Economy & Credit Chest

The break-even in the IRR profile of the AAAtranche is a multiple of the annualized historical average loss for BBB-rated corporates (10x in this case). The BBB-class hits the IRR of the portfolio at around 0.9 percent which is 4.5 times the historical average loss. Static synthetic mezzanines normally exhibit a lower rating stability than mezzanine notes of managed synthetic CDOs, depending on the skill of the manager.

Assumption: The 5-year cumulative default rate for BBB is around 1.60 percent, assuming a 40 percent recovery rate. This equals an annualized 0.2 percent expected loss rate. The size of the mezzanine tranches affects the expected loss (probability of loss unaffected). As the size of the mezzanine class decreases the expected loss tends to increase hyperbolically as seen (binomial expansion technique with a diversity score of 55 was used). The ratio of the expected tranche losses to the expected CDS portfolio losses would define the risk leverage. When the ratio is above 1 the mezzanine note has a greater expected percentage loss than the underlying portfolio. The percentage of the first loss class has a major impact on the leverage of the mezzanine class (assuming the same underlying exposure in size.

The senior and mezzanine return profile has an option-like feature, like short puts out-of-the-money (BBB) and far-out-of-the money (AAA) in return terms. When investment grade default rates rise significantly above their long-term historical average, mezzanine notes become impaired. On the other hand, CDS portfolio deterioration causes in general mark-to-market losses and might result in rating downgrades with respect to the notes.

Assumption: The annualized 5-year cumulative BBB credit loss rate is 0.20 percent, assuming a recovery rate of 40 percent. The size of the first loss tranche equals 4 percent, the size of the BBB-note 2.5 percent and the AAA note 3 percent in the example with a portfolio of BBB rated CDS.

To compare both asset classes and tranches one needs to construct a corporatebond fund invested in 100 equally weighted BBB corporate bonds (assuming that the bond fund pays a Libor _ 100 bp and runs a maturity of 5 years). The risk/return tradeoff between a corporate bond fund and a BBB–CDO note looks as shown previously.

The BBB note sustains a higher cumulative default rate before suffering any losses, as the equity absorbs the initial losses. But the corporate bond fund may outperform in severe default scenarios. This is largely because of the leverage in the CDO note. At one stage the mezzanine notes become the equity of the structure. The huge difference in IRR is explained by the extra risk between the cash bonds and the BBB-tranche as a total.

In a basic static transaction a sponsor selects a portfolio of about 100 or more investment grade names. Once a static synthetic CDO begins, the reference portfolio remains fixed until maturity. In a static pool delivered obligations usually must be liquidated within a preset timeframe. Some typical trading activities in managed synthetic deals include:

• Terminating credit-improved CDS to generate cash into the CDO
• Terminating credit-deteriorated CDS to avoid/limit future losses
• Buying protection for a smaller amount
• Conducting limited discretionary trading, that is, 10–20 percent annual portfolio turnover.

Normally, managed pool risk offers lower expected loss and lower probability of large loss.

The success or failure of a decision frequently depends on the delegation process. Empowerment, which is discussed below, goes beyond the delegation of specific tasks. It involves granting a defined level of authority and responsibility within which someone makes their own decisions and implements them.

There are several stages in the delegation process.

Preparing to delegate. Some preparation and planning are always needed, perhaps limited to gaining the approval of others or simply informing people. Priorities may also need to be considered. Most of all, you should be clear about the reasons for delegation and what it is meant to achieve. This requires a focus on results and having clear, precise objectives.

Matching person and task. The person who is required to do the job must understand it and have the personal skills and competence to have a realistic chance of doing it successfully.

Discussing and agreeing objectives. Targets, resources, review times and deadlines should be discussed with the delegatee and agreed. It may be necessary to formalise the process in writing in order to avoid, or at least minimise, any misunderstanding.

Providing resources and the appropriate level of authority. When delegating work, it is imperative to provide the delegatee with the necessary resources as well as the authority to complete the task, and then to provide support when needed.

One way of appraising competing options is to look at the desired outcome and then see which option will achieve it. This simple approach is often complicated by the need to prioritise goals, reduce costs or minimise risk, and in selecting the best option usually involves trade-offs and compromise. Another approach is to establish criteria for the final decision – for example, it needs to work quickly, not be expensive, take a reasonable amount of time to organise and so forth – and then score each option against these components on a scale of 1–10. The highest-scoring option wins. With both approaches, you need to fully understand what each option requires, how it works and what it achieves.

A lack of sufficiently thorough analysis is common in decision-making. The natural tendency is for people to gravitate towards a particular option, often because of prejudice, fear (especially fear of change), a desire to avoid risk, laziness, or an over-reliance on instinct. We highlighted the importance of carefully assessing the situation, defining critical issues and specifying the decision. These are the first three stages of the rational decision-making process. Combining “hard” factors such as data, technology and information with “soft” factors of intuition, experience and creativity can test potential decisions. It is important to question assumptions and see things from another perspective (such as that of the customer or person most affected by the decision).

A natural tendency to evaluate the present or focus on the immediate decision should be tempered with a sense of perspective and the past. As discussed previously, you need to avoid misinterpreting the lessons of the past or using events to justify current decisions but with a spurious logic. The anchoring, sunk-cost and confirming evidence traps are all behavioural flaws that rely on specific attitudes to past events. A genuine understanding of the past is crucial, but it needs to be related to what is happening in the present and kept in perspective. As Julian Barbour, a theoretical physicist, says:

The higher we climb, the more comprehensive the view. Each new vantage point yields a better understanding of the interconnection of things. What is more, gradual accumulation of understanding is punctuated by sudden and startling enlargements of the horizon, as when we reach the brow of a hill and see things never conceived of in the ascent. Once we have found our bearings in the new landscape, our path to the most recently attained summit is laid bare and takes its honourable place in the new world.

Scenario thinking, and in particular the notion of the strategic conversation described by Kees van der Heijden, enables us to build our knowledge and understanding of the past and present, making connections and creating original insights that inform our decisions.

Many people have trouble in coming up with new ideas or solutions to a problem. The answer often lies in fostering innovation, by creating the right conditions to be innovative or simply to see the best way forward. If this is to work and be sustainable, the climate for decision-making must be as positive, open and encouraging as possible. Linked with this is the need for people to feel valued. If they do not, there is a risk that they will be negative about the change, reactive rather than proactive.

Or they may decide to leave. One way of fostering innovation is to encourage employees to question the way things are done or decisions that have been made. Removing or minimising barriers (such as bureaucracy and hierarchy) can drive innovation, and so can an ability to exert mild pressure, perhaps by setting deadlines. Techniques that help spur creativity and innovation include brainstorming and mind mapping, as they help individuals to come up with ideas and to see patterns or organise information in such a way that patterns and ideas develop.

Effective decision-making depends on a collection of leadership skills that can be learnt and are often closely linked. These include the following:

• An ability to foster innovation and creativity and to exploit synergies between people, sometimes disparate and distant teams.
• The intelligence and courage to recognise and learn from mistakes.
• The perception and sensitivity to analyse competing options, and the ability to help others to find their solutions.
• Skills of delegation and empowerment so that decision-making can be devolved to others in the organisation with sufficient time or insight.
• The capacity to motivate people so that they are inspired to prevent or solve problems themselves, as well as proactively implementing decisions.
• An ability to focus others on the twin issues of serving customers and managing change.
• Skilled communication.
• The courage and ability to make critical decisions.