Best & Worst Performers: April 2009

May 2nd, 2009

These are total returns, with dividends presumed to have been reinvested at the bid price on the ex-date. The list has been restricted to issues in the HIMIPref™ indices.

April 2009
Issue Index DBRS Rating Monthly Performance Notes (“Now” means “April 30”)
ACO.PR.A OpRet Pfd-2(low) -1.87% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 2.58% based on a bid of 26.25 and a call 2009-12-31 at 25.50.
GWO.PR.X OpRet Pfd-1(low) +0.40% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 4.77% based on a bid of 25.15 and a softMaturity 2013-9-29 at 25.00.
MFC.PR.A OpRet Pfd-1(low) +0.73% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 4.29% based on a bid of 24.87 and a softMaturity 2015-12-18 at 25.00.
CM.PR.A OpRet Pfd-1 +0.98% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of -9.75% based on a bid of 25.82 and a call 2009-5-30 at 25.00.
TCA.PR.Y PerpetualDiscount Pfd-2(low) +1.06% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 5.99% based on a bid of 46.72 and a limitMaturity.
MFC.PR.C PerpetualDiscount Pfd-1(low) +15.59% The second-worst performer in March. Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 6.59% based on a bid of 17.35 and a limitMaturity.
ELF.PR.G PerpetualDiscount Pfd-2(low) +16.23% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 7.81% based on a bid of 15.40 and a limitMaturity.
PWF.PR.L PerpetualDiscount Pfd-1(low) +16.60% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 6.84% based on a bid of 18.80 and a limitMaturity.
IAG.PR.A PerpetualDiscount Pfd-2(high) +18.00% Was the worst performer in March – this issue is notoriously volatile. Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 6.90% based on a bid of 16.91 and a limitMaturity.
BNA.PR.C SplitShare Pfd-2(low) +21.60% Now with a pre-tax bid-YTW of 13.01% based on a bid of 13.51 and a hardMaturity 2019-1-10 at 25.00

Pegged Orders

May 2nd, 2009

While searching for the Financial Post report of today’s block trades – couldn’t find it, by the way, I can only hope they’re still publishing it – I serendipituously came across an essay by Jeffrey MacIntosh, the Toronto Stock Exchange Professor of Capital Markets at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto on Pegged Orders.

It really is excellent. As Dr. MacIntosh explains, fragmentation of the marketplace into many exchanges has resulted in order books that may not necessarily be showing the same bid and ask. Regulators require that orders be routed to the exchange that will give best execution, which in turn requires that all exchanges post their Best Bid and Offer to the National Best Bid and Offer book (NBBO).

A downside of having multiple marketplaces, however, is that only price, rather than price-time priority can effectively be enforced given existing technology. Herein lies the problem. Exploiting the absence of inter-market price-time priority, some trading venues have created order types that pose a danger to the virtual single market.

Some marketplaces, for example, have allowed their customers to enter “pegged” orders that adjust automatically to match the NBBO. These marketplaces then allow these orders to be executed ahead of identically priced orders that were previously posted on another marketplace

Dr. MacIntosh believes that Pegged Orders should be banned:

Allowing pegged orders to scoop the NBBO does more than create the impression of an unfair market. It allows traders using pegged orders to effectively remove their orders from the price discovery process. It also imprisons liquidity within a single marketplace, reducing the extent to which orders on different marketplaces interact. If my bid on Market A is the NBBO, for example, I would normally expect that a matching offer on Market B will be forwarded to Market A for execution. However, if Market B permits pegged orders, an inferior bid in Market B’s order book will jump the queue, leaving my order unexecuted. If this happens often, I will clearly think twice before lining Market A’s books — or any other market’s books — with orders.

This is simply because pegged orders reduce the returns to posting limit orders. This constitutes a direct assault on what makes stock exchanges tick. Those who post limit orders are liquidity makers, since they offer other traders the opportunity to trade at the posted price. Those who hit these orders are liquidity “takers.” Since liquidity is a valuable commodity, a limit order thus has an “option” value to all potential traders. It is for this reason that most modern stock trading venues actually pay traders to post limit orders, charging only the “active” side on any trade that results.

Liquidity makers and liquidity takers exist because traders and trading strategies are heterogeneous. One cannot exist without the other. Harming the interests of one harms the interests of both.

I’m of two minds about this. Assiduous Readers will know already what my instincts are: NO MORE BLOODY RULES! Let better traders make lots of money at the expense of those who aren’t so good. However, his point that retail might take their money and go home if they perceive that the market is unfair is certainly a valid concern.

However, is banning really the answer? Pegged Orders represent a simple-minded trading strategy – and there is nothing a trader (particularly a bond trader) likes better than exploiting the inefficiency of a simple-minded trading strategy.

Say, for instance, I’m attempting to sell some XYZ, a thinly traded stock with a wide bid-offer spread, and I see that there are a boatload of Pegged Orders on the bid. I should then be able to cackle with glee and put in a bid very close to the offer on some off-beat exchange for, say, 100 shares. All the pegged orders will move up to match my price within microseconds, I’ll hit them within microseconds and cancel my bid within microseconds. Total time to set up algorithmic trading routine: five minutes. Execution time: Less than 1 second. Profits: enormous.

I am not an expert on the intricacies of order regulation and I suspect I could get into a lot of trouble for doing this, with regulators whining that my one-second bid wasn’t honest enough. That, however, is part of my point. In their attempts to change the shark tank into a wading pool, regulators are forced to create more and more intricate layers of rules, which ultimately serve no purpose other than reducing the penalties for incompetent trading, getting honest traders into trouble if they forget subparagraph 14(a)(ii)(7)(z)(b) and, of course, providing steady employment for regulators.

Update: Pegged Orders have been allowed on NASDAQ since 2003, but the question of inter-market time priority is not addressed in the linked document. Dr. McIntosh’s full article was republished on the UofT Faculty of Law Blog.

May 1, 2009

May 1st, 2009

I understand that Scotia has done an Innovative Tier 1 Capital deal, described as “650 million deal June 30, 2019-2108 … at 7.804%”, but have no further details, no press release, nothing on SEDAR.

One of my favourite words has been banned in the UK:

Liquidity, equity and stabilization are “grandiose or ambiguous” words that shouldn’t be used in investment brochures, Britain’s financial regulator said.

Short, punchy sentences with sub-headings and colored graphs should replace swathes of text, the Financial Services Authority said in a paper yesterday. Too much data is as bad as no information as it deters customers from properly reading documents, the London-based agency said.

If financial companies bamboozle customers with technical language, they won’t be treating them fairly — one of the principles by which they must abide — the FSA said. The regulator may not be following its own advice: FSA Chairman Adair Turner used the word “liquidity” 187 times in a 126-page report in March on financial regulation.

The actual paper is something of a hoot. The intent of the FSA is laudable, but … when you explain complex investment instruments to retail, you can have precision or comprehension. Pick One.

The Chrysler bankruptcy is becoming a political circus:

President Barack Obama said Chrysler LLC lenders who turned down his buyout offers are a “small group of speculators” who forced the automaker into bankruptcy.

“A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout,” Obama said today in Washington before Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection.

While lenders representing 70 percent of the Chrysler loans agreed to Obama’s offer of $2.25 billion in cash, the dissidents ignored a deadline of 6 p.m. yesterday, according to one of the investors who declined to be named.

Chrysler’s dissident lenders have on their side the “absolute priority” bankruptcy rule, which holds that value must be distributed according to the legal priorities of the stakeholders. What riled the group that put out the statement today was the fact that junior creditors, consisting of a workers healthcare trust, would get equity in a new Chrysler entity while they would not.

In the deal Chrysler was trying to conclude out of court, Fiat would have become a 20 percent owner of Chrysler, and a union retiree health-care trust fund would hold 55 percent, with the rest of the company staying in the government’s hands initially, according to people familiar with the matter. The government intends to replicate this, using bankruptcy to set up a new company, people familiar with the plan said.

“The U.S. bankruptcy code foresees the possibility that it may be necessary to vary from ‘absolute priority,’ in particular when a two-thirds majority is convinced it makes legal or business sense,” said Richard Hahn, co-chairman of the bankruptcy practice at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, a New York law firm that isn’t involved in the Chrysler negotiations. “If the government has consents from 70 percent, that’s more than enough” to give equity to junior creditors.

The dissidents “may be calculating that they can get more money by waiting a bit longer,” Hahn said. “Presumably they will file objections in court. The issue is less whether they’ll win than whether they can cause a meaningful delay that may cause Chrysler or the government to come to an accommodation.”

The objections from the group of lenders also drew criticism from Michigan lawmakers, including Democratic Representatives John Dingell and Sander Levin.

“The rogue hedge funds that refused to agree to a fair offer to exchange debt for cash from the U.S. Treasury — firms I label as the ‘vultures’ — will now be dealt with accordingly in court,” Dingell said.

Histrionics, flat declarations and squabbling over the carcass is nothing new in bankruptcy proceedings. The fact that one of the squabblers in the President of the United States of America is worrisome.

A paper on VoxEU titled Private pensions and policy responses to the crisis drew my attention to the OECD Pension Outlook 2008 that had many interesting things to say, for instance:

and (from the related documentation on Pension Plan fees, emphasis added):

While competition is normally expected to bring down costs, individual account pension markets behave in a counterintuitive manner. Marketing and sales agents have been used in the past to encourage members to switch providers, leading to an increase in operational expenses and fees. As members are not very responsive to higher fees, systems that a priori seemed to be highly competitive, with many players, have actually turned out to do rather poorly in terms of fees.

and

The paper argues that the particularly low fees observed in Bolivia and Sweden at the inception of their respective systems stem largely from a decision to force cost competition among providers via a central agency or ‗clearing house‘.

One possible explanation for the low costs in countries like Bolivia and Uruguay may be the conservative asset allocation of pension funds in these countries (Bolivian pension funds invest more than 90% in domestic treasury bonds).

There’s also ancilliary documentation on performance which shows Canada doing well, although data is limited.

Volumes came down a little today, but remain very healthy – and the market continued to rise, with some very high prices being seen for recent fixed-resets.

HIMIPref™ Preferred Indices
These values reflect the December 2008 revision of the HIMIPref™ Indices

