RETHINKING RISK AVERSION Modern Asset/Liability Management Terry Hull, The University of Texas System Amy Kweskin, Washington University Alex Wright, JPMorgan Diana Hoadley, JPMorgan Established vs. Emerging Practices Established Capital projects should be funded with gifts or endowment, and debt should be minimized Any debt should be fixed rate, callable, and amortizing Derivatives should be avoided Endowment investment decisions are handled by separate managers without coordination with day-to-day treasury managers Operating cash should be kept in short-term instruments to ensure availability Emerging Asset/Liability Management (ALM) Theory (JPMorgan) vs. Practice (University of Texas System/ Washington University) www.treasuryinstitute.org 2 1
The University of Texas System The U. T. System consists of 15 academic and health institutions with more than $27 billion of assets The System Administration Office of Finance, based in Austin, Texas, centrally manages $3.59 billion of debt issued through two primary programs: The Revenue Financing System debt program secured by a consolidated pledge of all legally available revenues The Permanent University Fund (PUF) debt program secured by distributions from the PUF endowment Outstanding debt has increased from $1.72 billion in 2000 to $3.59 billion in 2005 All debt is rated Aaa/AAA by the three major credit rating agencies www.treasuryinstitute.org 3 Founded in 1853, Washington University is an independent co-educational nondenominational research university. Ten colleges and schools that encompass a broad area of academic programs. Over 11,500 degree-seeking students (6,000 undergraduates/5,500 graduate and professional) Endowment is one of the largest in the United States, ranked 13th among colleges and universities as of June 30, 2004. Endowed assets at June 30, 2005 were $4.4 billion. The University s Treasury Office has responsibility for managing almost $900 million in debt. The majority of this debt is tax exempt and issued through the Missouri Health and Educational Facilities Authority (MOHEFA). The University is rated AAA by Standard & Poor s and Aa1 by Moody s. www.treasuryinstitute.org 4 2
The traditional management perspective has focused on minimizing debt Since debt was minimal, it was controlled Overall financial position is not an evaluation criterion for treasury staff Debt is matched against the physical assets that are financed, without consideration of the investment portfolio Tax counsel/bond counsel raises concerns over potential arbitrage Principal Amortization ($0 mm level debt service vs. bullet) Principal Amortization ($0 mm level debt service vs. bullet) $ millions Level Debt Service $0 8 Bullet Maturity 6 4 2 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 Assumptions: Initial endowment = debt issued. Endowment earnings continuously reinvested. Endowment return of 8% and debt cost of 5%. Net financial position Net financial position $ millions 500 Level Debt Service Bullet Maturity 400 300 200 0 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 $340 $269 www.treasuryinstitute.org 5 Traditionally the rate environment has mostly determined debt structure Issuance strategies vary according to general interest rate levels -year -year U.S. U.S. Treasury Treasury rates rates (%) (%) 17.0% 15.0% 13.0% 11.0% 9.0% 7.0% 5.0% 3.0% Jan-62 Apr-68 Jul-74 Nov-80 Feb-87 May-93 Sep-99 Dec-05 CURRENT MARKET OPPORTUNITIES Low Issue fixed rate debt Pay fixed swap rates Unwind swaps-to-floating Extend debt portfolio duration Historical Level of s High Issue floating rate debt Receive fixed swap rates Unwind swaps-to-fixed Shorten debt portfolio duration www.treasuryinstitute.org 6 3
Traditional risk management can actually result in fairly risky outcomes When debt and investments are viewed together, long-term fixed rate debt can cost more than the yield on short-term operating cash, creating RISK Fixed rate debt net financial exposure Fixed rate debt net financial exposure In contrast, returns on short-term assets generally track tax-exempt floating rate debt costs Taxable and tax-exempt floating rates Taxable and tax-exempt floating rates % Investment Income (LIBOR) % 8 Gain 8 Investment Income (LIBOR) 6 6 4 Borrowing Cost 4 2 Pain 2 Borrowing cost (BMA) 0 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 0 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 www.treasuryinstitute.org 7 This risk can hurt an institution s long-term financial position Let s assume in 1986 we had a $0 million portfolio of short-term assets (returning LIBOR) and either a $0 million fixed rate (cost: 5.00%) or floating rate debt issue (cost: BMA) Fixed vs. floating rate carry Fixed vs. floating rate carry LIBOR vs. Fixed Debt 6.00% 5.00% LIBOR vs. BMA Net financial position assuming floating rate borrowing Net financial position assuming floating rate borrowing $ million 160 150 Debt Fixed Debt $156 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% -1.00% -2.00% -3.00% -4.00% -5.00% 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 140 130 120 $120 1 0 90 80 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Assumes portfolio earnings continuously reinvested. www.treasuryinstitute.org 8 4
