If CLO investors flee, defaults could snowball
High yield borrowers have been relying on a steady stream of leveraged loan issuance that could quickly run dry
At first glance, the comparison seems apt: a roaring market for junk loans used to create securities with three-letter acronyms, sliced into high-grade tranches and sold to yield-hungry investors.
A decade on, some see echoes of the financial crisis in leveraged loans, which officials at the Bank of England have compared to subprime mortgages in 2006.
The parallels are eerie. Leveraged loans made to sub-investment grade companies have more than doubled in the past decade, to $1.3 trillion – equivalent in size to the US subprime mortgage market in March 2007. Credit quality and underwriting standards have deteriorated as the market has grown, and debt multiples have ballooned. Collateralised loan obligations (CLOs) have then turned this dubious debt into high-grade securities, which ends up on the books of banks and insurance companies.
Putting all of that together, investors could be forgiven for grabbing their tin hats and running for the hills. But, bad as things might sound, it would take an extraordinary turn of events for institutional investors to lose money on CLOs. The BB tranche of the median CLO issued since 2014 has a credit support level of 7.8%, compared with 5.6% for 2006 vintages. If loan losses in the CLO structure exceed that threshold, equity investors are wiped out and holders of the lowest-rated notes would see red ink.
That’s highly unlikely. During the financial crisis, the default rate for broadly syndicated leveraged loans peaked at 12% in 2009, according to Fitch, while data from Credit Suisse shows recoveries dipped to 43.2%, resulting in losses of 6.8%.
Some say recoveries on the current batch of leveraged loans could be far lower – around 35% – due to higher average debt multiples of five times earnings and the near-removal of unsecured, subordinated debt, which served as a loss buffer for senior debt. But even then, loan losses would top out at 7.8% if defaults hit 12%, barely singeing investors in the BB notes.
That doesn’t mean concerns over leveraged loans and CLOs are unwarranted. Analysis rooted in historic data – such as the 12% peak in defaults – often fails to account for recent market changes. In this case, the CLO market itself has doubled in size since 2013, giving it a precarious appearance.
Along the way, sub-investment grade companies – which run the gamut from cash-burning tech disrupters such as Uber, to past-their-prime retailers like Neiman Marcus, and everything in-between – have come to rely on the cheap financing provided by big CLO investors, who are willing to accept the higher debt multiples and weaker covenants. If the economy went into a lull and defaults started ticking-up, though, that demand could dry up, leaving companies that need to refinance with nowhere to go.
“Everybody is going to sit by the sidelines,” says one CLO investor, “but the company with maturing debt can’t sit by the sidelines. That now becomes a default, even if their earnings are still strong.” Around half of the newly issued leveraged loans are used to refinance existing debt.
If CLO investors did take flight, those companies would be starved of credit, causing the default rate to spiral further, possibly beyond historic levels.
The good news is that relatively few leveraged loans will come due in the next three years, as companies bulked up on loans ahead of the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes. Only $123.4 billion of loans will mature before the end of 2021, according to Fitch. More than half the loans currently outstanding – $682 billion – come due in 2024 and 2025.
That’s some time off. But if investors do lose confidence in CLOs, the market could be sucked into a vicious circle.
コンテンツを印刷またはコピーできるのは、有料の購読契約を結んでいるユーザー、または法人購読契約の一員であるユーザーのみです。
これらのオプションやその他の購読特典を利用するには、info@risk.net にお問い合わせいただくか、こちらの購読オプションをご覧ください: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
現在、このコンテンツを印刷することはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
現在、このコンテンツをコピーすることはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(ポイント2.4)に記載されているように、印刷は1部のみです。
追加の権利を購入したい場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
このコンテンツは、当社の記事ツールを使用して共有することができます。当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(第2.4項)に概説されているように、認定ユーザーは、個人的な使用のために資料のコピーを1部のみ作成することができます。また、2.5項の制限にも従わなければなりません。
追加権利の購入をご希望の場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
詳細はこちら 我々の見解
銀行システムを「換気」する時期が来たのか?
監視団体は基準の引き下げを懸念していますが、政策立案者は成長に注目しており、彼らは難しいジレンマに直面しています。
なぜ破綻処理計画を骨抜きにするのは良くないのか
銀行の破綻は避けられないものですが、銀行危機はそうではありません
日本の「大還流」?急速なリパトリは期待できない
GPIFによる米国債から日本国債への切り替えは段階的に行われる見通しであり、これはヘッジファンドにとってさらなる悪材料となる可能性があります
AIエージェントが、信頼できないスタッフのような存在である理由
GenAIシステムに内在する不確実性により、リスク管理担当者はより対立的なアプローチをとらざるを得ません
批判派は、パーペチュアルはすべてフロスだと言っています。しかし、数字はそうではないことを示唆している
TradFiを原資産とする永久先物に対する堅調な未決済建玉は、CMEやEurexといった既存の取引所にとって脅威となる可能性があります
SpaceXがCMEの個別銘柄先物に待望の追い風をもたらした
S&P 500先物契約へのIPO関連の追加契約として、新たな契約が急増する可能性があります
Bank vs non-bank: FX’s two-tier reality
CME and LSEG data show banks provide sticky and broad liquidity, while non-banks cling tightly to the price
規制当局はエンフォースメントを甘くしているのか?(そして、私たちはそれを気にするべきなのか?)
米国の規制当局は、技術的な規則違反に対する罰則を緩和しており、小さくとも重要なリスクが見過ごされてしまうのではないかという懸念が高まっています