This column was originally published on RealMoney on July 16, 2004. It's being republished as a bonus for TheStreet.com readers.

Tighter corporate spreads imply stronger profits and free cash flow at debt-issuing corporations. But there is another factor at play here that is less known outside of the corporate market.

There are two distinctly different ways to analyze corporate bonds. The first way is the old standard, which relies on fundamental analysis of a company's financial statements. The second way relies on contingent claims theory (options theory, Merton's model) and relies primarily on market-oriented variables, such as stock prices and option volatility.

The basic idea behind the latter method is that the unsecured debt of a firm can be viewed as having sold a put option to the equity owners. In an insolvency, the most the equity owners can lose is their investment. The unsecured bondholders (in a simple two asset class capital structure) are the new "de facto" equity holders of the firm. That equity interest is most often worth far less than the original debt. Recoveries are usually 40% or so of the original principal.

Under contingent claims theory, spreads should narrow when equity prices rise, and when implied volatility of equity options falls. Both of these make the implied put option of the equity holders less valuable. Equity holders do not want to give the bondholders a firm that is worth more, or more stable.

So what's the point? Over the last seven years, more and more managers of corporate credit risk use contingent claims models. Some use them exclusively, others use them in tandem with traditional models. They have a big enough influence on the corporate bond market that they often drive the level of spreads. Because of this, the decline in implied volatility for the indices and individual companies has been a major factor in the spread compression that has gone on. I would say that the decline in implied volatility, and deleveraging, has had a larger impact than improving profitability on spreads.
David J. Merkel, CFA, FSA, is a senior investment analyst at Hovde Capital, responsible for analysis and valuation of investment opportunities for the FIP funds, particularly of companies in the insurance industry. Previously, he managed corporate bonds for Dwight Asset Management. At time of publication, neither Merkel nor his fund had any positions in the securities mentioned in this column, though positions may change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. While Merkel cannot provide investment advice or recommendations, he appreciates your feedback; click here to send him an email.

Analyst Certification: All of the views expressed in the report accurately reflect the personal views of the research analyst about any and all of the subject securities or issuers. No part of the compensation of the research analyst named herein was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the research analyst in this report.

Merkel is employed by Hovde Capital Advisors LLC (the "firm"), a registered investment advisor with its principal office located in Washington, D.C. The Firm and/or its affiliates have or may have a long or short position or holding in the securities, options on securities, or other related investments of the issuers mentioned herein.

If you liked this article you might like

Let the Current Bailout Die

Let the Current Bailout Die

Talking to Management, Part 4: Prices and Products

Talking to Management, Part 4: Prices and Products

Talking to Management, Part 1: The Big Questions

Talking to Management, Part 1: The Big Questions

Talking to Management, Part 2: Gleaning Financial Subtleties

Talking to Management, Part 2: Gleaning Financial Subtleties

Talking to Management, Part 3: The Competition

Talking to Management, Part 3: The Competition