Values are provisional and are finalized monthly
Index Mean
Current
Yield
(at bid)
Median
YTW
Median
Average
Trading
Value
Median
Mod Dur
(YTW)
Issues Day’s Perf. Index Value
Ratchet 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.6577 % 977.0
FixedFloater 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.6577 % 1,580.0
Floater 3.86 % 4.49 % 70,841 16.42 3 0.6577 % 1,220.6
OpRet 5.09 % 4.30 % 140,049 3.19 15 0.0801 % 2,139.6
SplitShare 6.07 % 7.52 % 46,729 4.29 3 0.2554 % 1,770.2
Interest-Bearing 6.05 % 7.87 % 28,495 0.65 1 -0.5020 % 1,969.3
Perpetual-Premium 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.5016 % 1,658.7
Perpetual-Discount 6.59 % 6.73 % 144,512 12.92 71 0.5016 % 1,527.7
FixedReset 5.80 % 4.90 % 587,704 4.54 36 0.6848 % 1,952.8
Performance Highlights
Issue Index Change Notes
RY.PR.H Perpetual-Discount 1.00 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 23.00
Evaluated at bid price : 23.15
Bid-YTW : 6.11 %
BNS.PR.N Perpetual-Discount 1.04 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 21.47
Evaluated at bid price : 21.47
Bid-YTW : 6.16 %
CIU.PR.B FixedReset 1.04 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-07-01
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 27.08
Bid-YTW : 5.03 %
BMO.PR.K Perpetual-Discount 1.05 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 20.13
Evaluated at bid price : 20.13
Bid-YTW : 6.54 %
CM.PR.J Perpetual-Discount 1.08 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 16.85
Evaluated at bid price : 16.85
Bid-YTW : 6.73 %
RY.PR.N FixedReset 1.11 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-03-26
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.40
Bid-YTW : 4.90 %
RY.PR.T FixedReset 1.11 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-09-23
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.35
Bid-YTW : 5.30 %
POW.PR.A Perpetual-Discount 1.12 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 20.75
Evaluated at bid price : 20.75
Bid-YTW : 6.83 %
TD.PR.E FixedReset 1.13 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-05-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.75
Bid-YTW : 4.72 %
BNS.PR.K Perpetual-Discount 1.16 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 19.17
Evaluated at bid price : 19.17
Bid-YTW : 6.31 %
RY.PR.I FixedReset 1.22 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 24.05
Evaluated at bid price : 24.09
Bid-YTW : 4.15 %
BNS.PR.J Perpetual-Discount 1.29 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 21.20
Evaluated at bid price : 21.20
Bid-YTW : 6.24 %
CU.PR.A Perpetual-Discount 1.31 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 23.76
Evaluated at bid price : 24.06
Bid-YTW : 6.13 %
BNS.PR.X FixedReset 1.36 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-05-25
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.86
Bid-YTW : 4.63 %
CM.PR.M FixedReset 1.51 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-08-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.90
Bid-YTW : 5.09 %
BMO.PR.H Perpetual-Discount 1.57 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 20.72
Evaluated at bid price : 20.72
Bid-YTW : 6.41 %
CM.PR.L FixedReset 1.58 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-05-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.92
Bid-YTW : 4.81 %
HSB.PR.C Perpetual-Discount 1.65 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 18.48
Evaluated at bid price : 18.48
Bid-YTW : 7.00 %
BNS.PR.R FixedReset 1.70 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 23.87
Evaluated at bid price : 23.91
Bid-YTW : 4.14 %
BAM.PR.K Floater 1.72 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 8.85
Evaluated at bid price : 8.85
Bid-YTW : 4.49 %
HSB.PR.D Perpetual-Discount 1.85 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 18.14
Evaluated at bid price : 18.14
Bid-YTW : 7.00 %
TD.PR.Y FixedReset 1.91 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 23.94
Evaluated at bid price : 24.00
Bid-YTW : 3.98 %
SLF.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 1.98 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 17.51
Evaluated at bid price : 17.51
Bid-YTW : 6.96 %
BNS.PR.O Perpetual-Discount 1.99 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 22.43
Evaluated at bid price : 22.55
Bid-YTW : 6.25 %
CL.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 1.99 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 22.77
Evaluated at bid price : 23.05
Bid-YTW : 6.87 %
TD.PR.S FixedReset 2.11 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 23.66
Evaluated at bid price : 23.74
Bid-YTW : 3.91 %
BMO.PR.L Perpetual-Discount 2.60 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 22.40
Evaluated at bid price : 22.52
Bid-YTW : 6.45 %
Volume Highlights
Issue Index Shares
Traded
Notes
MFC.PR.D FixedReset 122,476 YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-07-19
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.11
Bid-YTW : 5.87 %
RY.PR.Y FixedReset 112,090 Recent new issue.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-12-24
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 25.85
Bid-YTW : 5.43 %
SLF.PR.A Perpetual-Discount 59,015 YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 16.98
Evaluated at bid price : 16.98
Bid-YTW : 7.10 %
TD.PR.S FixedReset 42,535 YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 23.66
Evaluated at bid price : 23.74
Bid-YTW : 3.91 %
TD.PR.R Perpetual-Discount 42,400 YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 22.22
Evaluated at bid price : 22.33
Bid-YTW : 6.31 %
IAG.PR.C FixedReset 34,828 YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-05-01
Maturity Price : 24.35
Evaluated at bid price : 24.40
Bid-YTW : 5.61 %
There were 28 other index-included issues trading in excess of 10,000 shares.

HIMIPref™ Index Rebalancing: April 2009

May 1st, 2009
HIMI Index Changes, April 30, 2009
Issue From To Because
BNA.PR.B SplitShare Scraps Volume
CGI.PR.B Scraps SplitShare Volume
TRI.PR.B Scraps Floater Volume

To my chagrin, there are now only two issues left in the SplitShare index, all from BAM Split Corp.: BNA.PR.A and BNA.PR.C.

There were the following intra-month changes:

HIMI Index Changes during April 2009
Issue Action Index Because
RY.PR.X Add FixedReset New issue
NSI.PR.C Delete Scraps Redeemed
WN.PR.B Delete Scraps Redeemed
HSB.PR.E Add FixedReset New Issue
RY.PR.Y Add FixedReset New Issue

HSB.PR.E is one of those issues which are sent to try us. It was announced on March 23 with an anticipated closing date of March 31. I assumed it had settled – albeit without trading – and added it to the index for March 31. However, the issue had not settled; there were problems due to the downgrade by S&P. A new term sheet was released and the issue settled on April 8.

