Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 105

Price volatility matters for bond investing

Analysis of corporate credit comprises three key areas of assessment: volatility, financial ratios and structure. Everyone knows and uses financial ratios, or at least the rating agency shorthand of them which is summarised in labels such as ‘AAA’ or ‘BB’. The most common financial ratios are leverage, interest cover and gearing. (Property transactions substitute loan to value ratio for balance sheet gearing and infrastructure often uses debt to regulated asset base.)

Structure is less well understood, but most observers at least know that secured is better than unsecured and that covenants are a good thing.

Volatility is the simplest of the three key areas to test, but it is often the most ignored. As credit can suffer losses when a business underperforms but doesn’t usually share in the upside of business outperformance, volatility of earnings and cashflows is undesirable. Convertible bonds and debt structures that come with warrants or options seek to address the perceived imbalance of risk sharing. However, these bells and whistles are used to allow lenders to obtain a share of the upside in more volatile companies rather than protecting against downside. Vanilla loans and bonds are therefore best suited for companies with relatively stable cashflows.

Recent examples of bond price volatility

The recent months have given us fresh examples of what can happen when potentially volatile companies take on meaningful levels of debt. American Eagle Energy Corporation raised US$175 million in secured bonds in August 2014. The first interest payment was due in March 2015. The company skipped the payment and is now negotiating with creditors in order to salvage some value for shareholders. The drop in oil prices means that it isn’t generating enough cashflow to service its debts. Its cost of doing business is simply too high with oil prices at nearly half the level when the debt was issued.

Fortescue Metals spent a good part of March 2015 trying to extend its debt profile and then reassuring investors that its failure to do so wasn’t a big deal. The bond markets clearly disagreed with the 2019 bonds dropping from 98.5% after the proposed debt restructuring was first announced to 78% at the time of writing. Comments from the CFO that the business is “bulletproof” and from the Chairman that the four largest iron ore producers should jointly restrict supply didn’t help perceptions.

Based on iron ore prices at month end, Fortescue is thought to be cashflow negative after interest and maintenance capital is taken into account. With substantial principal repayments due in 2017 and 2019 Fortescue is now looking for other ways to raise capital, which are thought to include sales of mines or rail infrastructure. There have been missed opportunities to sell infrastructure, raise cheap long term debt or to raise additional equity in the years since the previous 2012 debt scare. Chart 1 shows how the bond market has reacted to changes in the iron ore price.

Chart 1: Price of Fortescue's 2022 bonds versus iron ore price

Source: Morningstar

Commodity producers are amongst the most volatile companies, with the long term graphs of commodity prices showing enormous fluctuations. When times are good, new capacity enters the system but it has long lead times and before production ramps up prices can rise sharply. When demand falls or oversupply occurs it again takes time (typically years) for the supply of the commodities to drop back to balanced levels and prices can drop sharply. Agricultural commodities can also suffer from a high level of price volatility. Unexpected weather that knocks out a season of production in one part of the world quickly boosts prices for those elsewhere who are still able to supply. Companies that service industries dependent upon volatile commodity prices also get caught up in the cycle, as the focus on costs and amount of new capital invested varies substantially as the profit margins in the industry wax and wane.

Managing volatility is often overlooked

Old-fashioned mechanisms for mitigating volatility such as hedging and weather insurance have been discarded by many. Had either American Eagle or Fortescue wanted to, they could have locked in their selling prices for several years at healthy levels back in 2014 using futures or long term supply contracts. The trend in the last ten years has been for shareholders to discourage commodity producers from hedging, preferring to keep the revenues of the businesses variable and subject to market forces in what was expected to be a seller’s market. The balance of power has now changed and the lack of long term hedging looks set to render many higher cost producers insolvent.

Volatility goes beyond commodity producers and their related industries. Other volatile industries are often referred to by equity investors as ‘cyclicals’. These include airlines, hotels, construction and some retailers with spending on these items seen as discretionary and subject to being cut in a time of recession. These too can be an inappropriate match for traditional debt funding.

A current example of the outcome of a volatility assessment is to avoid buying Qantas unsecured bonds but to invest instead in Sydney Airport debt. Qantas has shown over the last seven years that it is good at making excuses but not good at making profits. Airlines are known to be notoriously volatile with a long history of insolvencies and government bailouts. Conversely, mainline airports have shown a much lower level of volatility and financial issues. When downturns occur, airlines typically bear the brunt with airports, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft leasing companies typically remaining profitable. Savvier debt investors have also been lending to airlines via lease structures. In the event of an airline’s insolvency the planes often remain under contract with all payments made. The fall-back position is having a hard asset to seize (ideally a late model plane) that can be redeployed elsewhere.

Footnote: Post the writing of this article, Fortescue announced its March 2015 quarterly production report and the bonds and shares rallied in response to expectations of lower iron ore production costs.

 

Jonathan Rochford is Portfolio Manager at Narrow Road Capital. This article is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for professional and tailored financial advice. Narrow Road Capital advises on and invests in a wide range of securities.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Hunting for value in fixed income

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Do bonds still offer a buffer to equity volatility?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.