Attack of the Zombies: Potential Deadbeats Are Almost 20% of Companies, Says DB

US businesses that lack the income to pay their huge debt service, kept alive by more borrowing, are on shaky ground, Deutsche Bank Securities’ Sløk warns.


The dead walk, but for how long? As many as one-fifth of all US corporations are in zombie status, by the calculations of Deutsche Bank Securities.

A zombie company is a debt-laden creature that lacks the wherewithal to pay its interest and maturity payments. The zombies bridge the gap between debt payments and (lower) income by borrowing more, which kicks the problem into the future—and sets up a painful reckoning at some point.

“This is a macroeconomic problem because zombie firms are less productive, and their existence lowers investment in and employment at more productive firms,” Deutsche’s chief economist, Torsten Sløk, wrote in a research note.  

Cruise lines have peddled $8 billion in bonds recently, often secured by their ships, whose value may decline steeply if passengers don’t return. Meanwhile, airlines, another woebegone sector whose flights are now a fraction of their former volume, have sold $14 billion in new debt financing.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

This whole whirligig was set into motion several years ago thanks to low Federal Reserve-engineered interest rates, which make borrowing stunningly cheap. The onset of the epidemic and the recession have made matters a lot worse, pushing them deeper into the hole.

Recently lowered interest rates have accelerated corporate bond issuance this year. New bonds topped $1 trillion through May, an 87% advance over the same period in 2019. Of greatest concern is the increase in junk bonds, totaling $140 billion, up 30% over the prior-year period, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

But lately, the Fed also is bolstering the corporate fixed-income market with its program to purchase individual bonds on the secondary market, which finally kicked off in the past week. This sets a floor beneath bonds and encourages their issuance even more.

The $250 billion bond-purchase fund is supposedly directed at just investment grade bonds. There is an exception for junk, though—namely issues that were downgraded to high-yield after March 22 can be bought by the Fed, too. The thinking is that these credits wouldn’t have lost investment grade designation if the virus hadn’t appeared. Previously, the Fed had been buying bond exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which contained junk.

As Deutsche’s Sløk put it, “In short, one side effect of central banks keeping rates low for a long time is that it keeps more unproductive firms alive, which ultimately lowers the long-run growth rate of the economy.”

Default levels on debt for 12 months trailing have been relatively tame: none at all for investment grade and 4.7% for junk bonds, according to Moody’s Investors Service. And junk is where most of the potential trouble lies.

The junk rate is up from 4.1% in April and 2.3% a year ago. (The average this century is 4.1%.) Moody’s forecasts that the junk default level will more than double by year-end, to 9.0%. The ratings agency has a pessimistic scenario of 16%.

Related Stories:

Despite Fed Backstop, Junk Bonds Still Face Big Trouble

Straw in Wind? Near-Junk Ratings Dominate US Corporate Bonds

Japan’s GPIF Seeking Active and Passive Managers for Foreign Bonds 

Tags: , , , , , ,

T. Rowe Study: Rebalancing Even in a Market Fall Is Vital

Sticking with a plan to regularly overhaul asset allocation is always a good idea, says the money manager.


Although rebalancing is one of the main tenets of portfolio management, doing so during times of market turmoil can feel counterintuitive to investors who can be excused for feeling queasy by the thought of buying into tumbling markets.

However, recent research from T. Rowe Price shows that it is vital for investors to maintain a prudent rebalancing approach regardless of the market’s current behavior. The firm’s analysis of historical and simulated equity market downturns found that, the vast majority of the time, maintaining an investment policy’s rebalancing rule led to better returns compared with a passive strategy of allowing portfolio exposures to drift with market movements.

In a research paper released by T. Rowe Price, strategists Som Priestley and Christina Moore analyzed and compared the impact of four rebalancing methods, two of which were calendar‑based and two of which relied on exposure bands.

They first examined how the various rebalancing methods would have performed during the bear market that followed the bursting of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as well as during the 2007–2009 global financial crisis. They found that all the hypothetical rebalanced portfolios would have outperformed a hypothetical non‑rebalanced portfolio during and after those two market events.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

And because future market sell‑offs and recoveries follow different paths, Priestley and Moore expanded their analysis to study a variety of simulated scenarios to see if certain rebalancing approaches could be more effective than others in market downturns. They modeled hypothetical equity/bond portfolios across 1,000 simulated equity market downturns and subsequent recoveries and found that all the rebalancing rules they tested outperformed a non‑rebalanced portfolio in at least 90.9% of simulated scenarios.

“It really doesn’t matter what the shape of the recovery is, the important thing is that you stick to the rebalancing policy you have,” Priestley said in an interview with CIO.  “Even though it might feel unpalatable to go back into equities during a sell-off environment, in the thousand simulations we did, 90% of the time the investor who stuck to their rebalancing policy outperforms.”

Although the researchers said there is no “silver bullet” rebalancing rule due to the multiple considerations that need to be addressed when designing and maintaining rebalancing policies, they did find that certain rebalancing methods potentially outperformed others during specific types of market downturns. However, they acknowledged that it is impossible for investors to know the type of downturn they are experiencing as it occurs.

Their research found that during rolling 10‑year periods since 1989, all of the four rebalancing methods would have outperformed a hypothetical non‑rebalanced portfolio. And the hypothetical rebalanced portfolios would have outperformed a hypothetical non‑rebalanced portfolio in the vast majority of the historical 10‑year rolling periods covered in the research.

They also found that the outperformance of each rebalancing method compared with a hypothetical non‑rebalanced portfolio ranged from a significant 1.00 to 1.53 percentage points of additional cumulative excess return versus the passively drifting non‑rebalanced portfolio, which Priestly and Moore said they view as the rebalancing alpha.

“Any time there is a crisis or an increase in market volatility, a lot of investors become reluctant to follow their regular rebalancing rules,” Priestly said. “Maintaining a balanced and disciplined approach through equity allocation to provide a more durable all-weather portfolio is more likely to succeed over the longer run.”

Priestly added that “it’s not about market timing, it’s about avoiding the temptation of letting the portfolio drift too far.”

Related Stories:

Study: There’s a Better Way to Withstand Downturns than Old DB Model

Roller Coaster Markets Don’t Dampen Investor Optimism

How Pension CIOs Are Dealing With the Pandemic Storm

Tags: , , , ,

«