|
|
Posts Tagged ‘term loan b’
Wednesday, May 19th, 2010 by Ron Carleton
The problems of the last leveraged buyout bubble are still with us. From 2004 through 2007, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented level of LBO activity. That all ended with the collapse of the debt markets in the summer of 2007 (and the disappearance of the debt markets after the Lehman bankruptcy).
LBOs are funded primarily with debt – somewhere between 60% and 80% of the capital structure. These are the debt products used:
- Institutional Term Loans (also know as “Term Loan B” or “TLB”) – often the single biggest tranche of debt, these loans are sold to institutional investors, such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and prime rate funds. They have very little principal amortization and a final maturity of 6-7 years.
- Pro-rata Loans (comprised of a revolving credit facility and a Term Loan A) – these loans are sold to banks and typically make up a smaller part of the capital structure than the TLB. Standard terms for a Term Loan A include significant principal amortization and a final maturity of 5 years.
- High Yield Bonds – are sold to institutional investors. They have a bullet maturity (i.e. no principal amortization) and a final maturity longer than the Institutional Term Loans, typically 7-10 years.
The Debt is Coming Due!
Starting in 2012, we will see significant amounts of LBO debt coming due. Knowing the typical maturities of the debt products and counting forward from the boom years of 2006 and 2007, first we’ll see large amounts of pro-rata loans come due, then institutional term loans, then high yield bonds, as this chart shows:
What is the solution?
Highly leveraged companies have been working on this problem for some time. Given their earlier maturities, much attention has been focussed on refinancing the loans. Companies have issued new loans (with longer maturities) and high yield bonds in order to repay existing loans and extend their debt maturity profiles. There have also been many “amend and extend” agreements whereby existing lenders extend the maturity of their loans (in exchange for fees, increased interest spreads and other consideration).
Looking out into 2012 and beyond, the question is whether or not there will be capacity in the loan and bond markets to refinance all of the maturing debt. The jury is still out on this question.
Tags: Amend and Extend, debt structure, Financial Strategy, Flexibility, Leveraged Buyout, Liquidity, Refinancing Cliff, term loan b
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 by Ron Carleton
In earlier posts, we compared the pricing of corporate loans and corporate bonds. Here, we’ll look at how these markets interact, both in primary issuance and secondary market trading. First, some definitions:
- The Primary Market is where financial instruments are sold from the issuer to investors. This is often referred to at underwriting (in the bond and equity markets) or syndication (in the loan market). As part of this process, securities often pass through an intermediary, such as an investment bank.
- The Secondary Market is where financial instruments are sold from investor to investor. The issuer is not involved, and there is no underwriter (although there are brokers, and many underwriters also trade securities in the secondary market).
The Investors
- In the loan market, banks and institutions (such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and prime rate funds) are the most active investors.
- In the bond market, institutions (such as mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies and CDOs) are the most active investors; banks rarely buy corporate bonds.
The key to rational pricing in these markets are the crossover investors – institutions, such as CDOs and certain other investment funds, that can buy loans and bonds in the primary and secondary markets. By analyzing the relative value of loans and bonds, they decide which to buy. For example, if the spread between loans and bonds is very large, investors may buy the bonds and shun the loans. This increased demand for bonds will bring down their spreads in the secondary market, while the lack of demand for loans will increase their spreads in the secondary market. Eventually, the spread between loans and bonds will narrow. Thus, the secondary markets for loans and bonds are related.
Likewise, the primary and secondary markets are related. The spread a company will pay on new bonds or loans should be about the spread at which its existing debt is trading in the secondary market (or, if the company has no debt outstanding, the spread at which the debt of companies with a similar risk profile are trading).
Risk Flows Through All Markets
Thus, if debt investors becomes more risk averse, as happens at the beginning of a recession or credit crunch, we would see it first in the most active market, say the secondary market for corporate bonds, where spreads would widen dramatically. This would lead to a sharp rise in spreads in the secondary market for corporate loans, and finally to the primary markets for both loans and bonds. Finally, investors will also be comparing loan and bond prices to the other market for corporate credit risk, credit default swaps (CDS).
Tags: debt structure, financial institutions, relative value, term loan b
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, February 1st, 2010 by Ron Carleton
In our last post, we described how to compare the cost of a floating rate instrument, such as a loan, to the cost of a fixed rate instrument, such as a bond. For one company, Jarden Corporation, we showed that the bond’s cost is 50 basis points higher than the loan’s cost. Since both debt instruments were issued by the same borrower, shouldn’t they cost the same?
Corporate Finance 101
Whenever there is a difference in the cost or return of two financing instruments, corporate finance theory tells us to look to the risk differences between the two. This applies if you are looking at it from the perspective of the issuer or the investor. For this post, we will continue the Jarden example, comparing a loan and a bond for a non-investment grade issuer (note that the product terms, pricing, and risk characteristics for investment grade issuers are dramatically different).
