II 全球机构情报
品浩 · lotfi karoui · 2026/08/31

信贷市场视角:美国企业发行人能够消化更高的再融资成本

前往官网原文 ↗
完整研报正文
完整中文译文

信贷市场视角:美国企业发行人能够消化更高的再融资成本

要点:

对收益率上行的担忧并不局限于美国政策制定者。在美国财政部宣布扩大回购计划以应对美国借贷成本上升的同时,信贷投资者开始质疑,收益率上升是否会影响企业借款人通过再融资偿还债务的能力。

我们认为,大多数企业发行人的债务偿还风险有限。即使从疫情以来的高位回落,投资级和高收益债券的利息覆盖倍数仍保持稳健。

CCC级借款人的风险状况则有所不同。在质量谱系的最低端,如果按当前指数收益率再融资,到期债务的利率可能会翻倍。这些更高的融资成本,加上日益加剧的周期后期逆风,可能会对资产负债表本已疲弱的公司构成挑战。

自2月底以来全球收益率的上升,重新引发了关于对企业借款人潜在连锁效应的讨论,特别是通过更高的再融资成本和更弱的偿债能力。许多公司在2020和2021的历史低利率环境下,以极低的全包融资成本重新加杠杆。当票息较低时,这些较高的债务负担是可以管理的,但过去几年,借款人一直在以更高的收益率对此类债务进行再融资(有关近期收益率走势的更多信息,请参阅我们21年8月的PIMCO观点文章《是什么推动长期债券收益率走高?》)。

我们认为,风险相对温和。例如,图1显示,尽管美元投资级(USD IG)和高收益(HY)发行人的利息覆盖倍数中位数已从疫情后的高点回落,但仍分别约为6倍和3倍。当然,由于利息覆盖倍数基于会计数据,它们是滞后指标。因此,真正的不确定性在于未来到期债券再融资的边际成本可能有多大。

虽然很难准确评估企业未来如何优化其资本结构,但图2基于当前市场价格提供了一个粗略的近似。该图显示了当前指数收益率与彭博美元投资级和高收益指数各自的面值加权平均票息之间的差异。明确的结论是,指数层面的差异微乎其微。

这并不意味着在整个质量谱系中,以更高收益率再融资的影响会被均匀分布。为近似估算各信用评级的融资成本,我们计算了2027和2028到期指数合格债券的面值加权票息,并将其与给定评级类别的当前收益率进行比较。结果分别如图3和4所示,对应投资级和高收益发行人。

有趣的是,这些图表显示,到期日在2027和2028的投资级发行人,其平均边际票息增幅往往高于BB级同行。这可能看起来有违直觉,但根本原因是机械性的。高收益公司通常发行较短期限的债券,而投资级发行人的投资者基础则更愿意接受整个收益率曲线上的期限,包括长期债券。

因此,鉴于我们已处于美国国债五年期收益率于7月2020触底之后的第六年,大多数高收益债券发行人已经不得不在更高的市场利率环境下进行再融资。相比之下,拥有将于2027和2028到期、期限较长的投资级债券发行人,尚未在当前较高的利率环境中进行再融资。

然而,市场中有一个领域的压力更为严峻:CCC评级发行人。我们估计,如果这些发行人按照当前的指数收益率对其到期债券进行再融资,那么于2027和2028到期债券的当前面值加权票息率可能会从当前水平翻倍,如图4所示。因此,如果经济增长持续放缓,且周期后期的逆风因素对盈利增长构成进一步拖累,那么鉴于CCC企业较弱的资产负债表,较高的再融资成本将成为一个突出的痛点。

Michael Puempel和Gabriel Cazaubieilh对本文亦有贡献。

完整英文原文

Key takeaways:

Concerns about higher yields aren’t limited to U.S. policymakers. While the U.S. Treasury announced a buyback expansion amid rising U.S. borrowing costs, credit investors have started questioning whether higher yields will affect corporate borrowers’ capacity to service debt via refinancing.

We see limited debt servicing risk for most corporate issuers. Even after normalizing from elevated levels since the pandemic, interest coverage ratios remain robust across both investment grade and high yield.

