Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (3120)	10/17/2001 1:36:13 AM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Good point on ascribing motivations to others. I'll try to tone down my projections. Regarding my sneaking assumption, the only one I see is that I assume those making the decisions care what future interest costs are to those who will bear the burden. Perhaps there are others that you could illustrate? I realize the future interest burden is something difficult to discuss, given we can't 'assume all other things remain the same'. If I were running a business, and I proposed as CFO to buy back long term bonds and substitute notes, I would probably highlight the lower interim interest burden, improved cash flow and so forth. The CEO/Board would probably weigh those benefits against the refinance risk going forward. Will the business still need the additional working capital when the notes come due? Will the business have liquidity to redeem the notes at that time? Will market offer finance at favorable terms at a future date? Will the business have grown revenue such that higher refinance costs aren't a cash flow burden? In other words, what are the risks for making the average duration shorter? On the last CHK conf call, mgmt responded to an analyst question that they didn't see a need to pay down longer term notes. They preferred the debt in 'stronger hands' rather than dealing with a bank facility. Granted, the debt likely changes hands, but they have no obligation to repay it except under the terms already agreed to, and were comfortable leaving things as they were. Another company, I forget who, did a derivative swap, exchanging fixed interest for floating rate to the tune of 50 million. I said at the time, that they had made a bet on lower future rates, and had done the swap to improve cash flow in that outcome. Is there a hidden presumption in that simple model of the world I should be aware of? Should we adopt a position that any entity is well advised to adjust it's financing any time it's possible to improve cash flow? On the basis that improved cash flow may enable brighter future prospects, greater growth and easier future debt service/retirement?

To: ahhaha who wrote (3120)	10/17/2001 2:27:10 AM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Ok- I've tried to think through what you've been saying. And I see that we are talking from differing points of view. I'm thinking from the POV of me as a tax payer, and the future obligations our leadership may create on our behalf via policy decisions. Specifically, higher taxes to pay for policy decisions being made today. You are speaking from a larger macro perspective. How the decision might effect the larger picture, which then effects me as a tax payer. Your larger macro perspective is so large, it's difficult for me to fit within my limited cranial capacity, without substantial effort and compression algorithms <g>, so I ignored it, because you seemed to be missing my most serious concern, about my future tax rates.<g> Hey, I don't care about marginal projects and rates of returns for others, as I don't see the connection to the affordability of Absolute vs Smirnoff or Potters. I don't disagree that it is silly to think that changing the duration of outstanding debt will have a significant effect on interest rates in general. I consider the position that suspending the buybacks will drive longer term rates higher and hurt the economy as a non starter. But I do see the mucking around with duration as having frictional costs, and the potential for increasing future financing costs of the Govt Debt when it comes time to roll over. Based on what you've said, those potential future higher costs would be accompanied by higher demand for money, which I would think portends higher investment (and possibly consumption) or 'better times' from the perspective of the average American, thus might be worth the price. And what should concern us, is that the debt may be rolled over at lower rates in the future, a bleak prospect. So my grubby little tax payer perspective should be hoping for higher debt financing costs going forward, not worrying about what his personal bill for prosperity will be.