Obbligazioni societarie HIGH YIELD e oltre, verso frontiere inesplorate - Vol. 1

Stato
Chiusa ad ulteriori risposte.
A debt for equity swap of Lighthouse is reported to be under discussion according to Italian press
“Sell” PGIM 10.5% 01/17 at 89.8 or a Z-spread of 1,051 bps; “Speculative Buy” on LIGHTH 8% 4/14 if bonds fall below 30
As we had anticipated in our initiation report released February 21st, PGIM is currently considering a debt for equity swap of the Lighthouse bonds, according to a weekend report in La Repubblica. That same report says an equity injection as well as a debt extension have been ruled out. The lack of equity injection would not be surprising given the poor share price development over the last few months. However, we think a roll-over into longer dated paper may still be an option for some parts of the capital structure, such as bank debt and senior secured bonds. We think a major difficulty for Lighthouse lies in the 90% voting threshold under the indenture, making it relatively easy for either a cash investor or basis trader to obtain a blocking position and try to force out value in the negotiation. In our view, this difficulty could be dealt with by going through the route of a voluntary offer to Lighthouse bondholders, although that would carry significant execution risk as it would expose lenders and equity investors to extra uncertainty. We think the best way for the restructuring to occur remains for anchor lenders and investors at all levels to agree to a consensual deal which provides a degree of certainty to the market. We think a white knight bid is very unlikely , either pre or post restructuring, although it cannot be excluded. The European debt crisis may also push investors to move quicker than originally anticipated. We continue to believe there is value in Lighthouse bonds below 30. We maintain our “Very High Risk” assessment on the LARA scale.

Lighthouse in picchiata: 32/35 su Francoforte :eek:
 
Tui’s supervisory board extends contracts of CEO Frenzel to March 2014 and Head of Tourism, Peter Long, to August 2014
“Hold” Tui short term bonds; “Sell” its hybrid TUIGR 8.625% 01/13 at 99.4 or a Z-spread to its next call of 701 bps; “Neutral” on 5Y CDS at 620 bps
Tui’s supervisory board extended the contract of CEO Frenzel by two years to March 2014. Furthermore it extended Peter Long’s – Head of the Tourism division – contract from 2011 to 2014. CEO Frenzel repeatedly has been criticised for the transformation of Tui into a pure tourism player. However, in our view, the extension signals that Tui will continue to look to monetize its remaining stake in Hapag Lloyd and continue to focus on its core division (tourism) with a view to possibly buy out the outstanding shareholders of Tui Travel. Hence, we believe that the early reappointment of Mr. Frenzel removes some uncertainty about Tui’s future strategy. The sale of the Hapag Lloyd stake as well as the potential increase (or complete take-over) of its stake in Tui Travel will drive its credit profile. We keep our “sell” recommendation on its hybrid bonds but remain neutral on its CDS. We maintain our “High Risk” assessment on the LARA scale.
 
A debt for equity swap of Lighthouse is reported to be under discussion according to Italian press
“Sell” PGIM 10.5% 01/17 at 89.8 or a Z-spread of 1,051 bps; “Speculative Buy” on LIGHTH 8% 4/14 if bonds fall below 30
As we had anticipated in our initiation report released February 21st, PGIM is currently considering a debt for equity swap of the Lighthouse bonds, according to a weekend report in La Repubblica. That same report says an equity injection as well as a debt extension have been ruled out. The lack of equity injection would not be surprising given the poor share price development over the last few months. However, we think a roll-over into longer dated paper may still be an option for some parts of the capital structure, such as bank debt and senior secured bonds. We think a major difficulty for Lighthouse lies in the 90% voting threshold under the indenture, making it relatively easy for either a cash investor or basis trader to obtain a blocking position and try to force out value in the negotiation. In our view, this difficulty could be dealt with by going through the route of a voluntary offer to Lighthouse bondholders, although that would carry significant execution risk as it would expose lenders and equity investors to extra uncertainty. We think the best way for the restructuring to occur remains for anchor lenders and investors at all levels to agree to a consensual deal which provides a degree of certainty to the market. We think a white knight bid is very unlikely , either pre or post restructuring, although it cannot be excluded. The European debt crisis may also push investors to move quicker than originally anticipated. We continue to believe there is value in Lighthouse bonds below 30. We maintain our “Very High Risk” assessment on the LARA scale.
mi pare che questo articolo faccia riferimento a quello di Repubblica che riportava solo supposizioni ancora da confermare, e poi coglie occasione per dare spunti agli shortisti calcando un poco la mano. Al momento finchè non si pronunciano gli Advisor non ritengo si possano intuire le mosse e mi sembra che il clima sia surriscaldato oltre il giusto, ci sono realtà messe molto peggio e meno bastonate.
 
se ci fosse qualcuno incagliato nelle Griffin Coal, bond defaulted da alcuni anni, segnalo che si possono vendere a 92,5 prezzo operativo da alcuni mesi. Chi compra si aspetta rimborso almeno alla pari magari senza cedole passate, però chi vende può trovare occasioni migliori in questo periodo di quasi saldi
 
se ci fosse qualcuno incagliato nelle Griffin Coal, bond defaulted da alcuni anni, segnalo che si possono vendere a 92,5 prezzo operativo da alcuni mesi. Chi compra si aspetta rimborso almeno alla pari magari senza cedole passate, però chi vende può trovare occasioni migliori in questo periodo di quasi saldi

Non era un bond in USD?
 
Ristrutturazione leggera per Seat?

Se sarà così, rimanderanno solo il problema
 

Allegati

  • Immag1100.jpg
    Immag1100.jpg
    779,8 KB · Visite: 127
leggendo i prospetti mi sono convinto che ,a differenza di quella di dicembre ,la consent solicitation prevede il pagamento di una fee a chi ha dato il consenso solo se zlomrex mette in atto quelle modifiche che ha proposto.ed ha tempo per farlo fino al 30 giugno 2012.quindi per ora niente pagamento.correggetemi se sbaglio

As described in the Consent Solicitation Statement, the Issuer and the Company, will pay, upon the terms and subject
to the conditions in the Consent Solicitation Statement (including satisfaction of the Amendment Fee Conditions as
described in the Consent Solicitation Statement), for each €1,000 in principal amount of outstanding Notes to the
registered holder of such Notes of record as of the Record Date (June 1, 2011) an amendment fee in the amount of
€2.00 (the “Amendment Fee”). No Amendment Fee will be paid if the Amendment Fee Conditions are not satisfied or
waived. Included in the Amendment Fee Conditions is a condition that the Issuer and the Company determine in their
sole discretion that the Company and its subsidiaries will engage in either the Holdings Transfer and/or the Złomrex-
HSJ Merger, as described under “Background and Purpose of the Solicitation” in the Consent Solicitation Statement.
The Issuer and the Company have not yet determined whether or not to engage in such transactions, however they
will, in their sole discretion, make such determination by no later than June 30, 2012. Although no final determination
has yet been made, the Issuer and the Company currently anticipate consummating the Holdings Transfer and the
Złomrex-HSJ Merger by the end of 2011.
 
Stato
Chiusa ad ulteriori risposte.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto