|
| ||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
| |
THE PROBLEM WITH FIXED INCOME INDEXATION The
factors that affect the bond markets and interest rates are very complex.
Economics, monetary and fiscal policy, business conditions, international
trade, currency movements, and capital flows all affect market interest
rates. These factors are very fickle and, above all, they are very human.
Where equity managers can evaluate a business and buy and hold
a good stock, the task of the bond manager is considerably more difficult. Bond
Indexing Makes For Poor Issuer Choices The amount of an issuers debt represented in a bond index is not very dependent on the markets pricing of its debt. The interest rate differential or credit spread, unique to a corporate issuer, forms only a small part of a bonds interest rate. Changes in the interest rate on outstanding debt, other than market changes on government reference securities, are not usually substantial, unless default is a serious concern. This really means that bond issuers weightings increase primarily as they issue more debt! Large
Debt Issuers are not Necessarily Successful Large issuance came from real estate companies in the late 1980s, the failed consolidators in the funeral home sector in the 1990s and the booming telecom industry of the late 1990s. The serially restructuring airline industry has sucked in tremendous amounts of debt capital, never earning sufficient cash to ever repay its debt. At the peak of the equity markets in 1999 and 2000, stock buybacks, popular with shareholders, increased many public companies debt issuance for little economic reason. The
de facto indexing principle that one should increase exposure to heavy
bond issuers gives pause to an experienced credit analyst. The examples
of Enron and WorldCom come to mind. There is a good reason why Banks and
other sophisticated credit organizations have specific issuer limits and
independent credit departments. This controls their exposure to the credit
risk Consider
the situation of an increasingly risky issuer, one that bankers and other
direct lenders wish to reduce their exposure to. As the issuer requires
higher amounts of credit, the lenders become more skittish, as their professional
risk management areas require more caution. Public
Issues Replace Risky Bank Debt This is true, at least until downgrade, when downgraded issues are precipitously removed from the investment grade indices. Unlike equity indices, which remove issuers when default and delisting actually arrive, the bond indices have their bad bets removed when downgrade occurs, not necessarily at default. This occurs because bond indices usually separate investment grade bonds from the junk or below investment grade bonds. This causes huge discontinuity in the debt markets with actual and closet indexers selling on downgrade since they are unable to hold bonds rated below investment grade. Where an issuer is downgraded but avoids default, indexed managers have been forced to sell at a substantial discount to distressed buyers. Indexers
Reward Government Deficits Perhaps
there is some evidence that, given equity manager behaviour, a passive
strategy might work for large equity portfolios. Our strict investment
disciplines and strong beliefs argue viscerally against this position,
even given the sensible rationale that financial markets will reward growing
and successful companies with higher weights over time in equity indices.
On the other hand, as we explain above, the prescriptions of fixed income
indexing are suspect when applied to bond issuers, especially in the minefield
of corporate bonds! |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||