PrefBlog

European deflation is significant:

Spanish consumer prices plunged for a second month in February, encapsulating the threat facing Mario Draghi as the European Central Bank prepares to unleash quantitative easing.

Prices fell 1.2 percent from a year earlier after a 1.5 percent decline in January, which was the biggest since 1997. The inflation rate was probably also negative in Italy and Germany, economists said before data due later on Friday.

Plunging oil costs have damped inflation across the globe, including in the U.S., where consumer prices posted their first annual decline in more than five years last month. In a positive sign, Spain’s February decline was less than economists had forecast and, with oil rising from its recent low, may indicate the worst of the inflation slump is passing.

However, some some parts of some economies are doing well:

Shares of South Korea’s leading condom maker soared for a second day after the country’s Constitutional Court decriminalized adultery in a ruling that ended a decades-old anti-cheating law.

Unidus Corp. was up 11 percent to 3,475 won at 12:55 p.m. Friday in Seoul. The stock rose 15 percent yesterday, leaving it up almost 30 percent since the ruling. Hyundai Pharmaceutical Co., a maker of morning-after pills, rose 10 percent yesterday to the highest in more than five years. The shares slid 7 percent Friday.

It has been a while since I complained about the ridiculous and economically counter-productive cost of education in the States (especially), so why don’t I complain about the ridiculous and economically counter-productive cost of education in the States (especially)?

Switching one of their dead-tree texts out for an open-source one—a book available for free online or to print at a minimal cost—saves students an average of $128 per course every semester, said the Student Public Interest Research Groups in a report (pdf) published Tuesday.

The Student PIRGs, a group of state student advocacy organizations, crunched data from five colleges that have introduced open textbook programs to estimate how much students save by using open books. With more than 11 million full-time undergraduates in the U.S., and upwards of 160 open textbooks on the market, the group says students would save $1 billion a year if they all replaced a single book with its open-source alternative.

The report, titled OPEN TEXTBOOKS: THE BILLION-DOLLAR SOLUTION, makes an interesting point:

With oft-exceeding $200 price tags, the cost of textbooks has become a serious barrier to college access and a negative impact on student success. A 2014 Student PIRGs studyiv found that 65% of students had skipped buying or renting a textbook because it was too expensive, and 94% of those students felt that doing so would hurt their grade in a course. Additionally, nearly half of students said the cost of textbooks impacted how many courses they were able to take.

Click for Big

Now, I think the analysis regarding potential savings is optimistic to the point of being simplistic. The proposed replacement is ‘Open Textbooks’, which are described as:

Open textbooks are faculty-written, peer-reviewed textbooks that are published under an open license – meaning that they are available free online, they are free to download, and print copies are available at $10-40, or approximately the cost of printing.

So they’re not including any allowance for paying the authors or the reviewers or the editors; there’s also no accounting made for kickbacks to administrators, professors or the institution for choosing and approving the book; there’s no accounting for elegant dinner parties with hot saleschicks from the publisher; and there’s no accounting for the creation and maintenance of the very popular ‘test-banks’, whereby questions and answers for tests are maintained by the publisher so that lazy instructors don’t have to do any work. All these things are vital to the education of young minds, who represent our hope for the future, and regrettably these things require significant investment if they’re going to be done right. So it’s an optimistic analysis, but I find it very difficult to believe that more than a fraction of the charted increase in price since my day is due to quality improvements in second-year organic chemistry or first year calculus texts!

Pembina Pipelines, proud issuer of PPL.PR.A, PPL.PR.C, PPL.PR.E and PPL.PR.G, was confirmed at Pfd-3 by DBRS:

DBRS Limited (DBRS) has today confirmed the Issuer Rating and Senior Unsecured Notes of Pembina Pipeline Corporation (Pembina or the Company) at BBB, and the Preferred Shares at Pfd-3. The trends remain Stable. The confirmation largely reflects DBRS’s view that the Company’s exposure to fractionation (frac) spreads and seasonal pricing differentials has lowered since the closing of the Provident acquisition (the Acquisition) in 2012 and has been maintained at a manageable level. The confirmation also reflects DBRS’s expectation that Pembina will continue to prudently manage its project expansion risk and to finance its expansion with appropriate debt and equity to maintain its debt-to-capital ratio at around 40% and cash flow-to-debt ratio at or above 25%. However, the rating trends could be changed to Positive if the Company successfully and substantially completes its current major expansion projects (backed by long-term take-or-pay or fee for service (FFS) contracts) while maintaining its credit metrics at or near the current level.

Allbanc Split Corp. II, proud issuer of ALB.PR.B, was confirmed at Pfd-2 by DBRS:

Since the last rating action in February 2014, the performance of the Company has been volatile. The trend seen in the net asset value, however, is in line with the movement seen in the volatile share prices of Canadian banks. Downside protection increased steadily to 64.1% on February 12, 2015, from 60.9% on February 13, 2014, while increases in dividend distributions from underlying banks helped boost the dividend coverage ratio.

It was a positive day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts winning 25bp, FixedResets gaining 5bp and DeemedRetractibles up 6bp. The Performance Highlights table was quite lengthy with the credit-dubious ENB issues prominent on the winning side. Volume was very high.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

The new issue has caused a large change in the curve-fitting for the TRP series of FixedResets, which is discussed at greater length on the post announcing the new issue. TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 24.07 to be $1.18 rich, while the new issue, resetting 2020-11-30 at +296, is $1.02 cheap at its issue price of 25.00.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum, although it declined substantially today. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule).

Most expensive is MFC.PR.L, resetting at +216 on 2019-6-19, bid at 23.55 to be $0.43 rich, while MFC.PR.H, resetting at +313bp on 2017-3-19, is bid at 25.73 to be $0.47 cheap.

Click for Big

The fit on this series is actually quite reasonable – it’s the scale that makes it look so weird.

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PR.Z, resetting at +296bp on 2017-12-31, bid at 25.05 to be $0.52 cheap. BAM.PF.E, resetting at +255bp 2020-3-31 is bid at 24.44 and appears to be $0.95 rich.

Click for Big

This is just weird because the middle is expensive and the ends are cheap but anyway … FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.64, looks $1.09 cheap and resets 2015-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 23.50 and is $0.97 rich.

Click for Big

The investment grade break-even rates average close to zero.

On the other hand, the market’s distaste for product linked to Money Market rates does not extend to prime, as shown by the FixedFloater/RatchetRate pairs:

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?

One way or another, that’s it for another month!

Assiduous Reader DW brings to my attention a piece titled BXF no longer a strip tease, which points out:

When First Asset created Canada’s first strip bond ETF in 2013, they claimed that the ETF was expected to be more tax-efficient than other short term bond products currently available in the marketplace.

With a full tax year behind us, and armed with a new methodology for calculating the after-tax returns of ETFs, we can put First Asset’s claim to the test. Spoiler alert: the results are not only impressive, but they make you wonder why other firms haven’t followed suit by offering their own brand of strip bond ETFs.
…
The results above should not be considered a fluke – as long as the other bond ETFs continue to have an average coupon that is significantly higher than their yield-to-maturity, BXF will be expected to outperform these plain-vanilla ETFs on an after-tax basis (for more information on this concept, please read Why Use a Strip Bond ETF? by Dan Bortolotti).

This has previously been an issue in the preferred share world – see the article Beware the tax trap of these tempting preferreds and the post Tax Impact on FixedResetPremium Yields. Remember the good old days, when FixedResets traded at a premium?

Strips are generally too expensive to hold in any account, let alone a taxable one, but the fact that they are treated as par bonds as of the purchase date is a very useful wrinkle. Regrettably, most strips are governments and to a large extent the tax savings will be offset by the liquidity premium – which retail shouldn’t pay for, because the ability to transact $50-million in one ‘phone call without moving the market isn’t exactly an attribute that should be of much interest to retail.

I have advised many clients in the past to open accounts at full-service brokers with the sole objective of gaining access to current coupon corporate new issues. This has worked out OK for them – the biggest problem is putting the fear of God into the broker so he never calls unless he’s got a new issue that meets pre-defined standards!

US brokers are attempting to whip up some fear-inspired trading in bonds:

While the Federal Reserve considers raising overnight borrowing costs from about zero, where they’ve been since 2008, central banks in Europe are dropping deposit rates into negative territory.

This backdrop has pushed a measure of expected Treasury price swings to levels that are about 40 percent higher this year than in the same period in 2014, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Option Volatility Estimate MOVE index.

“The risk in bonds has gone up,” Francesco Garzarelli, London-based co-head of macro and markets research at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said in a Bloomberg Television interview Thursday. “The sensitivity to small changes in yield expectations from here will command very sizable price swings, and I just think that makes fixed income a very dangerous asset class.”
…
While the biggest banks have cut back on their positions in risky, speculative-grade debt, it’s steadily migrated to large institutions, insurance companies and mutual funds. Such firms have boosted their holdings of corporate and foreign bonds to $5.1 trillion, a 65 percent increase since the end of 2008, according to data compiled by UBS.

This has more than offset the $800 billion decline in holdings at banks and securities firms in the period, a regulator-prompted retrenchment that was intended to reinforce the financial system, UBS analysts Matthew Mish and Stephen Caprio wrote in a Feb. 26 report.

What we’re left with instead — ballooning bond funds that own more and more risky debt — may be a less bad option, but one that still threatens to wreak havoc in credit markets.

Rob Carrick highlights a TD publication in his piece What if interest rates never return to ‘normal’?:

I’m on record as having warned many times about rising rates, but I’m now in adjustment mode. What has me reconsidering is the kind of thinking found in a new report by TD Economics titled The New Normal: Low Rates in Advanced Economies for the Long Run. It argues that rates are low today because of weak global economic growth, and that they will move higher as the economy improves. However, rates will not return to levels we used to consider “neutral.” The reason: Aging, and in some cases, shrinking populations across the industrial world. They’ll keep a lid on growth in economic productivity and thereby reduce the need to crank rates higher.

The TD report THE NEW NORMAL: LOW RATES IN ADVANCED ECONOMIES FOR THE LONG RUN forecasts modest rates for years to come:

• • Trend economic growth is likely to remain slower than it has been historically throughout advanced economies. The two key determinants, labor force and labor productivity growth, have been slowing nearly everywhere.
• • Record low interest rates in many advanced economies is a result of both cyclical and structural factors. However, even once they begin to normalize, lower potential GDP growth will keep the long-term equilibrium level of interest rates lower than in the past. By extension, bond yields are also slated to be lower across the maturity spectrum.
• • The equilibrium level of interest rates in the UK is set to be relatively similar to Canada’s and slightly below that of the US. In the euro area, the equilibrium level will be a notch below the UK’s, while it will be substantially lower in Japan.
• • In the near term, it is perfectly clear that interest rates are set to remain far lower than their expected neutral level. Nonetheless, for long-term investors, such as pension funds, investing over multiple business cycles, lower neutral rates will make for a particular challenge.

…
In a recent paper, TD Economics estimated the long-run neutral level of the federal funds rate to be 3.25%, relative to a 1992-2007 average of 4.10%, and the long-run neutral Bank of Canada overnight rate to be 3.00%, compared to an average of 4.20% over the same time frame. This decline reflects slower labor force growth and modest productivity growth. A central question is whether this is a global phenomenon? In this paper, we explore the long-run neutral level of interest rates for the UK, euro area and Japan. Our conclusion is that across the advanced world, the long-term equilibrium level of interest rates will be lower than in the past.

