IFR Pfandbriefe Roundtable 2016: Participants

In terms of Pfandbriefe funding, borrowers present at the IFR Roundtable were crystal clear: that the year ahead was expected to be volatile so they were fully prepared to jump on windows of opportunity as they presented themselves. That means a high and constant degree of preparedness to issue – and in benchmark format wherever possible. Negative yields at the short end will either push them out along the curve or tempt them into non-euro issuance as a possible alternative. All of that said, yields and spreads are such that they were confident they would be able to continue capturing good funding levels. On green matters, it’s fair to say IFR’s panel was less than enthusiastic. The product on the bond side tends to continue being seen as a marketing gimmick in many quarters. But given that investors are increasingly focused on the environmental theme, that fact alone is likely to drive interest from a funding perspective although no-one expects dramatic growth in green Pfandbriefe. As for the regulatory aspect, IFR’s roundtable was neatly placed between the January 6 response deadline to that EC consultation and the Commission’s own covered bond conference in Brussels on February 1. In that regard, the discussion moderated by IFR was perfectly placed to gain an early flavour of responses to the consultation. IFR panellists were concerned at the potential direction of travel here. Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable for the Commission to want to understand why the cost and performance of Europe’s national covered bond markets during the eurozone sovereign crisis diverged to the extent they did and to account for the reversion of investor behaviour to national boundaries. But creating a so-called 29th regime that would exist side-by-side with existing national frameworks and act as a harmonised, standardised pan-European alternative was roundly rejected as a viable option. There was a very clear consensus around the IFR table – and in the market generally – while such a concept might improve liquidity on paper, there is no real need for a pan-European product. National markets have more than proved their robustness. That doesn’t mean to say they aren’t open to incremental improvements – they are – but the fear is that a new European product acts, in the words of one panellist, as a Trojan horse from Brussels that will come with a whole network of incentives for market participants which will act perversely and unnecessarily to disrupt existing regimes. To see the digital version of this roundtable, please click here To purchase printed copies or a PDF of this report, please email gloria.balbastro@thomsonreuters.com <object id="__symantecPKIClientMessenger" style="display: none;" data-extension-version="0.4.0.129" data-install-updates-user-configuration="true"></object>

IFR: Welcome to IFR’s 2016 Pfandbrief Roundtable. As ever, there a number of interlocking themes that I wanted to pick up on in our conversation: the current market environment (both primary and secondary) in the context of both the redemption calendar and the impact of the ECB’s ongoing Covered Bond Purchase Programme, and against a backdrop of volatility in global credit markets; and how 2016 might pan out in terms of funding requirements. I also wanted to spend some time on the harmonisation process and the European Commission’s covered bond consultation paper. What are the prospects for Green and SRI covered bonds? But let’s kick off with the current market. This year has been busy so far, with issuance from borrowers out of Canada, UK, France, Austria, Spain and of course Germany. Thomas, could you give us a wrap? Thomas Cohrs, NordLB: The main theme we’ve observed since the beginning of the year is that covered bonds are still very much in demand when markets look jittery – as long as they’re not too jittery. As you mentioned, we have seen a number of issues from various jurisdictions. Those I would mention most notably in that context would be non-European borrowers or borrowers from outside of the eurozone that are not eligible for the ECB Covered Bond Purchase Programme. They seem to have had the best run with investors. There have been exceptions to this, though. In terms of Norwegian issues, for example, you had the country’s major issuer [DNB Boligkreditt] having no problems printing a €1.5bn transaction whereas a smaller issuer with similar quality from the same country [SR-Boligkreditt] didn’t find it quite as easy to fill even a €500m book at a higher spread because of its lesser recognition. That is mirrored with the Canadians and will likely be the case with issuers from regions far beyond Europe – from Asia, Australia and New Zealand. We haven’t yet seen those coming to the market this year but they will. Within the eurozone, Pfandbriefe have the benefit of being the tightest product, and we have seen more issuance intended and waiting to come to the market. The deals we have seen so far have tended to be from the safest sources. For example, we’ve had two Landesbanken issuing [BayernLB and LBBW] and we are waiting for more to come. The usual suspects for potential spread widening i.e. peripheral issuers or even French issuers have seen their fair share of issuance, with various degrees of success. We saw a very successful deal coming in the belly of the curve that amassed an order book not too far away from €2bn but they had to pay a new-issue premium of around 8bp, shifting the whole French curve up. And then we had an announcement from another French issuer at the longer end of curve that has not come to market yet, but that announcement alone shifted the curve up. The upshot being that whenever we see new issues coming, the requirements for new-issue premia tend to be higher than originally expected and they have effects on the secondary curve that people fully expect but still seem surprised when they see it. This is especially evidenced in the surprise we get from investors when they try to switch out of existing bonds that appear to have tightened in order to take profits and position themselves for new deals, and find that the mere action of trying to switch out changes the price and they barely end up with a profit at all. I expect that phenomenon to continue throughout the year. Why is that? The ECB is playing the role of the puppet-master here in many respects but it’s not only that: there have been shifts in investor interest as well. But in general I still think it is going to be a better year for covered bonds in terms of primary issuance. I continue to be very negative in terms of secondary liquidity but on the other hand that ensures a further role for intermediaries like ourselves, which is a good thing. I think the covered bond product is going strong, as we expect it to. IFR: When we ha

