Economy & Credit Chest

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.

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 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.