Make-Whole Call or Yield Trap? Switching a BBB Bond
An investment committee is reviewing a $12 million position in the 6.25% senior notes due 2031 of a BBB-rated industrial issuer. The bonds are priced at 94.50 to yield 6.80%, a 210 bp spread over the 4.70% five-year Treasury, with an option-adjusted duration of 5.4. The indenture includes a make-whole call at Treasury plus 35 bp and a par call in the final three months. A dealer is offering a new 5-year 6.90% non-call-3 bond at par from a similar issuer; the committee is attracted by the higher coupon and shorter maturity. The portfolio’s mandate limits below-investment-grade exposure to 5% and requires at least 15% in liquid assets. The issuer’s leverage has risen from 2.8x to 3.6x, and its revolving credit facility matures in 14 months. The committee asks whether to switch.
1. Evaluate the proposed switch on a relative-value basis, including the effect of the make-whole call and the issuer’s deteriorating credit profile.
Read the worked answer
The coupon difference is not the decision variable. The old bond yields 6.80% at a 210 bp spread; the new bond yields 6.90% at roughly a 220 bp spread if the Treasury curve is unchanged. That is only about 10 bp of extra spread, and the new bond is shorter, so the committee is not being paid much to change credit exposure. The make-whole call at Treasury plus 35 bp protects the investor against a pure rate-driven refinancing, but it does not protect against spread tightening: if the issuer’s credit spread compresses, the issuer can call at a price based on Treasuries and refinance cheaper. The investor is short a spread call. More important, leverage has risen to 3.6x and the revolver matures in 14 months. A 210 bp spread may be too tight for that refinancing risk. Before switching, compare option-adjusted spreads, not yields; verify the new issuer’s leverage, covenants, and liquidity; and stress the old bond for a 100–150 bp spread widening. If credit concern is the real motive, trimming the position or demanding a concession is cleaner than switching solely for a higher coupon.
2. The committee says, ‘We are not callable for three years on the new bond, so it is safer.’ Identify the risks this statement overlooks and design two tests before approving the switch.
Read the worked answer
Call protection addresses only one risk. The new bond still carries credit-spread duration, event risk, liquidity risk, and interest-rate duration. A three-year non-call period also means the issuer can call later if rates fall, leaving the investor to reinvest at lower yields. The statement also implicitly assumes the new issuer is stronger, but ‘similar issuer’ is not a credit analysis. Two tests should be run. First, a credit stress test: widen spreads 150 bp on both bonds, apply a default scenario with 40% recovery, and compare price impact using spread duration. Second, a liquidity test: estimate bid-ask cost and days-to-liquidate under stressed conditions, including the portfolio’s 15% liquid-asset minimum. A third useful test is a rates-and-call scenario: shift Treasury yields ±100 bp and model whether the issuer exercises the call. Approve only if the new bond compensates for its own credit and liquidity risk, not merely because it has a three-year call holiday.