Economy & Credit – Everyday Something New

Future Orientation

If you scored low in this attribute, it means that you tend to rely on past events for making decisions about future events. This is a past orientation. If you scored high, you tend to use a planning style and hold people accountable for doing what they say they’ll do. This is a future orientation. If you have a past orientation, that tends to indicate a low level of trust—since you probably don’t trust people to do anything other than what they’ve done in the past. This assumption stifles any hope that things might be different and thus reduces the possibility for change. Having a future orientation is a step toward building trust between you and your partner.

Comfort with Change

If you scored low in this attribute, you’re probably uneasy about change. You like to do things the way they’ve always been done in the past and are uncomfortable with trying new things. You may have a low ability to trust and may rely on a past orientation to make decisions. If you scored high, you probably like change—and may even embrace it.And if you are comfortable with change, you probably also have a future orientation in your decision-making style and a high
ability to trust.

Win-Win Orientation

If you scored low in this attribute, you probably use a win-lose style of conflict resolution and problem solving. This is especially true if you are a competitive person. Competitive conflict resolution and problem-solving techniques, by their very nature, are designed to help one side meet its needs. In a partnership, this is destructive behavior. If you scored high in this attribute, you are more likely to use a winwin style for conflict resolution and problem solving. People with this style generally have a higher ability to trust and feel more comfortable being interdependent with others.

Ability to Trust

If you scored low in this attribute, you tend to have a low ability to trust that people will do what they promise. Certain people do condition us to expect the worst of them. But when we get caught up in that kind of thinking, a series of cascading events can actually set up the expected disappointment. People who have a low ability to trust also tend to have a high need for independence, rely on a past orientation in their decision-making style, and use a win-lose style of conflict resolution and problem solving. If you scored high in this attribute, you generally trust that people will do what they say. In turn you may tend to use a future-oriented decision-making style, be comfortable with interdependence, and be predisposed to using a win-win style of conflict resolution and problem solving.

Traditional credit analysis is a bottom-up approach which focuses on the selection of companies. The credit quality/risk has to be determined and the two following questions have to be answered:

Is the issuer able to make the coupon payments?
Will the company value at maturity be large enough to pay back the principal?

During highs and lows of market cycles psychological and technical factors tend to push asset prices to extremely elevated or depressed levels. At those times it is appropriate to focus on credit fundamentals and detect companies where such moves were not justified. Credit analysis should be able to identify opportunities to add substantial yield by assuming only little higher credit risk at the same time. The following paragraphs describe a possible way of analyzing the credit risk and investing in corporate bonds.

With the decline of default rates and credit blowups in 2003 and 2004, more and more portfolio managers have realized that the concentration on idiosyncratic risk yields unsatisfactory results in a more favorable environment for credit. Increasing allocation and spread duration may sometimes not be enough to outperform the market during a rally. The use of betas can help to correct this error. The concept originally stems from the equity markets where it is used to describe the portion of the variation in asset returns that is due to market fluctuations. In credit markets beta analysis should only be applied to credit returns, that is the part of a bond’s return that is solely due to changes of the spread versus the swap curve. For a well-diversified portfolio systematic risk, which is captured by the beta, is the major part of credit risk. On a single issuer basis, however, idiosyncratic risk prevails, especially for lower rated credits. Since market data for individual bonds contain a lot of noise, regressions to obtain betas versus the market index should also be done on the sector level. If the portfolio manager is bullish on the credit market, he will tend to overweight higher beta sectors and issuers. This methodology adds a third dimension to the process of tactical positioning, supplementing the decisions on the sector allocation and spread duration.

While both strategies yield portfolios that have the same sensitivity to parallel shifts of the credit curve, they usually yield very different returns in real world scenarios. Not only will capital gains differ when the credit curve moves in a nonparallel way, but returns from carry differ also when the yield pickup from extending duration is not equal to the yield pickup from increasing the allocation to the sector. Of course, these presumptions are rarely met in reality. Increasing the allocation to a high beta sector like automotive usually generates more carry than extending duration. Therefore, over the long run, this strategy has proven more successful. The allocation strategy is also more intuitive with respect to the allocation of capital to different risk or spread classes.

