Corporate Bonds

 

  By: defilstrok on Martedì 11 Settembre 2007 18:53

"... segno che la percezione del rischio non è rientrata" ----------------------------------------------- Sicuro Temis?! A me, guardando indici, dollaro, yen e petrolio non pare mica tanto :-)

 

  By: temistocle2 on Martedì 11 Settembre 2007 18:14

...e intanto i bonds della GM ritoccano i minimi di metà Agosto, segno che la percezione del rischio non è rientrata e arrivano a dare un RENDIMENTO NETTO del 9,26%, in Euro!!! Tempo fa qualcuno (GZ?) ha postato un grafico dei rendimenti corporate, sarebbe possibile rivederlo aggiornato ad oggi? Grazie GEN MOT 07/33 8,375% 80,000 BOND-EUR 9,26% 8,375 B- 05/07/2033

I bond ad alto rendimento ora sembrano anche ad alto rischio - gz  

  By: GZ on Lunedì 10 Ottobre 2005 20:33

A proposito della bancarotta del settore auto in USA questo è uno dei due fondi "High Yield" detti anche di junk bond più trattati e salta oggi all'occhio perchè ha uno dei grafici peggiori in giro (come noto il grosso dei bond "spazzatura" ora sono nel settore auto USA, GM e fornitori vari)

 

  By: GZ on Martedì 23 Agosto 2005 12:45

gli hedge funds le vendono e le comprano, hanno creato un mercato secondario delle polizze vita sembra

 

  By: gianlini on Martedì 23 Agosto 2005 11:00

non mi è molto chiaro se quando muoio i soldi della polizza mi servono per ripagare il debito contratto per pagarne i premi, a che mi serve sottoscrivere la polizza? oppure, perchè gli hedge fund dovrebbe avere delle tabelle demografiche (non so se il termine è corretto) diverse da quelle delle assicurazioni, tali per cui quello che è caro con queste, diventa interessante con i primi?

cose veramente affascinanti sui mercati finanziari - gz  

  By: GZ on Martedì 23 Agosto 2005 02:11

Ci sono cose veramente affascinanti sui mercati finanziari Mettiamo che sei un anziano e vuoi una polizza vita, oltre i 60 costa molto come premi, ma ora c'e' un mercato di hedge fund "asset backed" che ti presta i soldi per comprare su un mercato secondario le polizze vita. E prendi a prestito i soldi per il premio dando come collaterale la polizza stessa. Il risultato e' che gli utenti anziani ottengono polizze vita impiegando pochi fondi e gli hedge fund ottengono rendimenti anche del 10% -------------------------------------------------------- August 16 Financial Times (James Altucher ): “The latest twist in the growing secondary market for life insurance policies is an innovative asset-backed lending strategy called life insurance premium finance. There is a class of seniors who would like life insurance policies but acquiring a policy at that age can mean expensive premiums. However, because the secondary market in life insurance policies establishes a market and means for valuing policies it is possible for seniors to borrow the money to pay for the premiums and use the policy itself as the asset backing the loan. Why would people want to do this? Most of their assets could be illiquid or tied up in other investments… Why would investors want to lend? Lenders would typically receive the 10-15 per cent interest on the loan; lenders would be provided with an investment opportunity outside of traditional asset classes… Investors range from hedge funds to banks to endowments and all use life settlements not only as a source of returns but also as a way to diversify away from the traditional asset classes of equities, bonds, commodities.”

