Finance





Where Have All the Muni-Bond Dealers Gone?

The number of municipal-bond dealers declined in 2015 as shrinking underwriting fees, record-low trading and growing regulatory costs led firms to abandon the $3.7 trillion market or merge with larger competitors.
Guggenheim Securities closed its local-government bond business last month after profits shrank. In October, Bank of Montreal sold its division to Piper Jaffray Cos. And in June, Birmingham, Alabama-based Sterne Agee Group Inc. was purchased by Stifel Financial Corp., which acquired local rival Merchant Capital about five months earlier.

“All businesses are becoming more scaled because of regulatory and compliance” costs, Ronald Kruszewski, the chief executive officer of St. Louis-based Stifel, said in a telephone interview. “It’s difficult to be a niche player in any business in financial services today.”

The pressures have steadily thinned the ranks of firms that sell municipal bonds, with more than one out of every five merging or closing over the last five years. Underwriting fees slipped in 2015 to the lowest level in seven years, spurred by competition that’s likely to keep driving the industry’s consolidation.

 

The contraction mirrors the cost-cutting that’s happening more broadly in the financial industry, where banks including Barclays Plc, Nomura Holdings Inc. and Bank of America Corp. have been cutting jobs as trading become less profitable. Morgan Stanley is eliminating about 25 percent of its fixed-income staff.

About 1,520 state and local bond dealers were registered with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board last month, down 6 percent from October 2014. Regional firms are buying competitors to expand their reach and snatch more business away from Wall Street’s biggest banks.

“It’s harder and harder for smaller and middle-market firms to be profitable,” said Mike Nicholas, CEO of the Bond Dealers of America, a Washington-based trade group. “You’re going to continue to see mainly small regional firms looking for partners either in a merger or pure acquisition.”

While sales of municipal debt rose 16 percent to $420 billion this year, the fees banks earned for underwriting declined. Fees on negotiated deals, which comprise three-quarters of the market, fell to $4.80 per $1,000 of bonds, the lowest since 2008. In a negotiated sale, a municipality selects a bank in advance rather than offering bonds to the lowest bidder in an auction.

 

Low interest rates are one reason for the heightened competition. With yields holding near a five-decade low, trading has dried up because the buy-and-hold investors who dominate the tax-exempt market have been unwilling to part with securities that provide higher income. Trading volume fell during the third quarter to the lowest level since records began in 2005, according to the MSRB, the market’s self-regulator.

As a result, firms that want to offer the bonds to customers have been competing for underwriting business to get them, said Matt Fabian, a managing director at Concord, Massachusetts-based Municipal Market Analytics.

“With so little trading, in order to be able to deliver bonds to your investors you need to underwrite them,” Fabian said. “That only has increased competition.”

Crisis Legacy

The legacy of the 2008 credit crisis is also having an impact. Since then, states and cities have eschewed the once-lucrative financings that paired floating-rate bonds and interest-rate swaps, which hit governments with unexpected costs after markets seized up. In part because of that crisis, firms have been dealing with new regulations that have increased expenses or threaten to make the businesses less profitable.

Rules placed on financial advisers have limited the ability of underwriters to pitch transactions to state and local governments. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been cracking down on banks that fail to police whether their government clients are making adequate financial disclosures after bonds are sold. And pending or newly adopted rules will require dealers to disclose trading markups and take steps to ensure that clients receive the most favorable available prices for their securities.

“There’s something new being pumped out every week by the SEC or the MSRB,” said Nicholas. He said one of his member firms reported that its legal and accounting costs have more than doubled since 2008.

Bigger Seen Better

That’s given an advantage to larger dealers that have more ability to bear the expense, helping to hasten consolidation by companies such as Stifel. In addition to buying Sterne Agee and Merchant, Stifel expanded in California last year by acquiring De La Rosa & Co., the biggest independent California-based investment bank that focused on municipal debt. In 2011, it purchased the San Francisco-based underwriter Stone & Youngberg.

The acquisitions vaulted Stifel to eighth-biggest municipal underwriter in 2015, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Five years ago, it ranked 14th.

