1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Redeeming a bond -- bankers and finance PhDs, please reply

Discussion in 'Business, Careers & Education' started by leftover_salmon, Sep 18, 2010.

  1. leftover_salmon

    leftover_salmon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    954
    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    I was too lazy to find a better forum and sign up, and figured there are more than enough bankers here anyways.

    Let's say Company A has a $100MM bond outstanding and wants to redeem it at makewhole. The redemption premium is $10MM (i.e. they have to pay $110MM to take the bonds out). Concurrent with the redemption, Company A will issue a $110MM bond (so they are funding the redemption with a new issue) maturing in, say, 5 years.

    My question is, on a PV basis, do I recognize a cost of $10MM or a cost of $10MM discounted back from the new bond's maturity date to today? The latter is obviously more favourable and seems theoretically correct, but I want to double check.

    My argument for the latter is that the company only has to actually pay that $10MM down out of pocket in 5 years time - in the meanwhile, they're funding it with a new bond (with the negative effect being an incrementally higher debt load and higher interest payments). From the no-arbitrage perspective, they can effectively sock away $6MM today to repay that $10MM in 5 years' time.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. maverick

    maverick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    136
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    I think it's a cost of $10M today. You are right doesn't hit cash flow until 5 years from now, but the company is worth $10M less because they did this transaction.

    Others feel free to correct me.
     
  3. leftover_salmon

    leftover_salmon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    954
    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    I think it's a cost of $10M today. You are right doesn't hit cash flow until 5 years from now, but the company is worth $10M less because they did this transaction. Others feel free to correct me.
    Not to seem like an ass, but I think you'll need to explain more before I buy that. I do understand that there is a definite accounting hit of $10MM, no doubt (or ~7-8MM after-tax), but as for actual PV cost in terms of saving/losing money, I haven't received a straight answer yet (and it's no secret I'd prefer being able to PV it back since that makes a redeem/re-issue scenario look more favourable and thus mean fees).
     
  4. RedScarf7

    RedScarf7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    My argument for the latter is that the company only has to actually pay that $10MM down out of pocket in 5 years time - in the meanwhile, they're funding it with a new bond (with the negative effect being an incrementally higher debt load and higher interest payments). From the no-arbitrage perspective, they can effectively sock away $6MM today to repay that $10MM in 5 years' time. Thoughts?
    I'm not sure I wholly understand your question, but I am inclined to agree that best treatment would be to defer the cost and record it in the fifth year. Since it has no observable effect on cash flow/ income until the cost is realized in 5 years, the matching principle dictates that the expense is to be realized during the period that it impacts earnings. To me, that would be in 5 years. Again, not 100% sure I'm interpreting everything correctly so take it fwiw. Edit: I agree that the second scenario you outlined seems correct.
     
  5. scientific

    scientific Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    from an economic perspective its pretty obv just write out the cashflows. from an accting perspective no clue
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by