FIIG - The Fixed Income Experts

News and Education

FIIG Securities says new “bail-in” hybrids are equity risk, not fixed income

by Craig Swanger | Aug 26, 2014

Key points:

  1. The new breed of hybrid is not traditional fixed income, and in a downturn they will perform just like equities and not protect investors like fixed income should.
  2. Regulators are happy that these hybrids are “equity” because of their ability to force a conversion in a crisis; and investors, particularly private investors, price them like debt.
  3. The biggest risk is what happens when markets sense that a bank’s financial position is deteriorating toward a point where non-viability may be called by the regulator and investors start a sell down of the hybrids, which will occur well before any actual crisis triggering a non-viability clause.
  4. The UK’s financial services watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, this month banned the issue of bail-in hybrids to retail investors. The EU’s equivalent, the European Securities and Markets Authority, has flagged it is likely to follow.

Leading fixed income investment specialist FIIG Securities is warning investors that the new breed of hybrid is not traditional fixed income, and in a downturn they will perform just like equities and not protect investors like fixed income should.    

FIIG Head of Markets, Craig Swanger, said “The problem with these hybrids is that they were specifically designed to provide financial support to banks if they have another financial crisis like the 2008/09 GFC.  That is, they will convert to equity, without investor choice, at precisely the wrong time for investors.  Many in the market believe the hybrids will only convert when the bank becomes bankrupt but this is not how the regulator views it, they see this capital converting when the bank is in trouble but still “a going concern” and investors in these new securities will likely take a significant haircut on their capital when they convert.” 

“It is important to understand that these securities are designed to be equity in the eyes of the banking regulators.  During the GFC, several European banks were bailed out by governments which in effect saved the banks failing but laid the burden of loss at both the equity holders’ door and taxpayers. Bond investors were protected (as they should be) because they ranked higher in the capital structure. In Australia the taxpayer was burdened with having to provide a deposit guarantee. If the same scenario played out today, the banking regulator would have the option of declaring non-viability and forcing a conversion of these hybrids to equity – good for the taxpayer but not so good for the hybrid investors.”

Now banking regulators are encouraging banks to issue more “Tier one” capital, i.e. “equity” to avoid a repeat of this scenario.  But rather than issue expensive equity diluting existing equity holders, the banking sector designed these hybrids to take advantage of a market arbitrage. Regulators are happy that these hybrids are “equity” because of their ability to force a conversion in a crisis, and investors, particularly private investors, price them like debt. 

Ironically, it is now the same regulators that are warning that the risks of these securities are not being properly priced.  The Bank of England recently warned, “There is a risk that investors are underestimating the probability that [these] instruments will be required to absorb losses”.  Then UK regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, this month banned their issue to retail investors while the EU equivalent, the European Securities and Markets Authority, has flagged it is likely to follow.

“FIIG believes that the regulators’ proactive role is appropriate and timely.  In Australia, where ASIC issued a similar warning over a year ago, the market is still focussed on the relatively minor risk of one of the Australian banks becoming “non-viable”.  That is not the biggest risk facing holders of these hybrids.” 

“The biggest risk is what happens when markets sense that a bank’s financial position is deteriorating toward a point where non-viability may be called by the regulator and investors start a sell down of the hybrids, which will occur well before any actual crisis triggering a non-viability clause.”  Such a sell down occurred in 2008/09, when even the major banks’ hybrids dropped by more than 30% without any question of default of the banks.  “What we don’t know yet is what will happen in the next financial crisis when these new bail-in hybrids are put to the test,” Swanger says.  These new hybrids could fall much further than 30%, and potentially even more than equities if investors dump the hybrids ahead of conversion.

This sell down could occur sooner than many expect if ASIC were to follow the UK example and ban retail distribution.  ASX data shows that large institutional involvement has fallen dramatically over recent years.  Hybrid participation prior to 2008 was 60-70% institutional, but by 2013 this figure had fallen to 20%, meaning the participation of smaller investors would have made up the difference.  SMSF industry data confirms this, showing that SMSFs are holding around $30bn in hybrids, up from less than $10bn in 2008. 

“Fixed income is supposed to protect investors in a downturn and provide regular, reliable income throughout the cycle.  Hybrids failed to offer protection in 2008/09, but the major banks’ bonds (without the bail-in provisions) fell just 2-3% and recovered immediately.  Bank equities fell by 40% on average, but you accept that risk because you also have the chance for upside, as investors that held on to their bank stocks have now found.  With these hybrids, you get neither the protection of bonds nor the upside of equities.” 

“Since the global financial crisis, hybrid products have become more complex, more like equity and more popular than ever with SMSF investors.  They are not fixed income in any traditional sense – they have no set maturity date, have optional interest payments and can be converted to shares by the banking regulator.”  

“Furthermore, there are clear signs globally that professional investors are sceptical about the value these new hybrids offer. However private investors are still chasing yield, and without access to other investments offering security and high yield, will continue to support these hybrids.  More transparency of the global debate and education is urgently needed.” 

For its part in this, FIIG has issued a research paper on the topic titled “New style Basel III-compliant bank subordinated debt and Additional Tier 1 securities/hybrids are higher risk”.   