Minneapolis-based Piper bought Bank of Montreal’s municipal division to boost its sales, trading and Illinois business. That follows its purchase two years ago of Seattle-Northwest Securities Corp. Piper ranked 10th in U.S. municipal bond underwriting this year, up from 11th in 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“We’re in a strong position because our public-finance business is so well diversified, by geography, industry sector and client type,” said Piper CEO Andrew Duff in a telephone interview.

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

December 29, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on December 30, 2015 — 4:39 AM PST




States’ Pension Woes Split Democrats and Union Allies.

A $1 trillion U.S. pension gap is dividing two longtime allies: Democrats and unions.

Left-leaning politicians from Rhode Island to California are increasingly supporting more aggressive overhauls of government pension benefits despite opposition from labor officials, traditionally one of the Democratic Party’s biggest policy and electoral supporters.

The erosion of Democratic backing for conventional retirement benefits prized by teachers, firefighters and police officers is a sign of how strained government budgets are as obligations for 24 million public workers and retirees continue to mount.

The latest clash is unfolding in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf has been seeking to end a six-month budget impasse with a Republican-controlled Legislature by agreeing to approve retirement cuts for new state hires and current workers. The Keystone State has $50 billion in unfunded pension obligations, one of the deepest retirement holes in the country.

“I know you’re not going to be happy,” Mr. Wolf told union leaders in private phone calls during recent weeks, those labor officials said. Union officials said the cuts aimed at current workers violate state laws.

A spokesman for Mr. Wolf said the governor understands that some people would be upset with the pension cuts, but his priority has been boosting education spending. “The governor absolutely wants to make sure state workers have a secure retirement, but this was a compromise budget and he’s dealing with an overwhelmingly Republican-led Legislature,” the spokesman said.

Since 2009, 25 out of 34 states that had Democratic governors in office have rolled back retirement benefits for public workers, a result that is proportionally in line with states run by Republicans, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of National Association of State Retirement Administrators data. Most of those governors also have survived attempts by union interests to remove them from office. At present, 17 states have Democratic governors.

Pension-cutting Democrats can come off as the lesser of two evils for union officials, because they have curtailed some benefits in an effort to make retirement plans more sustainable. Republicans often pursue more drastic steps such as ditching traditional pensions altogether in favor of the 401(k)-like plans common in the private sector.

The amount states and local governments are paying each year to fund retirement systems has risen to 4% of annual spending, up from 2.3% in 2002, according to U.S. Census data. Meanwhile, large retirement systems now have just three-quarters of the assets they need to fund future obligations, according to consultant Milliman Inc., leaving a gap of $1 trillion.

Democrats rarely tried to roll back pensions before 2008, according to politicians and pension officials. But as deficits surged because of deep investment losses in the wake of the financial crisis and chronic underfunding of retirement plans, Democrats said they had little choice but to revamp benefits, leading to conflicts with what has usually been a large and loyal bloc of voters.

In West Virginia, Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin this year backed pension cuts that raise mandatory worker contributions for new hires and block those workers from retiring as young as 55.

In California, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown traded jabs with the state’s largest retirement system when he said a proposal to lower investment targets was irresponsible because it didn’t go far enough and would likely reduce the expected rate of return over a longer period, in effect papering over looming deficits. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System said its approach was measured and balanced.

Public-sector unions have countered by filing lawsuits to block cuts, saying the pension plans have legal protections, and spending big to support alternate political candidates. Unions have prevailed in reversing pension cuts in several states, including Illinois, Oregon and Arizona.

“If it’s a Democrat undermining our members, they’ll feel the heat as much as if they were a Republican,” said Steven Kreisberg, the national director of research and collective bargaining at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or Afscme.

Pension overhauls are one of several issues straining relations between Democrats and unions. Some unions have battled Democrats who opposed the Keystone XL oil-pipeline project and others who back charter school expansion.

Mr. Wolf opposed cutting benefits earlier this year before breaking with his party and agreeing to numerous changes in a swap for more spending on education. Those changes include higher contributions for new hires and putting some of those workers’ retirement savings into 401(k)-style accounts. Current workers would also have more limits imposed on how much their pensions can increase in their final years of service, according to the proposed law.

