Anatomy of a trade decision

As I indicated previously, I am interested in trimming my long-term bond positions since I believe the market for less-than-stellar debt is becoming expensive for the risk taken.

Although I am adverse to income taxes, you should never let income taxation be the overriding factor in the decision to sell – valuation should be the primary consideration, along with your portfolio considerations, and then income taxes should be a secondary consideration.

An example today was trimming a trust preferred (which held a corporate bond) position in Limited Brands (NYSE: LTD) that I have held onto since late 2008. The security is due to mature in 23 years from now (March 1, 2033) and pays a 7% coupon semi-annually. The underlying company’s equity is trading relatively high, has a moderate amount of debt ($2.6 billion debt vs. $1.2 billion cash on hand), good income ($560M in the last 12 months) and an excellent brand name. So the underlying company, in the short and medium run, is likely to be solvent and be able to raise money and retain their cash generation abilities. It would not surprise me if they were able to be solvent in 23 years to pay off the underlying debt. My cost basis on the units are 35 cents on the dollar, which represents one of the best trades I have done in some time, but this will also represent a large capital gain when liquidating.

Back then, 35 cents on the dollar meant you got to collect a 20% current yield, and another 4.5% implied capital gain by waiting patiently. Now, the market has taken all of those coupon payments and gains and transformed them into a higher unit price – so instead of waiting 20+ years to realize that money, you can do it now. What I am trying to say here is – your cost basis is irrelevant except for factoring in the cost of capital gains taxation. The current market value that you can liquidate the securities with is the relevant factor – if I have $X that I can liquidate from this security, can I deploy it elsewhere more efficiently than the implied 7.7% it is paying me?

So why trim the position? 7.7% sounds pretty good over 23 years, doesn’t it?

There are a few reasons.

– The valuation appears high. At the current trading price (94 cents on the dollar) it is significantly higher than the underlying bond’s price that is available through TRACE. At 94 cents, your current yield is 7.4%, and your implied capital gain (which is the 6 cents of appreciation you earn upon maturity) is another 0.3%, so your total yield is 7.7%. While a 7.7% yield is about 4% higher than you can get with underlying treasury bonds, it still is not a sufficient threshold.

– I want to increase my cash balances. While I believe the next big macroeconomic move in the economy will be an inflationary cycle, it will completely depend on the timing of US politics. Right now the US economy is dominated by political considerations and this is why most businesses are choosing to hoard cash – since in times of political uncertainty you do not know the return on investment. A more business-friendly administration would result in a large inflationary spike. Right now we have the exact opposite of a business-friendly administration.

– I want to shorten the duration and term of my bond portfolio, for pretty much the point I made above.

– I do not need the yield, but apparently others do. They are willing to pay for liquidity, so I am willing to give it to them for a cost – they have to meet my asking price on the exchange.

– I am afraid that interest rates, while very low by historical standards, may increase. I am also not concerned to waiting a longer period of time for those rates to rise, and get to hold onto my capital in the meantime to perhaps deploy to a better area.

– Maybe the underlying business will face a downturn. It is in the consumer fashion industry, and while the Victoria’s Secret brand is unlikely to degrade anytime soon, maybe consumers will be a little more fickle in the future. I have no clue when it comes to retail fashion which trends will stay and which will not and can only evaluate these companies from a financial perspective. A great example is Coach (NYSE: COH), which to my neanderthal male mind, mainly makes handbags and accessories. But somehow this company produces insane amounts of cash. Will this trend continue? Who knows. But what I see financially there is a cash machine. I generally ask fashion conscious women for insight on these various names once in awhile to see what the intangible aspects of the brands are.

I am giving up a further potential upside of about 6% capital appreciation (since the trust preferreds contain a call provision they will not trade much above par value) in exchange for the safety and security of cold, hard cash. Right now I do not have any targets for my cash, so I will continue to be patient. Eventually the equity markets will contract and some opportunities will present themselves. It is unlikely it will ever be like late 2008 for awhile, but we will see.

Bank of Canada Interest Rate Projections

Since the last 0.25% rate increase on July 20, the bankers’ acceptance futures have been quite calm. We have the following quotations:

Month / Strike Bid Price Ask Price Settl. Price Net Change Vol.
+ 10 AU 0.000 0.000 98.905 -0.005 0
+ 10 SE 98.825 98.835 98.825 0.000 1825
+ 10 OC 0.000 0.000 98.725 -0.005 0
+ 10 DE 98.700 98.710 98.700 0.010 6190
+ 11 MR 98.580 98.590 98.580 0.010 4636
+ 11 JN 98.460 98.470 98.460 0.010 2213
+ 11 SE 98.310 98.320 98.310 0.000 904
+ 11 DE 98.140 98.150 98.130 0.010 303
+ 12 MR 97.950 97.960 97.940 0.020 104
+ 12 JN 97.770 97.790 97.760 0.020 54

This still hints that the short term rate will rise 0.25% by the September 8 or October 20 meeting, and the short term rate will end the year at 1.00% with a possibility of 1.25%. For the year 2011, rates are expected to inch higher by about 0.5 to 0.75%.

