Invest1 publisher2 min readPublished
Seeking Alpha calls four recent BDC bond deals a sector-wide income headwind
ARCC, CSWC, OCSL and OTF have all issued bonds into a higher curve. The Fed turn that raised their funding cost is the same one Seeking Alpha credits with supporting third-quarter net income, and both land in one quarter.
The Investor · Invest desk
What happened
- The same review reports that BDCs declined over the period amid rising yields, Fed rate hike expectations and geopolitical tensions.
- It also credits the turnaround in Fed expectations with driving short-term interest rates higher and supporting BDC net income in the third quarter.
- The author disclosed beneficial long positions in KBDC, MSDL and BCSF, and no business relationship with any company whose stock the article mentions.
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- contradiction One rate move sits on both sides of the same quarter in a single note: short rates supporting third-quarter net income, new bonds subtracting from it.
- constraint The four issuers are locked into the levels at which their deals priced, while the offsetting income support lasts only as long as Fed expectations hold.
- decision Anyone underwriting third-quarter BDC income has to split the short-rate benefit from the new coupon cost before treating the quarter as a run rate.
- exposure Because the note frames the drag as sector-wide, every BDC with debt to roll faces the same repricing as the four issuers it names.
Higher short-term rates reached the asset side first. Seeking Alpha credits the turnaround in Fed expectations with driving short rates up and supporting BDC net income in the third quarter [4]. The same review treats the recent bond issuances by ARCC, CSWC, OCSL and OTF as a sector-wide net income headwind from refinancing at higher rates [2]. The four deals have priced, so that cost is agreed; the income support holds only while Fed expectations point where they now point [9].
The sector's share price move is a separate question. The note puts the decline down to rising yields, Fed rate hike expectations and geopolitical tensions [3], and a higher discount rate on BDC equity is not an entry in the net investment income line.
The review did not disclose the size, coupon or maturity of any of the four issues [5]. The drag therefore cannot be sized from it, and the test arrives with the third-quarter filings: interest expense against average debt outstanding, set beside portfolio yield. If the cost of debt rises by less than the yield on assets, this is a rounding item. If the borrowings being rolled are a large share of the total, it matters.
The writer disclosed long positions in KBDC, MSDL and BCSF [6], and those three sit outside the four issuers named [8]. The same disclosure states no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned [7].
Tightening continues, short rates keep rising, and the asset side outruns the coupon step-up; the note describes that outcome for the third quarter [4]. Or the Fed turns, loan yields reset lower, the bonds stay where they priced, and the funding cost is left on its own. Or the amounts rolled are small next to total borrowings and neither effect shows up. In my view the second case is the one to underwrite, because a completed deal cannot be repriced when the policy path changes. Evidence against it would be third-quarter numbers at the four issuers showing weighted average cost of debt flat or lower.
What to watch
- Further unsecured issuance by other BDCs at current levels would extend the repricing past the four names.
- Whether later installments of the same weekly review add issuers to the four it has already listed.
- Whether BDC share prices keep tracking yields, the link the note used to explain the September decline.