As Christmas approaches all eyes start focusing on the league tables. Awards await the most successful dealers and with the top four all on over $16 billion everything is still to play for. But league table trades now start to play a more important role in a dealer's business decisions. And they bring into question the accuracy and validity of these very tables. MTNWeek's private placement league table only includes non-syndicated deals with a term of at least one year and an amount less than $250 million. It excludes special purpose vehicles and self-led deals. But dealers still seek trades that will push them up the tables unnaturally, even if they have to pay up. Salomon Smith Barney is top of the private placement league table. Richard Proudlove, Euro-MTNs at Salomon Smith Barney, says: "The consensus is that at the moment the league tables are the best measure available for comparing the placement ability of the different houses in the MTN market. And so if an opportunity to move up the tables arises, people will want to do so." If an issuer wanted to place paper at Libor+2, but an investor wanted to buy paper at Libor+6, for example, the dealer would pay the difference. The complaint is that this style of trade distorts the truth of the league table, putting those who don't specialize in short-term vanilla notes at a disadvantage. Lehman Brothers is one bank that claims not to do league table trades. Although this is the official line of many of the market dealers, the smaller banks claim that it is the biggest firms that do most of the league table trades. Brian McCarthy, head of Euro-MTNs at Lehman Brothers, says: "If you were to take all the one-year trades away it would turn the league tables into something very different, because much of this is bought business." And issuers may also have cause for concern. Issuance at the desired level may be compromised if a dealer sells trades to investors at more generous levels than the issuer stipulated. Alisdair McDougall, head of capital markets at Abbey National, says: "There's very little you can do about league table trades. But the only real difficulty is if the league table trades start to re-benchmark your natural levels." But not all issuers let league tables and league table trades worry them. Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) is the biggest issuer of private notes this year, having issued $7.83 billion off 121 trades. Frank Czichowski, head of capital markets at KfW, says: "As an issuer we don't care where a dealer is ranked. If there is a trust there and we have a history between us, that is more important than league table position." Infrequent issuers, who lack knowledge about the market, might be more influenced by the league tables. But it is unlikely that any issuer in the market has mandated a dealer because of league table position alone. Other factors come into play, and so the relevance of the league tables, not just their credibility, is brought into question. JP Morgan holds 10th place in the private placement league table, and claims that because its merger with Chase Manhattan is yet to be finalized it has nothing to gain from doing league table trades. Robin Stoole, Euro-MTNs at JP Morgan, says: "MTN league tables are misrepresentative because they attempt to describe what is, by definition, a private market. I know from JP Morgan's point of view that many of our trades do not appear in the league tables, and the extent to which this is true for other houses is probably inconsistent." KfW has an internal set of league tables that it produces itself, ranking its dealers qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Czichowski, at KfW, says: "Quality of service - including primary and secondary market capabilities, advice with respect to new products and help with investor relations - is a better measure than issuance volume for determining a dealer's value. In this regard the view of other issuers and especially investors can be very beneficial." Certain suggestions have been made by dealers for improving the league table structure. These include making the minimum maturity three years, or weighting deals differently depending on their maturity. For example, a $100 million one-year note would be worth $100 million, but a $100 million five-year note would be worth $500 million in the league tables. It comes down to the value each trade represents for the issuer. But some firms will never be appeased. Stoole, at JP Morgan, says: "Even if you altered the parameters of the tables, for example by increasing the minimum maturity, the large houses would still find ways to distort the information."
December 08, 2000