le obbligazioni paesi emergenti a un massimo di ottimismo - gz  

  By: GZ on Giovedì 07 Ottobre 2004 21:30

L'indicatore più obiettivo di quello che succede in termini di liquidità nel mondo è la differenza tra quanto rendono le obbligazioni europee o americane e quelle dei paesi emergenti tipo i bonds di Brasile Turchia Russia Perù Nigeria... Questa settimana la differenza è scesa ulterioriormente e tocca solo il 4% in media, stesso livello a cui era a gennaio quando siamo arrivato a un massimo di ottimismo --------------------------------------------- J Emerging Mkt Debt Spreads Tighten Despite New Supply NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Emerging market debt spreads narrowed again Wednesday, powered by an improvement in Russia's credit outlook and a tentative nod of approval toward Turkey from the European Union. But prices on most bonds slipped amid a retreat in U.S. Treasurys as investors also tried to digest a new wave of issuance from Brazil and Peru. In late trade, J.P. Morgan's Emerging Markets Bond Index Plus stood at 403basis points over U.S. Treasurys, 3 basis points tighter than at Tuesday's close as spreads creep closer to the 400 marker for the first time since January. The advance came on the same day that the yield on 10-year Treasurys rose to 4.22% from 4.18%, though, with market participants adopting a cautious stance ahead of Friday's U.S. employment report. Russia's spread narrowed 13 basis points to 270 over Treasurys on the EMBI+ after Moody's changed the outlook on the country's Baa3-rated foreign debt to positive from stable. Moody's cited "exceptionally strong macroeconomic fundamentals alongside prudent fiscal and monetary policies" in announcing theshift. Turkey tightened 6 basis points to 319 basis points over Treasurys, bolstered by a recommendation from the E.U.'s head office that the economic bloc start membership talks with Ankara. Curbing the impact, though, E.U. Commission President Romano Prodi described the recommendation as a "qualified yes," as thebloc also set stiff conditions to keep Turkey from backtracking on democratic and human rights reforms. Oil-rich Nigeria's spread narrowed 41 basis points to 599 over Treasurys as crude futures prices rose above $52 a barrel to a new record in New York trading. But Brazil's bonds struggled as the government put the finishing touches on a $1 billion, 15-year global bond and investors braced for the new supply. After most traders had already gone home, the deal priced at 492 basis points over Treasurys to yield 9.15%.

le statistiche SOTTOVALUTANO il numero di posti di lavoro - gz  

  By: GZ on Giovedì 10 Giugno 2004 14:19

In realtà le statistiche SOTTOVALUTANO il numero di posti di lavoro. Ad esempio dal 1997-1998 in poi l'emigrazione dai caraibi e il centro america verso gli USA è esplosa, arrivano in media 600mila emigrati all'anno, ci sono ora quasi 40 milioni di "ispanici" in America, è un livello di emigrazioni paragonabile solo a quello degli inizi del '900 quando sono arrivati setto o otto milioni di emigranti italiani. Quindi quando si fano confronti tra i livelli di occupazione attuali e quelli di dieci o venti anni fa NON SI TIENE CONTO DEL MAGGIORE AFFLUSSO DI EMIGRANTI che ovviamente richiede una creazione maggiore di posti di lavoro per mantenere lo stesso livello di occupazione in % della popolazione Le statistiche SOTTOVALUTANO il numero di posti di lavoro inoltre perchè con internet e le telecomunicazioni aumentano molto quelli che lavorano in proprio, basta pensare a tutti quelli che lavorano da casa, a vendere su Ebay o fornire consulenza di vario genere, traduzioni, software, massaggi, servizi sanitari, pubblicità... pubblicizzando solo su internet. Le statistiche del governo USA hanno dati solo sulle aziende sopra 50 dipendenti e per quelle piccole e chi lavora in proprio assumono che la loro proporzione resti la stessa e che quindi assumano allo stesso modo delle aziende sopra 50 dipendenti. Se però aumentano i posti di lavoro sotto i 50 dipendenti rispetto a quelli nel settore medio-grandi aziende, allora le statistiche ufficiali non sono in grado di rilevarlo per il semplice fatto che non è materialmente possibile fare rilevazioni affidabili tra chi lavora in proprio ad esempio. La realtà è che al momento in USA le aziende sono spesso in difficoltà perchè i dipendenti si licenziano e vanno altrove: dove lavora mia moglie hanno perso più del 10% dello staff da inizio 2004 perchè la gente ha offerte di lavoro migliori altrove e se ne va con qualche giorno di preavviso per cui negli ultimi due mesi sono in crisi continua per mancanza di staff e passano il tempo a cercare di intervistare candidati. Il responsabile della produzione, un cinese di pechino emigrato, se ne è andato e lavora in proprio da casa free-lance per loro e altre aziende: per le statistiche E' UN POSTO DI LAVORO IN MENO anche se guadagna più di prima. Ma basta anche ricordare anche quello che è successo in Italia: da quando sono nato sono stato circondato da discussioni sulla DISOCCUPAZIONE all' 8% o in certi anni al 9% in Italia e al 20% al Sud ecc.. Ma che senso avevano questi numeri ? Mentre tutti parlavano di disoccupazione intanto le aziende cercavano emigranti dal terzo mondo per trovare qualcuno e arrivavano due milioni di extra-comunitari. A Modena e in Emilia la disoccupazione sarebbe al 3 o 4% secondo le statistiche, invece si riesce a tappare i buchi solo con gli emigranti e il doppio lavoro generalizzato. Tutte le statistiche di occupazione sono distorte, ma nel senso che SOTTOVALUTANO l'occupazione perchè non vedono il sommerso, il lavoro in proprio e la micro impresa NB Da quanto tempo Richebacher è negativo sull'economia americana ? Almeno dal 1995, cioè da quando ho iniziato io a seguire la borsa. Per caso è stato uno dei primi tizi di cui ho cominciato a leggere che parlavano di economia applicata alla borsa, all'epoca era citato su www.StrategicInvestor.com e non c'è mai stato un anno da allora in cui non predicesse un disastro. Se uno non ci crede cerca qualche archivio e vede che in dieci anni ha sempre e solo visto crisi e errori tragici che portavano alla rovina

 

  By: rael on Giovedì 10 Giugno 2004 12:32

E' difficile dire se la situazione occupazionale in america è davvero un po' migliorata o è frutto solo di alchimie statistiche. Questo per es. è Richebacher, che userà pure gli stessi toni, ma mi pare abbia un'altra autorevolezza rispetto ai vari disfattisti che circolano in internet. ....................................................... THE JOB FRAUD On April 2, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that nonfarm payroll employment in the United States had surged by 308,000 in March, allowing the administration to claim that the job recovery had finally arrived. After taking a closer look, we concluded that was just another case of absurd statistics. The monthly employment situation report of the Labor Department is based on two different surveys, the household survey data and the establishment survey. The first is a sample survey of 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The second is conducted by the BLS in cooperation with state agencies, and includes 160,000 businesses and government agencies covering about 400,000 individual worksites. According to the household survey, civilian employment increased from 137,384 million in February to 137,691 million in March, up 307,000. These are the raw, not seasonally adjusted, figures. Usually, employment rises in March due to seasonal effects. Accordingly, indeed, the seasonally adjusted data for March shows a decline by 3,000. In other words, zero job growth. In the establishment survey, the raw numbers are even much worse. Nonfarm payrolls, not seasonally adjusted, increased by just 7,000 in March, as against 307,000 in the household survey. Now you would expect that seasonal adjustment would produce an even steeper decline than in the household survey. Miraculously, seasonal adjustment went in a diametrically opposite direction, turning the paltry raw number of 7,000 into a seasonally adjusted spectacular jump of 308,000. Wondering how this is possible, we found out that virtually half of this big employment gain owed to a statistical method called the "net birth/death model." The BLS explains that due to its "inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms," it feels the need to use some special adjustments. "To correct for this systematic underestimation of employment growth, an estimation procedure with two components is used to account for business births. The first component uses business deaths to impute employment for business births." In essence, this means the more businesses are being liquidated, the more new jobs through business births are "imputed." The second adjustment component is the X-12-ARIMA software model, being used to account for seasonal effects on the net birth/death ratio. In March, the two methods of calculation had a dramatic result: 153,000 of the 308,000 new jobs derived from the "net birth/death model." The other half of the alleged job growth came mainly from two sectors: construction (71,000) and retail trade (47,000). Again, according to the household survey (seasonally adjusted), employment in private industries fell by 175,000; the number of self-employed workers fell by 288,000. If there had not been a steep increase in government employment by 439,000, the March job report would have been a disaster. Last but not least, another oddity from the establishment survey: Average weekly hours fell in March; in fact, they fell so much that total hours worked declined even as the work force surged.