And the paper referenced in the quoted paragraph is DIVERGENT VIEWS ON NEUTRAL INTEREST RATES

• • With the Fed signaling an end to QE in October, financial markets are now debating both the timing of future rate hikes and, more importantly, the level to which interest rates will ultimately rise. The latter requires an understanding of the neutral level of interest rates.
• • Disagreement over how high rates will rise in the future seems to be embedded in different timeframes under discussion. The view of a ‘new neutral’ real fed funds rate of close to zero (2.00% in nominal terms) is usually grounded in a shorter timeframe that is not consistent with the long-run level of rates of an economy in equilibrium – growing at a trend pace with stable inflation.
• • TD Economics believes that the long-run neutral level of the fed funds rate is around 3.25% (1.25% real) and the neutral level of 10-year Treasury yields is close to 4.00% (2.00% real). However, the Fed is expected to reach those points slowly, over the course of more than three years, assuming the economic recovery remains on track. The result is that our real fed funds rate averages -0.5% from 2015 to 2017.

…
For some time, TD Economics has viewed the future long-run neutral level of rates as lower than the pre-recession experience. We forecast a neutral level of interest rates in a range of 3.00% to 3.50% (equal to 1.00%-1.50% real), and we use the middle of that range (3.25%) to anchor our long term interest rate projection.

Meanwhile, preferred share investors are contemplating inspirational public art:

Click for Big

It was a rough day for the Canadian preferred share markets, with PerpetualDiscounts down 18bp, FixedResets losing 40bp and DeemedRetractibles off 10bp. MFC issues of all types are notable on the bad side of a lengthy Performance Highlights table, while ENB issues made an appearance on the good side. Volume was high.

For as long as the FixedReset market is so violently unsettled, I’ll keep publishing updates of the more interesting and meaningful series of FixedResets’ Implied Volatilities. This doesn’t include Enbridge because although Enbridge has a large number of issues outstanding, all of which are quite liquid, the range of Issue Reset Spreads is too small for decent conclusions. The low is 212bp (ENB.PR.H; second-lowest is ENB.PR.D at 237bp) and the high is a mere 268 for ENB.PF.G.

Remember that all rich /cheap assessments are:
» based on Implied Volatility Theory only
» are relative only to other FixedResets from the same issuer
» assume constant GOC-5 yield
» assume constant Implied Volatility
» assume constant spread

Here’s TRP:

Click for Big

The new issue has caused a large change in the curve-fitting for the TRP series of FixedResets, which is discussed at greater length on the post announcing the new issue. TRP.PR.E, which resets 2019-10-30 at +235, is bid at 24.07 to be $1.24 rich, while the new issue, resetting 2020-11-30 at +296, is $0.87 cheap at its issue price of 25.00.

Click for Big

Another excellent fit, but the numbers are perplexing. Implied Volatility for MFC continues to be a conundrum, although it declined substantially today. It is still too high if we consider that NVCC rules will never apply to these issues; it is still too low if we consider them to be NVCC non-compliant issues (and therefore with Deemed Maturities in the call schedule).

Most expensive is MFC.PR.N, resetting at +230 on 2020-3-19, bid at 24.18 to be $0.38 rich, while MFC.PR.H, resetting at +313bp on 2017-3-19, is bid at 25.80 to be $0.46 cheap.

Click for Big

The fit on this series is actually quite reasonable – it’s the scale that makes it look so weird.

The cheapest issue relative to its peers is BAM.PR.X, resetting at +180bp on 2017-6-30, bid at 17.24 to be $0.84 cheap. BAM.PF.E, resetting at +255bp 2020-3-31 is bid at 24.39 and appears to be $1.03 rich.

Click for Big

This is just weird because the middle is expensive and the ends are cheap but anyway … FTS.PR.H, with a spread of +145bp, and bid at 16.86, looks $0.83 cheap and resets 2015-6-1. FTS.PR.K, with a spread of +205bp and resetting 2019-3-1, is bid at 23.51 and is $0.94 rich.

Click for Big

Most of the investment grade break-even rates are close to zero.

On the other hand, the market’s distaste for product linked to Money Market rates does not extend to prime, as shown by the FixedFloater/RatchetRate pairs:

Click for Big

Shall we just say that this exhibits a high level of confidence in the continued rapacity of Canadian banks?