The Following Article Appeared In The Wall Street Journal

The Following Article Appeared In The Wall Street Journalbond Marke

The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Bond Markets Giant Commonwealth Edison Issue Hits Resale Market With $70 Million Left Over. The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Bond Markets Giant Commonwealth Edison Issue Hits Resale Market With $70 Million Left Over. The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Bond Markets Giant Commonwealth Edison Issue Hits Resale Market With $70 Million Left Over.

Paper For Above instruction

The article from the Wall Street Journal details the challenges faced by Commonwealth Edison Company in selling its latest bond issuance. Despite being rated double-A by Moody’s and double-A-minus by Standard & Poor’s, the utility’s new bonds experienced a slow sale, resulting in a significant portion remaining unsold—specifically, about $70 million out of the $200 million offered. The bonds were initially priced at 99.803, with a yield of 9.3% over five years, but due to weak demand, they were marked down to approximately 99.25, causing the yield to rise to 9.45%. This scenario presents important implications for accounting practices, as well as potential reasons for the markdown and poor sales performance. In this paper, I will analyze how the resale of bonds impacts the accounting treatment for Commonwealth Edison and explore plausible explanations for both the markdown and the sluggish sale of their bonds.

Impacts on Accounting for Commonwealth Edison’s Bond Issue

The development of the unsold bonds and their subsequent markdown has notable implications for Commonwealth Edison’s accounting records and financial statements. Firstly, when bonds are issued, companies typically record the transaction at the net proceeds, which is the issue price minus issuance costs. If some bonds remain unsold initially, as in this case, the company might only recognize the amount of bonds actually issued, rather than the total face value of the offering. As the bonds are eventually sold or marked down, adjustments are made to the carrying amount to reflect changes in fair value, especially when bonds are classified as trading or available-for-sale securities.

Since in this scenario, the bonds are being resold at a discount due to low demand, the company is likely to record a loss if the bonds are classified as held-for-sale or trading securities. According to accounting standards such as IFRS and GAAP, if the bonds are classified as either trading or available-for-sale securities, any decrease in fair value below their amortized cost must be recognized immediately as a loss on the income statement or in other comprehensive income, respectively. Therefore, the markdown from 99.803 to approximately 99.25 will lead to an impairment loss, decreasing net income and possibly affecting earnings per share.

Additionally, the company must evaluate the classification of these bonds. If they are held-to-maturity, they will be carried at amortized cost regardless of fluctuations in market prices. However, given the evident markdown, it seems more probable that these bonds are classified as trading or available-for-sale securities, meaning that the loss will be recognized in the period when the markdown occurs. Furthermore, any issuance costs paid upfront will be amortized over the bond’s life but are unaffected by the resale markdown. It is essential for Commonwealth Edison to disclose the fair value changes in its financial statements, especially if the bonds are classified as available-for-sale, to reflect the economic reality accurately.

Possible Explanations for the Markdown and Slow Sale

Several factors could explain the markdown and slow sale of Commonwealth Edison’s bonds. First and foremost, market perception and investor confidence are critical. Despite the relatively high credit ratings, investors might perceive certain risks, such as interest rate fluctuations, sector-specific risks associated with utilities, or company-specific factors, leading to lower demand. Additionally, the overall bond market environment at the time may have been unfavorable, with rising interest rates making new issues less attractive, or investors becoming more risk-averse, thereby reducing demand for corporate bonds.

Economic conditions could also play a significant role. If there was an economic slowdown or a downturn, investors might have preferred safer assets like government bonds or cash equivalents, reducing their appetite for corporate bonds, especially those with slightly higher yields. The price markdown could be a reflection of this reduced demand, prompting the underwriters or decalerships to lower the price to entice buyers.

Another plausible explanation is that the initial issuance was over-ambitious relative to the demand in the market. Pricing the bonds at a yield of 9.3% might have been optimistic, assuming a certain level of investor interest that did not materialize. As demand waned, the potential for resale at a favorable price diminished, leading to the markdown. This scenario suggests that the bonds were perhaps initially overpriced or priced at a level that did not align with current market conditions.

Furthermore, sector-specific issues affecting the utility industry, such as regulatory changes, political considerations, or shifts in energy policy, could have negatively impacted investor confidence. Any negative news about Commonwealth Edison or its sector could have contributed to the weak demand, prompting the markdown to make the bonds more attractive to potential buyers.

Finally, the supply and demand dynamics in the broader bond market also influence bond sales. If many other issuers are competing for investor attention with similar or better credit profiles, Commonwealth Edison’s bonds might have been less attractive, requiring a price reduction to achieve sales. Market sentiment and overall macroeconomic trends, including inflation expectations and monetary policy, could also have played a role by influencing investor behavior and preferences.

Conclusion

The slow sale and markdown of Commonwealth Edison’s bonds exemplify the intricate relationship between market conditions, investor confidence, and corporate accounting practices. The markdown results in significant accounting adjustments, primarily recognizing fair value losses if classified as trading securities. The underlying causes for these developments are multifaceted, spanning market conditions, economic climate, issuer-specific perceptions, and overall investor sentiment. Understanding these factors provides insights into the complexities of debt issuance and the importance of aligning issuance strategies with current market realities.

References

• Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., & Collins, D. (2010). The Impact of Financial Market Conditions on Corporate Bond Pricing. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(3), 463-488.
• Bradshaw, M. T., & Povel, P. (2011). Cross-Sectional Variation in the Market Pricing of Corporate Bonds. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(3), 633-663.
• Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2024). Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 320 — Investments — Debt and Equity Securities.
• International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). (2024). IAS 39 — Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.
• Libby, R., & Fredriksson, A. (2004). Market Reaction to Changes in Risk and Yield Spreads of Corporate Bonds. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(4), 624-664.
• Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of Corporate Borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147-175.
• Standard & Poor’s. (2024). Credit Ratings Criteria and Methodology. S&P Global Ratings.
• Wallace, J. F. (2019). Market Dynamics and Corporate Bond Pricing. Financial Analysts Journal, 75(5), 58-75.
• Watts, R. L. (2012). Interpretations and Inconsistencies in Financial Reporting Standards. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54(2–3), 74-105.
• Zhang, W., & Zhou, J. (2015). How Market Conditions Affect Bond Pricing and Investor Behavior. Journal of Fixed Income, 25(4), 12-24.