Update: The SplitShares index is now comprised of BNA.PR.A, BNA.PR.C & CGI.PR.B.

Video of SplitShare Seminar Now Available

May 1st, 2009

The March 26 Seminar on SplitShares has been described before, and now, as promised, the video is on-line.

You may subscribe for a week via the PrefLetter Website; you will receive a password that remains valid for one week’s access to the seminar page.

This page contains Flash Video of the seminar (if you can watch YouTube, you can watch the video), or you may download the seminar to your own machine in QuickTime format.

In addition to the video, there are a host of links to articles I have written regarding various elements of the seminar; to the slides used in the seminar; and even to a handy spreadsheet.

This access is priced at $100 + tax, with a 50% discount to those with an active year-long subscription to PrefLetter.

What is the Yield of RY.PR.Y?

May 1st, 2009

Every now and then an Assiduous Reader writes in and says he can’t reproduce my reported yield calculation; most recently this has happened with RY.PR.Y.

The yields reported on PrefBlog are taken right off the HIMIPref™ analytical software, which contains approximations of various kinds that make the analysis a little easier to perform. It should be noted, as an aside, that reported yields are not directly a particularly large component of the valuation that goes into HIMIPref™’s trade recommendation: as discussed on the software’s site, the big driver is price disparity – the estimate of the price change required to put the issue back on self-consistent yield curve where it belongs.

There are a number of reasons why the reported YTWs may be irreproducible:

maturityNoticePeriod: As pointed out by my correspondent, I am calculating the yield to 2014-12-24, when in fact the redemption option is for 2014-11-24. This is the maturityNoticePeriod for a call. In the early days of the programme, with lots of instruments trading in excess of their current call price, I was getting too many violently negative returns that had knock-on effects on the rest of the analysis. In order to alleviate these difficulties, I introduced maturityNoticePeriod and set constraints; it is assumed that a redemption will not take place for a certain number of days after the date in the database. In the case of options of the type OPTION_TYPE_CALL, the effective constraint is MATURITY_NOTICE_PERIOD, currently set equal to 30.

At some point I really should introduce a sub-type of call, that will reduce maturityNoticePeriod to zero under certain circumstances (e.g., last date of option period equal to the first; first date of option period more than n days in the future). However, I haven’t done this yet because:

  • I’m lazy
  • It doesn’t make much difference
    • The system applies a lower limit on the duration of instruments it is willing to trade
    • the inaccurate adjustment is applied to all FixedResets
    • the effect on yield is fairly minor at this point

Fortuitously, an example of the behaviour that triggered this analytical adjustment was reported April 30 in the volume table: CM.PR.A closed at 25.82-90, although it is currently callable at 25.50. The reported YTW of -9.75% to May 30 is bad enough; without the adjustment it would have been ridiculous.

Compounding: I report yields as bond-equivalent; that is, first I calculate the IRR, which applies annual compounding, then I manipulate it to provide YTM, like so:

(1+YTM/2)*(1+YTM/2) = 1+IRR

CASHFLOW_ADJUSTMENT_FIRSTDIVIDEND: Did you remember that there’s a fat first dividend?

CASHFLOW_FINALDIVIDEND: There’s also a final dividend payable on redemption for the period between the last pay-date and the redemption paydate.

So, after doing all this, I report a YTW of 5.62% for RY.PR.Y. The report of the cashFlowDiscountingBox has been uploaded, as well as the PseudoPortfolioReport.

RY.PR.Y was last mentioned in PrefBlog in the post RY.PR.Y Soars to Premium on Frantic Trading. It is tracked by HIMIPref™ and is a component of the HIMIPref™ FixedReset Index.

April 30, 2009

April 30th, 2009

Bloomberg reports that:

American Express Co.’s preferred stock rating was cut to BB, or non-investment grade, from BBB by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services.

I don’t see anything on the S&P site as yet. Moodys downgraded on April 24:

Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the long-term and short-term ratings of American Express Company (“Amex”). The senior long-term debt rating was lowered to A3 from A2; and the short-term rating was lowered to Prime-2 from Prime-1. The outlook for the Amex long-term ratings is negative.

Moody’s also downgraded the long-term ratings of American Express Travel Related Services (“TRS”) and its rated operating subsidiaries, including American Express Credit Corp. The senior debt and deposit ratings of TRS and subsidiaries were downgraded to A2 from A1. The Bank Financial Strength Ratings of American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank were also lowered to C+ from B-. The Prime-1 short-term ratings for TRS and its rated operating subsidiaries were affirmed. The rating outlook for the TRS debt and deposit ratings is now stable. The outlook on the Banks’ Financial Strength Ratings (“BFSR”) is negative. These rating actions conclude the review initiated on February 25, 2009.

Today’s rating actions reflect the erosion of Amex’s asset quality and weaker revenue trends stemming from the severe U.S. economic recession and the firm’s relatively high credit exposure in the states most heavily affected by home price declines, particularly California and Florida. Moody’s believes that these developments, in combination with structural and regulatory changes in the credit card and consumer lending industry, pose longer term challenges to the company’s franchise.

Chrysler is bust and there could be a fascinating catfight in the works:

The iconic company, third biggest among U.S. automakers, missed a U.S. government deadline to come up with a restructuring plan by today that was rigorous enough to avoid bankruptcy and qualify for more bailout aid. The carmaker tried to negotiate an alliance with Fiat, reduce $6.9 billion in secured loans and cut $10.6 billion owed to a pension fund. Some lenders refused to slash the debt to $2.25 billion.

