By the Numbers

Gauging the relative value of rental car ABS and sponsor debt

Jason Delanty | May 5, 2023

This document is intended for institutional investors and is not subject to all of the independence and disclosure standards applicable to debt research reports prepared for retail investors. This material does not constitute research.

The credit risk in rental car ABS overlaps significantly with the credit risk in the securitization sponsor’s own debt. Both ultimately depend on the ability of the sponsor to generate enough cash from the rental fleet to service the debt. But the ABS has structural protections for the investor that arguably make the ABS risk more transparent. Considering the generally better rating of rental car ABS compared to the sponsor’s unsecured debt and the small loss of spread, the ABS looks like better relative value.

The link between rental car ABS and the sponsor’s unsecured debt

For practical purposes, one can think about rental car ABS as secured by roughly the entire pool of the sponsor entity’s operating assets. That asset, broadly speaking, is the cash flow generated by a fleet of vehicles and the value of the vehicles themselves. A special purpose entity owns the vehicles and leases the vehicles to the sponsor—for example, Avis or Hertz– entitling the trust to monthly debt payments secured by operating cash flows and the value of the vehicles. The SPE issues debt backed by the lease payments, the rental car ABS. This means the sponsor has tremendous incentive to make the lease payments, otherwise it loses the very asset the company needs to operate. Even in bankruptcy, the estate has incentive to continue making lease payments to protect the value of the enterprise.

Ultimately, credit risk in rental car ABS ends up looking a lot like your credit risk in senior secured debt, with noteholder credit exposure to the sponsor’s ability to continue operating and generating the cash flow needed to pay debt. However, rental car operators do not have outstanding senior secured debt and instead issue unsecured debt. But to better understand the relative value opportunity between rental car ABS and the unsecured debt of the sponsor, it is important to understand how investors in rental car ABS get protected by the structure.

Trust structure

Rental car ABS uses a sequential-pay, senior subordinate structure with offered securities typically ranging from a senior ‘AAA’ tranche down to a ‘BB’ note. The two rental car ABS sponsors—Avis (B1/BB-) and Hertz (Caa1/B-)—both carry speculative-grade unsecured ratings. The usual term structure for newly issued bonds is either a 3- or a 5-year note with a revolving interest-only period followed by a 6-month amortization window (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit1: Rental car ABS structure overview:

Source: Santander US Capital Markets

Trust protections

Rental car ABS collateral can be divided into two categories:

Program vehicles, or cars acquired from a manufacturer with an agreement for the manufacturer to repurchase or guarantee a depreciation schedule, and
Non-program or risk vehicles

Program vehicles do not put investors at risk if the value of the used vehicles—also known as the residual value—falls. The manufacturer bears that risk. However, non-program vehicles, which represent roughly 98% of trust collateral for both Avis and Hertz ABS as of April 2023, remain vulnerable to wholesale vehicle market pricing.

To protect noteholders against losses from lower-than-expected residual value, rental car ABS is structured with monthly mark-to-market tests for non-program vehicles. These tests compare fleet market value—based on third-party data sources such as NADA or Black Book—to the depreciated value of the vehicles estimated at the outset of the securitization, also known as the net book value or NBV. The mark-to-market test measures the ratio between the lowest 3-month average value of the vehicle fleet over the trailing year and the NBV. Generally, if mark-to-market is greater than NBV, the deal passes the test, with any test failure triggering an injection of new collateral to satisfy the deficit. This test is regularly assessed, allowing it to reflect continual changes in vehicle market value.

The disposition test, an assessment of realized losses relative to NBV when the fleet operator sells vehicles, incorporates sales data for reported ‘measurement months’ to determine the average loss figure used in its calculation. A ‘measurement month’ is defined by a minimum number of monthly unit sales, and the test will use the most recent three months that reach or exceed the threshold.

Though the mark-to-market and disposition tests may be imperfect measures of fleet liquidation value, they are designed to account for any unexpected depreciation of the fleet. If a securitization fails one of these tests, the sponsor has to assign cash or more vehicles and their cash flows to support the trust. Any failure to increase enhancement to the required levels would result in a series amortization event, and eventually collateral liquidation.

Rental car ABS are also supported by dynamic enhancement mechanisms to account for the evolving composition of a rental fleet as vehicles are sold from and purchased for the trust. Collateral support is calculated by taking the sum of the credit enhancement requirements across program and non-program vehicles, as well as vehicle types and manufacturers. As the fleet mix changes over time, so too does the required enhancement, ensuring that breaches of vehicle concentration limits are accompanied by corresponding adjustments to the available credit support. This ultimately helps insulate noteholders from collateral quality deterioration throughout a series’ outstanding term.

Comparing ABS to the sponsor’s debt

The best relative value comparison involves the lowest rated class of rental car ABS against the unsecured debt of the sponsor. Looking at Avis’ rental car ABS subordinate pricing relative to the unsecured high yield notes, a 29 bp spread difference between the recently issued ABS note, AESOP 2023-4 C, and the senior unsecured note of comparable duration, CAR 5⅜ 03/01/29, presents an attractive opportunity for investors to rotate into an investment grade asset at a very modest give-up in the context of recently observed BBB/BB rental car ABS differentials. Though Avis has not recently issued any ABS below investment grade, Hertz priced a ‘BB’-rated, 5-year D tranche in February at 545 over the interpolated Treasury curve, 235bp cheaper than its ‘BBB’ C tranche (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: Moving high yield debt to ABS improves rating at a small spread concession

Note: Trace pricing as of 4/28/23.
Source: Bloomberg, Santander US Capital Markets

Using single-name CDS to gauge ABS value

As previously mentioned, rental car ABS is somewhat unique among ABS sectors in that, structurally speaking, it more closely resembles a secured corporate financing transaction. The inextricable linkage of sponsor creditworthiness to the performance for both the ABS and unsecured note programs invites space to think about the appropriateness of insurance against sponsor default as hedging tool. A synthetic hedging strategy for subordinate ABS risk is beyond the scope of this piece, but by establishing a valuation framework between ABS and single-name CDS, investors may find it useful in assessing the contextual cheapness of a sponsor’s securitization program versus the cost of insurance.

As it pertains to the current relative value argument, Avis’ subordinated ABS pricing spreads—using new issue pricing for ‘A’ subordinated notes—as a percentage of the cost of insurance, measured by the 5-year Avis CDS spread for the same pricing date, are currently trading at multi-year wides. (Exhibit 3)

Exhibit 3: Ratio of new issue 5-year AESOP to AVIS 5-year CDS

Source: Bloomberg, Santander US Capital Markets

For portfolios that manage rental car operator credit risk, either through ABS or unsecured high yield exposure, an attractive pricing landscape for rental car ABS has skewed the relative value argument in favor of the higher-rated securitized bonds, especially when considering the main source of credit risk in both debt programs. The current value proposition for subordinated rental car ABS versus the unsecured notes looks particularly interesting, and the protective features supporting the rental car company’s ABS complex, even for subordinated noteholders, argues for rotating into the higher quality, securitized instrument.

Jason Delanty
jason.delanty@santander.us
1 (646) 776-7873

This material is intended only for institutional investors and does not carry all of the independence and disclosure standards of retail debt research reports. In the preparation of this material, the author may have consulted or otherwise discussed the matters referenced herein with one or more of SCM’s trading desks, any of which may have accumulated or otherwise taken a position, long or short, in any of the financial instruments discussed in or related to this material. Further, SCM may act as a market maker or principal dealer and may have proprietary interests that differ or conflict with the recipient hereof, in connection with any financial instrument discussed in or related to this material.

This message, including any attachments or links contained herein, is subject to important disclaimers, conditions, and disclosures regarding Electronic Communications, which you can find at https://portfolio-strategy.apsec.com/sancap-disclaimers-and-disclosures.

Important Disclaimers

Copyright © 2024 Santander US Capital Markets LLC and its affiliates (“SCM”). All rights reserved. SCM is a member of FINRA and SIPC. This material is intended for limited distribution to institutions only and is not publicly available. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.

In making this material available, SCM (i) is not providing any advice to the recipient, including, without limitation, any advice as to investment, legal, accounting, tax and financial matters, (ii) is not acting as an advisor or fiduciary in respect of the recipient, (iii) is not making any predictions or projections and (iv) intends that any recipient to which SCM has provided this material is an “institutional investor” (as defined under applicable law and regulation, including FINRA Rule 4512 and that this material will not be disseminated, in whole or part, to any third party by the recipient.

The author of this material is an economist, desk strategist or trader. In the preparation of this material, the author may have consulted or otherwise discussed the matters referenced herein with one or more of SCM’s trading desks, any of which may have accumulated or otherwise taken a position, long or short, in any of the financial instruments discussed in or related to this material. Further, SCM or any of its affiliates may act as a market maker or principal dealer and may have proprietary interests that differ or conflict with the recipient hereof, in connection with any financial instrument discussed in or related to this material.

This material (i) has been prepared for information purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities, related investments or other financial instruments, (ii) is neither research, a “research report” as commonly understood under the securities laws and regulations promulgated thereunder nor the product of a research department, (iii) or parts thereof may have been obtained from various sources, the reliability of which has not been verified and cannot be guaranteed by SCM, (iv) should not be reproduced or disclosed to any other person, without SCM’s prior consent and (v) is not intended for distribution in any jurisdiction in which its distribution would be prohibited.

In connection with this material, SCM (i) makes no representation or warranties as to the appropriateness or reliance for use in any transaction or as to the permissibility or legality of any financial instrument in any jurisdiction, (ii) believes the information in this material to be reliable, has not independently verified such information and makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy or completeness of such information, (iii) accepts no responsibility or liability as to any reliance placed, or investment decision made, on the basis of such information by the recipient and (iv) does not undertake, and disclaims any duty to undertake, to update or to revise the information contained in this material.

Unless otherwise stated, the views, opinions, forecasts, valuations, or estimates contained in this material are those solely of the author, as of the date of publication of this material, and are subject to change without notice. The recipient of this material should make an independent evaluation of this information and make such other investigations as the recipient considers necessary (including obtaining independent financial advice), before transacting in any financial market or instrument discussed in or related to this material.