Terminated! The Price of Prudence

The alchemy of modern finance is coming back to haunt what were thought to be pretty mundane deals. As every follower of Mortgage REITs knows by now, borrowing short and lending long can be a risky proposition. Those REITs that have any shot at surviving the market carnage were those that matched the average life of their liabilities to the average life of their assets. Managing interest rate risk is accomplished in much the same way. Most don't think it's wise to borrow on a short-term, floating rate basis against long-term assets over a long period of time.

However, floating-rate debt is often cheaper, and sometimes it can be available on more advantageous terms than longer-term, fixed rate debt. And because interest rate swaps allow borrowers to convert floating-rate debt payments into fixed-rate debt payments, it turns out that interest rate risk on a short term, floating rate deal can be completely eliminated. Of course, floating-rate borrowers could go naked and save themselves the expense of the swap, but careful interest rate risk management dictates prudence, so swap they did.

If you were a big bond house like Lehman, this was bread and butter stuff. If you were a big bond house like Lehman that also happened to be big in real estate, your interest rate swap book would be huge (many large real estate development projects were funded with short term, floating rate LIBOR loans). Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported today (9/15) that Lehman had almost two million individual interest rate swaps on its books as of Friday (9/12).

However, as of the moment Lehman's parent, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection, all of Lehman's interest rate swap contracts were abrubtly terminated. This would not be of much consequence had the Fed not been slashing interest rates for much of the past year. But because rates are down so dramatically, any swap entered into before rates were cut is now deeply "out of the money". And because the bankruptcy of the parent entity at Lehman is a "Termination Event" under the swap contracts, hundreds of thousands of borrowers must now come up with what basically amounts to a pre-payment penalty under the swaps. The size of the prepayment penalty could range from a few hundred thousand dollars to tens of millions depending on the borrower. One example from the LEH book: the borrower under a $135 million floating to fixed rate swap done JUST ONE MONTH AGO is now on the hook for a $13 million termination payment (the swap tenor is quite long). LEH bankers labored for weeks to convince the borrower that doing a floating to fixed rate swap with Lehman was safe. Multiply this one borrower by two million swaps and you get an idea of the extent of the problems in just one arcane corner of the market.

Shell shocked Lehman employees spent the day Monday drafting these termination notices, among other tasks related to unwinding their books. The borrower in the above example has yet to receive its termination notice, and the borrower did NOT enter into a credit default swap on Lehman risk. Credit default swaps were the province of major financial institutions in New York, London, Hong Kong and Singapore, not borrowers in Gary, Indiana.

As these termination notices go out this week and next, borrowers ranging from the State of New York to real estate entrepreneurs in Phoenix, Arizona will be undergoing crash courses in the Secrets of the Temple. Let's hope there are not too many REITs involved in the Lehman chaos. Where any of these unfortunate borrowers will find the money to make these termination payments in this stressed environment is anyone's guess.

REIT Stock Dividends

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous RowdyRoddyPiper said...

You are sensationalizing this a little bit. Two important facts you are neglecting. The first is that for a small borrower with Lehman who is likely to have just one contract with Lehman, they can probably tear up the contract.

Swaps are generally based on the concept of netting, that is if you have multiple contracts with the same counterparty, you can't cherry pick the ones that are in the money to enforce and eliminate the ones that are out of the money. It's all or nothing wtih a defaulting counterparty, you either net all your exposures against one another or you walk away. If you walk away from a defaulting counterparty you aren't very likely to have to make a termination payment. Therefore it is unlikely that the borrower is on the hook for the 13MM. They'd probably just walk away.

As for the instrument in question, I'm missing some details. You said over a month (I'm assuming from 8/14 to 9/15 in my analysis) that this borrower is out of the money by roughly 10%. Assuming it's a 10 year swap, which would be a longish tenor, the duration is roughly 7.5, correspoinding to a change of nearly 1.33% to get that far out of the money. In the intervening time period 10Y swap has gone from 4.65 to 4.21 or about 1/3rd of the movement needed to put this guy 10 points down. Something doesn't add up.

Additionally, should he not be able to tear up with Lehman, he should be able to find a replacement counterparty that would give him the termination payment as an up front amount for entering into an off market swap. That way he would keep the rate he was paying and not have to come out of pocket. Barring that he can enter into a market rate swap and he's going to get the termination payment back in the form of a lowered rate, though it will be over time. The key is to get your new swap exposure on as close to when the old one terminates as possible to avoid any mismatch.

September 22, 2008 9:17 AM  
Blogger RW said...

Hey Roddy! You're on top of it as usual. The only reason your numbers don't add up is that this was more than even a "longish" swap, which was why I noted the tenor in the post. Believe it or not, it was a 30 year deal (I changed the facts ever so slightly to protect the guilty) with structured cash flows.

Imagine convincing someone to enter into a stuctured 30 year swap with you as your parent guarantor teeters on the edge of insolvency? I did not mention the one-time fees involved in doing this deal. Suffice it to say, it was not cheap. And now the the borrower gets a termination notice before the ink on the invoice is even dry?

Given the length of the deal, I don't think the netting concept applies, it would, as you know, depend on what else they had on with Lehman, but you would probably agree that netting would be difficult at best in this case, and, as you also know, finding another counterparty for a deal like this would not be an easy chore. I also think the creditors committee will get a copy of the termination claim and press the southern district court to pursue it. Meanwhile, the borrower can absolutely afford to hire the best there is to pursue their own claims against LEH, and perhaps even against the individual bankers involved. What a mess.

You're also right that this post was a bit sensationalized, but this was also not the only swap on LEH's books with this profile. What do you think: sensational posts for equally sensational times? Who would have thought this would even be a topic of conversation...

I hope you are hanging in there with your own biz (I am told that nothing is moving except for used office furniture), and I appreciate all the great detail included in your comment. It has been a very long time since I've personally even glanced at an ISDA agreement, so thanks also for reminding me of the netting. The post was definitely written in isolation in that regard.

Cheers, RW

September 25, 2008 9:01 AM  
Blogger RW said...

Roddy, I typed too soon. These deals ARE being transferred to a new counterparty but, suprise surprise, it is a new non AAA rated entity within LEH. Obviously nobody cares because it's better than a bankrupt counterparty and a Termination Event. It was just to buy time, since the 2-3 bps you'd lose on the bid ask in a normal transfer has blown out and nobody wants to pony up for that either.

September 25, 2008 11:39 AM  
Anonymous RowdyRoddypiper said...

I am not going to cast stones or anything but what in the name of sweet tap dancing jesus makes someone structure a floating rate 30 year loan and then someone else accept it. Floating rate loans are meant to be pre-payable and a 30 year time frame just doesn't make any sense. There is something more to this that isn't being disclosed.

I am not trying to absolve Lehman of anything here, but the borrower if he is sophisticated enough to borrow that much money and hire the best to represent him against Lehman is up to something as well. Logic dictates that you don't do a 30 year floater. If you want to do 30 year debt (pretty unheard of in CRE markets) you do fixed. FR stuff is 2-5 years with a couple of extension options. This makes no sense any other way. My sweet lord.

September 26, 2008 12:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home