When I started publishing articles in the media just over 17 years ago, one of my main aims was always to assist in educating the investing public. In fact, over the years, I regularly explained some important terms used in financial markets and the applicability when it comes to assessing issuers whose securities are listed on the Malta Stock Exchange (MSE).

I was, therefore, pleased and surprised when I happened to hear an advert on a local radio station which spoke about the bond market. The advert questioned what would happen to an investment if the company issuing a bond goes bankrupt. To which the advert indicated that an investor can “choose between secured and unsecured bonds”. The advert’s concluding remarks were “with secured bonds you have better protection in case of bankruptcy”.

While I initially thought this was an advert on a new secured bonds available to investors (some of which are unlisted and not tradeable on the MSE), it turned out to be an awareness campaign by the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA).

I was surprised at the choice of words used in bringing awareness to the public about the bond market. My immediate thoughts were about a number of media articles I wrote that specifically targeted this subject due to the misconception on important terms used when investors grapple with the bond market. I recalled a specific article titled ‘Investing in bonds: It’s not all about security!’ published over 15 years ago, on October 29, 2009. So I was disap­pointment that despite my efforts over the years to educate retail investors, my interpretation of the MFSA’s current media campaign to the investing public partially conflicted with my thoughts.

If retail investors listened to this advert, which is also available online, I think I could safely conclude that in the future they would always choose a secured bond over an unsecured bond. I also reflected on the feelings of the directors of some of the bond issuers in Malta that have unsecured bonds listed on the MSE and how their company is now being viewed in this context. Incidentally, some of these companies are among the most profitable companies on the local capital market, such as Simonds Farsons Cisk plc, GO plc and Premier Capital plc (Hili Ventures).

Investors need to remain extremely vigilant given the growing number of bond issuers in Malta

In view of this, I must reiterate my beliefs to bring across an important message that is not being covered in this campaign.

In my articles, I have always stated that before considering an investment in a secured or an unsecured bond, an investor should start by trying to assess the financial strength of the company issuing the bond. My thought process would not be one where I choose a secured bond simply to have a better protection in case of bank­ruptcy. Investors should steer away from that eventuality and invest in companies that are strong enough at the outset and unlikely to face default procedures.

The prospectus, as well as the financial analysis summary − which provides a good overview of the issuer, its business model and some key financial metrics − have sufficient details to conclude whether a company possesses an elevated level of risk or otherwise, and whether it should be able to honour its commitments to bondholders in the form of annual interest payments and capital upon maturity.

The financial intermediaries involved in the distribution of such bonds should also have the capabilities to guide investors accordingly when requested to do so by an investor.

There are a number of financial ratios that are published in a financial analysis summary that should provide sufficient insight into the financial strength of an issuer. The annual publication of such an important document should also provide the necessary information on an ongoing basis on the status of an issuer of bonds. In my view, the assessment of the financial robustness of a company should not only be done at the outset of the investment process but during the lifetime of the bond. Also worth stating is that some financial ratios are more adaptable depending on the type of company being studied.

When a bond is secured, the “security” usually takes the form of a hypothec on property in favour of bondholders. While this is beneficial since it provides some comfort to investors in the eventuality that the issuer defaults on its obligations to bondholders, this should not be the most important attribute one must look into when analysing the attractiveness of a bond. The security feature would only be used as a last resort in times of financial difficulties and it is certainly not right in my view to conclude that unsecured bonds are riskier than secured ones. In fact, there are many unsecured bonds listed on the MSE that have much less credit risk than a number of the secured bonds.

The consumer awareness campaign by the MFSA also touches upon the word “guaranteed” that sometimes features in some of the bond issues. The MFSA states that “not all bonds guarantee the return of your principal”. Any reference to a ‘guarantee’ should not be misinterpreted by the investing public. In fact, the radio campaign explains that “when bonds are guaranteed, it means that a third party promises to pay if the issuer can’t”.

Some companies issue bonds via a special purpose vehicle (a finance company) which borrows money from the investing public and lends the funds to the parent company or other companies forming part of the wider group structure. In such cases, the bonds are guaranteed by the ultimate company borrowing the funds and it is important to analyse the credit metrics of the guarantor rather than the finance company. In a nutshell, the reference to a “guarantee” does not imply that the bonds will be repaid under all circumstances and that an issuer may not default when the bonds are guaranteed.

Although I appreciate that the terminology in financial markets can be confusing to many retail investors, it is important to clarify the main terms used. It is evident that a growing number of investors are not performing any sort of analysis on the credit risk of an issuer or the group companies that may be “guaranteeing” the bond. Relying solely on features such as “secured” or “guaranteed” is surely not the right form of investor education.

Several issuers clearly have excessive levels of borrowings which can present stiff challenges in due course. Investors need to remain extremely vigilant given the growing number of bond issuers in Malta.

Rizzo, Farrugia & Co. (Stockbrokers) Ltd, ‘Rizzo Farrugia’, is a member of the Malta Stock Exchange and licensed by the Malta Financial Services Authority. This report has been prepared in accordance with legal requirements. It has not been disclosed to the company/s herein mentioned before its publication. It is based on public information only and is published solely for informational purposes and is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. The author and other relevant persons may not trade in the securities to which this report relates (other than executing unsolicited client orders) until such time as the recipients of this report have had a reasonable opportunity to act thereon. Rizzo Farrugia, its directors, the author of this report, other employees or Rizzo Farrugia on behalf of its clients, have holdings in the securities herein mentioned and may at any time make purchases and/or sales in them as principal or agent, and may also have other business relationships with the company/s. Stock markets are volatile and subject to fluctuations which cannot be reasonably foreseen. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Neither Rizzo Farrugia, nor any of its directors or employees accept any liability for any loss or damage arising out of the use of all or any part thereof and no representation or warranty is provided in respect of the reliability of the information contained in this report.

© 2024 Rizzo, Farrugia & Co. (Stockbrokers) Ltd. All rights reserved.