Yet in the same newspapers, I also saw a notice by MAS on the Singapore Government issuing Singapore Gvt Bonds at a minimum subscription of $1000 with a coupon rate of 2.875% per annum.
What is interesting is that the Singapore Government Bond is actually paying a higher coupon rate than the SIA bond. In addition, the minimum subscription amount is also less at $1000 compared to SIA's $10,000. From the investor's point of view, it seems to make more sense to invest in SGS bonds over the SIA bond since the coupon rate is higher.
Another interesting thing that blew my mind away was the coupon rate. From what I gather ( I could be mistaken), I always thought that governments (not Singapore in particular) are able to acquire debt more cheaply than private entities. This is because a Government can simply raise taxes or print more money to pay back its investors. As such, a government when compared to a private entity should be able to issue bonds at a LOWER coupon rate than a private entity. It makes sense since the institutional investors will view government bonds as being less risky than bonds that are being issued by private entities.
However, for the case here of 2 similar 5 year bonds, what I observe is that the private entity (SIA) is actually able to borrow money (through the issuing of bonds) at a cheaper rate than the Government! That is 2.15% coupon rate versus SGS bond's 2.875%! That is a pretty significant difference!
How a private entity can actually borrow money at a cheaper rate than the Singapore Government (which has an excellent credit rating) totally baffles me. I don't understand.. Maybe there is something I don't understand about bonds yet. Or maybe I could be badly mistaken. Can someone correct me on where I have gone wrong in my thinking?
[After note (23 Sept): In this post, I compared SIA bonds and SGS bonds and was wondering how could a private entity offer coupon rate that was lower than the Government. I asked readers to correct me on where I have gone wrong in my thinking. After all, I was utterly baffled from my supposed assumption that this was a scenario where a private entity was able to borrow at a cheaper rate than the government.
Thankfully, a reader (named Sen) corrected my mistake. The SGS bond had a coupon rate of 2.875% but that did not translate into yield as the pricing of the bond was still not known. That means the yield of the SGS bond will most probably end up being lower than the yield of SIA’s equivalent 5 year bond.
Morale of the story: When you think that you have found an anomaly, it is most probably not an anomaly.]
Thankfully, a reader (named Sen) corrected my mistake. The SGS bond had a coupon rate of 2.875% but that did not translate into yield as the pricing of the bond was still not known. That means the yield of the SGS bond will most probably end up being lower than the yield of SIA’s equivalent 5 year bond.
Morale of the story: When you think that you have found an anomaly, it is most probably not an anomaly.]