Bloomberg：害怕非運行風險中國AAA評級的萬達商業在岸債券堪比垃圾債瑞銀：安邦和其他保險平台的風險

新聞 08-15

Bloomberg: 害怕非運行風險中國AAA評級的萬達商業在岸債券堪比垃圾債瑞銀：安邦和其他保險平台的風險

好久沒有安邦老闆吳小暉的聲音了，王石似乎也消失了、潘石屹偶爾嘰里呱啦一下，只有王健林還在不斷地發出聲音表示萬達要繼續前行。

凌通社

凌通社 5分鐘前：

沒有了安邦，沒有了恆大，沒有了萬達，連溫州那些集資炒新股的小老闆也被修理得害怕，資本市場清靜多了。但在清靜的後面，冰山的下面，大佬們的駐紮和留下的遺產怎麼辦？冰山上面看不出什麼，但在企業債和資本市場還是有的。比如萬達債，所有投資者都覺得他們有風險溢價，當然不是運行風險。因為大家不知道他們以前的錯誤以何種方式收場，吳小暉的安邦入股了民生銀行等大公司，海外巨大的收購，萬達的海外收購和國內銀行的貸款是不是要還呢？不知道。

中國AAA評級的萬達商業在岸債券堪比垃圾債

萬達商業的債券收益率可以反映出整個全球觀眾對於萬達的看法。今天一早，Bloomberg的一篇文章是這樣說的：

根據中國債券信息網彙編的數據顯示，獲得內地AAA評級的大連萬達商業地產沒有回售或贖回選擇權的在岸債券收益率升破9%。相比之下，中國AAA評級三年期公司債券平均收益率為4.55%，而被認為是垃圾級的中國AA-評級三年期公司債券平均收益率為5.8%。

「中國投資者擔憂的是非經營風險，」國泰君安證券首席債券分析師覃漢說。「風險的不確定性可能會持續一段時間。但這並不意味著萬達商業的信用基本面存在任何特別問題。」

Nearly two months after reports about Chinese regulators』 scrutiny of the country』s top dealmakers, the concerns have left a mark in the local bond market, where one of those companies is facing yields double the national average.

Yields on onshore securities without put or call options of Dalian Wanda Commercial Properties Co., which has an AAA rating onshore, are above 9 percent, according to valuations compiled by Chinabond. That compares with the average 4.55 percent yield on top-rated notes due in three years from all corporate borrowers in the country. It』s also higher than the 5.8 percent average yield on three-year notes with AA- ratings, considered junk in China.

People familiar with the matter said in June that the Chinese banking regulator asked some banks to provide information on overseas loans made to top dealmakers including Dalian Wanda Group Co., the parent of the property subsidiary. Wanda』s disposal of tourism and hotel assets to two rival Chinese developers last month has added to investors』 confusion.

「Chinese investors are concerned about non-operational risks,」 said Qin Han, chief bond analyst at Guotai Junan Securities Co. in Shanghai. 「Uncertainties about the risks may stay for some time. But it doesn』t mean any particular problem with the company』s credit fundamental.」

Wanda Group declined to comment.

Rising Yields

The yield on Wanda Commercial』s 4 percent April 2021 notes has climbed 235 basis points to 9.36 percent since June 22, the day of the news about the banking regulator scrutiny. The rate on its 3.7 percent bond due March 2021 has risen 234 basis points to 9.34 percent. That compares with no change in the average yield of three-year AAA corporate notes in the period.

Wanda Commercial has taken a break from raising money in the onshore and offshore bond market, set for its first quarterly hiatus since June 2015, according to Bloomberg-compiled data. The company delisted from the Hong Kong stock exchange in September, with the aim of eventually re-listing in China as billionaire Wang Jianlin seeks higher valuation in the mainland.

「What worries the investors is the unspoken reasons behind Wanda』s disposals,」 said Chuanyi Zhou, credit analyst in Singapore at Lucror Analytics. 「The company also lacks transparency after the delisting from Hong Kong exchange.」

Wanda SalesWanda Groupagreed

in July to sell a 91 percent stake in a collection of cultural and tourism projects across the nation to Sunac China Holdings Ltd. for 43.8 billion yuan ($6.57 billion). Guangzhou R&F Properties Co. separately agreed to pick up some city hotels from Wanda for 19.9 billion yuan -- assets that originally were to be sold to Sunac when the deal was first announced on July 10.

After the Shanghai Stock Exchange in May approved Wanda Commercial』s plan to sell 30 billion yuan of bonds, the developer hasn』t made any announcement on when it』s going to offer the notes.

「The refinancing risk has also been increasing, given the government』s crackdown on offshore investment and onshore lending,」 said Zhou.

Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. hasn』t released any announcement after confirming Dalian Wanda Commercial』s issuer and bond ratings of AAA in May, according to Chinamoney website. The press department of Dagong declined to comment on whether the rating firm plans to revise the credit score.The top score by Dagong contrasts with a BBB- rating, the lowest investment-grade ranking, from S&P Global Ratings. On July 17, S&P placed it on creditwatch negative because of the unexpected sales of the company』s tourism projects and hotels. Wanda Commercial』s property sales will likely decline significantly after it offloads its tourism projects, which include the bulk of its land reserves, according to S&P.

The builder is rated BBB by Fitch Ratings, and Baa3 by Moody』s Investors Service.

與此同時，前幾天瑞銀也是發布了關於安邦以及其他保險平台帶來的金融風險的報告。都值得我們思考，接下來這些前寡頭會如何走，雖然小編也不知道呢。

報告要點：

Recent turmoil in the insurance sector could have a silver lining

A recent crackdown by the insurance regulator on certain product practices has led to a slowdown in insurance sector premium growth in 2017. However, this has not been evenly felt and appears specifically targeted at what we refer to as 「platform insurers」, which are insurers focused on higher-return investment products more akin to wealth management products than protection products. Platform insurers include companies such as Anbang Insurance Group (ABIG) and Foresea Life. Notably, platform insurers contributed 58% of life sector asset growth over 2014-16. We believe efforts to rein in platform insurers will benefit traditional insurance companies, as the market refocuses on traditional, lower-yielding products. This reinforces Ping An Life as our top pick.

Positive for traditional insurers on cost of liability and market share

A key driver of platform insurers has been their focus on high-yield universal products, which has led to a yield gap of 50-80bp above traditional insurers products. The slowdown of platform insurers (eg, premium growth was down 99% YoY in May for Anbang Life) should also improve the competitive landscape, translating to reduced cost of liability for traditional insurers. We believe this will also stabilise market share at traditional insurers, enabling them to focus more on long-term protection products.

Systemic risk from large groups like Anbang poses a concern

Our analysis suggests market concerns about systemic risk posed by platform insurers, such as Anbang, to banks and broader financial sector stability may be overstated—but not unfounded. We estimate ABIG』s total assets are equivalent to 3.4% of China』s GDP. However, our analysis of on- and offshore entities of ABIG suggests that, counterto market perceptions, only about 11% of the asset base of ABIG』s core entities are invested in illiquid assets, such as Waldorf Astoria. The vast majority of underlying assets are publicly traded securities, with limited evidence of an asset liability mismatch.

However, low surrender rates on their products (ie, investor loss due to early product redemption) imply that, regardless of contractual liability duration, the low penalty may be insufficient to deter outflows. However, for an entity like ABIG, an asset unwind may not be as painful as market watchers anticipate.