Bankruptcy can involve uncertainty and delay. Dissident creditors intend to object to the company’s reorganization plan, a person familiar with their thinking said. That might thwart President Barack Obama’s goal of a “surgical” bankruptcy that would put a viable carmaker quickly into the market.

Funny story on credit ratings:

[Retired lawyer Ron] Grassi says the companies’ faulty debt analyses have been at the core of the global financial meltdown and the firms should be held accountable. Exhibit One is his own investment. He and his wife, Sally, held $40,000 in Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bonds because all three credit raters gave them at least an A rating — meaning they were a safe investment — right until Sept. 15, the day Lehman filed for bankruptcy.

“They’re supposed to spot time bombs,” Grassi says. “The bombs exploded before the credit companies acted.”

In the brave new world of credit ratings, there won’t be any of this mealy-mouthed “A” and “A(high)” stuff. Only two ratings will be allowed: “Good as Gold” and “Going Bankrupt Next Week”. Any errors will be prima facie evidence of a crime.

The Bank of Canada has released a new working paper, Price Movements in the Canadian Residential Mortgage Market:

The authors empirically analyze the price-setting behaviour of the major Canadian banks in the residential mortgage market over the period 1991–2007. They use weekly posted prices of the major mortgage providers to study the degree of competition in mortgage price setting. Their results suggest that the residential mortgage market is imperfectly competitive. They find distinct price leaders and that, as market concentration increases, so does price dispersion – helped by the increased use of discounting from posted prices. The authors also find that, although banks’ pass-through of input price changes to mortgage prices is complete in the long run under reasonable assumptions regarding discounting, there exists some level of pricing asymmetry in the short run.

And the FDIC has circulated a new batch of ticky-boxes:

A number of insured banks with portfolio holdings in private label mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), or asset-backed securities (ABS) are facing heightened losses as a result of significant investments in these products. Certain structured credit products, particularly private label mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and CDOs, have experienced deteriorating collateral performance, price declines, and credit rating downgrades. Management due diligence regarding purchases of these products was often lacking. This Financial Institution Letter reiterates and clarifies existing supervisory guidance on the purchase and holding of complex structured credit products. It focuses on the various supervisory concerns related to these securities: pre-purchase analysis, suitability determination, risk limits, credit ratings, valuation, ongoing due diligence, adverse classification, and capital treatment.

Whoosh, what a day! The seminar went well (by which I mean, nobody actually threw rocks at me) and I’ll be arranging the next one shortly. The preferred share market roared ahead on good volume.

HIMIPref™ Preferred Indices
These values reflect the December 2008 revision of the HIMIPref™ Indices