The risk profile is different for CCC rated borrowers. At the lowest end of the quality spectrum, however, interest rates on maturing debt could potentially double if refinanced at today’s index yields. These higher funding costs, combined with mounting late-cycle headwinds, could challenge firms with already weak balance sheets.

The backup in global yields since late February has reignited the debate over the potential knock-on effects for corporate borrowers, particularly through higher refinancing costs and weaker debt-servicing capacity. Many companies used the historically low-rate environment of 2020 and 2021 to re-lever their balance sheets at very low all-in funding costs. Those higher debt loads were manageable when coupons were low, but over the past few years, borrowers have been refinancing that debt at higher yields (for more on recent yield moves, see our 21 August PIMCO Perspectives, “What’s Pushing Long-Term Bond Yields Higher?”).

In our view, the risks are relatively benign. For example, Figure 1 shows that despite coming down from their post-COVID highs, median interest coverage ratios for U.S. dollar investment grade (USD IG) and high yield (HY) issuers are still roughly 6x and 3x, respectively. Of course, given that interest coverage ratios are based on accounting data, they are backward looking. Thus, the real uncertainty is how large the marginal costs might be to refinance maturing bonds in the future.

While it’s difficult to assess exactly how firms will optimize their capital structures on a forward basis, Figure 2 presents a rough approximation based on current market prices. This figure shows the difference between the current index yield and face-value weighted average coupons of the Bloomberg USD IG and HY indices, respectively. The clear takeaway is that the index-level difference is negligible.

That isn’t to say that the effects of refinancing at higher yields across the quality spectrum will be evenly distributed. To approximate the funding costs across credit ratings, we calculate the face-weighted coupons for index-eligible bonds maturing in 2027 and 2028 and then compare them to the current yield for the given rating category. The results are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for IG and HY rated issuers.

Interestingly, these figures show that IG issuers with bonds maturing in 2027 and 2028 tend to face larger average marginal coupon increases than their BB rated peers. This may seem unintuitive, but the underlying reason is mechanical. HY firms generally issue at shorter maturity profiles relative to their IG-rated peers, whose investor base is far more comfortable with maturities across the entire curve, including long-dated bonds.

Therefore, given that we are six years past the July 2020 trough in U.S. Treasury five-year yields, most HY issuers have already had to refinance at higher market interest rates. By comparison, IG issuers that have longer-dated bonds maturing in 2027 and 2028 haven’t yet refinanced them in the current higher rate environment.

There is one pocket of the market, however, where pressures are more acute: CCC rated issuers. We estimate that current face-value weighted coupons for bonds maturing in 2027 and 2028 could double from current levels, if these issuers refinanced their maturing bonds at today’s index yields, as shown in Figure 4. Therefore, if growth continues to slow and late-cycle headwinds create a further drag on earnings growth, higher refinancing costs for these CCC firms present an acute pain point given their weaker balance sheets.

Michael Puempel and Gabriel Cazaubieilh contributed to this report.

预览 PDF
1 / 110%

正在载入文档……

AI 分析
由 AI 依据上文研报生成 · 非原文直译、非机构原话 · 重要判断请核对官网原文
关键论点
  • 美元投资级和高收益发行人的利息覆盖率仍然稳健,分别约为6倍和3倍,尽管已从疫情后的高位回落。
  • 指数层面当前收益率与加权平均票息之间的差异对于投资级和高收益指数均可忽略不计。
  • 2027-2028年到期的投资级发行人面临的平均边际票息增幅大于BB级同行,原因是其期限结构更长。
  • CCC评级发行人面临严重的再融资压力,因为若按当前收益率再融资,票息可能翻倍。
  • 较高的融资成本加上周期后期的逆风可能对资产负债表疲弱的企业构成挑战,尤其是CCC级企业。
风险
  • 若增长进一步放缓,CCC发行人更高的再融资成本可能导致违约或困境交换。
  • 利息覆盖率基于历史数据,可能无法完全反映未来的再融资风险。
  • 周期后期的逆风可能削弱盈利,使弱势发行人更难偿还债务。
  • 若收益率进一步上升,投资级发行人的边际票息增幅可能超预期。