“Do I have members that say Gov. Wolf sold us down the road?” said David Fillman, executive director of Afscme Council 13, the Pennsylvania union representing state and municipal workers. “Sure, there are some.”

Pennsylvania’s pension problems date at least to the early part of the last decade, when unions won a boost in benefits that was followed by stretches of economic weakness and poor investment returns. The plans also suffered from chronic underfunding. State lawmakers increased retirement ages and changed funding formulas in 2010, but the gap widened.

The state is projected to spend $2.4 billion out of its general fund on pensions this year, up 43% from $1.7 billion last year, according to a December report by the state’s independent fiscal office. The cost is forecast to hit $3.5 billion, or more than 10% of the state’s roughly $31 billion budget, by 2020. The state systems cover more than 730,000 public school and state employees and retirees.

The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO and other labor groups who backed the governor’s campaign have lobbied hard against Mr. Wolf’s changes, arguing that workers’ retirement security will be compromised. In recent weeks, union members have sent more than 100,000 emails to state legislators opposing the pension cuts.

“It’s a false choice,” said Rick Bloomingdale, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. “You don’t have to cut pensions in order to get school funding.”

The Republican-controlled Senate passed a pension bill that includes cuts to current workers’ benefits, and Mr. Wolf said he would sign the legislation. But the Republican-controlled House has failed to pass it. Every Democrat in the chamber voted against the bill, and some Republicans blocked it because it was linked to a full budget that increased taxes.

On Tuesday, with public schools threatening to close, Mr. Wolf said he would approve a stopgap budget that didn’t include pension overhauls or increased education spending. The governor’s spokesman said Mr. Wolf still wants a full-year budget that includes both items.

There are already signs that some Democrats who take a harder line on pensions can survive politically. Pension-cutting Democrats can still come off as more friend than foe to union officials, because Republicans often target deeper benefit cuts.

Former Rhode Island Treasurer Gina Raimondo won election as governor in 2014 after battling with unions on a pension overhaul.

Ms. Raimondo ultimately reached a settlement with workers this year that locked in $4 billion in savings. The cuts included shifting some current workers and new hires onto plans that include a 401(k)-style account, plus reducing the cost-of-living adjustments for retirees.

“There’s still a core group that’s angry, and in many ways I understand why they’re angry,” Ms. Raimondo said. “I tell them, ‘Don’t be mad at me. Be mad at people who made promises that were unaffordable.’ ”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By TIMOTHY W. MARTIN and KRIS MAHER

Dec. 29, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET

Write to Timothy W. Martin at timothy.martin@wsj.com and Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com

 




Municipal Market Contracts at Record Pace as Refunding Dominates.

For an unprecedented fifth-straight year, investors saw more bonds leaving the municipal market than being sold by states and localities.

Net issuance is ending the year at about negative $15 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The figure is calculated monthly by subtracting amounts being redeemed early or maturing from what was issued, based on the date at which interest begins to accrue. Though some analysts predicted a pickup in bond sales for infrastructure projects, nearly two-thirds of the almost $400 billion in debt offered in 2015 refinanced higher-cost debt, suppressing market growth, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show.

More than six years after the recession ended, state and local governments remain in an age of austerity as they grapple with pension obligations and other expenses. Bond sales fell off the record pace to start the year during the final months of 2015 as the Federal Reserve prepared to increase borrowing costs for the first time in almost a decade. That flipped net issuance into negative territory.

The scarcity of new debt has kept benchmark muni yields near the lowest relative to U.S. Treasuries in more than a year as demand for tax-exempt bonds outstripped the supply. That’s been a boon to investors: After flat returns through the first six months of the year, munis ended 2015 up 3.5 percent, compared with 0.6 percent for Treasuries. Investment-grade corporate debt lost 0.8 percent and high-yield company securities plunged 4.7 percent.

“The net negative supply in 2015 has really come to roost as we close out the year,” said Peter DeGroot, a strategist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. Next year is “still a highly supportive environment for municipal securities in terms of relative performance to taxable fixed-income counterparts.”

Individuals own the majority of the $3.7 trillion municipal market either through specific bonds or mutual funds. They usually invest in the bonds as part of a strategy to cut their tax burden, meaning they’re likely to reinvest their debt payments back into the asset class. The negative issuance figure is even larger when assuming individuals put all that cash back into munis, DeGroot said.

As investors flocked to munis in 2015, the debt became expensive to Treasuries on a relative basis. The ratio of 10-year AAA rated muni yields to those on federal debt is about87 percent, compared with an average of 101 percent over the past five years, Bloomberg data show.

Even with relatively low yields, investors are likely to continue putting their money into munis, particularly the tax-free interest payments they get from their current holdings, said Chris Mier at Loop Capital Markets.

“There’s a core, base demand for municipal bonds,” said Mier, chief strategist at Loop in Chicago. “For higher tax-bracket individuals, they’re a core element of any portfolio and that isn’t expected to change much in 2016.”

Long-term muni sales are poised to decline by about 1 percent in 2016 from this year’s level, according to a survey of 10 underwriters released last week by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Yet refunding will fall to 55 percent of issuance from 62 percent in 2015, according to the report.

With fewer refinancing deals, the market may grow in 2016. Without accounting for coupon reinvestment, net supply will be $50 billion in 2016, according to DeGroot at JPMorgan. That’s in line with the $45 billion estimate of Vikram Rai, head of muni strategy at Citigroup Inc. Michael Zezas at Morgan Stanley says net issuance could swell to $99 billion.

Even with the potential market growth, munis should still post positive returns in 2016, according to the trio of strategists.

“It’s a number that sounds large compared to what we just experienced, but in the entire history of the muni market, it’s not a number that is indigestible,” Zezas said. “There’s a substantial amount of deferred capital needs throughout the municipal infrastructure system.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

December 30, 2015 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on December 31, 2015 — 4:48 AM PST




Fitch Replay: 2016 US Public Power, Water & Sewer Outlook.

Teleconference discussing the 2016 outlook for the US Public Power and Water and Sewer sectors.

Key insights include:

– Effect of environmental regulation
– Improving cost of renewable energy
– Supply and infrastructure challenges

Listen to the Teleconference.




Fitch Replay: US Transportation Outlook 2016.

Listen to teleconference discussing the 2016 Outlook for US Transportation Infrastructure.

Key insights include clarity on federal transportation plans and US macroeconomic improvements driving growth across transportation sectors.




Fitch Replay: USPF Nonprofit Healthcare 2016 Outlook.

Listen to analysts discuss the 2016 outlooks for the US Healthcare sector.

Key insights include operating variability, reimbursement, and need for size and scale.




Fitch Replay: US States & Locals 2016 Outlook.

Listen to analysts discuss their 2016 outlook for US states and local governments.

Insights include manageable budget challenges and new criteria.




The Rieger Report: Bonds In 2016?

2015 had been a year of low or no returns for major asset classes. Income asset classes such as preferred stock and municipal bonds did outpace the S&P 500 Index and did so without the volatility but others did not bode as well. What about 2016? Let’s look at the leaders for 2015 first:

From a total return perspective the S&P U.S. Preferred Stock Index returned over 5.4% in 2015 with investment grade municipal bonds tracked in the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index returning just over 3.25%. Investment grade corporate bonds issued by ‘blue chip’ companies tracked in the S&P 500 Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index barely held even and corporate junk bonds ended in the red. The traits of each market may give us a hint as to what 2016 may look like.

What might impact the 2016 investment grade bond market?

Table 1: Select indices and their 2015 total returns

2015 Yr End

What might impact the 2016 ‘junk’ bond markets?

Table 2: Select high yield indices and 2015 total returns

2015 HY Big Picture Yr End

Table 3: Select U.S. high yield corporate indices and their total returns

2015 HY Yr End

Seeking Alpha

By J.R. Rieger

Jan. 2, 2016 4:49 PM ET

Disclosure: © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2015. Indexology® is a trademark of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI). S&P® is a trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC, and those marks have been licensed to S&P DJI. This material is reproduced with the prior written consent of S&P DJI. For more information on S&P DJI and to see our full disclaimer, visit www.spdji.com/terms-of-use.




Fitch Replay: 2016 US Education & Nonprofit Outlook.

Listen to teleconference discussing our 2016 Outlook for US Education & Nonprofit.

Key insights include demographic challenges, state support for universities, and affordability challenges.




S&P General Obligation Medians for Counties: Update as of Oct. 9, 2015.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services derives the general obligation (GO) county medians from rating reviews completed under our GO criteria (USPF Criteria: Local Governments General Obligation Ratings: Methodology And Assumptions, Sept. 12, 2013, on RatingsDirect). The county medians are derived from the 947 counties Standard & Poor’s rated as of Oct. 9, 2015.

We present the medians by rating category. These medians exclude municipalities and special districts such as school districts. We are publishing a separate GO municipality median report concurrently with this article.

We calculate the metrics, for which we provide the medians, based on raw data, or in some cases, data that we have adjusted (for more information, see the related research article below), and they are only one component of the rating analysis. The metrics play a part in the quantitative analysis in five factors: economy, budgetary flexibility, budgetary performance, liquidity, and debt and contingent liabilities. Qualitative adjustments within each factor (which the medians do not reflect) also play an important part in the analysis.

Standard & Poor’s plans to update the medians for both municipalities and counties semi-annually.

Continue reading.

03-Dec-2015




S&P General Obligation Medians for Municipalities: Update as of Oct. 9, 2015.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services derives the general obligation (GO) municipal medians from rating reviews completed under our GO criteria (USPF Criteria: Local Governments General Obligation Ratings: Methodology And Assumptions, Sept. 12, 2013, on RatingsDirect). The municipal medians are derived from the 3,287 municipalities Standard & Poor’ rated as of Oct. 9, 2015.

We present the medians by rating category. These medians do not pertain to counties and special districts such as school districts. We are publishing a separate GO county median report concurrently with this article.

We calculate the metrics, for which we provide the medians, based on raw data, or in some cases, data that we have adjusted (for more information, see the related research article below), and they are only one component of the rating analysis. The metrics play a part in the quantitative analysis in five factors: economy, budgetary flexibility, budgetary performance, liquidity, and debt and contingent liabilities. Qualitative adjustments within each factor (which the medians do not reflect) also play an important part in the analysis.

Standard & Poor’s plans to update the medians for both municipalities and counties semi-annually.

Continue reading.

03-Dec-2015




Why Florida May Be the Next Big Source of PACE Bonds.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans have been available in Florida since 2010, but lending as well as securitization of these loans has lagged far behind California, largely due to a series of lawsuits challenging the program’s validity.

A ruling by the Florida Supreme Court in October could change that, allowing the Sunshine State to live up to its potential for green energy projects. Under the Florida PACE law, local governments can issue revenue bonds to provide financing for residents and businesses that agree to make energy conservation, renewable energy, and wind resistance improvements, and have non-ad valorem assessments placed on their property tax bills to repay the debt.

The lawsuits argued that the financing agreements for the PACE programs included the unlawful use of judicial foreclosure if the assessments would wrongfully allow PACE administrators to use the courts to foreclose on delinquent borrowers.

Florida is no California. It is neither as populous nor as wealthy, nor does it have the same laws promoting energy efficiency. And while it gets plenty of sunshine, solar panels are far less popular than they are in the Golden State. The biggest use of PACE financing in Florida, by far, is to make houses and other buildings hurricane-proof.

Ygrene Energy Fund has closed about $55 million in projects in Florida to date which represents $110 million in energy savings, according to Stacey Lawson, the company’s president and CEO. The company administers programs for Clean Energy Green Corridor District, which includes Miami, South Miami, Pinecrest, Palmetto Bay, and Miami Shores, communities that total about 650,000 people.

