The hidden cost of bond issuance: how subpar timing costs issuers millions in primary issuance.

In the high-stakes world of corporate bond issuance, pricing is often the spotlight, while the equally critical but far more elusive timing of issuance is frequently overlooked. In our white paper, we have looked at the impact of timing on issuance cost and revealed that timing has an equal or even greater impact on the issuance cost than pricing. In addition, our white paper introduces a novel metric: TimingRank, which measures how well an issuer times its issuance relative to current market conditions. It shows that mistimed issuances—even by just a few days—can translate into millions in unnecessary interest expense over the bond's lifetime, directly impacting EPS, and ultimately shareholder value.

According to the analysis, the average timing loss per issuance in 2024 was EUR 3 million. In Q1 2025, this number increased to EUR 7 million in unnecessary interest expense per issue. That number is an average over a 60-day issuance window. The actual timing losses that could have been avoided and saved issuers real money are much greater.

Why Timing Matters
Once a bond is priced, its coupon rate and, therefore, its interest cost are locked in for the life of the bond. Issuing during a week when interest rates are slightly elevated due to macroeconomic conditions, central bank signals, or temporary market illiquidity can significantly increase the long-term interest expense. The challenge is that most issuers are unaware of this impact or lack the tools and analytics to help manage timing more effectively.

Figure 1: Window of Opportunity around issuance Date
TimingRank compares the actual issuance date against 64 trading days to determine whether better or worse funding conditions existed. Suppose there were days within the window where funding conditions were more favourable than the actual issuance date. In that case, this is represented as a "green delta", indicating potential cost savings that could have been realised (see Figure 1). Conversely, if there were days when funding conditions were worse, a "red delta" is assigned, quantifying the additional costs that would have been incurred had the bond been issued on those days.

BondRanking methodology assigns a TimingRank based on this comparison: A higher TimingRank is awarded if more days had worse funding conditions, indicating that the bond was issued at a relatively optimal window of opportunity. A lower TimingRank is given if many days had better funding conditions, indicating suboptimal issuance timing.

Issuers often choose issuance dates based on seasonal norms shaped by investor behaviour, bank schedules, and holidays. These are further constrained by internal deadlines and blackout periods, narrowing the practical issuance window. Still, within those limits, issuers typically have several viable days to hit the primary market. That's where DebtRay's TimingRank comes in. The 60 day window reflects the typical period when a bond is ready for market execution.

In today's volatile rate environment, timing must be treated as a first-order decision, on par with pricing. By integrating tools like DebtRay's TimingRank into financial planning, treasury teams gain a sharper view of market conditions surrounding their actual issuance dates and can evaluate their decisions with far greater clarity. This isn't just theory—it's built into our framework. DebtRay's BondRank Score combines PricingRank and TimingRank, each weighted equally. That means timing isn't a secondary metric—it's half the score. The challenge? Most issuers plan issuance windows months in advance but lack the data or flexibility to fine-tune the exact launch date for cost efficiency. That approach no longer cuts it. With the right analytics, forward planning, and a market-aware mindset, companies can avoid costly missteps and make timing a strategic advantage, not a liability.

Better Pricing, Better Timing, Smarter Issuance.

Read our White Paper: Whitepaper (PDF)

Request a Demo: [email protected]