- My biggest takeaway from the book is actually: stay away from distress investing, unless your sole business is on turnaround investment. The problem lies that even if the intrinsic value analysis is correct, the unknown of it (bankruptcy preceding timeline, potential take over competitors, unknown market force) - mostly the potential of prolonged timeline means that opportunity cost could be incredibly high. Distress investing works the best during a sudden down term, but sudden down term also means that the likelihood of unknown market condition could be prolonged, and market misprice could happen easily when an distress investor’s money is tied up in an another project. On an up-term, equity investing would easily beat credit investing over the long haul
- The increase availability of private credit also means that credit cycle also gets increasingly volatile (either upwards or downwards)
- GAAP under FASB 113 and FASB 157 requires marked-to-market accounting metric, which means that during times of illiquidity or lack of price discovery, the market price will be distorted to the downside, and significantly undervalue the company’s long term prospects
- In 2008, Good companies also faced liquidity issue (such as JP Morgan Chase). One almost could always count on government rescue nowadays (with TARP)
- On callable loans: during the 2008 crisis, a lot of loans were made in high interest rates, believing the rates will quickly go down. However, even as rates did went down, due to the muted capital market, they can’t refinance. However, as the capital market defrost, those company then would have incentive to call their loans and use the new (lower) interest rate. Thus, if the loan is bought at a significant discount, the call-at-par price could afford investor a very healthy margin
- Going concern simply means the company (the concern) is still operating (going), as oppose to “gone concern”
- Goodwill charges (as well as many other marked-to-market accounting) must be viewed carefully. The author (through other medium) often criticize management’s ability to manipulate financial figures. Thus, a security analyst must truly understand the nature of why each action was conducted and re-organize the company’s balance sheet accordingly (for instance, Warren Buffett often have stated there are many economic Goodwill, such as brand value, that are not valued under GAAP - probably for a good reason, since how does one value brand value into a coherent single number?)
- (I looked into the author’s fund to see how it performed (the author passed away in 2018 and managed the fund till 2012). It seemed that the fund had a massive blow up in 2015 due to liquidity issues, as investors want out and the fund had a de facto bank run. The three securities the author wrote about did mostly recover towards the end, but due to the prolonged bankruptcy process, had massive liquidity issue until the restructuring process. Thus, a distress fund must be closed-ended during inception, or structure it like Berkshire where while open-ended, the major shareholder has the majority saying and could buy back share during distress.)
- Historically speaking, even during the worst of the times, majorities (>60%) of junk bonds remain performing
- (Given the illiquidity nature of a company bond security during time of distress, it’s probably wiser to not invest in those given the likelihood of prolonged interest parties’ disagreements. Instead, invest in lower yielding and closer to certainty performing bond would be much more ideal. Since such security would distribute interest on the mean time, and as capital market recovers, the security would return to liquid status - the same thing can’t be said for illiquid restructuring securities that is in the process of bankruptcy)
- (… having said above, the author’s strategy of purchasing those highly distressed bond is so that even in the event of default, the bond holder would get converted into equity holder. Given the tax loss benefit of the newly structured company, it could be highly lucrative. However, NOL carry over is very nuanced and the IRS poses an ownership test, more of that can be found in Section 368. Having said that, it appears that as long as the restructuring occurred under Chapter 11 - not informal process - ownership changes rule would not be triggered (Section 382(I)(5). However, if said company sells more than half of its equity to a new owner within 5 years, NOL would be capped as well.)
- (More on above: covenant is very important. If the covenant does not prohibit issuer from raising more debt as senior as the creditor’s existing debt, during crisis, the issuer could raise more debt and effectively dilute existing bond holder, in the event of eventual restructuring of converting into equity. Reading indenture carefully is very important.)