ENDS:  Media enquiries to Duncan Macfarlane on 0435 092 936

About bail-in hybrids

Bail-in hybrids (also known as Contingent Convertible securities or “CoCos”) were created in 2009 in the UK, when Lloyds Group issued a new type of hybrid. The securities would be automatically converted into shares in Lloyds in the event that Lloyds’s capital fell to crisis levels.

Rather than the government being forced into further bail outs, these new securities would convert from high-yielding hybrids into shares without the investor or even Lloyds itself having any choice in the matter.  In other words, the hybrid investors would be “bailed-in” to prop up the bank’s balance sheet.

Since then, European banks have issued around $110 billion (€75billion) in these hybrids. Banks, and until recently regulators, have been pleased at the success of this financial innovation as it means bondholders and government bodies are far less likely to need to bail out banks in the event of a liquidity crisis like that seen in 2008. 

Banks are particularly keen to issue more of these securities because they are a cheap source of funding.  In a crisis, these securities act as a loss-absorber as banks don’t have to pay interest or repay the capital.  For this reason, European banks are expected to issue a further $240 billion (€170billion) in the next two years.  Yield hungry investors are expected to scramble for an allocation, with Deutsche Bank’s recent €1.5billion issue receiving €25billion in orders.

However, the tide is turning, with the UK’s financial services watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, this month banning the issue of CoCos to retail investors.  The EU’s equivalent, the European Securities and Markets Authority, has flagged it is likely to follow.

Copyright The contents of this document are copyright. Other than under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may be reproduced or distributed to a third party without FIIG’s prior written permission other than to the recipient’s accountants, tax advisors and lawyers for the purpose of the recipient obtaining advice prior to making any investment decision. FIIG asserts all of its intellectual property rights in relation to this document and reserves its rights to prosecute for breaches of those rights.

Disclaimer Certain statements contained in the information may be statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements. These statements involve subjective judgement and analysis and may be based on third party sources and are subject to significant known and unknown uncertainties, risks and contingencies outside the control of the company which may cause actual results to vary materially from those expressed or implied by these forward looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in the information regarding past trends or activities should not be taken as a representation that such trends or activities will continue in the future. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report. Opinions expressed are present opinions only and are subject to change without further notice.

No representation or warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. There is no obligation to update, modify or amend the information or to otherwise notify the recipient if information, opinion, projection, forward-looking statement, forecast or estimate set forth herein, changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate.

FIIG shall not have any liability, contingent or otherwise, to any user of the information or to third parties, or any responsibility whatsoever, for the correctness, quality, accuracy, timeliness, pricing, reliability, performance or completeness of the information. In no event will FIIG be liable for any special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages which may be incurred or experienced on account of the user using information even if it has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

FIIG provides general financial product advice only. As a result, this document, and any information or advice, has been provided by FIIG without taking account of your objectives, financial situation and needs. Because of this, you should, before acting on any advice from FIIG, consider the appropriateness of the advice, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. If this document, or any advice, relates to the acquisition, or possible acquisition, of a particular financial product, you should obtain a product disclosure statement relating to the product and consider the statement before making any decision about whether to acquire the product. Neither FIIG, nor any of its directors, authorised representatives, employees, or agents, makes any representation or warranty as to the reliability, accuracy, or completeness, of this document or any advice. Nor do they accept any liability or responsibility arising in any way (including negligence) for errors in, or omissions from, this document or advice. Any reference to credit ratings of companies, entities or financial products must only be relied upon by a ‘wholesale client’ as that term is defined in section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). FIIG strongly recommends that you seek independent accounting, financial, taxation, and legal advice, tailored to your specific objectives, financial situation or needs, prior to making any investment decision. FIIG does not make a market in the securities or products that may be referred to in this document. A copy of FIIG’s current Financial Services Guide is available at www.fiig.com.au/fsg.

An investment in notes or corporate bonds should not be compared to a bank deposit. Notes and corporate bonds have a greater risk of loss of some or all of an investor’s capital when compared to bank deposits. Past performance of any product described on any communication from FIIG is not a reliable indication of future performance. Forecasts contained in this document are predictive in character and based on assumptions such as a 2.5% p.a. assumed rate of inflation, foreign exchange rates or forward interest rate curves generally available at the time and no reliance should be placed on the accuracy of any forecast information. The actual results may differ substantially from the forecasts and are subject to change without further notice. FIIG is not licensed to provide foreign exchange hedging or deal in foreign exchange contracts services. The information in this document is strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of the information contained in this document, you may not disclose or use the information in any way. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this document. FIIG is the owner of the copyright material in this document unless otherwise specified.

The FIIG research analyst certifies that any views expressed in this document accurately reflect their views about the companies and financial products referred to in this document and that their remuneration is not directly or indirectly related to the views of the research analyst. This document is not available for distribution outside Australia and New Zealand and may not be passed on to any third party without the prior written consent of FIIG. FIIG, its directors and employees and related parties may have an interest in the company and any securities issued by the company and earn fees or revenue in relation to dealing in those securities.