Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Contingent Capital vs. Contingent Reverse Convertibles for Banks and Insurance Companies

Contingent Capital vs. Contingent Reverse Convertibles for Banks and Insurance Companies During the credit and liquidity crisis in 2007 and 2008, banks found themselves largely unable to raise significant new equity quickly from parties other than sovereign wealth funds and governments. Some banks have thus recently begun to consider contingent capital as a means of pre‐arranging recapitalizations for future crises. Contingent capital is a type of put option that entitles a company to issue new securities on pre‐negotiated terms, often following the occurrence of one or more risk‐based triggering events. This article compares the economic merits of a new security—a “contingent reverse convertible” or CRC—against more traditional forms of contingent capital. In November 2009, Lloyds Banking Group plc issued “Enhanced Capital Notes”—subordinated debt that converts into common stock if Lloyds's core regulatory capital falls below 5% of its regulatory risk‐weigh ted assets. This CRC is not strictly speaking a form of contingent capital, but it does give banks the potential to recapitalize themselves quickly in the face of a crisis without having to turn to governments and taxpayers. One important limitation of CRCs is that because they do not generate new cash for a bank at the time of conversion, they are unlikely to stop a liquidity crisis once it has begun. More traditional contingent capital facilities, by contrast, do put cash in the hands of the issuer at the time the facility is drawn. But even for those inclined to use CRCs, it may be unrealistic to expect many other institutions to imitate the structure of the Lloyds offering. Persuading existing investors to take a more subordinated position in a bank's capital structure and write a put option to the bank on its own stock will be neither cheap nor easy. For this reason, the more traditional solutions used to date may have more success with banks, though arriving at a price that helps issuers and satisfies investors will be a challenge for those structures as well. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Corporate Finance Wiley

Contingent Capital vs. Contingent Reverse Convertibles for Banks and Insurance Companies

Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/contingent-capital-vs-contingent-reverse-convertibles-for-banks-and-YFjpwMc50u

References (7)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Morgan Stanley
ISSN
1078-1196
eISSN
1745-6622
DOI
10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00247.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

During the credit and liquidity crisis in 2007 and 2008, banks found themselves largely unable to raise significant new equity quickly from parties other than sovereign wealth funds and governments. Some banks have thus recently begun to consider contingent capital as a means of pre‐arranging recapitalizations for future crises. Contingent capital is a type of put option that entitles a company to issue new securities on pre‐negotiated terms, often following the occurrence of one or more risk‐based triggering events. This article compares the economic merits of a new security—a “contingent reverse convertible” or CRC—against more traditional forms of contingent capital. In November 2009, Lloyds Banking Group plc issued “Enhanced Capital Notes”—subordinated debt that converts into common stock if Lloyds's core regulatory capital falls below 5% of its regulatory risk‐weigh ted assets. This CRC is not strictly speaking a form of contingent capital, but it does give banks the potential to recapitalize themselves quickly in the face of a crisis without having to turn to governments and taxpayers. One important limitation of CRCs is that because they do not generate new cash for a bank at the time of conversion, they are unlikely to stop a liquidity crisis once it has begun. More traditional contingent capital facilities, by contrast, do put cash in the hands of the issuer at the time the facility is drawn. But even for those inclined to use CRCs, it may be unrealistic to expect many other institutions to imitate the structure of the Lloyds offering. Persuading existing investors to take a more subordinated position in a bank's capital structure and write a put option to the bank on its own stock will be neither cheap nor easy. For this reason, the more traditional solutions used to date may have more success with banks, though arriving at a price that helps issuers and satisfies investors will be a challenge for those structures as well.

Journal

Journal of Applied Corporate Finance – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.