area. This kind of swap is unattractive and ill-advised for several reasons. A swap (senior-to-senior or sub-to-sub) should allow investors to pick up at least the slope of the Treasury yield curve within the maturities of the swap. Currently, the slope of the U.S. Treasury curve, from the 7-year note to the 10-year note is about 55 basis points. If one was picking up 60 basis points swapping 7-year senior debt for 10-year senior debt that would be alright, albeit lackluster. One should always desire to pick up somewhat more than the slope of the curve to account for the additional credit risk which comes with extending out on the curve in the credit markets. However, if one is extending out on the curve AND dropping down on the capital structure (senior to sub), we sure as heck need to get better than a five or even a ten basis point pickup over the slope of the curve. However, the yield pick-up was not the main crux of these swap ideas. The main “selling point” was that one could lock in a profit on the seven year bonds and use the proceeds to increase face amount when buying the new bond. We ran the numbers (as we are apt to do) on one swap which encouraged investors holding 7-year senior bonds issued by a large investment bank with a coupon of 5.625% to swap into a 10-year subordinated bond, issued by the same investment bank, with a coupon of 4.875%. The yield pick-up was about 60 bps (+5 to the curve). Because the swap involved selling the 7-year senior bond at a significant premium and buying the 10-year sub note near par, one could pick up about eight more sub notes for every 100m senior bonds sold. However, because of the large drop in coupon, the swap resulted in a drop income. If one swapped 100m of the 5.875% senior bond for 108m of the 4.875% sub note, one’s semi-annual interest payment declined from 2,812.50 to 2,632.50, a decline of 180 every six months. If one swapped 100m seniors for 100m subs and took out the cash, one’s semi-annual income drops from 2,812.50 to 2437.50. That is a $750 annual decline in income. In our view (based on 24 years of fixed income experience) this swap makes no sense. We encourage subscribers to run any and all swap and trade ideas by Bond Squad before pulling the trigger. That is what you are paying us for, not just this newsletter.

Going Down with High Yield

During this recovery, mutual fund marketing representatives have harped on the fact that credit profiles have improved among junk-rated issuers. Although some high yield issuers have been helped by low interest rates and investors’ thirst for yield, high yield borrowers might not be as “healthy” as some would like us to believe. The following are S&P credit upgrades and downgrades for both high grade and high yield credits: Year-To-Date 2012 Upgrades Downgrades Total 560 612 Investment Grade 211 139 High Yield 211 310 As can be plainly seen, high grade corporate issuers have been the biggest beneficiaries of current credit condition. The high yield market has actually experienced more downgrades than upgrades, in spite of the golden age for corporate borrowing. It is the job of product marketing people to paint the rosiest picture possible. It is the job of Bond Squad to paint the most accurate picture. Tom Byrne tom@bond-squad.com. www.bond-squad.com www.mksense.blogspot.com 347-927-7823 Twitter: @Bond_Squad Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They are not, nor should they be considered solicitations to purchase or sell securities.

Housing the "Multi-tudes"

Housing Starts and Building Permits data were very strong. However, much of the month-over-month increase was due to multi-family rental construction (up 25.1% MoM) we do not mean to downplay the strong housing data, but we would like to point out that rental property construction does not resultin the same kind of consumer spending as single-family primary residence home building. A good number of the single-family homes being built (up 11.0% MoM) are for rental/investment purposes. Today's data is very good news in that jobs are created from construction of any kind. We would just like to point out that home construction is unlikley to have the same follow-on effect as it had in the past. Even if most of the construction was for primary residences, the pace of constructions remains below levels seen during prior recessions, never mind recoveries. The lonng journey homes remains in the early stages.