IFR: Thomas, in conceptual terms could you foresee interest at any point in a European covered bond product operating alongside national covered bond regimes? It would give issuers an option of issuing a covered bond as normal – and that can be as cross-border or domestic as they want – or taking the other option of issuing a pan-European covered bond. Thomas Cohrs, NordLB: That question is ammunition for a long, long discussion. A lot of people in this market tend to be a little dogmatic about this. Coming from a market that has a long history and a very reliable and successful product tends to make you a little bit negligent of other possibilities. I am fairly open. If everyone uses a unified product, it might increase liquidity but that’s very far-fetched without knowing what it might resemble and bearing in mind all the potential pitfalls around deteriorating quality standards, which we’re very concerned about coming from a market with some of the highest standards, So even with a lot of imagination it’s hard to foresee that. I also fail to see the benefits of that additional possibility next to all the well-established national frameworks that we have. In this respect, we basically have two options and as Jens has already described, the second options doesn’t look like a very sensible one right now. Either we all use the same thing, and therefore hope we have a deeper market in all respects, or we had better stick to the ones we know, have been established with sound qualities and a decent degree of market acceptance. I don’t think there is anything in-between at this stage or over the next five to 10 years. Jörg Huber, LBBW: It’s also a question of who will benefit from something like that. The European Commission thinks harmonisation means products are easier to understand because everything is the same. But I wouldn’t say investors will derive big benefits from it. Investors are prepared to deal with different kind of products. If they don’t have the expertise to go into all of them, they can focus on one or two while the bigger accounts that have the expertise can play the markets and say: “OK I’m in risk-on mode so I’m going into the lesser-rated or lesser-quality jurisdictions”. If not they can go to the other end of the spectrum. [In moving to a European covered bond], we will completely take away this opportunity of allowing investors to manage their portfolios in such a way. Götz Michl, Deutsche Pfandbriefbank: From a risk point of view, diversification is something positive! If we just had one covered bond regime in Europe, and if something went wrong with the system or if we had problems in one bond, the whole market would probably suffer. The question really is whether there is a substantial benefit for a capital market with just one covered bond product. Frank Will, ECBC: We need competition between legal frameworks. If one framework or one regulator comes up with some good ideas, say, around liquidity buffers, there’s a strong incentive for other jurisdictions to follow. If you have one legal framework, it would be very difficult to get everybody on board supporting changes. There is a risk that everybody ends up focusing on the lowest common dominator. So I think it is quite important to have this opportunity for national regulation to set incentives for others to follow. Thomas Cohrs, NordLB: Just so we don’t all sound too negative on the harmonisation project, I would reiterate the potentially positive point around liquidity. This is something that needs to be addressed. We all complain about the lack of liquidity in every single market we work with, on covered bonds and in the market overall. The most successful capital markets tend to be in the US. They don’t have different legislation for mortgage-backed securities in the individual states, or different capital markets in Florida versus California or New York. To all intents and purposes, the US has the most liquid secondary debt market in th

IFR: To Thomas’s point, will you both be looking to get the bulk of your funding out of the way in the first half, pending a potentially uncertain second half? Götz Michl, Deutsche Pfandbriefbank: Every year, a funding manager tries to do as much as possible in the first half but of course we need to use market windows and for the next couple of months we will use them as we described. We always look at the market and are prepared to issue. If there is a window and we think: “OK, we can issue a Pfandbrief” we will probably do it. [pbb announced its first Pfandbrief of 2016 on January 12, a €750m due 2023 and followed up with a €500m due 2022 after the IFR Roundtable took place on February 21.] If you get too much funding in by, say, March/April, then we will want to slow it down. With our first issue done at the beginning of the year, there’s an argument not to issue until May or June simply because we do not really need the cash position. That said; if the opportunity is there and there is a good market window, we would probably issue. That is driven not so much from the fear that the second half will be worse but simply knowing if there is a good opportunity to issue, you had better use it and not wait for a good window in September that might not be there. Jörg Huber, LBBW: Over the last few years it has become so important to use windows when they come. It is not the case any more like it was in the past to say: “OK at the beginning of the year, real money accounts are cash-rich so it’s a good time to issue. And then again after the summer break and there might be some times in-between”. Nowadays if there are windows and the markets are strong, that’s something we should really focus on. And if they are all in the first half of the year and if it’s do-able, you should concentrate on that rather than saying you’d like to spread your funding over the whole year. Thomas Cohrs, NordLB: My own institution is not quite as flexible in this respect and I would guess there are issuers that work similarly. I would love from a syndicate point of view to do exactly that; if the market is there let’s issue what we can issue. But the problem is you may look a bit desperate if you are issuing too much in too-short a timeframe so it is always a question of market perception in this respect. And our treasury likes the idea of funding plans; they are just not up to saying: “we’re going to fund €10bn this year so do whatever you like with whatever product you like whenever the market is there”. I would love that. Instead, they tell me: “You want to do a deal? OK you have permission to do exactly this type of deal within these types of parameters and after that we’ll talk about the next possibility over the next three months or so”. So in this respect we have taken a bit more of a Statist approach, if I can call it that. I would be surprised if everybody who needs to do even significant amounts of funding will do that whenever there is a window, as early as possible. There will be a lot of people, who for various institutional constraints, will have to stagger this over the year. IFR: How receptive are non-eurozone markets to Pfandbrief issuers? How successful have you been and how much appetite is there? And what are the conditions like for you to access these markets? Do you have targets that you want to hit in terms of levels or is it purely diversification and opportunity? Götz Michl, Deutsche Pfandbriefbank: For us it is quite easy. We look for the currencies where we have assets. That’s very important from the perspective of rating agencies but it is also important for the cover pool to have the same currency. Any currency mismatch is negative so we would currently not issue an Australian dollar Pfandbrief because we don’t have assets nominated in Australian dollars in the cover pool. We have Swedish kronor assets so we look for Swedish kronor liabilities, which works in smaller tranches. That increases the investor base and sav