 Investor: Risk vs. Return
As with Jarden, the yield on non-investment grade (i.e. “high yield”) bonds is typically higher than the yield on non-investment grade (i.e. “leveraged”) loans. This is because high yield bonds are more risky to own than leveraged loans, for these reasons:
- Priority: Loans to non-investment grade companies are typically senior and secured, while bonds to these same companies are typically subordinated and unsecured. Thus, in a bankruptcy, the loans should get repaid before the bonds.
- Maturity and Amortization: Corporate loans rarely come due beyond 6-7 years from issuance, whereas high yield bonds often mature in 10 years. In addition, bonds typically have “bullet” maturities (i.e. all the principal comes due at once), whereas loans often amortize (i.e. get repaid) over time. This longer maturity and lack of amortization make bonds more risky to own than loans.
- Covenants: Loans have more (and more restrictive) covenants than bonds. Thus, as a company’s operating performance begins to deteriorate, the loan will default long before the bond. This early default gives the loan holders the opportunity to re-negotiate and improve their position before bond holders can do so.
Thus, in order to accept the greater risk of owning a high yield bond, investors demand a higher return than what they would receive on a leveraged loan from the same company.
Issuer: Risk vs. Cost
As with Jarden, for non-investment grade issuers, bonds typically have a higher all-in-cost than loans. This is because bonds are less risky for issuers and provide issuers additional flexibility.
- Refinancing Risk: Companies are constantly faced with the risk that they will not be able to borrow money when they need it. If the need is for a new project or operations, we refer to it as funding risk; if the need is to repay maturing debt, we refer to it as refinancing risk. Companies can reduce their refinancing risk by issuing debt with longer maturities. The longest maturity typically available to a non-investment grade company is a 10-year high yield bond.
- Flexibility: Bonds place few restrictions on a borrower’s operations or financial performance when compared to the large number of restrictive covenants typical in loans to non-investment grade companies.
Thus, many companies are willing to pay a higher borrowing cost (and issue bonds) in order to achieve other objectives, specifically lower refinancing risk and greater flexibility.
Loan-Bond Relative Value
When investors compare the risk and return of related instruments, such as loans and bonds from the same issuer, it is called relative value analysis. In our Jarden example, a portfolio manager would focus on the yield difference of 50 basis points.
- If they think this additional return does not adequately compensate them for the additional risk of holding the bond, they will buy the loan.
- If, as was the case at the beginning of the credit crunch, the difference was several hundred basis points for many high-yield issuers, they would buy the bond.
Tags: CAPS, Covenants, debt structure, Financial Strategy, Flexibility, Interest Rate Swaps, Jarden, Priority, relative value, term loan b
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 by Ron Carleton
Jarden Corporation (Ticker JAH) is a diversified consumer products company whose brands include First Alert, Holmes, Mr. Coffee, and Sunbeam. On June 30, 2009, it had approximately $2.7 billion of debt outstanding, half of which was in the form of Term Loans due through 2012. Management was eager to begin refinancing these term loans in order to gain additional covenant flexibility and extend maturities. Over the next 7 months, it completed two transactions.
August 2009: “Amend and Extend”
- In August 2009, the company extended the maturity of $600 million of Term B loans (”TLBs”) from January 2012 to January 2015 through the creation of a “Term B4″ tranche. This new tranche was priced at LIBOR + 3.25%. The remaining $724 million of term loans remain due through 2012.
- Along with the TLB extension, the company extended the maturity of $100 million of its (unused) revolver from 2010 to 2012 and amended the covenants on its loan facilities to allow for additional securitization and other indebtedness.
January 2010: Senior Subordinated Notes
- In January 2010, the company completed an offering of 7.5% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2020. The offering consisted of two tranches: $275 million offered in the U.S. and EUR150 (approximately $217) offered in Europe.
- The company used a portion of the proceeds from this bond to repay a portion of its term loan, presumably those maturing through 2012.
- The U.S. tranche was priced at 99.139, for a yield of 7.625%, or a spread of 385 basis points over the 10-year treasury.
So which is cheaper?
With LIBOR at 0.25%, the cost of the loan is 3.5% (i.e. LIBOR + 3.25%), while the bond’s effective cost is 7.625%. So the loan is a cheaper source of capital than the bond? Not so fast! The loan is floating rate – if LIBOR goes up, the company’s interest cost will go up with it. The bond is fixed rate – no matter what happens to interest rates, the coupon on the bond will not change. So we cannot just compare the current loan cost of 3.5% to the bond’s cost of 7.625% – that would be comparing apples to oranges.
Combining a Loan and a Swap
In order to compare the cost of a fixed rate instrument (i.e. bond) to a floating rate instrument (i.e. loan), you must put them both on the same basis: either convert the bond to a floating rate or convert the loan to a fixed rate. This is done using an interest rate swap. Let’s swap the loan to a fixed rate, as follows:
Step 1: The company borrows at LIBOR + 325 basis points.
