Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 243

Defaults low but no room for complacency

February is ‘Groundhog Month’ for credit market nerds. Moody’s publishes its annual default study each February and for seven out of ten years, not much happens. This year was one of those, which is good because it means it's been a boring year. Nothing that was investment grade at the start of 2017 defaulted during the year and only around 3% of sub-investment grade issuers defaulted. Overall default rates were just over 1%, which is around median levels.

However, over the last few decades, the overall default and high yield default rates have been boosted by a higher proportion of lower-rated issuers who default more often. The chart below shows this with default rates of ‘Ba’ and ‘high yield’ since 1920. We have also shown the industries which were over-represented during default spikes.

Watch for the once-a-decade jump in defaults

Since the 1970s, there’s been a once-a-decade spike in defaults for investment grade and the upper end of the high yield market. Defaults in those sectors invariably coincide with recessions. For the lower end of the high yield market, there are always defaults, and they become chunky in recessions. Interestingly, there are always industry clusters of defaults. Energy is the most cyclical of industries and the large majority of defaults over the last three years have been due to energy (particularly shale energy) when the oil price fell. However, other sectors which have been disproportionately represented in high-yield defaults include media, construction and finance (during recessions).

Two of our forward indicators are indicating another sleepy year. Moody’s uses a model to predict high yield defaults and it is forecasting that default rates will fall to 1.7% in 2018. If that occurs, it will be the second lowest default rate since 1981. The chart below shows the Kamakura Troubled Company Index, which has been an excellent predictor of the default rates 12 months ahead. It forecast the GFC default avalanche over a year before it happened, and also it picked the peak of defaults in 2009 about 12 months before.

Currently, conditions are in the best 28% of observations since 1990 and it is predicting subdued default activity over the next 12 months.

So where are we?

The standard position for an investment grade credit investor is to remain invested, because the margin over risk-free rates is sufficient to compensate for the default risk. If an investor bought every 5-year ‘BBB’ bond at the start of every year, they would have outperformed the risk-free government bond for that 5-year period in every year but one since the 1950s.

The default cost on that cohort of bonds has (almost always) been less than the additional yield investors receive on ‘BBB’ bonds over the risk-free government bond rate. It's more cyclical lower down the credit spectrum, but over the long run there is always a gain. However, for anyone who can correctly forecast a recession or near recession, selling can be extremely profitable.

Notwithstanding the positive non-recession forecast, there are some issues, including:

  • The non-default cycle is now very long-lived and over the post 1970s pain-free average (but still well below the 1940 to 1970 experience)
  • There has been an overall increase in leverage and other negative debt metrics over the past few years, and valuations are expensive
  • There's no recession in sight and if that continues, we'll see little stress on investment grade or high non-investment grade debt
  • We can't see any obvious industry bubbles and the two largest debt widow-makers (energy and commercial real estate) seem within normal valuation parameters.

However, take a look at the first chart, and see those spikes in defaults every decade or so. High yield defaults around 10% and investment grade around 2% to 4% are not uncommon.

 

Campbell Dawson is Executive Director at Elstree Investment Management Limited. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual investor.

 

  •   7 March 2018
  • 4
  •      
  •   
4 Comments
Doug
March 08, 2018

Campbell, good information on an overlooked topic.

This article may prove quite prophetic esp. regarding more marketed unrated and high yield (non-investment grade / junk) bonds

I worry ...
1) new to the industry, mum and dad investor-buyers of unrated and high yield bonds have no history understanding the later surprise default and illiquidity thereafter
2) the bond brokers marketing and arranging these purchases can sometimes rely too easily on general advice and wholesale investor provisions
3) trusting the same brokers as Custodian of the bonds may be Lehman-like inappropriate
4) ASIC's focus is elsewhere
5) professional investors could also be caught out too, forced to take excessive credit risk to combat ultra low interest rates and relatively high (to the cash rate) TD rates

As you said it is all fine until it isn't.

Campbell Dawson
March 15, 2018

Hi Doug,
The best way to access the benefits of high yield is as part of a diversified portfolio strategy and via a very diversified ( ie >50) securities portfolio and to have a > 5 year time frame. There may be investors who don't realise that either the quantum of defaults will increase from the current extremely low levels, or that you need to hold through the cycle.
If an investor does not understand that or is not sufficiently diversified enough, there will inevitably be issues when the next default cycle happens,
The better the credit quality of the portfolio (ie investment grade), the long investment horizon becomes less critical, and a less diversified portfolio would still do ok, although credit is an asset class where holding lots of securities is a free lunch: returns dont fall much and the risk of a single default is far less consequential

stan
March 11, 2018

1 It would help to explain what is meant by "default".
2 Given the track record of the rating agencies (remember GFC ?) why put too much credence on their opinions?
3 Well thought out covenants are potentially more significant in assessing the risks of some bonds.

Campbell Dawson
March 15, 2018

Stan
1)Default is simply if an issuer fails to pay a coupon or redeem principal on time
2) Ratings are suprisingly good at quantifying/predicting default for corporate issuers. The ratings of the so called "structured securities" were much less accurate in predicting the default behaviour of those securities in the GFC (and continue to be less valuable)
Having said that, we think that within the "corporate" realm, credit ratings agencies do better on some industries than others.
3) You may be right. Academic literature is mixed on the value of covenants (probably because they are all different enough that you can't get a big enough sample)

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Why would you invest in junk?

The case for high yield bonds

S&P default rates and the risks in bond investing

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Indexation implications – key changes to 2026/27 super thresholds

Stay on top of the latest changes to superannuation rates and thresholds for 2026, including increases to transfer balance cap, concessional contributions cap, and non-concessional contributions cap.

The refinery problem: A different kind of energy crisis in 2026

The Strait of Hormuz closure due to US-Iran conflict severely disrupted global energy supply chains. While various emergency measures mitigated the crude impact, the refined product market faces unprecedented stress.

The missing 30%: how LIC returns are understated, and why it matters

The perceived underperformance of LICs compared to ETFs is due to existing comparison data excluding crucial information, highlighting the need for proper assessment and transparent reporting.

Little‑known government scheme can help retirees tap into $3 trillion of housing wealth

The Home Equity Access Scheme in Australia allows older homeowners to tap into their home equity for retirement income, yet remains underused due to lack of awareness and its perceived complexity.

Origins of the mislabeled capital gains tax ‘discount’

Debate over the CGT discount is intensifying amid concerns about intergenerational equity and housing affordability. This analysis shows that the 'discount' does not necessarily favor property investors.

Div 296 may mean your estate pays tax on assets your beneficiaries never receive

The new super tax, applying from 1 July, introduces more than just a higher rate on large balances. It brings into focus a misalignment between where wealth sits and where the tax on that wealth ultimately falls.

Latest Updates

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Retirement

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Superannuation

Markets have always delivered for super fund members. What if they don’t?

What happens if market resilience in the face of ongoing geopolitical tensions ends? Potential decade-long market weakness shows the need for contingency planning.

Retirement

We tend to spend less in retirement …

Studies show that a drop in expenditure during retirement leads to a happier retirement. But when costs ramp up again later in life, it's a guaranteed income that makes spending more hurt less.

Shares

Can you value a share just using dividends?

A cow for her milk, a stock for her dividends. Investors are too quick to dismiss this valuation technique. 

Property

The 25-year property trust default is being questioned

The 33% CGT discount rate being floated isn’t random. It sits at the structural break-even between trust and company for the multi-property cohort. That’s driving the conversation we’re hearing now.

Investment strategies

Are active managers bringing a knife to a gunfight?

How passive investing has permanently changed market structure — and why sophisticated tools are now the price of survival.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 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.