Values are provisional and are finalized monthly
Index Mean
Current
Yield
(at bid)
Median
YTW
Median
Average
Trading
Value
Median
Mod Dur
(YTW)
Issues Day’s Perf. Index Value
Ratchet 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.6358 % 970.6
FixedFloater 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.6358 % 1,569.7
Floater 4.52 % 4.56 % 71,317 16.29 2 0.6358 % 1,212.6
OpRet 5.09 % 4.38 % 141,660 3.19 15 -0.2930 % 2,137.9
SplitShare 6.55 % 8.13 % 46,232 5.61 3 0.5418 % 1,765.7
Interest-Bearing 6.02 % 7.05 % 28,439 0.65 1 0.4032 % 1,979.3
Perpetual-Premium 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.3472 % 1,650.4
Perpetual-Discount 6.63 % 6.80 % 140,745 12.85 71 0.3472 % 1,520.0
FixedReset 5.84 % 5.04 % 593,828 4.54 36 0.4315 % 1,939.5
Performance Highlights
Issue Index Change Notes
BAM.PR.J OpRet -3.44 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Soft Maturity
Maturity Date : 2018-03-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 20.76
Bid-YTW : 8.25 %
NA.PR.M Perpetual-Discount -1.34 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 22.06
Evaluated at bid price : 22.16
Bid-YTW : 6.80 %
GWO.PR.F Perpetual-Discount -1.33 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 21.45
Evaluated at bid price : 21.45
Bid-YTW : 6.98 %
BAM.PR.O OpRet -1.27 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Option Certainty
Maturity Date : 2013-06-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 23.40
Bid-YTW : 6.95 %
BMO.PR.H Perpetual-Discount 1.09 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 20.40
Evaluated at bid price : 20.40
Bid-YTW : 6.51 %
NA.PR.O FixedReset 1.14 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-03-17
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.60
Bid-YTW : 5.06 %
NA.PR.P FixedReset 1.14 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-03-17
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.51
Bid-YTW : 5.15 %
GWO.PR.J FixedReset 1.15 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 25.35
Evaluated at bid price : 25.40
Bid-YTW : 5.09 %
SLF.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 1.18 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 17.17
Evaluated at bid price : 17.17
Bid-YTW : 7.10 %
BAM.PR.M Perpetual-Discount 1.19 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 14.45
Evaluated at bid price : 14.45
Bid-YTW : 8.36 %
SLF.PR.C Perpetual-Discount 1.20 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 16.00
Evaluated at bid price : 16.00
Bid-YTW : 7.06 %
CM.PR.P Perpetual-Discount 1.20 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 20.16
Evaluated at bid price : 20.16
Bid-YTW : 6.88 %
PWF.PR.I Perpetual-Discount 1.26 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 22.09
Evaluated at bid price : 22.48
Bid-YTW : 6.71 %
RY.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 1.29 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 18.78
Evaluated at bid price : 18.78
Bid-YTW : 6.28 %
CM.PR.M FixedReset 1.30 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-08-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.50
Bid-YTW : 5.42 %
BNS.PR.R FixedReset 1.34 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 23.46
Evaluated at bid price : 23.51
Bid-YTW : 4.21 %
TD.PR.S FixedReset 1.40 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 23.16
Evaluated at bid price : 23.25
Bid-YTW : 4.00 %
TD.PR.P Perpetual-Discount 1.46 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 20.85
Evaluated at bid price : 20.85
Bid-YTW : 6.34 %
HSB.PR.E FixedReset 1.55 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-07-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.20
Bid-YTW : 5.70 %
POW.PR.C Perpetual-Discount 1.67 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 21.31
Evaluated at bid price : 21.31
Bid-YTW : 6.88 %
NA.PR.L Perpetual-Discount 1.75 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 18.58
Evaluated at bid price : 18.58
Bid-YTW : 6.56 %
TD.PR.Q Perpetual-Discount 1.83 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 22.15
Evaluated at bid price : 22.25
Bid-YTW : 6.34 %
BMO.PR.O FixedReset 1.85 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-06-24
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.91
Bid-YTW : 4.99 %
SLF.PR.E Perpetual-Discount 2.51 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 16.33
Evaluated at bid price : 16.33
Bid-YTW : 6.99 %
BNS.PR.Q FixedReset 2.57 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 23.89
Evaluated at bid price : 23.95
Bid-YTW : 3.96 %
BNA.PR.C SplitShare 2.66 % Asset coverage of 1.7+:1 as of March 31 according to the company. BAM.A closed at 18.28 today, compared to 17.57 on March 31, so we can estimate the current coverage as 1.8-:1. I wonder how high it has to get before the yield becomes single digit.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Hard Maturity
Maturity Date : 2019-01-10
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 13.51
Bid-YTW : 13.01 %
MFC.PR.C Perpetual-Discount 2.66 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 17.35
Evaluated at bid price : 17.35
Bid-YTW : 6.59 %
Volume Highlights
Issue Index Shares
Traded
Notes
RY.PR.Y FixedReset 294,014 Recent new issue.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-12-24
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 25.62
Bid-YTW : 5.62 %
BNS.PR.T FixedReset 226,206 Desjardins crossed 200,000 at 26.50.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-05-25
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.66
Bid-YTW : 4.79 %
CM.PR.A OpRet 113,349 TD bought 50,000 from Desjardins at 25.85, then another 25,000 at the same price. Desjardins crossed 33,800 at the same price.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2009-05-30
Maturity Price : 25.50
Evaluated at bid price : 25.82
Bid-YTW : -9.75 %
BNS.PR.M Perpetual-Discount 80,521 RBC crossed 11,200 at 17.85.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 17.84
Evaluated at bid price : 17.84
Bid-YTW : 6.36 %
MFC.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 65,854 Scotia crossed 51,000 at 17.30.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 17.29
Evaluated at bid price : 17.29
Bid-YTW : 6.84 %
BNS.PR.Q FixedReset 56,860 Anonymous crossed (? not necessarily the same anonymous) 25,000 at 24.00.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-30
Maturity Price : 23.89
Evaluated at bid price : 23.95
Bid-YTW : 3.96 %
There were 41 other index-included issues trading in excess of 10,000 shares.

Thursday April 30 : Seminar on Floating Rate Preferreds

April 29th, 2009

I just want to remind all Assiduous Readers about the next seminar in the the series on the theory and practice of preferred share investing.

These seminars are aimed at active and potential preferred share investors who wish to review relative valuation techniques in preferred share analysis.

All seminars will be presented by James Hymas, who has written extensively on the subject of preferred share investment and has been referred to as a "top expert" on the subject.

Questions are encouraged throughout the seminars, as well as in informal discussion at the end of the session.

Each seminar is two hours in length; coffee and tea will be served. The cost of attendance is $100, but a discount of $50 will be given to participants who have an annual subscription to PrefLetter with at least one issue remaining at the time of the seminar.

All seminars will be video-recorded for future distribution.

Thursday, April 30

Floating Rate Issues: Theory & Practice

"Floating Rate Issues" are popular with investors who:

  • wish to obtain tax-advantaged income
  • want protection against future inflation

These issues are characterized by:

  • Issued by Operating companies
    • Extant issues are non-financial
  • Dividends are paid by reference to Canada Prime
  • An exchange option may exist to lock in a rate for five years on a given date
  • Issues are Perpetual

This seminar will review the theory of Floating Rate Preferred evaluation, including:

  • Credit Quality
  • Embedded calls
  • Exchange Options
  • The importance of ex-Dividend dates
  • Investment characteristics relative to
    • money market instruments
    • other perpetual instruments

Examples of relative valuation in current markets will be supplied and discussed. Note that Floating Rate issues include the HIMIPref™ Indices:

  • Ratchet
  • FixedFloater
  • Floater

. "FixedReset" issues will not be discussed as part of this seminar.

Attendence is limited; a reservation will avoid disappointment.

Location: Days Hotel & Conference Center, (at Carlton & College, downtown Toronto) Yorkville Room (see map).

Time: April 30, 2009, 6pm-8pm.

Reservations: Please visit the PrefLetter Seminar Page.

Prior Seminars on Video: The video and resource materials for the seminar on PerpetualDiscounts is available via the PrefLetter Video Seminar Page.

EPP.PR.A: Credit Trend Cut to Negative by DBRS

April 29th, 2009

DBRS has announced that it:

today changed the trend on the BBB (high) Senior Unsecured Debt and Medium-Term Notes rating of EPCOR Power L.P. (Power LP) to Negative from Stable, as well as the trend on the Pfd-3 (high) Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Shares, Series 1 rating of EPCOR Power Equity Ltd. DBRS has also downgraded the Power LP stability rating to STA-2 (middle) from STA-2 (high).