Step 2: In a separate transaction, the company agrees to make a periodic fixed rate payment to a bank, in exchange for which, the bank agrees to make a periodic LIBOR payment to the company.
The current quote for such an interest rate swap is about T+10:
- The company will pay the bank a fixed rate of 3.875%, or 10 basis points over the current 10-year treasury rate of 3.775%
- The bank will pay the company a floating rate of LIBOR, which will vary over the life of the contract.
These transactions can be expressed as follows:
We can now calculate the effective fixed rate cost of the loan-swap combination:
- Payment to loan holders: LIBOR+325 basis points
- Received from the swap bank: LIBOR
- Payment to swap bank: Treasury +10 basis points
The LIBOR received from the swap bank offsets the LIBOR paid to the loan holders. The net outflow from the company is the T+10 paid to the swap bank plus the 325 basis points paid to the loan holders, or T+335. The 10-year treasury is 3.775%, so the effective fixed rate cost of the loan-swap combination is 3.775% plus 335 basis points, or 7.125%.
Why is the bond more expensive? And why would the company issue the bond if it is more expensive than the loan? Watch the blog for answers to these questions.
Tags: Amend and Extend, CAPS, Covenants, debt structure, Financial Strategy, Interest Rate Swaps, Jarden, term loan b
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 by Ron Carleton
High Credit Spreads Match High Credit Risk
Since the credit crisis began in the summer of 2007, and especially since the credit markets fell of the cliff in the fall of 2008, we have seen credit spreads in the loan and bond markets increase dramatically. Some investment grade companies today are paying spreads that were reserved for high yield companies just 3 years ago. Of course, the higher spreads correspond with increasing credit risk brought on by the recession and by investors’ declining appetite for risk.
Lower LIBOR is Good News for Borrowers …
One piece of good news for borrowers is the dramatic decrease in LIBOR, the basis over which most corporate loans are priced. Although there have been some disruptions in the LIBOR market (like the fall of 2008), this rate generally tracks the Fed Funds rate. As a result, LIBOR has come down from over 5% before the crisis to well under 1% today.
US$ LIBOR
Source: Bloomberg
… But Loan Investors Still Get Paid
Loan investors, especially institutional investors, feel the pain when LIBOR goes down. So in addition to higher spreads, loan arrangers are using these two structures to increase the returns on term loans (especially Term Loan B’s) and jump-start the market:
- LIBOR Floor: Borrower and lender agree that the basis for the loan will be THE GREATER OF actual LIBOR (currently under 0.50%) or the agreed upon floor. Floors in the market today range between 2% and 3%.
- Original Issue Discount (OID): The loan is sold to investors below par and repaid at par. The difference is the OID, which in todays market is anywhere between 1% and 10%. You can think of the OID as another form of an upfront fee for investors.
Tags: debt structure, term loan b
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 by Ron Carleton
According to Bloomberg.com, American Airlines is asking its lenders for a covenant waiver. A conference call was held on June 22 and responses are due by June 25. Why the rush? The covenant would be waived for the quarter ending June 30, so the company wants the amendment done before the end of the quarter.
As we have discussed in earlier entries, many companies are amending their credit agreements to reflect lower than expected operating performance driven by the recession. Airlines have been especially hard hit by the downturn, so the pressure on American’s covenants is no surprise. The interesting element of this amendment is the lending group – institutional investors.
Term Loan B
A Term Loan B (”TLB”) is a term loan structured for sale to institutional investors, such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and prime rate mutual funds. Traditional term loans, called Term Loan A’s, are typically originated by and sold to banks. Here are the main differences between the two:
Negotiating Amendments with Institutional Investors
Amendments to corporate loan agreements happen all the time. When the lenders are banks (as is typical for revolvers and TLAs), the relationship between borrower and lender often goes back many years and may include other business, such as cash management or bond underwriting. As a result, banks are often willing to work with borrowers towards a long-term solution (i.e. banks are more willing to grant waivers). TLA banks are often referred to as “relationship lenders.”
Institutional investors are “transaction lenders” – their relationship with the borrower often goes no further than the individual loan. As a result, they are often less inclined than banks to grant waivers or agree to amendments.
American Airlines “Pays Up” for its Amendment
American’s proposal to its TLB lenders is to waive the fixed charge covenant this quarter and cut it through the loan’s maturity in 18 months. In exchange, the spread on the loan would go from 200bp over LIBOR to 400bp, and there would be a new LIBOR floor of 2.5%. This would immediately increase the interest rate on the $435 million loan by about 3.9%, increasing interest expense by over $16 million per year. In addition, the lenders would get a 75 basis point amendment fee, costing American over $3 million. These terms are not unusual in today’s market for “B” rated companies like American.
Tags: CAPS, Covenants, debt structure, term loan b
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
|