 

  By: GZ on Giovedì 10 Giugno 2004 11:48

la situazione sul mercato delle obbligazioni aziendali (corporate bonds) al momento in America secondo Brian Reynolds il migliore che scriva su internet che io sappia In genere se le cose peggiorano o migliorano per le aziende lo noti prima sulle obbligazioni aziendali e poi sulle azioni in borsa il grafico iniziale è quello dell'occupazione in America che mostra chiaramente la svolta in positivo

obbligazioni più rischiose ("high yield") - gz  

  By: GZ on Lunedì 01 Marzo 2004 19:16

Come discusso nel Topic qui a fianco sui bonds e altrove i rendimenti delle obbligazioni corporate più rischiose (cosiddette "high yield" ) sono la cosa che da indicazioni sia sui bonds in generale e anche sulle borse e l'economia in generale Perchè ? Perchè sono il settore più sensibile, sono le società che hanno più rischio e che emettono bonds con più difficoltà che danno la misura di come vanno le cose Bene dopo una brutta scivolata a fine febbraio gli indici e i fondi quotati "high yield" da giovedì si stanno riprendendo In pratica come indicatore tengo sullo schermo alcuni di questi fondi obbligazionari quotati come HYP o HYI

Obbligazioni a alto rendimento: lettura in inglese - gz  

  By: GZ on Domenica 01 Giugno 2003 16:37

Mesi fa avevo indicato un fondo comune "High Yield", ^HYP#^, cioè un fondo che investe solo in obbligazioni di aziende a "alto rischio" quindi con rendimenti elevati e rischio proporzionato Non occorre sottolineare, o forse sì, che come tutti i fondi suggeriti qui si tratta di un fondo quotato a NY quindi acquistabile allo stesso modo in cui si compra una qualsiasi azione e NON di un fondo che compri solo tramite banca o sim. Comprare fondi ha senso solo in due casi: per i paesi esotici come l'indonesia o malesia dove è quasi impossibile comprare i titoli locali e saperne a sufficienza e per le obbligazioni "junk" di società in difficoltà dove ci sono rischi di bancarotta su singole emissioni, ma comprandone 30 o 40 tramite un fondo frazioni il rischio e però approfitti del trend di rialzo del settore. ^High Yield Plus Fund#^ continua a salire come tutto il settore delle obbligazioni a alto rendimento/rischio. E si moltiplicano le analisi su questo trend e sul fatto che possa continuare. L'appetito vien mangiando e sull'obbligazionario a media-lunga scadenza ci sono ora i maggiori guadagni degli ultimi 7 o 8 anni per cui sempre più gente accorre. Qui una lettura per il weekend sul tema. ------------------------------ Wall Street Journal ------------------ By GREGORY ZUCKERMAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Should you be in junk? It's a question worth asking. While stocks are showing a lot of vigor these days, one of the hottest investments lately is one of the riskiest around: junk bonds, meaning bonds sold by companies with low credit ratings. Investors have gained total returns of about 14% so far this year investing in these bonds, including both a price gain and interest payments, despite a recent pullback, according to a Merrill Lynch junk-bond index. And they're up a heady 23% since early October. With interest rates on safer bonds so meager, it's no wonder this area is catching the fancy of investors. Indeed, a rash of money has been flowing into the junk-bond market from individual investors as well as large institutions. "The market is hot. It's the place to be right now," says Kingman Penniman, president of KDP Investment Advisors, a research firm in Montpelier, Vt. The Risk Factor But before you jump on the bandwagon, keep in mind that these bonds are riskier than most because they're sold by companies that are young and unproven, or by those that have hit troubles and have seen agencies slash their credit ratings. A few examples: conglomerate Tyco International and energy companies Calpine Corp. and Williams Cos. Junk bonds often tend to behave more like small-capitalization stocks than like bonds, because so much depends on the economic fortunes of the company selling the bonds. Sounds a bit dangerous, right? So why would anyone lend money to such unpredictable companies? Well, investors can be well compensated for taking these risks. The rewards often are the hefty yields these bonds typically carry, earning them the name "high-yield" bonds. Consider this example: A super-safe 10-year note sold by the U.S. Treasury sports a yield of less than 3.4%, not much more than a bank savings account. A 10-year bond sold by General Electric, a top-rated corporation, carries a yield of about 4%. But investors who are willing to buy 10-year bonds of mobile-phone operator Nextel Communications or telecom company Qwest Communications will pocket a yield of about 9%. Big returns on high-yield bonds make them "an attractive asset class," says Mr. Penniman. "While returns for stocks may be mediocre, high-yield [bonds] should compare favorably with a lot less volatility." Bulls argue the recent gains could continue because companies are selling assets, refinancing existing debt at lower rates and improving their balance sheets -- all encouraging signs for companies issuing high-yield bonds. "As a result, the default rate," the rate at which low-rated companies default on their bond payments, "is falling, and we think it will continue to come down," says Stephen Peacher, who heads the junk-bond team at Putnam Investments. "The high-yield market today is filled generally with seasoned companies and industries that have been able to survive" the economy's difficulties. Household names in the junk-bond market include forest-products maker Georgia-Pacific, casino operator Park Place Entertainment and hotelier Host Marriott. Bracing for Losses While many recommend that investors put at least some of their portfolio in high-yield securities, it's not a place for those who cannot stomach a fair amount of risk. For example, Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management Inc. in Los Angeles, who works with small investors, points out that many high-yield mutual funds have incurred annual losses of 10% in recent years. In 2000, the average high-yield fund lost almost 8%. Last year, the funds lost 2% on average. Those performances top stocks but are less than those of funds that invest in safer bonds during those periods. Another reason for caution: Since the junk market has climbed so far in the past eight months, it may be due for a correction. And with a weak economy, and fears growing about deflation, low-rated companies in the high-yield market may bear the brunt of the pain. Indeed, if weaker companies continue to have difficulties raising the prices of their products, they will have a harder time meeting their debt obligations, making it more likely that at least some of them will stop making interest payments to bondholders. "A severe economic downturn is probably the biggest risk to the market," acknowledges Mr. Peacher. Deflation, or falling prices, would be "horrible" for junk bonds, adds Mr. Penniman. So how should investors approach this market? The obvious answer: very carefully. Beyond that, the key to successful junk-bond investing is diversification, an investment principle that is especially important here. Unless you're a skilled credit analyst with time to scrutinize corporate balance sheets and anticipate industry trends, it will be difficult to analyze the risks of any one company's bonds. Even if just 5% or so of junk-bond companies default on interest payments to investors, you don't want to be holding bonds in one of the few companies that does run into real problems. Safety in Numbers That's where mutual funds come in. Because a mutual fund holds a portfolio of these risky bonds, sometimes hundreds of them, the likelihood of getting severely hurt by troubles at one company is greatly reduced. "Owning one individual junk bond is quite risky -- if that issuer runs into trouble it can wipe out a good portion of your investments in a hurry," says Scott Berry, an analyst at Morningstar Inc. At the same time, individuals investing in the high-yield market on their own "are unlikely to receive the best prices for bonds" since it is a market that usually sees multimillion-dollar transactions, adds Mr. Peacher. In any case, most analysts don't think individuals should put more than 15% of their money in junk-bond mutual funds, as a diversification move. The new tax law makes it look smarter to keep junk and other interest-bearing investments in a tax-deferred account. Mr. Berry recommends funds that have performed well in both good and bad markets in the past decade, and that don't charge too much in investor expenses. Among those he is high on: the T. Rowe Price High Yield fund, up about 10% this year; the Pimco High Yield fund, up 13%; and American Funds' High Income Trust, up about 15%. All three have average annual returns of about 7% or more for the past decade.

 

  By: GZ on Martedì 06 Maggio 2003 03:40

Credit Markets: Why Buffett Lost Some Love Of Junk (From The Wall Street Journal) By Tom Barkley NEW YORK -- When Warren Buffett speaks, investors tend to listen, even if the subject is junk. After buying up about $8.3 billion in junk, or "high yield," bonds last year when the market was at a low point, the Oracle of Omaha now says the high-yield asset class has lost much of its luster. At Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual shareholders meeting this past weekend, Mr. Buffett said he hasn't bought any junk bonds this year and cautioned others against doing so. "They just aren't as attractive," Mr. Buffett said in an interview with CNBC. "It's not a field the average investor ought to fool around with at all." While not turning bearish on the asset class, several high-yield fund managers agree with Mr. Buffett that the market could be in for at least a pause after rallying more than 20% since October. "He's clearly on the right track, I think, if what he said was that the best is behind us," said Harry Resis, head of U.S. fixed income at U.K.-based Henderson Global Investors, which has $230 million invested in high-yield bonds out of a total $800 million held in the U.S. Distressed credits have rallied the most, raising the question of whether their rebound has been based more upon actual credit improvements or the flood of money coming into the market in search for yield, he said. Investors have been pouring money into high-yield mutual funds at an unprecedented rate of over $1 billion a week during the past eight weeks, according to AMG Data Services of Arcata, Calif. "The market is driven by momentum players with money to spend, and they can't afford not to own bonds at a discount, since so many bonds are now priced above par and are underperforming the market," said Mr. Resis. "The jury is still out on whether the weak credits are actually survivors." Yet Mr. Resis and other high-yield fund managers remain optimistic about the market's long-term prospects. "Right now demand does seem to be outstripping supply, and I think maybe in the short term we are a little overdone," said Bruce Walbridge, portfolio manager at the State Street Global Advisors high-yield bond fund, with $600 million in high-yield assets. "Yet I believe we're still at the beginning of a longer-term good string of performance in the high-yield market." The fund flows aren't only chasing yield, but are also based on fundamental improvements in balance sheets, access to capital, declining default rates and even an overall improvement in earnings among speculative-grade companies, he said. Global default rates for high-yield corporate bonds hit a peak in January 2002 and have been declining ever since, according to Moody's Investors Service. In April, the default rate fell to 6.8% from March's 7%. Bonds that have rallied considerably over the past few months include distressed energy companies, such as El Paso Corp., Calpine Corp. and Williams Cos. as well as telecom-equipment makers Lucent Technologies Inc. and Nortel Networks Corp. Nonetheless, high-yield bonds are still one of the most attractive asset classes out there, given the continuing combination of uncertainty in the stock market, low rates in the rest of the fixed-income markets, and the outlook for moderate economic growth, said Tom Price, who manages $4.3 billion in assets at Strong Funds, with $800 million invested in high-yield bonds. "Based on Buffett's comments, it seems that the consensus is growing that the big return from the snapback has already been captured, and I agree with that," added Mr. Price. "I don't think it's time to sell, but I also don't think it's time for investors to come in and extrapolate the last six months of returns and think that will continue." Like Mr. Buffett, Andrew Harding, director of taxable fixed-income for the Armada Funds, boosted the high-yield holdings of his group's Total Return Advantage Fund to 7% from just 1% last year. Mr. Harding said he started buying up high-yield credits for the fund, with $250 million in total assets, in November and December, adding, "and I still think there is a little more room to go." As for Mr. Buffett's warning for smaller investors to stay away from junk bonds, the fund managers also discourage the buying of individual credits, recommending instead a diversified mutual fund. "If you're invested in high yield, you certainly want to use a mutual fund or quality portfolio manager to diversify your risk and avoid defaults," said State Street's Mr. Walbridge.

 

  By: GZ on Lunedì 05 Maggio 2003 20:09

buffett 5 anni fa fece notizia perchè comprò un mucchio di argento, molti lo seguirono e persero e risulta che Buffett ne sia uscito anche lui prima del rialzo dei metalli dal 1996 circa al 2000 o 2001 Buffett con il suo fondo Berkshire ha fatto peggio del mercato, nel 2001-2002 ha recuperato lo svantaggio in parte ma ci sono 200 gestori che negli ultimi anni hanno fatto meglio di lui è uno che manovra centinaia di miliardi per cui per lui 2-3 anni è un orizzonte di investimento e un rimbalzo da qui a luglio è irrilevante, per me no inoltre in generale Buffett tratta solo società molto liquide, i soldi li ha fatti quando le blue chip come Coca-cola o McDonald erano sottovalutate causa anni di inflazione adesso la sottovalutazione c'è, ma solo nelle società medio-piccole e fuori dagli USA per cui se dice che i titoli del Dow Jones e S&P 100 sono cari ha ragione, ma cosa importa a noi ?

 

  By: Joseph on Lunedì 05 Maggio 2003 19:53

Buffett in realtà non ha negato la precedente speculazione ( che gli ha procurato notevole soddisfazione ), ha solo lasciato intendere che secondo lui i margini di guadagno su tale tipo di investimento sono limitati o si sono esauriti e i rischi di deprezzamento futuri potrebbero sconsigliarne attualmente l'acquisto. Ritengo sia buona cosa " leggere tra le righe ", cosa alla quale Zibordi dovrebbe essere avvezzo.