If an investor only has a view that the credit curves of two issuers will converge, but is not sure whether this will happen at wider or tighter spread levels, he would like to construct the box trade in a way that makes it insensitive to parallel shifts of the credit curves. In order to achieve this goal the trade has to be proceeds neutral. It is worth noting that the spread-neutral box trade is almost independent of the spreads, except for the minor impact of spreads on duration.

Remember that this trade is designed to protect investors from spread changes that might adversely impact their credit curve trade. Yet, often portfolio managers not only have a view on the relative changes of the credit curve of the two issuers but also on the direction of spreads. In this case the spread-neutral box trade is not optimal. The investor would rather choose a longer or shorter duration, depending on his view on the direction of spreads.

A way to avoid the shortcomings of the above-described credit curve trade are duration-neutral box trades. Essentially, the trade consists of two legs. The investor buys the long-term bond of issuer A and sells the longterm bond of issuer B. Additionally, he sells short-term bonds of the first issuer and buys short-term bonds of the second issuer. Consequently, the trade benefits from a flattening of issuer A’s credit curve and a steepening of issuer B’s credit curve. This trade, of course, can be constructed to be duration neutral. Yet, there are myriad possibilities to do this. Assuming that no borrowing and leveraging are allowed the duration of the combined trade will always lie between the durations of the second shortest and second longest bond. While the position is insensitive to changes in the yield curve, its performance in general depends not only on changes of the credit curve but also changes of the level of spreads.

There is an alternative way to benefit from a steepening credit curve. If an investor expects issuer A’s credit curve to steepen more than implied by forward spreads and issuer B’s credit curve to flatten at the same time, he could switch from company A’s long bonds into company B’s long bonds. Whenever company B has a bond outstanding with a longer maturity than the bond that is sold, the trade can be set up on a durationneutral basis. Crabbe and Fabozzi (2002) point out that the return from this strategy over a 1-year horizon is approximately equal to

Return = spread differential – duration * change in spread differential, assuming roughly equal durations for both bonds. But it should be noted that this trade is not a pure bet on an issuer’s credit curve. Even if the credit curves behave as expected and the trade turns out to be profitable, taking another position may have been more beneficial in absolute terms and with respect to the individual credit curves of the two involved issuers. This is true, for example, if the spreads of company A and B widen significantly across their credit curves. In this case the capital loss due to the spread widening can exceed the profit of the bond swap. Being positioned at the short end of the credit curve then would have been a better strategy from an absolute return perspective.

When a steepening of the credit curve is expected that is not fully reflected in forward spreads a portfolio manager would have to sell the long bonds and buy short-term bonds. However, in order to keep duration constant, he would have to put more cash to work in the short-term bonds than he receives from selling the long bonds. Since real money managers such as mutual funds and insurance companies are not allowed to borrow and to leverage their positions, setting up a credit curve steepener involves taking a duration view, because the investor implicitly ends up being short duration.

In most cases portfolio managers do not expect the spread change to occur that is priced in forward spreads. If this view is strong enough, and if the portfolio manager has proven his skill in predicting corporate bond spread changes, he may decide to bet against the market, in other words to take an active position with respect to the credit curve. Several different ways to implement such trades will be discussed subsequently.

The first trade is simply a bond swap on an issuer’s credit curve. If an investor expects the credit curve to flatten more than implied by forward spreads over the holding period, he may switch out of short-term bonds into longer maturities. In order to keep the duration exposure constant, a part of the proceeds of the sale of the short-term bonds would have to be kept in cash. Although this trade can be constructed to be duration-neutral, the performance over the holding period relative to the benchmark depends on changes of the shape of the yield curve. A yield curve steepening can lead to the underperformance of the long bonds even if the credit curve flattens.