Ygrene partners with municipalities and helps them set up PACE programs and they provide financing and administration for the program. It has $150 million warehouse facility which allows it to provide capital to fund the upgrade for the property owner. The tax lien is placed on the property tax bill and the homeowner pays that back over 20 years. Ygrene gets the 20-year cash streams from the property taxes. Once it collects a large enough warehouse of projects it securitizes them.

The company completed its first securitization of Florida PACE bonds in July 2015. The transaction privately placed $150 million of bonds backed by both California and Florida PACE assessments; as well a mixture of residential and commercial PACE (though a significant majority of the assessments were residential). Kroll Bond Rating Agency assigned ‘AA’ ratings to the class A notes, which were privately placed with an unnamed insurance company. It was the first rated securitization to include multi-state PACE.

Lawson expects the program to take off in 2016. “The districts that we have opened are still relatively contained to Miami-Dade and Broward counties, but now that we have the court ruling in favor of PACE we are seeing fast expansion of municipal and county interest,” she said. “Going into 2016 we will see the trend of expansion in terms of service territory really take off”.

The Florida ruling cleared up a clause in documents that allowed for judicial foreclosure, which is a mortgage remedy, as a recovery remedy for PACE administrators. According to Jonathan Schaefer, Program Manager Florida PACE Funding Agency, “the insertion of judicial foreclosure was never in the spirit of the PACE legislation law.”

The ruling essentially declares that judicial foreclosure should not be part of PACE and concluded that the only remedy for the investor is the uniform method of collection, which is standard way that all property taxes are repaid via.

The ruling also dismisses the Florida Banker’s Association claim that argued that the PACE law is unconstitutional because it gives the special assessment on a tax bill a lien that supersedes the payment of a mortgage on the property. “The court basically decided that the challenge was not valid – the Florida Bankers did not have standing, nor evidence that that they had been injured by PACE,” said Lawson. “That was a big win for PACE in Florida and PACE in general because it indicated that there was court support for PACE.”

The Supreme Court ruling probably means the matter is resolved for now, said Schaefer. “At this point in time legislation is clear and cities and counties that were sidelined because of the lawsuits are certainly going to be looking to do PACE,” he said.

Florida’s PACE legislation allows for PACE financing on renewable energy improvements, which is the installation of any system in which the electrical, mechanical, or thermal energy is produced from a method that uses one or more of the following fuels or energy sources: hydrogen, solar energy, geothermal energy, bioenergy, and wind energy.

Unlike California’s PACE law, Florida’s PACE statute also permits improvements to buildings that make them more resistant to damage from wind and severe weather events.

The state has seen a rise in sea level (sea levels in South Florida have risen nine inches over the past century and by the end of the century, scientists predict sea levels could rise another 6 feet from climate change, according to clearpath.org) and severe storms have contributed to increasing floods in Florida counties.

It is therefore not surprising that public programs, like PACE, that help drive better protection and resiliency to homes from these risks is a very central topic of public policy now, according to Lawson.

PACE in Florida can fund projects like water barriers to prevent water intrusion or lifting the foundation of homes to protect homes against sea level rise. PACE can also finance a whole range of projects related to hurricane resiliency – such as storm windows, foundation strengthening and roof strengthening. “In terms of other measures on energy side, Florida homeowners are very consistent with what we see in CA – popular measures are heating & air conditioning, rooftop solar and energy efficient roofing,” said Lawson. “But I would estimate that hurricane resiliency is about 40% the project volume in Florida.”

California on the other hand is largely driven by renewables mostly because of the state’s mandate for clean energy.

Cisco DeVries, president of Renew Financial, the financing company behind CaliforniaFirst, a PACE financing program for residential and commercial properties, says that the potential for Florida is big, though maybe not California big. He is currently in the state setting up shop. On Sept. 29, Renew announced that it acquired ECOCity partners, a leading PACE program administrator based in St. Petersburg in Florida that serves local governments from South Florida to the Panhandle.

CaliforniaFirst provides financing for the purpose of renewable energy, efficiency upgrades, water management or seismic retrofit. Loans are secured by bonds, and the reimbursement is billed through the annual property tax bill. So the loan has the same seniority as the government’s property taxes. The loan can have a term to up to 25 years. DeVries said it’s a similar set up in Florida.

