4 ms·

Sure, shareholders should benefit in cases where too much money is coming in. However, isn’t the problem that the “money coming in” in this case is debt, not p

Sure, shareholders should benefit in cases where too much money is coming in. However, isn’t the problem that the “money coming in” in this case is debt, not profit?

skybrian 7y ago
Oh, I don't know but I can speculate. First, you'd hope they have profits, or they wouldn't be able to pay the bondholders? The question is, where do the company's future profits go? I guess you could think of it as being a bit more like a bank? A bank provides a service to its depositors, holding their money and paying a little interest. A company does something similar for its bondholders, at higher risk than bank deposits but lower than stocks. The company is for some reason deciding it wants to expand into the "provide a service to bondholders" business. It's a bit weird to talk about "providing bondholder value" but that's basically what they're doing, by staying in business, paying the interest, and rolling over the bonds. Stockholders get a one-time windfall when a company expands into this business, as the company for whatever reason doesn't actually need the cash. It's a bit weird to borrow money from bondholders for this purpose, but you could think of it as doing things out of order. Instead of borrowing money to grow the business, they grow the business first, then borrow the money. Less risky that way! You might also think of it this way: maybe some investors are looking for less risky investments. They would rather have bonds than stocks. Companies are responding to that. Maybe we should be worried about companies being more bank-like? Life is uncertain. Why are they making guarantees they might not be able to keep? We've been this way before with banks chopping up mortgages to make "safe" investments.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I look at it this way: There are exactly two sources of funding for companies, equity and debt. As debt gets cheaper (interest rates going down), debt funding becomes more attractive relative to equity. So naturally, companies will shift more of their funding towards debt. It's not inherently a bad thing, but there are two issues: One is that a new equilibrium will eventually be reached. At that point, buybacks will stop and it will hit EPS growth. I wonder if people are aware of what a huge chunk of EPS growth has been coming from buybacks in recent years. I fear the stock market may be in for a rude awakening when the buyback music stops. The second issue is that debt has an expiry date whereas equity does not. Theoretically, the risk of not being able to roll over debt in a downturn should be reflected in the coupon a company has to pay on its debt. We'll see whether corporate debt hasn't become too cheap already. We could once again be facing a situation where the effect of everyone having to do the same thing at the same time is not adequately priced in.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    This sounds similar to the housing bubble. That is, the psychology is "It'll be fine. Everyone is doing it." But few are looking at the next possible what ifs. If that's the case, this can only end badly.

Sure, shareholders should benefit in cases where too much money is coming in. However, isn’t the problem that the “money coming in” in this case is debt, not profit?

skybrian 7y ago

Oh, I don't know but I can speculate. First, you'd hope they have profits, or they wouldn't be able to pay the bondholders? The question is, where do the company's future profits go? I guess you could think of it as being a bit more like a bank? A bank provides a service to its depositors, holding their money and paying a little interest. A company does something similar for its bondholders, at higher risk than bank deposits but lower than stocks. The company is for some reason deciding it wants to expand into the "provide a service to bondholders" business. It's a bit weird to talk about "providing bondholder value" but that's basically what they're doing, by staying in business, paying the interest, and rolling over the bonds. Stockholders get a one-time windfall when a company expands into this business, as the company for whatever reason doesn't actually need the cash. It's a bit weird to borrow money from bondholders for this purpose, but you could think of it as doing things out of order. Instead of borrowing money to grow the business, they grow the business first, then borrow the money. Less risky that way! You might also think of it this way: maybe some investors are looking for less risky investments. They would rather have bonds than stocks. Companies are responding to that. Maybe we should be worried about companies being more bank-like? Life is uncertain. Why are they making guarantees they might not be able to keep? We've been this way before with banks chopping up mortgages to make "safe" investments.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I look at it this way: There are exactly two sources of funding for companies, equity and debt. As debt gets cheaper (interest rates going down), debt funding becomes more attractive relative to equity. So naturally, companies will shift more of their funding towards debt. It's not inherently a bad thing, but there are two issues: One is that a new equilibrium will eventually be reached. At that point, buybacks will stop and it will hit EPS growth. I wonder if people are aware of what a huge chunk of EPS growth has been coming from buybacks in recent years. I fear the stock market may be in for a rude awakening when the buyback music stops. The second issue is that debt has an expiry date whereas equity does not. Theoretically, the risk of not being able to roll over debt in a downturn should be reflected in the coupon a company has to pay on its debt. We'll see whether corporate debt hasn't become too cheap already. We could once again be facing a situation where the effect of everyone having to do the same thing at the same time is not adequately priced in.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  This sounds similar to the housing bubble. That is, the psychology is "It'll be fine. Everyone is doing it." But few are looking at the next possible what ifs. If that's the case, this can only end badly.