Introduction to the Finance Geek s View of ALM ALM is a "top down" "30,000 foot," big picture" view ALM is used for strategic, long-term decisions ALM takes into account all investment and borrowing decisions, as well as derivative overlays on top of each of these Rigorously quantitative, using current state-of-the-art techniques Focused on net result (asset returns minus debt service) Assumes a godlike "decision maker" that has control over both investment and debt decisions www.treasuryinstitute.org 9 Consider the following sample balance sheet: Modern ALM modeling allows an institution to analyze the annual cash flow impact of financial instruments within the balance sheet An ALM model uses historical market data, volatility and correlations to calculate the expected risk of each of the following financial instruments individually and measure the net financial risk within a given balance sheet Assets Assets (Thousands of Dollars) Cash and cash equivalents $ 200,000 Accounts and notes receivable, net 0,000 Contributions receivable, net 0,000 Investments 1,000,000 20% Domestic Equity 20% International Equity 30% Fixed Income % Hedge Funds 5% Venture Capital/Private Equity 5% Cash % Other Land, buildings and equipment, net 600,000 1111111111 Total Assets $ 2,000,000 Liabilities and Net Assets Liabilities and Net Assets (Thousands of Dollars) Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 0,000 Deferred Income 50,000 Notes and bonds payable 500,000 Deposits and advances 50,000 Other 50,000 Total Liabilities $ 750,000 Net Assets Unrestricted $ 900,000 Temporarily restricted 0,000 Permanently restricted 250,000 Total Net Assets $ 1,250,000 111111111111 Total Liabilities and Net Assets $ 2,000,000 www.treasuryinstitute.org 5
Graph: Risk/return profile for sample $500 million debt portfolio alternative floating rate allocations and $200 million short-term assets Annual Expected Debt Service and Cashflow-at-Risk (Total Debt Portfolio) - $$ millions Expected Cashflow 95% CFaR 99% CFaR Annual Expected NET Debt Service and Cashflow-at-Risk (Total Debt & $200 mm Cash Portfolio) - $$ millions Expected Cashflow 95% CFaR 99% CFaR 35 30 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.3 1.6 2.6 2.3 3.9 3.1 3.9 5.2 6.5 35 30 0.9 Risk Averse Position 25 25 3.3 0.7 20 15 32.5 31.0 29.4 27.9 26.3 24.8 20 15 23.0 2.3 21.4 0.4 1.4 19.9 0.3 0.8 18.3 0.9 1.5 16.8 1.6 2.6 15.2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% An institution can further consider the net financial performance of all debt and assets within the balance sheet, taking into account a specific spending policy and investments goals 0% www.treasuryinstitute.org 11 Emerging risk management view-context The financial needs of colleges and universities are changing: Improved facilities are required to be competitive with other institutions Institutions are more aggressive in fundraising and building their endowments Spending from endowment has grown in importance as a source to support operating needs of institutions Lower interest rates in recent years made debt more affordable and increased the difference between the cost of fixed rate debt and earnings on short-term investments Key results of these changes include: Increasing use of debt to finance capital assets Greater focus on endowment performance Endowment is invested in more complex assets Active management acquires bigger mind share at the institution www.treasuryinstitute.org 12 6
Who Owns the Endowment? Stakeholders include the state, if applicable, institution, donors, schools, departments and students Do specific endowment dollars get allocated to specific schools, department or projects? Allocation of endowment investments can affect debt structure, which requires interaction between endowment managers and treasury managers www.treasuryinstitute.org 13 Who Manages the Cash? Endowment cash vs. operating cash Managing liquid funds more efficiently to optimize net financial position requires centralization Reducing control of different stakeholders over the financial decisions on assets Self-liquidity on floating rate bonds vs. purchased liquidity Explicit connection between the asset and the liability, due to rating agency involvement How should asset management and debt management sides of the institution coordinate to best manage cash position? www.treasuryinstitute.org 14 7
Central Bank Under a typical structure, a central bank would serve as an internal bank for the entire institution and a conduit for external financing Debt Conduit Function Debt Conduit Function Capital Project Debt Proceeds Debt Service on Capital Project Loans Internal Bank Function Investment Returns Component Units Short Term Funds Working Capital Debt Proceeds Capital Project Loans to Component Units External Debt Service on Capital Project Debt Internal Bank Function Payment for Institution-wide Infrastructure and Initiatives Interest to Component Units on Short Term Funds (Deposits) External Debt Service on Working Capital Debt www.treasuryinstitute.org 15 8