It should also be noted that at present, 3-month corporate paper is yielding 0.89%. This was approximately 0.4% half a year ago.

Finally, since 5-year bond rates have dropped considerably over the same time period (which is counter-intuitive to the economics 101 texts that state that longer-term bond yields will rise with an increase in interest rates), 5-year fixed term mortgages should also drop – the best one I can see so far is 3.87%.

Credit card review – MBNA Smartcash Platinum

I have been using the MBNA Smartcash (3% off groceries/gas (5% in the first 6 months), 1% off everything else, paid in $50 increments) for the last five months and I generally am impressed that it has worked as advertised. They have an online interface where you can review your transactions and it is a functional, no-frills site. The two $50 cheques they have sent to me so far come in the mail a couple weeks after the statement date, and slightly to my surprise, have not bounced or come with ridiculous conditions and such.

I am guessing they send cheques instead of crediting the account automatically because they anticipate a certain fraction of people will not actually cash in their $50 cheques.

I used to use the Starbucks Visa Duetto Card (sponsored by RBC) which gave you 1% in “Starbucks money” which I used as a luxury item since there is no way that I could have otherwise rationalized it. They (either RBC or Starbucks, depending on who you believe) canceled the cards this spring, so when doing my shopping for a better credit card, I settled on the MBNA one.

My only negative is that they send out cheques in the monthly statements, and I always put these through the paper shredder simply because writing cheques off a credit card is hideously expensive and also because of the fraud consideration. I also was very quick to get off of their telemarketing spam list since they were selling useless products (likely “balance protection insurance”), but after that they have been non-spammers.

Note I was not paid to write this, these are my germane thoughts as a retail consumer on the product in question.

Menu Foods cashes out

Menu Foods is a manufacturer of pet food. They are most famous for an incident in early 2008 where some chemical got into their food supply through imported grain from China which was tainted and caused organ failures in pets. Although they were already on the financial skids in a very low-margin industry (they cut distributions to zero in 2005), this tainted food incident took down their share price down to abysmally low levels and presented a considerable financial risk for equity holders since the company was on the brink of insolvency.

They did manage to stage a partial recovery, but then the global economic crisis hit later in 2008 and early 2009, which brought the common shares once again around the 70-90 cent range.

Investors back then, buying equity, were taking an incredible risk, but it is one that has paid off for them – although the business produces cash flows today, it is slim and they have high leverage given the amount of cash they generate. Still, an investor taking the plunge at a dollar would have seen last Friday over a triple gain on their equity investment.

Today, they will be bought out for $4.80/unit, which if I was holding units, would be selling out with a smile on my face.

I remember looking at the company back in early 2008 and thought they were going to go bankrupt. I also did not put this firm on my candidate list during the economic crisis simply because there were so many other (more solvent) offerings on the market at the time.

Another example of yield chasing

Just after a week since I posted a review of Superior Plus, declaring that they probably would have to reduce their dividends in order to be financially sustainable, they announced their quarterly results today. Notably, they lowered expectations for 2010 due to warmer weather (and therefore less natural gas deliveries).

They also had the following snippet in their quarterly release:

– The financial outlook for 2010 has been revised to AOCF per share of $1.50 to $1.65 as a result of lower than anticipated second quarter results and a weaker than previously anticipated economic recovery for the remainder of 2010.

– The financial outlook for 2011 has been revised to AOCF per share of $1.85 to $2.05 as a result of a weaker than previously anticipated economic recovery forecasted for the remainder of 2010 and throughout 2011, particularly impacting Superior’s Construction Products Distribution business.

AOCF is “Adjusted operating cash flow”, which is a non-GAAP metric to approximate how much cash before capital expenditures is available to the corporation. Since their dividend rate is $1.62/share, this leaves the company little to negative real cash to provide for acquisitions (which they have done plenty of over the past couple years), debt repayment or capital projects.

The company’s stock traded down 7.9% as a reaction to their disappointing report.

Investors undoubtedly will be looking at Superior Plus’s 13.03% dividend yield and marvel what a bargain they are getting, but it seems likely they will be forced to reduce dividends and this is reflected in the market price.

Interestingly enough, Superior Plus has four issues of debentures that trade on the TSX – the issue maturing in December 2012 has a yield to maturity of 4.5%, while the issue maturing July 2017 has a yield to maturity of 5.9%. They appear to be priced very expensive and I would not touch them.