Tom Byrne tom@bond-squad.com. www.bond-squad.com www.mksense.blogspot.com 347-927-7823 Twitter: @Bond_Squad

Shadow (Bank) Dancing

Following the release of third-quarter earnings by JP Morgan and Wells Fargo, concerns that compressing net interest margins could be a problem for banks. We discussed this topic briefly in Friday’s “Making Sense” report. We explained that narrower net interest margins do not hurt banks as much as they did in the days when banks held most of the mortgages they wrote on their books. Securitization, where banks pool mortgages and sell to investors, either via the GSEs or directly via the so-called “private label” market, result in mortgages not being held on banks’ balance sheets. Instead, banks keep 25 or 50 basis points of the securitized mortgages for servicing the loans. They earn this whether net interest margins are 50 or 250 basis points. Smaller net interest margins hurt consumers because it discourages banks from writing loans which cannot be securitized. Narrow net interest margins do hurt bank profitability in the sense that they discourage banks from holding loans on their books because there is not enough reward to take on the risk. However, banks which are not lending, to not have to keep larger amounts of reserves on hand and they do not have to hire more employees (another down side of tight NIMs). Still its consumers which are hurt the most as banks will not commit much of their own capital for lending purposes. If they are securitizing loans, they are committing investors’ capital. Once the bank securitizes the mortgages, it gets its capital back. The lack of lending capital is slowing the U.S. recovery. However, it is not the lack of bank lending that is the biggest difference between 2012 and 2006 or even, 2003. It is the lack of the shadow banking system. The so-called shadow banking system was comprised of non-bank lenders, such as investment banks and SIVs which would provide mortgage capital. They often used mortgage brokers to facilitate these loans. The shadow banking system collapsed after investors realized (too late) that a vehicle securitized by subprime mortgages should not be rated AAA, no matter how senior one’s tranche and that, in many cases, the institutions which issued these mortgage vehicles has no obligation to pay investors a dime, if the mortgages contained within became delinquent of defaulted. This is how we arrived at today’s predicament in which most mortgages written today are GSE-qualifying and/or are for refinancing purposes or for the purposed of purchasing high-end properties. Those who could really make use of today’s low rates often cannot obtain financing. Of course, many consumers who could make use of today’s low rates probably should not be granted credit (or low-rate credit) and probably should not have received loans five years ago. Tom Byrne tom@bond-squad.com. www.bond-squad.com www.mksense.blogspot.com 347-927-7823 Twitter: @Bond_Squad Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They are not, nor should they be considered solicitations to purchase or sell securities.

