Tag Archives: Praktiker Anleihe

Praktiker Bond (ISIN DE000A1H3JZ8) – Scenario analysis & crazy hedging idea

I already wrote a lot of posts about Praktiker in the past.

My previous summary was something like this : I don’t understand the motivation behind the recent events especially asking senior bond holders for a cut first before shareholders contribute , why they didn’t do any capital increase when the stock price was higher etc. etc.

After thinking about this the most likely possibility in my opinion is the following thesis:

Current Management doesn’t work in the interest of the current shareholders and bondholders but in the interest of potential future investors.

The result of this is relatively clear: It would be suicide to invest into the shares, as you can take a massive dilution at some point in time for granted. However, a new investor might prefer a “non-bancrupt” company, so for the bond things might look better from a risk/return perspective.

With this in mind, I think one can now try to analyse the different possible scenarios for bondholders, which in my opinion are

1) No bankruptcy – (unrealistic) best case: Take over within 1-2 year and early full pay out of bond
2) No bankruptcy – normal case: Bond pays out as scheduled
3) No bankruptcy – bad case: coupon gets reduced in second round of bondholders vote
4) bancruptcy – normal case: bond gets “fair” share of liquidation value 40% in 2016
5) bancruptcy – bad case: “DIP” financing reduces liquidation value significantly , value 10% in 201

Then we have to do 4 more steps:

First, assign probabilities to each scenario and the second, “model” cashflows.In a third steps we then can calculate “weighted” total cashflow and then calculate an internal rate of return based on current market prices.

In the following table, I have made a first try:

Bankrupt Prob. in % 2013 2014 2015 2016
Best Case No 5.00% 5.88 105.88 0.00 0.00
Normal Case No 60.00% 5.88 5.88 5.88 105.88
bad case No 10.00% 1.00 1.00 1.00 101.00
Normal Case Yes 12.50% 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00
bad case Yes 12.50% 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
Weighted CF   100% 3.91875 8.91875 3.625 79.875

This scenario would give the bond at the current price of 40% an implicit IRR of 28%, which would be attractive. If we would change for instance the “normal non bancruptcy” probability to 35% and increase the two bancrupty scenarios to 25% each, we would end upwith a 17.6% IRR.

Bankrupt Prob. in % 2013 2014 2015 2016
Best Case No 5.00% 5.88 105.88 0.00 0.00
Normal Case No 35.00% 5.88 5.88 5.88 105.88
bad case No 10.00% 1.00 1.00 1.00 101.00
Normal Case Yes 25.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00
bad case Yes 25.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
Weighted CF   100% 2.45 7.45 2.16 59.66

An analysis like this can help to understand better the sensitivities of such a rather complicated special situation investment.

Of coure, the probability of bankruptcy is the single most important driver, so let’s discuss this shortly:

On the positive side we have the fact that Praktiker survived the year end and the restocking of inventory for the spring 2012 season. Further, I think at the moment no one has a real advantage if Praktiker goes bankrupt. The biggest problem, the leases for the real estate, could be better reduced if Praktiker would be bancrupt but on the other hand they might have much more problems getting merchandise delivered even if bankruptcy would only be short term.

Additionally, I think the “year end accounting blood bath” makes more sense on a going concern basis than if one would prepare a “prepackaged” bancruptcy.

Potential Catalyst:

In my opinion, something with regard to financing has to happen this year. So there might be a good chance that the bond reacts positively within a limited time frame if the refinancing package is hopefully finalized.

Stand alone risk / return and portfolio view

If I compare Praktiker with the sucessful WestLB Genußschein investment, the Praktiker bond looks more risky, both from the potential downside and time horizon. However, also the potential upside is a lot higher at current levels.

However, on a portfolio level, things look differently. With special situations, I try to make “bets” as long as they are company specific and not directly correlate with each other or “normal” portfolio companies.

With Praktiker, we have the interesting situation that the bond ecoonomically is even negatively correlated with one of my core holdings, Hornbach.

This is something we can clearly see in current company news. In 2011, the German DIY segment showed around 3% growth, Praktiker lost almost 10% in slaes whereas Hornbach and OBI gained significantly above the market growth with 5-6% growth each.

If Praktiker really goes bancrupt, Hornbach among other will profit even more, either through taking over some of the better locations or just gaining more customers. On the other hand, if Praktiker manages the turn around or even gets a startegic shareholder, they might win back a lot of customers from the competition and hurt them significantly.

So one could argue (and I know this sounds a little crazy) that the Praktiker bond combined with the Hornbach shares creates a kind of “hedged” position.

Just for fun I loked at correlations between the Praktiker share, the Praktiker bond and the Hornbach Baumarkt Aktie. And, surprisingly we see the following based on 12 months and daily observations:

Over the last 12 months, the Praktiker share was slightly positively correlated with the Hornbach share (+0.03) whereas the bond was slightly negatively correlated with -.002. Not much but. nevertheless interesting. Again, for instance the last 4 months shows a small positive correlation between the shares (0.05) and a slightly negative correlation (-0.02) between Bond and Hornbach. So maybe not that crazy after all….