The actions follow the release of Power LP’s first-quarter 2009 earnings, which showed a net loss of $33 million that when combined with distributions, led to a $47 million decline in partners’ equity. The net loss was largely the result of a $50 million unrealized loss on the change in the fair value of natural gas supply and foreign exchange contracts. This followed a net loss of $68 million for year-end 2008, the primary driver of which was unrealized fair value losses. These non-cash fair value losses have resulted in a decrease in partners’ equity, which is largely responsible for the increase in Power LP’s debt-to-total-capital ratio from less than 40% in 2007 to the current 55%. The accounting recognition of these fair value changes is not reflective of the underlying economic circumstances, as the natural gas is largely used to produce electricity, which is sold at contracted rates.

DBRS noted on March 6, 2009, that while Power LP had ample room under its maintenance covenants (primarily that debt-to-total capital not exceed 65%), an increase in Power LP’s debt-to-total capital level closer to the maintenance covenant restriction would result in financial flexibility being reduced, which could lead to negative rating implications. With the current increase in debt-to-total capital to 55%, combined with Power LP’s expectation of an additional US$72 million in debt in 2009 to fund capital expenditures, there is a likely scenario that Power LP’s leverage ratio would approach 60%, and potentially exceed that value if there were additional negative fair value impacts. This scenario will constrain financial flexibility for the current debt and preferred rating levels. DBRS will continue to monitor the situation, with a one-notch downgrade of the current debt and preferred ratings likely if Power LP’s financial flexibility continues to diminish and the prospect of a covenant issue becomes more concrete. Alternatively, if leverage ratio pressure were to be alleviated (e.g., through asset sales, unit issuance, a reversal in fair value changes, etc.), DBRS would consider returning the trends to Stable.

The stability rating has been downgraded to reflect (1) that a decrease in distributions would be one of Power LP’s options to shore up its partners’ equity level in the event of a covenant issue and (2) weakness in distributable cash flow, which has resulted in the payout ratio (DBRS adjusted) continuing to exceed 100% – it increased to approximately 120% on a last 12 months basis ending March 31, 2009, compared with 110% at year-end 2008.

EPP.PR.A is a PerpetualDiscount currently quoted at 15.21-64 to yield 8.11% at the bid. It was last mentioned on PrefBlog in the post EPP.PR.A and WN.PR.E: Coupled? Decoupled?. Those keeping track of such things will note that WN.PR.E now yields 7.24% … way, way, way, WAY through the EPP issue.

The issue continues to be split-rated, with S&P gauging it as P-2(low) on the national scale. It may be noted that the Credit Rating of the company itself is BBB+/Negative Trend by S&P, so everybody’s carefully watching!

EPP.PR.A is tracked by HIMIPref™, but is relegated to the “Scraps” Index on credit concerns.

April 29, 2009

April 29th, 2009

Daniel Bouton is resigning as chairman of SocGen, brought down – at least in part – by the Kerviel scandal which exposed grossly incompetent management.

And Ken Lewis is defending his role in BofA’s Merrill purchase, on the grounds that he is responsible for the global financial system. Perhaps the global financial system should be the one paying him.

Ravi Balakrishnan (IMF), Stephan Danninger (IMF), Selim Elekdag (Central Bank Turkey) and Irina Tytell (IMF) have published an essay on VoxEU, How financial stress spreads – A first comprehensive look at the current crisis, in which they claim:

The twist in the current crisis is that bank-lending linkages appear to be the main driver, rather than the more mobile portfolio investment links that drove the Asian crisis. Since the mid-1990s, Western European banks have dominated bank-lending flows. Emerging Europe stands out as the largest recipient (Figure 2). Using an econometric model for stress transmission, we find that an increase in bank liabilities to Western Europe from 15% to 50% of GDP (roughly the difference between Emerging Europe and other emerging regions) doubles the strength of stress transmission. It is no surprise therefore that Emerging Europe was the first emerging market region to be hit hard by the crisis.

Just another reason to surcharge Risk-Weighted-Assets for bank size and for recent growth. There is also probably good reason to apply a higher risk-weight to holdings due from other banks.

A very good day for the market on increased volume … possibly artificially juiced by portfolio adjustment for the closing of RY.PR.Y. PerpetualDiscounts now yield 6.79%, equivalent to 9.51% interest at the standard equivalency factor of 1.4x. Long Corporates now yield 7.4% (a hair under? Maybe.), so the pre-tax interest-equivalent spread is now 211bp … about average for the Credit Crunch, well down from the highs of November, but still above the pre-Crunch range of 100-150bp.

HIMIPref™ Preferred Indices
These values reflect the December 2008 revision of the HIMIPref™ Indices

Values are provisional and are finalized monthly
Index Mean
Current
Yield
(at bid)
Median
YTW
Median
Average
Trading
Value
Median
Mod Dur
(YTW)
Issues Day’s Perf. Index Value
Ratchet 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 -0.3456 % 964.5
FixedFloater 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 -0.3456 % 1,559.8
Floater 4.55 % 4.59 % 70,729 16.24 2 -0.3456 % 1,204.9
OpRet 5.07 % 4.28 % 135,290 2.64 15 0.4952 % 2,144.2
SplitShare 6.58 % 8.09 % 46,631 5.61 3 0.5962 % 1,756.1
Interest-Bearing 6.05 % 7.65 % 28,365 0.65 1 -0.3015 % 1,971.3
Perpetual-Premium 0.00 % 0.00 % 0 0.00 0 0.4027 % 1,644.7
Perpetual-Discount 6.65 % 6.79 % 141,829 12.86 71 0.4027 % 1,514.8
FixedReset 5.86 % 5.09 % 601,963 4.54 36 0.4076 % 1,931.2
Performance Highlights
Issue Index Change Notes
RY.PR.H Perpetual-Discount -1.92 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 22.81
Evaluated at bid price : 22.95
Bid-YTW : 6.17 %
RY.PR.I FixedReset -1.38 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 23.63
Evaluated at bid price : 23.67
Bid-YTW : 4.23 %
BAM.PR.I OpRet 1.01 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Soft Maturity
Maturity Date : 2013-12-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 24.00
Bid-YTW : 6.66 %
BNA.PR.A SplitShare 1.02 % Asset coverage of 1.7+:1 as of March 31 according to the company.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Hard Maturity
Maturity Date : 2010-09-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 24.75
Bid-YTW : 7.74 %
POW.PR.A Perpetual-Discount 1.09 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 20.37
Evaluated at bid price : 20.37
Bid-YTW : 6.95 %
BNS.PR.N Perpetual-Discount 1.09 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 21.26
Evaluated at bid price : 21.26
Bid-YTW : 6.22 %
BNS.PR.L Perpetual-Discount 1.14 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 17.80
Evaluated at bid price : 17.80
Bid-YTW : 6.37 %
NA.PR.L Perpetual-Discount 1.16 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 18.26
Evaluated at bid price : 18.26
Bid-YTW : 6.67 %
BMO.PR.L Perpetual-Discount 1.19 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 21.91
Evaluated at bid price : 22.00
Bid-YTW : 6.60 %
CM.PR.E Perpetual-Discount 1.19 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 20.39
Evaluated at bid price : 20.39
Bid-YTW : 6.92 %
BNS.PR.M Perpetual-Discount 1.20 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 17.76
Evaluated at bid price : 17.76
Bid-YTW : 6.38 %
ELF.PR.F Perpetual-Discount 1.25 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 17.06
Evaluated at bid price : 17.06
Bid-YTW : 7.87 %
CU.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 1.26 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 23.76
Evaluated at bid price : 24.05
Bid-YTW : 6.35 %
BMO.PR.J Perpetual-Discount 1.27 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 18.20
Evaluated at bid price : 18.20
Bid-YTW : 6.20 %
CM.PR.K FixedReset 1.28 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 23.77
Evaluated at bid price : 23.81
Bid-YTW : 4.56 %
CL.PR.B Perpetual-Discount 1.31 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 22.22
Evaluated at bid price : 22.50
Bid-YTW : 7.04 %
RY.PR.N FixedReset 1.35 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-03-26
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.25
Bid-YTW : 5.03 %
NA.PR.M Perpetual-Discount 1.35 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 22.35
Evaluated at bid price : 22.46
Bid-YTW : 6.70 %
CM.PR.J Perpetual-Discount 1.39 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 16.78
Evaluated at bid price : 16.78
Bid-YTW : 6.76 %
BMO.PR.M FixedReset 1.39 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 24.04
Evaluated at bid price : 24.11
Bid-YTW : 3.86 %
BNS.PR.R FixedReset 1.40 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 23.15
Evaluated at bid price : 23.20
Bid-YTW : 4.28 %
BNS.PR.O Perpetual-Discount 1.43 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 21.92
Evaluated at bid price : 22.01
Bid-YTW : 6.41 %
CM.PR.H Perpetual-Discount 1.50 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 17.64
Evaluated at bid price : 17.64
Bid-YTW : 6.86 %
BAM.PR.J OpRet 2.38 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Soft Maturity
Maturity Date : 2018-03-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 21.50
Bid-YTW : 7.72 %
IAG.PR.A Perpetual-Discount 2.48 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 16.91
Evaluated at bid price : 16.91
Bid-YTW : 6.90 %
BAM.PR.O OpRet 2.95 % YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Option Certainty
Maturity Date : 2013-06-30
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 23.70
Bid-YTW : 6.59 %
Volume Highlights
Issue Index Shares
Traded
Notes
RY.PR.Y FixedReset 985,152 New issue settled today.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-12-24
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 25.48
Bid-YTW : 5.73 %
BNS.PR.X FixedReset 81,085 RBC crossed 20,000 at 26.45. CIBC crossed 38,000 at 26.42.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-05-25
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 26.50
Bid-YTW : 4.94 %
IAG.PR.C FixedReset 57,675 YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 24.20
Evaluated at bid price : 24.25
Bid-YTW : 5.64 %
CM.PR.R OpRet 48,900 Scotia crossed 20,000 at 25.70, Nesbitt crossed 12,000 at 25.70, and anonymous bought 15,000 from CIBC at 25.75.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2009-05-30
Maturity Price : 25.60
Evaluated at bid price : 25.70
Bid-YTW : 0.08 %
CIU.PR.B FixedReset 48,170 Holy smokes, a bid with a 27-handle! You young whippersnappers haven’t ever seen anything like it, eh?
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Call
Maturity Date : 2014-07-01
Maturity Price : 25.00
Evaluated at bid price : 27.00
Bid-YTW : 5.09 %
CM.PR.I Perpetual-Discount 47,452 Scotia crossed 10,000 at 17.25.
YTW SCENARIO
Maturity Type : Limit Maturity
Maturity Date : 2039-04-29
Maturity Price : 17.22
Evaluated at bid price : 17.22
Bid-YTW : 6.88 %
There were 44 other index-included issues trading in excess of 10,000 shares.