RE: IC article11 Nov 2025 16:46
I dont understand why you made the comparison with secured vs unsecured? Its not like they had much choice in the matter even if they wanted to go down the secured route as i can't imagine any bank lending avap $300m at swap rates with a junk credit rating (albeit the highest junk tier). There is no real world $30m saving, you are just stating that this new bond issuance is better than lending from a bank? That may be true, but again i doubt they could even if they wanted to. And of course, they wouldnt choose to anyway as they will simply continue to roll over debt close to maturity hoping for lower interest rates as opposed to bank loans where they pay back interest and principal, which would defeat the purpose of their whole business model.
From where i stand, they have just rolled over the debt to avoid default which is pretty standard. And yes the bump in credit rating is down to the default risk of these 2026 notes being eliminated. One thing i have realised when comparing apples to apples; these old bonds were issued in may 2018 (not 2021 as that would be terrible) when interest rates were far lower. So actually, to only have a 25bps increase in yield given todays interest rate is pretty good going, and shows how far their balance sheets have come since the $1bn+ debt load pre covid. From this point of view, the company has come a long way and is in much better shape in terms of risk.
But still, if the company wishes to pay off these new bonds in the same fashion, cost of servicing this debt has risen in the real world which ultimately means higher expense. Thats the bottom line really.
What will be interesting to see is at what point the company will stop buying back debt. Presumably some complex future interest rate modelling and when that line intercepts where it is more beneficial to wait and issue new bonds at a predicted lower coupon.