FORTUNE -- Wall Street deals haven't gotten any less convoluted since the financial crisis. We got some more evidence of that this week.
On Tuesday night, Yahoo announced it was raising $1 billion and at the same time buying back $5 billion worth of its own stock. Reporters covering the deal focused on the buyback and said the company was paying for it by selling debt. But the difference between the two numbers should have been enough of a tip-off that there was something weird going on. Why did Yahoo (YHOO) need to raise $1 billion to announce a $5 billion share buyback? Why not just announce a $4 billion share buyback, not add a billion dollars of debt, and call it a day? Yahoo didn't say, and it didn't return my call to answer questions.
But here's where the Yahoo deal gets even weirder. The technology company wasn't raising the $1 billion by selling typical debt. It was selling a convertible bond, which is in fact something very different. A normal debt deal works like this:
A convertible bond often works like this:
Catch the difference. When a company sells a convertible bond, what it's really selling is stock, albeit not immediately, but eventually. Put it all together and here's what you get: Yahoo announced it was selling stock in order to raise money to buy stock, which seems pretty wacky. No?
But here's where I have to stop and tell you that none of the people I talked to on Wall Street about the Yahoo deal found anything weird about it. Unusual, slightly, but not weird. I talked to bankers not on the deal and an investor in a large credit hedge fund. All of them said the deal looked pretty fair to both sides, investors in the deal, and Yahoo. Other companies have done similar deals.
And, indeed, the deal went off without a hitch. By Thursday morning, Yahoo had raised $1.25 billion from the deal, a quarter more than it initially expected. What's more, the interest rate on the bonds is 0%, meaning investors were willing to give Yahoo money for free for now.
If Yahoo had done a typical bond offering, it would have cost the company about 4% a year in interest, which on $1.25 billion for five years is $150 million. The convertible is not free, though. As part of the deal, Yahoo is buying a hedge to protect it against the possibility that its stock price spikes, which, if left unhedged, would make the cost of eventually converting the debt expensive. A banker told me that Yahoo is paying around 8% of the deal for the hedge, or $100 million. And if its stock doesn't rise, then that's all Yahoo would owe.
And that's less than a straight bond offering, but notice that the payment isn't going to the same place. Instead of to investors, Yahoo's $100 million is going to Wall Street, in this case likely JPMorgan Chase (JPM), which was the lead bank on the deal, for the hedge.
But JPMorgan isn't getting that fee for free either. It's taking on the other side of Yahoo's hedge, a risk, which it will likely lay off in part by buying a derivative from someone else. In fact, according to the statement Yahoo issued on the bond, the deal could spawn a whole bunch of derivatives bought and sold by various players in the deal in order to ratchet up or lay off their risk.
What's more, convertible bond deals, like stock deals, typically make a company's stock price go down. That's because all else being equal, a company will have more shares in the future, which should lead to a lower price. Also, the fact that a company is issuing a convertible could signal that management thinks its stock isn't likely to go up anytime soon, since that could make the convertible, at least for the company, a bad deal.
That's why Yahoo announced the stock buyback, as cover for the convertible bond offering, to try to protect its stock price, and also to indicate that it doesn't indeed think its stock is a bad investment. But there's no guarantee it will end up buying $5 billion of stock. All the company has said is that it authorized that much. Yahoo said it was using $200 million of the money it raised in the convertible deal to immediately buy shares. Will it end up using the remaining $4.8 billion? I don't know. But my guess is not anytime soon.
Warren Buffett has long said he's not a big fan of stock buybacks. Companies would be better off investing that cash trying to expand their business and boost profits, rather than trying to do it by financial engineering. By that logic, borrowing money to do a buyback is even more foolish. Not that that's stopping corporate America or the bankers who are handing out this advice. Debt for buyback deals happen all the time these days.
But hey, once you've started down the financial engineering path, just issuing some plain-vanilla debt, or better yet using the cash you already have on hand -- which before this deal was $3.2 billion for Yahoo -- to do a buyback, seems dumb, or at least not nearly as smart as doing stock-for-stocks deals that create derivatives that have to be passed around the financial system like a hot potatoes.
Wall Street is still weird.
Why it's more important than ever to focus on the dividends and buybacks that companies return to shareholders.
FORTUNE -- Dividend-paying stocks have generated intense debate in recent years. Has the rising market made their prices too high and their yields too low -- or is a dividend-heavy portfolio still the best way to garner superior returns? For Chris Brightman, that discussion misses the point. Brightman is the head of investment MOREShawn Tully, senior editor-at-large - Feb 14, 2013 5:00 AM ET
That's what most companies do when they buy their own shares. But you can avoid the trap.
FORTUNE -- In 2006 and 2007 timber giant Weyerhaeuser (WY) conducted one of the biggest share buybacks in its history. It unleashed $800 million to purchase its shares, which were dancing near an all-time high of $80. In 2009, with the stock at $30, the company spent a mere $2 million on its own MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Jul 11, 2011 5:00 AM ET
Who is most eager to put the AIG bailout in the rearview mirror?
The government would certainly like to sell off its holdings in the giant insurer sooner rather than later. Witness its decision to sell a big chunk of AIG (AIG) shares this spring even with the stock down sharply from its level at the end of 2010.
But AIG chief Bob Benmosche makes clear in the video below that he MOREColin Barr - Jun 22, 2011 4:21 PM ET
Are struggling department stores sitting on a real estate gold mine?
Wall Street certainly hopes so, judging by Thursday's furious rally in shares of Dillard's (DDS) and the smaller gains in JCPenney (JCP) and the biggest laggard of them all, Sears Holdings (SHLD).
Dillard's surged 17%, JCPenney 6% and Sears 5% after Arkansas-based Dillard's said it intends to set up a real estate investment trust that will allow it to borrow against MOREColin Barr - Jan 20, 2011 11:00 AM ET
JPMorgan Chase expects to start raising its dividend early next year, CEO Jamie Dimon will tell investors this afternoon.
Dimon (right) is scheduled to appear this afternoon at the Barclays Global Financial Services conference in New York. "We intend to restore the dividend," presentation materials posted on JPMorgan's (JPM) web site say, "hopefully early 2011."
The comments are in line with the remarks Dimon has made over the past year, as investors have asked when MOREColin Barr - Sep 14, 2010 12:24 PM ET
Intel's (INTC) lessons for Apple (AAPL).
Bond funds cost too damn much.
Dallas Fed researchers deem a double dip unlikely.
Buybacks don't work, for crying out loud.
In for a Penny, in for a pound.Colin Barr - Jul 16, 2010 4:25 PM ET
|Five predictions for the World Wide Web that were way, way, way off|
|Why casino workers hate Obamacare|
|4.2 million have signed up for Obamacare as open enrollment nears close.|
|Tesla lashes out at Chris Christie|
|West prepares sanctions against Russia over Ukraine|