Look I’m not an equity guy or a credit guy, but these passages, from latest @matt_levine newsletter, strike me as kind of obviously wrong.pic.twitter.com/RaaoXuC36b
Show this thread
-
But even for bankrupt companies it is totally rational for debt to trade below par and the equity to trade above zero, because the equity has much more optionality (if the restructuring goes well the best that the creditors can do is full recovery, the rest goes to shareholders)
Show this thread
Similarly while it’s true that distressed debt investors are more focused on the downside I don’t think that’s a difference in temperament. Rather it’s a rational response to the potential outcomes.
-
-
If you’re buying debt at 40 cents the absolute best you can do is a 150% return and the worst is you lose everything. If you buy equity you can still lose everything, but your upside is unlimited (or at least, limited at a much bigger number than 150%)
Show this thread -
So of course equity investors are more focused on the upside —that’s where most of the value from holding the equity is! Bond holders stop caring about the upside as soon as there’s enough money to repay the debt because that’s where they stop participating.
Show this thread -
I’m not saying anything profound here, and there is zero shade thrown at Matt Levine, who continues to be the single best newsletter writer in the world, just thought this was neat to think about.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
right it depends on investor but when I think special sits/distressed credit I think about like Elliott or whomever looking at debt trading at 40 cents on the dollar and saying "we can squeeze them to get 50 or 60" on the dollar" or even more as a lone holdout - upside mentality
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.