More Pain Ahead for Banks and Insurers

If you're like me, this hootin' hollerin' market rally has you wondering when the next shoe will drop and bring the party to a halt. On that note, I'd say the financial sector continues to have the many shoes of a millipede, and the laces of low-grade corporate debt appear to be loosening.

Shareholders of banks and life insurers: Look out above
Stop, pop, and roll your debt. That's what many highly leveraged or otherwise speculative companies often did in previous years: As the principal on loans and junk-rated bonds came due, management would pop up into the fanciful, floaty world of the credit markets, open their arms to eager lenders, and refinance to their hearts' content. The risk-mellowing miracle of loan collateralization allowed banks to offer attractive rates on these leveraged loans -- so named because of the high debt levels of borrowers -- and collect fat fees.

Writing in a recent New York Times article, Floyd Norris describes the whole process as the corporate version of subprime mortgage machinations. He goes on to tell how the founder of private equity firm The Carlyle Group now publicizes the fact that JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) and Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) used to compete to lend money to the firm. But as with housing, when you play in this arena, sooner or later, the lions come sauntering in.

According to a Moody's representative, the default rate on leveraged loans and speculative grade bonds could approach 14% by year end, compared to the 10%-12% range during the 1991 and 2001 recessions. Others look at the higher percentage of low-grade bonds in today's market and conclude that the bond default rate could reach as high as 24%.

While it appears that banks may be the group that's mostly on the hook for leveraged loans gone bad, insurers, which collectively own roughly 18% of all outstanding corporate bonds, may be the ones to take it in the gut on much of the projected bond losses. Standard & Poor's recently noted that the group's bond and commercial mortgage holdings will cause "unprecedented stress" in the next 18 months. It's well known that insurance companies Prudential Financial (NYSE: PRU  ) , Hartford (NYSE: HIG  ) , and Lincoln National (NYSE: LNC  ) have all applied for TARP funds. How much they will ultimately receive, and whether it will be enough to offset future losses on asset writedowns, is the premium-grade question.

Insure your portfolio
The coming release of stress test results may provide some clarity on the actual dollar amount of leveraged loan losses that banks face in the next couple years. As for the insurers, I'm not holding my breath on getting details anytime soon. What I do know is that the recent let's-get-happy run-up in the sector seems to be based more on hope than fundamentals. Investors who are attracted to the banks and insurers may want to consider doing what these companies should have done all along -- manage risk. That means taking a pass on their shares until hard facts emerge.

Check out these well-insured reads:

Fool contributor Mike Pienciak does not own shares of any company mentioned. The Fool has a disclosure policy. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (13)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 30, 2009, at 9:20 PM, xetn wrote:

    "While it appears that banks may be the group that's mostly on the hook for leveraged loans gone bad, insurers, which collectively own roughly 18% of all outstanding corporate bonds, may be the ones to take it in the gut on much of the projected bond losses." This is so wrong; it is the taxpayer's that are on the hook for the so-called toxic assets. Just think of the Geithner plan for the public-private group to purchase all of those toxic assets at par and guarantee them by the taxpayers. Not to mention all of the bailout money that has already been wasted on the banks and wall street firms (friends of Paulson, Geithner, Obama, Bush, and all the other politicians that "fell into line" for the bailouts. This is simply government theft of the citizens of the US. Where is it written that anyone or any company is too big to fail? How about the USSR, the British empire, the Romans? Were they too big to fail? It is utter nonsense to try to prop up any failed enterprise or group (read homeowner's in foreclosure) for any reason.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 888618, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/23/2014 9:23:42 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement