Uptight Leader

Part time song writer, eternal Magic: the Gathering player, buyside credit. Not BTC laser eyes, I’m an X-men fan.

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@atgiovinazzi @TicTocTick Any particular area in Maine? Thanks

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic I love this

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@SpreadThread1 Great, thanks for the response and content

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@SpreadThread1 Unless you’re looking for a sweet spot where you want them to sell some assets to cover the dividend since they’re selling near NAV and that helps return NAV at your discounted purchase px?

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@SpreadThread1 This is great, thanks. What’s the thinking behind ~75% dividend coverage being the line in the sand? I would think anything under 100% creates risk of a divy cut and unwanted downside pressure if the thesis is dividends juiced by appreciation

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@OldSkoolMTGLive 😍

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic They seem to ignore that the person with the lowest average purchase price also has an advantage. Barreling in at 99 is just busting in like the Kool-Aid Man

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@SpreadThread1 Fantastic, thanks for this

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@simon_ree Even if it’s politically unpalatable I think SVB is systemically important to SF which is probably systemically important to California which can punch way higher than just tech bros. It’s gonna be a close call.

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic How could you do Taylor dirty like that?

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic Seems*

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic 🤔 hmm, I can hit BAML up and see where this data is coming from. It extraordinarily dire

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic It may be hard for the agencies to wait if this chart is representative of a decent amount of par balance.

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic 4.5x average net leverage is nice but this BAML data (based on public issuers, would argue private issuers are in worse shape) is saying B2s and below have some problems. I don't have the notional amts handy so there are limitations to using "number of issuers" like BAML did.

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic Agreed, the “if interest coverage < X then 25% chance of default” ignores a lot. Issuers probably have more optionality now than ever before.

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic This drove model downgrades for a number of issuers to CCC and then they used a historical 20-25% default rate on this new balance of CCC issuers. I haven’t read this new piece you’re referencing so not sure if the default numbers are different than last year. Less maturity focus

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

@LevFinCynic I talked to Matt last year after his original call came out. He explained that their methodology was more solvency and int coverage driven. With rates going up and layering in hefty Ebitda declines, they got a bigger number of issuers at their threshold interest coverage ratios

[Uptight Leader @UptightLeader]

Took this bad boy to a 4th place finish at the Old School MTG Scryings tournament hosted by @OldSkoolMTGLive