On a stand alone basis, at current level, the Praktiker Bond is no “sure thing”, but a relatively risky speculation however with a relatively attractive risk/return ratio. In combination with the Hornbach share in my opinion, the combined position has a very intersting risk/return relationship which can greatly increase the expected return of the portfolio by actually reducing risk on an overall level.

I will therefore add a half position (2.5%) of Praktiker 2016 bonds to the portfolio at current prices (limit 41% of nominal value).

Praktiker AG bond – doing the homework on German law and further thoughts


My last post about Praktiker contained some mistakes especially about he required votes for any change in the provisions of the bonds. I have to admit that I didn’t read the paragraphs before. So let’s do the homework and look at the “Schuldverschreibungsgesetz – SchVG“.

One of the mistakes I made was the following:

Technically, they need at last the mojority of 50% of the bondholders in the first round. If this doesn’t work, in the second round, the majority of a minimum 25% of bondholders (effectively 12.5% plus one bond) could then agree to the changes on behalf of all bond holders.

The German law says however:

Beschlüsse, durch welche der wesentliche Inhalt der Anleihebedingungen geändert wird, insbesondere in den Fällen des Absatzes 3 Nummer 1 bis 9, bedürfen zu ihrer Wirksamkeit einer Mehrheit von mindestens 75 Prozent der teilnehmenden Stimmrechte (qualifizierte Mehrheit). Die Anleihebedingungen können für einzelne oder alle Maßnahmen eine höhere Mehrheit vorschreiben.

So this means the following: In order for the requested changes to become effective, 50% of the Bondholders have to participate in the first round and 75% of the particpants have to approve the proposal.

The same applies to a second round, if 50% particpation is not reached in the first instance, again, 75% of the partcipants have to agree to the proposal. So in an absolute worst case 18.75% of the bondholder could make the requested “hair cut” effective.

Further thoughts:

I still struggle making sense of the sequence of the events. However I came up with one (maybe unlikely) scenario:

I think no one is really interested in putting money into Praktiker as a “minority” investor. However, due to the CoC “poison pill”, a purchase of a majority would be very expensive. So in theory, a prospective buyer wants to buy as many bonds as at a discount as possible in ordert to lower his total purchase price.

The “offer” of cutting the coupon could therefore be a “tool” to get as many bonds at a discount to make a majority acquisition (i.e. through a highly dilutive capital increase) without paying out 250 mn EUR to the bondholders. For someone potentially owning both, a majority position in the shares and a large block of bonds, the cut in the coupon could be value enhancing.

It doesn’t change my approach (Don’t invest if you don’t know the motives of the players involved), but it makes good entertainment and hopefully a good learning experience.

Praktiker AG Bond – Greek haircut anyone ?

In December, I had speculated at what level the Praktiker bond could be interesting. At that time, the bond traded at 38%. During the 2012 rally, the bond almost doubled close to 70% before drifting lower to around 58% in the beginning of the week.

However yesterday Praktiker announced that they will ask the bondholders to accept a “voluntarily” a cut in the coupon from currently 5.875% to 1% in order to “participate fairly” in the burdens for a restructuring.

The bond didn’t trade today, but some broker quotes (without volume) showed prices 34/40 bid/ask.

The German press release says, that potential new investors want to see sacrifices form bondholders and that they are “investigating” a capital increase.

What I don’t understand is the sequence of actions. Those who gain the most from the restructuring have to “sacrifice” first. So the first step would be a capital increase and then asking the bond holders and other creditors. With the current sequeunce of events, Praktiker will most likely never issue a unsecured bond again after this.

As I said in the last post, there is no reason why bondholders should accept anything less than the conditions in the prospectus.

Of course this should be clear to the Management. So is this just a “token” announcement to fullfil some formal requirements or is something else going on ? I do not know.

Technically, they need at last the mojority of 50% of the bondholders in the first round. If this doesn’t work, in the second rounfd, the majority of a minimum 25% of bondholders (effectively 12.5% plus one bond) could then agree to the changes on behalf of all bond holders.

I tried hard to construct any “game theory” situation where this announcement makes any sense. The only one I came up was that management wants to improve the position of the new investors via the bondholders and that they don’t plan to go back to the bond markets for a long time. Addiitonally they have to be sure that a large block of bondholders is voting in their favour for whatever reason.

In any case, as I don’t really understand what is going on, I wil not be tempted to invest anyway, no matter what the price is. The old saying goes “If you don’t know who is going to be the looser, it is most likely yourself”. So for the time being, the senior bond doesn’t look like a winner.

But ut is still a very interesting learning experience for potential distressed debt investments.

Solar Millenium oder warum kann man eigentlich keine Anleihen shorten ?

Obwohl ich Solar Millenium hier noch nie erwänt hatte, war die Aktie bei mir immer eine Art “Dorn im Auge”.

Der typische “Story” Stock, wenig Gewinne, viele Visionen und undurchsichtige Transaktionen.

Gestern ist mir ein Werbebrief reingeflattert, bei dem Die Werbetrommel für eine neue 6% Anleihe gerührt wird, Infos gibts hier. Wirklich einzigartig sind schon mal die 12 (!!!) Seiten Risikohinweise.

Immerhin wird nochmal schön die Story mit der Solarthermie erklärt, wo Solar Millenium ja bekanntlich intergalaktischer Martkführer ist.

Jetzt aber diese Nachricht:

Der Kraftwerksentwickler Solar Millennium muss bei seinem Vorzeigeprojekt von vorn anfangen. Das Erlanger Unternehmen, das in ein Gewirr aus Insidergeschäften und Rechtsstreitigkeiten verwickelt ist, will in der Wüste Kaliforniens das größte Solarkraftwerk der Welt bauen. Bislang sollte eine spezielle Technik mit Spiegeln verwendet werden – Solarthermie oder Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) genannt. Bei dieser effizienteren Technik gilt Solar Millennium als Experte. Nun wechselt das angeschlagene Unternehmen zu ganz gewöhnlichen Fotovoltaikmodulen – und schickte die Aktie am Donnerstag 29 Prozent in den Keller.

Der Aktienkurs hat mittlerweile gut 2/3 des Wertes von vor einer Woche abgegeben:

Soweit so verhersehbar. Was allerdings wirklich erstaunt ist die Tatsache, dass die 6,5% Anleihe fleissig weiter zu deutlich über PAr gehandelt wird:

Das erinnert doch sehr stark an die Situation bei Praktiker, wo die Anleihe erstmal unberührt weiter lief um dann doch abzustürzen.

Im Englischen würde man das einen “Wile E. Coyote Moment” nennen.

Fazit: Hier braucht man wirklich kein Prophet zu sein um zu erkennen, dass die Solar Millenium Anleihe keine 104% wert ist. Wer die Möglichkeit zu shorten hat, könnte hier relativ risikolos 30-40% in ein paar Wochen zu verdienen. Wer die Anleihe noch hat, solltte versuchen sie schnellstens loszuwerden.

Edit: Anbei das Bild zum “Wile E. Coyote moment”..

Praktiker Anleiheprospekt – “Poison Pill” gegen potentielle Übernehmer

Nachdem die Anleihe fröhlich weiter abschmiert, lohnt sich vielleicht ein Blick in den Anleiheprospekt. Den findet man z.B. hier im Wertpapierformum.

Der interessanteste Teil des Anleiheprospektes ist m.E. der § 5 Absatz (2) Kontrollwechsel. Das ganze ist recht komplex aber wenn ich es richtig verstehe, dann würde die Anleihe bei einer Übernahme sofort fällig werden.

Das Problem ist, dass die Anleihe ja kein Rating hat und das wird im Bondprospekt bei Übernahme Fall einem Absenken des Ratings auf Non-Investmentgrade gleichgestellt:

(ii) wenn zum Zeitpunkt des Kontrollwechsels kein Investment Grade Rating für die Schuldverschreibungen oder die Emittentin vergeben ist und keine Rating Agentur innerhalb des Kontrollwechselzeitraums ein Investment Grade Rating für die Schuldverschreibungen vergibt

Im Klartext heisst das: will jemand die Praktiker AG übernehmen, dann muss er innerhalb kurzer Zeit ein Investmentgrade Rating besorgen oder es werden sofort 250 Mio. EUR zur Rückzahlung fällig.

Im Fachjargon nennt man so etwas auch eine “Poison Pill”. Eine Hornbach AG z.B. hat selber nur ein Non-Investment Grade Rating (BB+, was für ein Witz) und müsste dann zusätzlich zum Kaufpreis noch 250 Mio Cash für die Rückzahlung der Anleihe auftreiben.

Fazit: Durch die Klausel in der Anleihe dürfte jegliches Interesse Praktiker zu übernehmen auf 0 sinken. D.h. Praktiker muss da selber durch. Wer auf eine Übernahme hofft, dürfte lange warten

Praktiker AG – Anleihe schmiert ab

Oh oh…jetzt haben anscheinend auchmit etwas Verspätung die Inhaber der Anleihe mitbekommen, dass es nicht ganz so toll läuft als noch im Februar bei Emission versprochen wurde.

Bislang konnte man die Aktienkursbewegungen noch als Übertreibung abtun, wenna llerdings die Anleihekurse dauerhaft stark sinken, dann ist das eine “self fullfilling Prophecy”, d.h. das Unternehmen bekommt auch von der Bank keinen Kredit mehr, die Lieferanten werden nervös und und und.

Eine Investition in Praktiker käme für mich ohnehin nur zu “distressed” Preisen in der Anleihe in Frage, also irgendwo bei 40-50%, falls es wirklich kritisch werden sollte.