Pay it Forward - The Recovery Rally in Junk has Already Happened

An article in the October 5th edition of the Wall Street Journal discusses that many investors are beginning to reduce their exposure to high yield debt. The article’s opening paragraph apprises readers to a situation of which we have cautioned our subscribers for quite some times. It states: “So much money has flooded into the junk-bond market from yield-hungry investors that weaker and weaker companies are able to sell bonds, they say. Credit ratings of many borrowers are lower and debt levels are higher, making defaults more likely. And with yields near record lows, they add, investors aren't being compensated for that risk.” This strikes to the heart of our argument that there are companies which could have defaulted if not for the Fed pushing investors to purchase their debt in an ever more difficult quest for yield. Still think there isn’t a bubble at the bottom at the corporate credit market? Consider this: Many investors, who would never consider lending money to a group of subprime home buyers as lending money to subprime corporation, many of which may find it difficult, if not impossible to refinance their debts once interest rates rise. Some investors who are pouring money into the junk bond market do not realize that they could be lending money to businesses that can only afford to service debt at today’s record-low rates and record tight spreads. If this does not sound almost like exactly what happened during the housing bubble, we don’t know what does. Supporters of the junk bond market point out that many high yield credits now have cleaner balance sheet than ever before. This is true of some corporate issuers, but if a corporation is rated B or CCC today, what will they be rated when their borrowing costs are several hundred basis points higher? Unfortunately, many of them could be rated D for defaulted. It is not unheard of for corporations to restructure debt, pay investors 50, 60 or 70 cents on the dollar (often in the form of new stock and new bonds) as part of a restructuring. All that needs to happen for such a restructuring to proceed as for the large institutional creditors to agree to the terms and for a bankruptcy judge to approve the deal. Smaller investors are forced to accept the terms of the restructuring/bankruptcy. Smaller investors may sue the issuer, but once the bankruptcy judge approves of the deal, suits by smaller investors are almost certainly doomed to failure. Why would large accept such haircuts? For one, they understand that if they don’t accept such a deal, the company in question could file for a traditional bankruptcy, which could take a year or more to complete. Meanwhile the situation could deteriorate further for the issuer meaning investor recovery could be less. Another important fact, one which escapes many retail investors and financial advisors, many (if not most) institutional investors do not buy B-rated and CCC-rated binds for income enhancement. They buy them for total return. Institutional investors hire credit analysts who pore over the books and balance sheets of distressed companies and come up with recovery value estimates (I.E. what investors might receive in a bankruptcy or restructuring. They use THIS recovery value, not par when assessing whether or not a junk bond is a worthwhile investment opportunity. Investors who have bought low-B-rated and CCC-rated debt and are expecting to receive par at maturity may be in for a rude surprise. That 6.00% bond for five years might turn into a 2.50% bond which finally pays investors, in the form of stock and new bonds, a year after the stated maturity. Because most individual investors are not credit analysts and cannot afford to hire one or subscribe to a credit research service, we have suggested that they should consider investing in high yield bond funds, if they wish to have exposure in high yield debt. Fund managers have credit analysts at their disposal and will take into account recovery value when considering junk bonds. However, this only solves one of the problems associated with high yield debt investing. In the past, we have suggested that investors consider high yield debt a total return asset class. In other words, high yield bonds are equities with a coupon. However, like equities, they are subject to both “fundamentals” and “technicals.” Fundamentals would be earnings, debt ratios, interest coverage, borrowing costs (both benchmark yields and credit spreads), etc. Technicals come from supply and demand. The hunger for yield, caused by low-rate monetary policy, have caused many junk bonds to trade richer (low yield and tight credit spread) than their fundamentals would suggest. Investing in a mutual fund can help protect you from not overpaying for a junk bond, based on recovery value. However, that only addressed the fundamental aspect of high yield investing. At the present time, it is difficult to find high yield bonds which are priced attractively. Many bonds are priced at levels at which fund managers are reluctant to buy them. However, as money pours into junk bond funds, they must continue to purchase securities which are consistent with the mission statement of the fund. Voilà, a bubble is born. A popular argument among mutual fund representatives, one which seems to be shared by fixed income strategists who have spent a relatively short-time in the industry, is that, as the economy improves, credit spreads will tighten among high yield debt and that should offset at least some of the effects of rising Treasury yields (when that day comes). Why do they espouse such views? Because history and historical models tell them that this usually happens. What appears to escape these strategists and fund reps is that Fed policy has already caused all the spread tightening that is likely to happen. As the Journal’s article reminds us; yields are near record lows. Credit spreads are also near record tights for some very-low rated credits. Instead of a traditional spread tightening scenario, the story in a few years could be one of spread widening. Where in the past, a 300 basis point rise of U.S. Treasury yields might have resulted in a 100 basis point move in the yields of many junk bonds, the story could be one of a 300 basis point rise of benchmark yields and 500 basis point increases in high yield borrowing costs. Fed policy has forced investors, many of whom are not aggressive by nature, into a very risky area of the fixed income markets. This has caused the spread tightening to occur BEFORE the recovery has gained momentum. The spread tightening investors are expecting to enjoy when the economy recovers has already occurred.

Suspicious Minds (What Happened to Payrolls Data?)

The employment data were not out for more than 30 seconds before conspiracy theorists were crying foul. The economy added only 114,000 jobs, according to the establishment survey, but the unemployment rate dropped 3/10ths to 7.8%, a move more consistent with 250,000 job growth. The truth is that the drop was mostly due to part-time employment, probably due to holiday season hiring by retailers. The Challenger and ADP data, released earlier this week, support this theory. The only part of today's data which was "odd" was the expansion of government hiring for July, August and September. We believe that government jobs were created. Our question is: Why were they created. We expect hiring to stay in the low-to-mid 100,000s (unless we fall off the Fiscal Cliff. Unemployment could stay below 8.00%, but that might require further shrinking of the work force. In the end, the numbers were not manipulated, but certain phenomena happened at the right time. Tom Byrne tom@bond-squad.com. www.bond-squad.com www.mksense.blogspot.com 347-927-7823 Twitter: @Bond_Squad Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They are not, nor should they be considered solicitations to purchase or sell securities.

In the Trenches

Our In the Trenches report dated 9/23 received rave reviews from subscribers. We are making it available to the public. Just click on the following link to view: www.bond-squad.com/articles.htm To subscribe to Bond Squad click here: