PrefBlog

Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund’s Net Asset Value per Unit as of the close July 31, 2019, was $8.1297.

MAPF returns assume reinvestment of dividends, and are shown after expenses but before fees. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund or any other fund. For more information, see the fund’s main page. The fund is available either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited.

The preferred share market has suffered a sharp reverse in the past five months, leaving a lot of room for outsized gains. The Seniority Spread (the interest-equivalent yield on reasonably liquid, investment-grade PerpetualDiscounts less the yield on long term corporate bonds) is extremely elevated (chart end-date 2019-7-12)

Click for Big

Note that the Seniority Spread was 390bp on July 31, an astonishing 45bp wider than reported at the end of May. As a good practical example of the spreads between markets, consider that on March 20 the redemption of IGM.PR.B was announced; the redemption of this 5.90% Straight Perpetual was explicitly financed by the issue of 4.206% debentures, implying a Seniority Spread for this issuer of about 350bp at that time.

… and the relationship between five-year Canada yields and yields on investment-grade FixedResets is also well within what I consider ‘decoupled panic’ territory (chart end-date 2019-6-14):

Click for Big

In addition, I feel that the yield on five-year Canadas is unsustainably low (it should be the inflation rate plus an increment of … 1%? 1.5%? 2.0%?),and a return to sustainable levels is likely over the medium term.

It seems clear that many market players are, wittingly or not, using FixedResets to speculate on future moves in the Canada 5-Year yield. This is excellent news for those who take market action based on fundamentals and the long term characteristics of the market because nobody can consistently time the markets. The speculators will, over the long run, lose money, handing it over to more sober investors.

FixedReset (Discount) performance on the month was +1.50% vs. PerpetualDiscounts of +1.64% in July; the two classes finally decoupled in mid-November after months of moving in lockstep, but it still appears to me that yields available on FixedResets are keeping the yields of PerpetualDiscounts up, even though a consistent valuation based on an expectation of declining interest rates would greatly increase the attractiveness of PerpetualDiscounts:

Click for Big

Floaters managed to rally, returning +3.78% for July and -35.91% for the past twelve months. Look at the long-term performance:

Click for Big

Some Assiduous Readers will be interested to observe that the ‘Quantitative Easing’ decline was not as bad as the ‘Credit Crunch’ decline, which took the sector down to the point where the 15-year cumulative total return was negative. I wrote about that at the time and still can’t get over it. Fifteen years! Not only that, but the total return on this index since 2003-11-28 has been zero! Just over fifteen and a half years!

It seems clear that Floaters are used, wittingly or otherwise, as a vehicle for speculation on the policy rate and Canada Prime, while FixedResets are being used as a vehicle for speculation on the five-year Canada rate. In support of this idea, I present an Implied Volatility analysis of the TRP series of FixedResets as of July 31, which is comprised of six issues without a Minimum Rate Guarantee and two issues which do have this feature:

Click for Big

The two issues with floors, TRP.PR.J (+469, minimum 5.50%) and TRP.PR.K (+385, minimum 4.90%) are $0.74 and an incredible $3.68 rich, respectively. These are decreases from last month but are still very high values, despite the fact that their floor will not become effective unless five-year Canadas dip below 0.81% and 1.05%, respectively. For all the gloom, we’re still a long way from those levels!

Relative performance during the month was not correlated with Issue Reset Spreads:

Click for Big

… and correlations over the quarter were also negligible:

Click for Big

And, for those curious about how the current downturn compares with prior ones:

Click for Big

As for the future, of course, it’s one thing to say that ‘spreads are unsustainable and so are government yields’ and it’s quite another to forecast just how and when a more economically sustainable environment will take effect. It could be years. There could be a reversal, particularly if Trump’s international trade policies cause a severe recession or even a depression. And, of course, I could be just plain wrong about the sustainability of the current environment.

Yields on preferred shares of all stripes are extremely high compared to those available from other investments of similar quality. A I told John Heinzl in an eMail interview in late November, the best advice I can offer investors remains Shut up and clip your coupons!

I think that a broad, sustainable rally in FixedResets will require higher five-year Canada yields (or a widespread expectation of them) … and although I’m sure this will happen eventually, it would be foolish to speculate on just when it will happen!

These calculations were performed assuming constant contemporary GOC-5 and 3-Month Bill rates, as follows:

Significant positions were held in NVCC non-compliant regulated FixedReset issues on July 31, 2019; all of these currently have their yields calculated with the presumption that they will be called by the issuers at par prior to 2022-1-31 (banks) or 2030-1-31 (insurers and insurance holding companies) or on a different date (SplitShares, when present in the portfolio) This presents another complication in the calculation of sustainable yield, which also assumes that redemption proceeds will be reinvested at the same rate. It will also be noted that my analysis of likely insurance industry regulation as updated is not given much weight by the market.

I will also note that the sustainable yield calculated above is not directly comparable with any yield calculation currently reported by any other preferred share fund as far as I am aware. The Sustainable Yield depends on:
i) Calculating Yield-to-Worst for each instrument and using this yield for reporting purposes;
ii) Using the contemporary value of Five-Year Canadas to estimate dividends after reset for FixedResets. The assumption regarding the five-year Canada rate has become more important as the proportion of low-spread FixedResets in the portfolio has increased.
iii) Making the assumption that deeply discounted NVCC non-compliant issues from both banks and insurers, both Straight and FixedResets will be redeemed at par on their DeemedMaturity date as discussed above.

Turnover shot up to 18% in July, as the rally from mid-June that started to fade in early July bred dislocations in the market.

There is extreme segmentation in the marketplace, with OSFI’s NVCC rule changes in February 2011 having had the effect of splitting the formerly relatively homogeneous Straight Perpetual class of preferreds into three parts:

• Unaffected Straight Perpetuals
• DeemedRetractibles explicitly subject to the rules (banks)
• DeemedRetractibles considered by me, but not (yet!) by the market, to be likely to be explicitly subject to the rules in the future (insurers and insurance holding companies)

This segmentation, and the extreme valuation differences between the segments, has cut down markedly on the opportunities for trading.

To make this more clear, it used to be that there were 70-odd Straight Perpetuals and I was more or less indifferent as to which ones I owned (subject, of course, to issuer concentration concerns and other risk management factors). Thus, if any one of these 70 were to go down in price by – say – $0.25, I would quite often have something in inventory that I’d be willing to swap for it. The segmentation means that I am no longer indifferent; in addition to checking the valuation of a potential buy to other Straights, I also have to check its peer group. This cuts down on the potential for trading.

And, of course, the same segmentation has the same effect on trading opportunities between FixedReset issues.

I have argued for a long time that insurers will become covered by NVCC rules similar to the banks, but regulatory process on the issue is very slow.

As a result of prior delays, I initially extended the Deemed Maturity date for insurers and insurance holding companies by three years (to 2025-1-31), in the expectation that when OSFI finally does provide clarity, they will allow the same degree of lead-in time for these companies as they did for banks. This had a major effect on the durations of preferred shares subject to the change but, fortunately, not much on their calculated yields as most of these issues were either trading near par when the change was made or were trading at sufficient premium that a par call was expected on economic grounds. However, with the declines in the market over the past nine months, the expected capital gain on redemption of the insurance-issued DeemedRetractibles has become an important component of the calculated yield.

In December, 2018, I extended the DeemedMaturity date for insurance issues by another five years, to 2030-1-31.

The new date has been chosen with the idea that a decision will be made by the IAIS (International Association of Insurance Supervisors) in 2019, and (if favourable) will be implemented with an 11-year grace period, similarly to the banks. We shall see just how accurate these suppositions might be!

I must emphasize that these extensions do not give rise to any desire on my part to alter the fundamentals of my analysis. It is simply a reaction to the excessive time the regulators are taking to discuss the issue.

Sectoral distribution of the MAPF portfolio on July 31 was as follows:

The “total” reflects the un-leveraged total portfolio (i.e., cash is included in the portfolio calculations and is deemed to have a duration and yield of 0.00.). MAPF will often have relatively large cash balances, both credit and debit, to facilitate trading. Figures presented in the table have been rounded to the indicated precision.

Credit distribution is:

Liquidity Distribution is:

The distribution of Issue Reset Spreads is:

Distribution of Floating Rate Start Dates is shown in the table below. This is the date of the next adjustment to the dividend rate, if the issue is currently paying a fixed rate for a limited time; which in practice is successive terms of 5 years. Issues that adjust quarterly are considered “Currently Floating”.

MAPF is, of course, Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund, a “unit trust” managed by Hymas Investment Management Inc. Further information and links to performance, audited financials and subscription information are available the fund’s web page. The fund may be purchased either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited. A “unit trust” is like a regular mutual fund, but are not sold with a prospectus. This is cheaper, but means subscription is restricted to “accredited investors” (as defined by the Ontario Securities Commission). Fund past performances are not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in MAPF or any other fund.

A similar portfolio composition analysis has been performed on the Claymore Preferred Share ETF (symbol CPD) (and other funds) as of July 31, 2017, and published in the August, 2017, PrefLetter. It is fair to say:

• MAPF credit quality is much better
• MAPF liquidity is lower
• MAPF Yield is higher
• Weightings
  • MAPF is much less exposed to Straight Perpetuals
  • Neither portfolio is exposed to Operating Retractibles (there aren’t too many of those any more!)
  • MAPF is equally exposed to SplitShares (that is to say, currently no exposure)
  • MAPF is less exposed to FixFloat / Floater / Ratchet
  • MAPF is significantly higher weighted in FixedResets, with a much greater emphasis on lower-spread and insurance issues

Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund’s Net Asset Value per Unit as of the close June 28, 2019, was $8.0896 after a dividend distribution of 0.097735.

It should be noted that June 28 was a very strong day, with a lot of closing prices – but not closing bids! – being boosted by a large number of market-on-close orders.

Since MAPF uses the closing bid for valuation purposes, its reported value did not receive the full value of the boost experienced by the indices and of all prospectus-based funds of which I am aware; for instance, the fund has a large position in HSE.PR.A, which the fund values at its closing bid of 12.48, not at the closing price of 13.30. The cumulative effect of these discrepancies represents well over 1% of fund value.

I rarely mention this pricing discrepancy between the fund and the indices – it’s all just noise and it all evens out over time – but this month the difference was egregious! Still, regardless of whether the June 28 rally is sustained throughout July, the prospects for outperformance vs. the indices in the coming month looks bright!

MAPF returns assume reinvestment of dividends, and are shown after expenses but before fees. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund or any other fund. For more information, see the fund’s main page. The fund is available either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited.

The preferred share market has suffered a sharp reverse in the past five months, leaving a lot of room for outsized gains. The Seniority Spread (the interest-equivalent yield on reasonably liquid, investment-grade PerpetualDiscounts less the yield on long term corporate bonds) is extremely elevated (chart end-date 2019-6-14)

Click for Big

Note that the Seniority Spread was 385bp on June 26, an astonishing 40bp wider than reported at the end of May. As a good practical example of the spreads between markets, consider that on March 20 the redemption of IGM.PR.B was announced; the redemption of this 5.90% Straight Perpetual was explicitly financed by the issue of 4.206% debentures, implying a Seniority Spread for this issuer of about 350bp at that time.

… and the relationship between five-year Canada yields and yields on investment-grade FixedResets is also well within what I consider ‘decoupled panic’ territory (chart end-date 2019-6-14):

Click for Big

In addition, I feel that the yield on five-year Canadas is unsustainably low (it should be the inflation rate plus an increment of … 1%? 1.5%? 2.0%?),and a return to sustainable levels is likely over the medium term.

It seems clear that many market players are, wittingly or not, using FixedResets to speculate on future moves in the Canada 5-Year yield. This is excellent news for those who take market action based on fundamentals and the long term characteristics of the market because nobody can consistently time the markets. The speculators will, over the long run, lose money, handing it over to more sober investors.

FixedReset (Discount) performance on the month was +1.37% vs. PerpetualDiscounts of +0.40% in June; the two classes finally decoupled in mid-November after months of moving in lockstep, but it still appears to me that yields available on FixedResets are keeping the yields of PerpetualDiscounts up, even though a consistent valuation based on an expectation of declining interest rates would greatly increase the attractiveness of PerpetualDiscounts:

Click for Big

Floaters got hammered again, returning -2.46% for June and -35.51% for the past twelve months. Look at the long-term performance:

Click for Big

Some Assiduous Readers will be interested to observe that the ‘Quantitative Easing’ decline was not as bad as the ‘Credit Crunch’ decline, which took the sector down to the point where the 15-year cumulative total return was negative. I wrote about that at the time and still can’t get over it. Fifteen years! Not only that, but the total return on this index since 2003-11-28 has been zero! Just over fifteen and a half years!

It seems clear that Floaters are used, wittingly or otherwise, as a vehicle for speculation on the policy rate and Canada Prime, while FixedResets are being used as a vehicle for speculation on the five-year Canada rate. In support of this idea, I present an Implied Volatility analysis of the TRP series of FixedResets (as of June 27, because I believe these quotes to be more reliable than those of June 28, as discussed above), which is comprised of six issues without a Minimum Rate Guarantee and two issues which do have this feature:

Click for Big

The two issues with floors, TRP.PR.J (+469, minimum 5.50%) and TRP.PR.K (+385, minimum 4.90%) are $2.58 and an incredible $4.00 rich, respectively and marked increases from last month, despite the fact that their floor will not become effective unless five-year Canadas dip below 0.81% and 1.05%, respectively. For all the gloom, we’re still a long way from those levels!

As for the future, of course, it’s one thing to say that ‘spreads are unsustainable and so are government yields’ and it’s quite another to forecast just how and when a more economically sustainable environment will take effect. It could be years. There could be a reversal, particularly if Trump’s international trade policies cause a severe recession or even a depression. And, of course, I could be just plain wrong about the sustainability of the current environment.

Yields on preferred shares of all stripes are extremely high compared to those available from other investments of similar quality. A I told John Heinzl in an eMail interview in late November, the best advice I can offer investors remains Shut up and clip your coupons!

I think that a broad, sustainable rally in FixedResets will require higher five-year Canada yields (or a widespread expectation of them) … and although I’m sure this will happen eventually, it would be foolish to speculate on just when it will happen!

These calculations were performed assuming constant contemporary GOC-5 and 3-Month Bill rates, as follows:

Significant positions were held in NVCC non-compliant regulated FixedReset issues on June 28, 2019; all of these currently have their yields calculated with the presumption that they will be called by the issuers at par prior to 2022-1-31 (banks) or 2030-1-31 (insurers and insurance holding companies) or on a different date (SplitShares, when present in the portfolio) This presents another complication in the calculation of sustainable yield, which also assumes that redemption proceeds will be reinvested at the same rate. It will also be noted that my analysis of likely insurance industry regulation as updated is not given much weight by the market.

I will also note that the sustainable yield calculated above is not directly comparable with any yield calculation currently reported by any other preferred share fund as far as I am aware. The Sustainable Yield depends on:
i) Calculating Yield-to-Worst for each instrument and using this yield for reporting purposes;
ii) Using the contemporary value of Five-Year Canadas to estimate dividends after reset for FixedResets. The assumption regarding the five-year Canada rate has become more important as the proportion of low-spread FixedResets in the portfolio has increased.
iii) Making the assumption that deeply discounted NVCC non-compliant issues from both banks and insurers, both Straight and FixedResets will be redeemed at par on their DeemedMaturity date as discussed above.

Turnover ticked up a little to a still anemic 1% in June, as the fund is now ‘all-in’ on FixedResets, particularly those with a low Issue Reset Spread. There were a few trades beginning to look interesting on the strong day June 28; if the buying pressure exhibited at the close remains in effect in the coming week, there may well be more trading to report next month!

There is extreme segmentation in the marketplace, with OSFI’s NVCC rule changes in February 2011 having had the effect of splitting the formerly relatively homogeneous Straight Perpetual class of preferreds into three parts:

• Unaffected Straight Perpetuals
• DeemedRetractibles explicitly subject to the rules (banks)
• DeemedRetractibles considered by me, but not (yet!) by the market, to be likely to be explicitly subject to the rules in the future (insurers and insurance holding companies)

This segmentation, and the extreme valuation differences between the segments, has cut down markedly on the opportunities for trading.

To make this more clear, it used to be that there were 70-odd Straight Perpetuals and I was more or less indifferent as to which ones I owned (subject, of course, to issuer concentration concerns and other risk management factors). Thus, if any one of these 70 were to go down in price by – say – $0.25, I would quite often have something in inventory that I’d be willing to swap for it. The segmentation means that I am no longer indifferent; in addition to checking the valuation of a potential buy to other Straights, I also have to check its peer group. This cuts down on the potential for trading.

And, of course, the same segmentation has the same effect on trading opportunities between FixedReset issues.

I have argued for a long time that insurers will become covered by NVCC rules similar to the banks, but regulatory process on the issue is very slow.

As a result of prior delays, I initially extended the Deemed Maturity date for insurers and insurance holding companies by three years (to 2025-1-31), in the expectation that when OSFI finally does provide clarity, they will allow the same degree of lead-in time for these companies as they did for banks. This had a major effect on the durations of preferred shares subject to the change but, fortunately, not much on their calculated yields as most of these issues were either trading near par when the change was made or were trading at sufficient premium that a par call was expected on economic grounds. However, with the declines in the market over the past nine months, the expected capital gain on redemption of the insurance-issued DeemedRetractibles has become an important component of the calculated yield.

In December, 2018, I extended the DeemedMaturity date for insurance issues by another five years, to 2030-1-31.

The new date has been chosen with the idea that a decision will be made by the IAIS (International Association of Insurance Supervisors) in 2019, and (if favourable) will be implemented with an 11-year grace period, similarly to the banks. We shall see just how accurate these suppositions might be!

I must emphasize that these extensions do not give rise to any desire on my part to alter the fundamentals of my analysis. It is simply a reaction to the excessive time the regulators are taking to discuss the issue.

Sectoral distribution of the MAPF portfolio on June 28 was as follows:

The “total” reflects the un-leveraged total portfolio (i.e., cash is included in the portfolio calculations and is deemed to have a duration and yield of 0.00.). MAPF will often have relatively large cash balances, both credit and debit, to facilitate trading. Figures presented in the table have been rounded to the indicated precision.

Credit distribution is:

Liquidity Distribution is:

The distribution of Issue Reset Spreads is:

Distribution of Floating Rate Start Dates is shown in the table below. This is the date of the next adjustment to the dividend rate, if the issue is currently paying a fixed rate for a limited time; which in practice is successive terms of 5 years. Issues that adjust quarterly are considered “Currently Floating”.

MAPF is, of course, Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund, a “unit trust” managed by Hymas Investment Management Inc. Further information and links to performance, audited financials and subscription information are available the fund’s web page. The fund may be purchased either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited. A “unit trust” is like a regular mutual fund, but are not sold with a prospectus. This is cheaper, but means subscription is restricted to “accredited investors” (as defined by the Ontario Securities Commission). Fund past performances are not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in MAPF or any other fund.

A similar portfolio composition analysis has been performed on the Claymore Preferred Share ETF (symbol CPD) (and other funds) as of July 31, 2017, and published in the August, 2017, PrefLetter. It is fair to say:

• MAPF credit quality is much better
• MAPF liquidity is lower
• MAPF Yield is higher
• Weightings
  • MAPF is much less exposed to Straight Perpetuals
  • Neither portfolio is exposed to Operating Retractibles (there aren’t too many of those any more!)
  • MAPF is equally exposed to SplitShares (that is to say, currently no exposure)
  • MAPF is less exposed to FixFloat / Floater / Ratchet
  • MAPF is significantly higher weighted in FixedResets, with a much greater emphasis on lower-spread and insurance issues

Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund’s Net Asset Value per Unit as of the close May 31, 2019, was $8.1061.

MAPF returns assume reinvestment of dividends, and are shown after expenses but before fees. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund or any other fund. For more information, see the fund’s main page. The fund is available either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited.

The preferred share market has suffered a sharp reverse in the past five months, leaving a lot of room for outsized gains. The Seniority Spread (the interest-equivalent yield on reasonably liquid, investment-grade PerpetualDiscounts less the yield on long term corporate bonds) is extremely elevated (chart end-date 2019-5-10)

Click for Big

Note that the Seniority Spread was 345bp on May 29. As a good practical example of the spreads between markets, consider that on March 20 the redemption of IGM.PR.B was announced; the redemption of this 5.90% Straight Perpetual was explicitly financed by the issue of 4.206% debentures, implying a Seniority Spread for this issuer of about 350bp at that time.

… and the relationship between five-year Canada yields and yields on investment-grade FixedResets is also well within what I consider ‘decoupled panic’ territory (chart end-date 2019-5-10):

Click for Big

In addition, I feel that the yield on five-year Canadas is unsustainably low (it should be the inflation rate plus an increment of … 1%? 1.5%? 2.0%?),and a return to sustainable levels is likely over the medium term.

It seems clear that many market players are, wittingly or not, using FixedResets to speculate on future moves in the Canada 5-Year yield. This is excellent news for those who take market action based on fundamentals and the long term characteristics of the market because nobody can consistently time the markets. The speculators will, over the long run, lose money, handing it over to more sober investors.

FixedReset (Discount) performance on the month was -5.64% vs. PerpetualDiscounts of -1.15% in May; the two classes finally decoupled in mid-November after months of moving in lockstep, but it still appears to me that yields available on FixedResets are keeping the yields of PerpetualDiscounts up, even though a consistent valuation based on an expectation of declining interest rates would greatly increase the attractiveness of PerpetualDiscounts:

Click for Big

As is often the case, there is a lot of noise in the graph of One Month Performance vs. Issue Reset Spread, but the correlation for the Pfd-3 Group was reportable at 16%. It is interesting to note that the Pfd-3 Group clearly outperformed investment grade issues:

Click for Big

Floaters got hammered again, returning +-5.29% for May and -33.71% for the past twelve months. Look at the long-term performance:

Click for Big

Some Assiduous Readers will be interested to observe that the ‘Quantitative Easing’ decline was not as bad as the ‘Credit Crunch’ decline, which took the sector down to the point where the 15-year cumulative total return was negative. I wrote about that at the time and still can’t get over it. Fifteen years!

It seems clear that Floaters are used, wittingly or otherwise, as a vehicle for speculation on the policy rate and Canada Prime, while FixedResets are being used as a vehicle for speculation on the five-year Canada rate. In support of this idea, I present an Implied Volatility analysis of the TRP series of FixedResets (as of May 31), which is comprised of six issues without a Minimum Rate Guarantee and two issues which do have this feature:

Click for Big

The two issues with floors, TRP.PR.J (+469, minimum 5.50%) and TRP.PR.K (+385, minimum 4.90%) are $1.60 and an incredible $3.09 rich, respectively, despite the fact that their floor will not become effective unless five-year Canadas dip below 0.81% and 1.05%, respectively. For all the recent gloom, we’re still a long way from those levels!

As for the future, of course, it’s one thing to say that ‘spreads are unsustainable and so are government yields’ and it’s quite another to forecast just how and when a more economically sustainable environment will take effect. It could be years. There could be a reversal, particularly if Trump’s international trade policies cause a severe recession or even a depression. And, of course, I could be just plain wrong about the sustainability of the current environment.

Yields on preferred shares of all stripes are extremely high compared to those available from other investments of similar quality. A I told John Heinzl in an eMail interview in late November, the best advice I can offer investors remains Shut up and clip your coupons!

I think that a broad, sustainable rally in FixedResets will require higher five-year Canada yields (or a widespread expectation of them) … and although I’m sure this will happen eventually, it would be foolish to speculate on just when it will happen!

These calculations were performed assuming constant contemporary GOC-5 and 3-Month Bill rates, as follows:

Significant positions were held in NVCC non-compliant regulated FixedReset issues on May 31, 2019; all of these currently have their yields calculated with the presumption that they will be called by the issuers at par prior to 2022-1-31 (banks) or 2030-1-31 (insurers and insurance holding companies) or on a different date (SplitShares, when present in the portfolio) This presents another complication in the calculation of sustainable yield, which also assumes that redemption proceeds will be reinvested at the same rate. It will also be noted that my analysis of likely insurance industry regulation as updated is not given much weight by the market.

I will also note that the sustainable yield calculated above is not directly comparable with any yield calculation currently reported by any other preferred share fund as far as I am aware. The Sustainable Yield depends on:
i) Calculating Yield-to-Worst for each instrument and using this yield for reporting purposes;
ii) Using the contemporary value of Five-Year Canadas to estimate dividends after reset for FixedResets. The assumption regarding the five-year Canada rate has become more important as the proportion of low-spread FixedResets in the portfolio has increased.
iii) Making the assumption that deeply discounted NVCC non-compliant issues from both banks and insurers, both Straight and FixedResets will be redeemed at par on their DeemedMaturity date as discussed above.

Turnover dropped to zero in May. as the fund is now ‘all-in’ on FixedResets, particularly those with a low Issue Reset Spread.

There is extreme segmentation in the marketplace, with OSFI’s NVCC rule changes in February 2011 having had the effect of splitting the formerly relatively homogeneous Straight Perpetual class of preferreds into three parts:

• Unaffected Straight Perpetuals
• DeemedRetractibles explicitly subject to the rules (banks)
• DeemedRetractibles considered by me, but not (yet!) by the market, to be likely to be explicitly subject to the rules in the future (insurers and insurance holding companies)

This segmentation, and the extreme valuation differences between the segments, has cut down markedly on the opportunities for trading.

To make this more clear, it used to be that there were 70-odd Straight Perpetuals and I was more or less indifferent as to which ones I owned (subject, of course, to issuer concentration concerns and other risk management factors). Thus, if any one of these 70 were to go down in price by – say – $0.25, I would quite often have something in inventory that I’d be willing to swap for it. The segmentation means that I am no longer indifferent; in addition to checking the valuation of a potential buy to other Straights, I also have to check its peer group. This cuts down on the potential for trading.

And, of course, the same segmentation has the same effect on trading opportunities between FixedReset issues.

I have argued for a long time that insurers will become covered by NVCC rules similar to the banks, but regulatory process on the issue is very slow.

As a result of prior delays, I initially extended the Deemed Maturity date for insurers and insurance holding companies by three years (to 2025-1-31), in the expectation that when OSFI finally does provide clarity, they will allow the same degree of lead-in time for these companies as they did for banks. This had a major effect on the durations of preferred shares subject to the change but, fortunately, not much on their calculated yields as most of these issues were either trading near par when the change was made or were trading at sufficient premium that a par call was expected on economic grounds. However, with the declines in the market over the past nine months, the expected capital gain on redemption of the insurance-issued DeemedRetractibles has become an important component of the calculated yield.

In December, 2018, I extended the DeemedMaturity date for insurance issues by another five years, to 2030-1-31.

The new date has been chosen with the idea that a decision will be made by the IAIS (International Association of Insurance Supervisors) in 2019, and (if favourable) will be implemented with an 11-year grace period, similarly to the banks. We shall see just how accurate these suppositions might be!

I must emphasize that these extensions do not give rise to any desire on my part to alter the fundamentals of my analysis. It is simply a reaction to the excessive time the regulators are taking to discuss the issue.

Sectoral distribution of the MAPF portfolio on May 31 was as follows:

The “total” reflects the un-leveraged total portfolio (i.e., cash is included in the portfolio calculations and is deemed to have a duration and yield of 0.00.). MAPF will often have relatively large cash balances, both credit and debit, to facilitate trading. Figures presented in the table have been rounded to the indicated precision.

Credit distribution is:

Liquidity Distribution is:

The distribution of Issue Reset Spreads is:

Distribution of Floating Rate Start Dates is shown in the table below. This is the date of the next adjustment to the dividend rate, if the issue is currently paying a fixed rate.

MAPF is, of course, Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund, a “unit trust” managed by Hymas Investment Management Inc. Further information and links to performance, audited financials and subscription information are available the fund’s web page. The fund may be purchased either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited. A “unit trust” is like a regular mutual fund, but is sold by offering memorandum rather than prospectus. This is cheaper, but means subscription is restricted to “accredited investors” (as defined by the Ontario Securities Commission). Fund past performances are not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in MAPF or any other fund.

A similar portfolio composition analysis has been performed on the Claymore Preferred Share ETF (symbol CPD) (and other funds) as of July 31, 2017, and published in the August, 2017, PrefLetter. It is fair to say:

• MAPF credit quality is much better
• MAPF liquidity is lower
• MAPF Yield is higher
• Weightings
  • MAPF is much less exposed to Straight Perpetuals
  • Neither portfolio is exposed to Operating Retractibles (there aren’t too many of those any more!)
  • MAPF is equally exposed to SplitShares (that is to say, currently no exposure)
  • MAPF is less exposed to FixFloat / Floater / Ratchet
  • MAPF is significantly higher weighted in FixedResets, with a much greater emphasis on lower-spread and insurance issues

Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund’s Net Asset Value per Unit as of the close April 30, 2019, was $8.5338.

MAPF returns assume reinvestment of dividends, and are shown after expenses but before fees. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund or any other fund. For more information, see the fund’s main page. The fund is available either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited.

The preferred share market has suffered a sharp reverse in the past five months, leaving a lot of room for outsized gains. The Seniority Spread (the interest-equivalent yield on reasonably liquid, investment-grade PerpetualDiscounts less the yield on long term corporate bonds) is extremely elevated (chart end-date 2019-4-12)

Click for Big

Note that the Seniority Spread was 335bp on May 1. As a good practical example of the spreads between markets, consider that on March 20 the redemption of IGM.PR.B was announced; the redemption of this 5.90% Straight Perpetual was explicitly financed by the issue of 4.206% debentures, implying a Seniority Spread for this issuer of about 350bp.

… and the relationship between five-year Canada yields and yields on investment-grade FixedResets is also well within what I consider ‘decoupled panic’ territory (chart end-date 2019-3-8):

Click for Big

In addition, I feel that the yield on five-year Canadas is unsustainably low (it should be the inflation rate plus an increment of … 1%? 1.5%? 2.0%?),and a return to sustainable levels is likely over the medium term.

It seems clear that many market players are, wittingly or not, using FixedResets to speculate on future moves in the Canada 5-Year yield. This is excellent news for those who take market action based on fundamentals and the long term characteristics of the market because nobody can consistently time the markets. The speculators will, over the long run, lose money, handing it over to more sober investors.

FixedReset (Discount) performance on the month was +0.75% vs. PerpetualDiscounts of -0.28% in April; the two classes finally decoupled in mid-November after months of moving in lockstep.:

Click for Big

Floaters saw a bounce, as they returned +0.35% for April, but have returned -28.84% for the past twelve months. Look at the long-term performance:

Click for Big

Some Assiduous Readers will be interested to observe that the ‘Quantitative Easing’ decline was not as bad as the ‘Credit Crunch’ decline, which took the sector down to the point where the 15-year cumulative total return was negative. I wrote about that at the time and still can’t get over it. Fifteen years!

It seems clear that Floaters are used, wittingly or otherwise, as a vehicle for speculation on the policy rate and Canada Prime, while FixedResets are being used as a vehicle for speculation on the five-year Canada rate. In support of this idea, I present an Implied Volatility analysis of the TRP series of FixedResets (as of May 3), which is comprised of six issues without a Minimum Rate Guarantee and two issues which do have this feature:

Click for Big

The two issues with floors, TRP.PR.J (+469, minimum 5.50%) and TRP.PR.K (+385, minimum 4.90%) are $1.24 and an incredible $3.09 rich, respectively, despite the fact that their floor will not become effective unless five-year Canadas dip below 0.81% and 1.05%, respectively. For all the recent gloom, we’re still a long way from those levels!

It may be the speed of the decline in GOC-5 that has triggered apprehension. For instance, on March 27 the GOC-5 yield was 1.43%, while on October 31, 2018, it was at 2.42%, a difference of 99bp. There is a 21-week difference between the two dates; if we examine all the 21-week intervals on a rolling basis from July 1999 to March, 2019, we can create the following histogram:

Click for Big

We can tell at a glance that the current decline is extreme, but we can do more than this. There are 34 of these rolling periods with declines in excess of 100bp. As might be expected (given that they are rolling periods) they occur in bunches:

So these dramatic events account for 30 of the 34 total; the current decline keeps impressive company!

As for the future, of course, it’s one thing to say that ‘spreads are unsustainable and so are government yields’ and it’s quite another to forecast just how and when a more economically sustainable environment will take effect. It could be years. There could be a reversal, particularly if Trump’s international trade policies cause a severe recession or even a depression. And, of course, I could be just plain wrong about the sustainability of the current environment.

Yields on preferred shares of all stripes are extremely high compared to those available from other investments of similar quality. A I told John Heinzl in an eMail interview in late November, the best advice I can offer investors remains Shut up and clip your coupons!

I think that a broad, sustainable rally in FixedResets will require higher five-year Canada yields (or a widespread expectation of them) … and although I’m sure this will happen eventually, it would be foolish to speculate on just when it will happen!

These calculations were performed assuming constant contemporary GOC-5 and 3-Month Bill rates, as follows:

Significant positions were held in NVCC non-compliant regulated FixedReset issues on April 30, 2019; all of these currently have their yields calculated with the presumption that they will be called by the issuers at par prior to 2022-1-31 (banks) or 2030-1-31 (insurers and insurance holding companies) or on a different date (SplitShares, when present in the portfolio) This presents another complication in the calculation of sustainable yield, which also assumes that redemption proceeds will be reinvested at the same rate. It will also be noted that my analysis of likely insurance industry regulation as updated is not given much weight by the market.

I will also note that the sustainable yield calculated above is not directly comparable with any yield calculation currently reported by any other preferred share fund as far as I am aware. The Sustainable Yield depends on:
i) Calculating Yield-to-Worst for each instrument and using this yield for reporting purposes;
ii) Using the contemporary value of Five-Year Canadas to estimate dividends after reset for FixedResets. The assumption regarding the five-year Canada rate has become more important as the proportion of low-spread FixedResets in the portfolio has increased.
iii) Making the assumption that deeply discounted NVCC non-compliant issues from both banks and insurers, both Straight and FixedResets will be redeemed at par on their DeemedMaturity date as discussed above.

Turnover picked up in April to about 11% as the migration from Straight Perpetuals to FixedResets continued, together with some opportunistic trading from an insurance FixedReset to non-regulated issues.

There is extreme segmentation in the marketplace, with OSFI’s NVCC rule changes in February 2011 having had the effect of splitting the formerly relatively homogeneous Straight Perpetual class of preferreds into three parts:

• Unaffected Straight Perpetuals
• DeemedRetractibles explicitly subject to the rules (banks)
• DeemedRetractibles considered by me, but not (yet!) by the market, to be likely to be explicitly subject to the rules in the future (insurers and insurance holding companies)

This segmentation, and the extreme valuation differences between the segments, has cut down markedly on the opportunities for trading.

To make this more clear, it used to be that there were 70-odd Straight Perpetuals and I was more or less indifferent as to which ones I owned (subject, of course, to issuer concentration concerns and other risk management factors). Thus, if any one of these 70 were to go down in price by – say – $0.25, I would quite often have something in inventory that I’d be willing to swap for it. The segmentation means that I am no longer indifferent; in addition to checking the valuation of a potential buy to other Straights, I also have to check its peer group. This cuts down on the potential for trading.

And, of course, the same segmentation has the same effect on trading opportunities between FixedReset issues.

I have argued for a long time that insurers will become covered by NVCC rules similar to the banks, but regulatory process on the issue is very slow.

As a result of prior delays, I initially extended the Deemed Maturity date for insurers and insurance holding companies by three years (to 2025-1-31), in the expectation that when OSFI finally does provide clarity, they will allow the same degree of lead-in time for these companies as they did for banks. This had a major effect on the durations of preferred shares subject to the change but, fortunately, not much on their calculated yields as most of these issues were either trading near par when the change was made or were trading at sufficient premium that a par call was expected on economic grounds. However, with the declines in the market over the past nine months, the expected capital gain on redemption of the insurance-issued DeemedRetractibles has become an important component of the calculated yield.

I recently extended the DeemedMaturity date for insurance issues by another five years, to 2030-1-31.

The new date has been chosen with the idea that a decision will be made by the IAIS (International Association of Insurance Supervisors) in 2019, and (if favourable) will be implemented with an 11-year grace period, similarly to the banks. We shall see just how accurate these suppositions might be!

I must emphasize that these extensions do not give rise to any desire on my part to alter the fundamentals of my analysis. It is simply a reaction to the excessive time the regulators are taking to discuss the issue.

Sectoral distribution of the MAPF portfolio on April 30 was as follows:

The “total” reflects the un-leveraged total portfolio (i.e., cash is included in the portfolio calculations and is deemed to have a duration and yield of 0.00.). MAPF will often have relatively large cash balances, both credit and debit, to facilitate trading. Figures presented in the table have been rounded to the indicated precision.

Credit distribution is:

Liquidity Distribution is:

MAPF is, of course, Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund, a “unit trust” managed by Hymas Investment Management Inc. Further information and links to performance, audited financials and subscription information are available the fund’s web page. The fund may be purchased either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited. A “unit trust” is like a regular mutual fund, but is sold by offering memorandum rather than prospectus. This is cheaper, but means subscription is restricted to “accredited investors” (as defined by the Ontario Securities Commission). Fund past performances are not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in MAPF or any other fund.

A similar portfolio composition analysis has been performed on the Claymore Preferred Share ETF (symbol CPD) (and other funds) as of July 31, 2017, and published in the August, 2017, PrefLetter. It is fair to say:

• MAPF credit quality is much better
• MAPF liquidity is lower
• MAPF Yield is higher
• Weightings
  • MAPF is much less exposed to Straight Perpetuals
  • Neither portfolio is exposed to Operating Retractibles (there aren’t too many of those any more!)
  • MAPF is equally exposed to SplitShares (that is to say, currently no exposure)
  • MAPF is less exposed to FixFloat / Floater / Ratchet
  • MAPF is significantly higher weighted in FixedResets, with a much greater emphasis on lower-spread and insurance issues

I regret to advise that there was a typographical error in the Financial Statements originally posted. This error misreported the number of shares held of one issue; it did not affect any dollar values. I have posted the new version provided by KPMG.

The Financial Statements and related documents for Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund are now available on the fund’s main page:

• Audited Financial Statements, 2018
• Transactions in 2018

Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund’s Net Asset Value per Unit as of the close March 29, 2019, was $8.4778 after a dividend distribution of 0.098523.

MAPF returns assume reinvestment of dividends, and are shown after expenses but before fees. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. You can lose money investing in Malachite Aggressive Preferred Fund or any other fund. For more information, see the fund’s main page. The fund is available either directly from Hymas Investment Management or through a brokerage account at Odlum Brown Limited.

The preferred share market has suffered a sharp reverse in the past five months, leaving a lot of room for outsized gains. The Seniority Spread (the interest-equivalent yield on reasonably liquid, investment-grade PerpetualDiscounts less the yield on long term corporate bonds) is extremely elevated (chart end-date 2019-3-8)

Click for Big

Note that the Seniority Spread was 335bp on March 27. As a good practical example of the spreads between markets, consider that on November 19, CIU issued $385-million of 30-year bonds yielding 3.95%, at a time when issuing Straight Perpetuals would have cost them about 5.75% – a very wide spread even before considering the tax effect.

… and the relationship between five-year Canada yields and yields on investment-grade FixedResets is also well within what I consider ‘decoupled panic’ territory (chart end-date 2019-3-8):

Click for Big

In addition, I feel that the yield on five-year Canadas is unsustainably low (it should be the inflation rate plus an increment of … 1%? 1.5%? 2.0%?),and a return to sustainable levels is likely over the medium term.

It seems clear that many market players are, wittingly or not, using FixedResets to speculate on future moves in the Canada 5-Year yield. This is excellent news for those who take market action based on fundamentals and the long term characteristics of the market because nobody can consistently time the markets. The speculators will, over the long run, lose money, handing it over to more sober investors.

FixedReset (Discount) performance on the month was -1.76% vs. PerpetualDiscounts of +3.56% in March; the two classes finally decoupled in mid-November after months of moving in lockstep.:

Click for Big

Floaters took another hit over the month, as they returned -6.10% for March and -30.87% for the past twelve months. But look at the long-term performance:

Click for Big

Some Assiduous Readers will be interested to observe that the ‘Quantitative Easing’ decline was not as bad as the ‘Credit Crunch’ decline, which took the sector down to the point where the 15-year cumulative total return was negative. I wrote about that at the time and still can’t get over it. Fifteen years!

It seems clear that Floaters are used, wittingly or otherwise, as a vehicle for speculation on the policy rate and Canada Prime, while FixedResets are being used as a vehicle for speculation on the five-year Canada rate. In support of this idea, I present an Implied Volatility analysis of the TRP series of FixedResets, which is comprised of six issues without a Minimum Rate Guarantee and two issues which do have this feature:

Click for Big

The two issues with floors, TRP.PR.J (+469, minimum 5.50%) and TRP.PR.K (+385, minimum 4.90%) are $1.63 and an incredible $3.02 rich, respectively, despite the fact that their floor will not become effective unless five-year Canadas dip below 0.81% and 1.05%, respectively. For all the recent gloom, we’re still a long way from those levels!

It may be the speed of the decline in GOC-5 that has triggered apprehension. For instance, on March 27 the GOC-5 yield was 1.43%, while on October 31, 2018, it was at 2.42%, a difference of 99bp. There is a 21-week difference between the two dates; if we examine all the 21-week intervals on a rolling basis from July 1999 to March, 2019, we can create the following histogram:

Click for Big

We can tell at a glance that the current decline is extreme, but we can do more than this. There are 34 of these rolling periods with declines in excess of 100bp. As might be expected (given that they are rolling periods) they occur in bunches:

So these dramatic events account for 30 of the 34 total; the current decline keeps impressive company!

As for the future, of course, it’s one thing to say that ‘spreads are unsustainable and so are government yields’ and it’s quite another to forecast just how and when a more economically sustainable environment will take effect. It could be years. There could be a reversal, particularly if Trump’s international trade policies cause a severe recession or even a depression. And, of course, I could be just plain wrong about the sustainability of the current environment.

Yields on preferred shares of all stripes are extremely high compared to those available from other investments of similar quality. A I told John Heinzl in an eMail interview in late November, the best advice I can offer investors remains Shut up and clip your coupons!

I think that a broad, sustainable rally in FixedResets will require higher five-year Canada yields (or a widespread expectation of them) … and although I’m sure this will happen eventually, it would be foolish to speculate on just when it will happen!

These calculations were performed assuming constant contemporary GOC-5 and 3-Month Bill rates, as follows:

Significant positions were held in NVCC non-compliant regulated FixedReset issues on March 29, 2019; all of these currently have their yields calculated with the presumption that they will be called by the issuers at par prior to 2022-1-31 (banks) or 2030-1-31 (insurers and insurance holding companies) or on a different date (SplitShares, when present in the portfolio) This presents another complication in the calculation of sustainable yield, which also assumes that redemption proceeds will be reinvested at the same rate. It will also be noted that my analysis of likely insurance industry regulation as updated is not given much weight by the market.

I will also note that the sustainable yield calculated above is not directly comparable with any yield calculation currently reported by any other preferred share fund as far as I am aware. The Sustainable Yield depends on:
i) Calculating Yield-to-Worst for each instrument and using this yield for reporting purposes;
ii) Using the contemporary value of Five-Year Canadas to estimate dividends after reset for FixedResets. The assumption regarding the five-year Canada rate has become more important as the proportion of low-spread FixedResets in the portfolio has increased.
iii) Making the assumption that deeply discounted NVCC non-compliant issues from both banks and insurers, both Straight and FixedResets will be redeemed at par on their DeemedMaturity date as discussed above.