In the past year, Renew has completed financing for over $68 million in energy efficiency projects, expanded market coverage from 30% of California to 70%.

DeVries said that the Florida model is based on CaliforniaFIRST. “We expect the integration to be smooth and to greatly enhance the PACE experience in Florida very shortly, ” he said. He sees potential for varied PACE lenders to fund energy upgrades on roughly 50,000 to 75,000 Florida homes per year for about $1 billion in loans annually. Projects would include some solar-panel installations but also lots of replacements for air conditioning, windows, roofs and other basics in more efficient formats.

PACE lenders could fund another $1 billion per year in energy upgrades on businesses in the Sunshine Statin Florida, especially for small- and mid-sized companies, said DeVries.

This low-risk lending structure has opened up a sizable pool of third party capital providers. The bonds benefit from their senior lien position and its treatment as a property tax that is collected through standard tax mechanism. That means that the bonds are exceptionally secure and of very high credit quality. Repayment rates are near 100% and though there is a delay in cash flows the recovery is near perfect. “The great competitive proposition of PACE is that the loan is not tied to property owner, but to the property,” said Devries. “So credit score issues and property transfer issues are almost eradicated.”

Renew issued its first securitization of PACE bonds on September 3. The company issued $50 million of privately placed notes backed by California PACE bonds.

Ygrene’s first transaction to include Florida PACE, included loans that financed energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation upgrades to both commercial and residential buildings. The loans are repaid via annual property assessments with terms of five to 30 years that are based on the property’s value, not the borrower’s credit score.

“The market will continue to see deals that incorporate geographic diversity as well as asset diversity, said Lawson. Ygrene is currently working on a second securitization of multistate PACE bonds.

A third player, Florida PACE Agency, is administering a program to several counties in Florida’s through its statewide PACE program called E-VEST.

Like, Ygrene and Renew, the Agency secured private capital to fund financing for projects. In 2013 it inked a deal for $500 million in funding through Irvine, Calif.-based Samas Capital LLC.

However, unlike other PACE administrators in the states, Schaefer said that the Florida Finding Agency doesn’t need to tap the securitization market. That is because Samas’ capitalization is equity so there isn’t a real need to takeout the lending via a securitization.

“Other PACE administrators in the state have secured financing through a line of credit so they are in a bigger hurry to free up that capital and need to tap the securitization market as a result,” said Schaefer.

THE BOND BUYER

NORA COLOMER

DEC 22, 2015 2:10pm ET




The Latest Weapon Against Climate Change: Property Tax Bills.

Private finance is pumping millions of dollars into green retrofits in some of the U.S.’s most vulnerable areas.

Miami, if you haven’t heard, is in trouble. Like, fish swimming in the streets kind of trouble. Like, sinking into the ocean kind of trouble.

And while Florida’s leaders are having their own kind of trouble processing the reality of bigger hurricanes and badder floods, businesses and property owners are taking action. In October, for instance, big-box retailer BrandsMart USA completed a $3.1 million upgrade to their Miami Gardens store, toughening it up for future hurricanes and making it more energy efficient.

But the most innovative part of the project may be how it was paid for—through the Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, program. PACE is a framework that provides low-risk financing for efficiency and resiliency upgrades to buildings by putting payments on property tax bills, stretched out over up to 20 years. According to a tally by the nonprofit PACENation, 31 states and the District of Columbia currently have PACE-enabling legislation, most implemented since California pioneered the program in 2008. PACENation has tracked just under $1.4 billion in completed PACE projects during that time.

BrandsMart’s project was financed by Ygrene, one of the larger PACE servicers. Ygrene (pronounced “why green”—and the name is energy spelled backwards) sets up and administers PACE programs for municipalities, with revenue coming from borrower fees. The company has funded or approved more than $750 million in projects since its founding in 2010, making it among the largest players in a growing ecosystem that also includes California’s CleanFund and Connecticut’s Greenworks Lending.

According to Ygrene CEO Stacey Lawson, PACE is part of a broader trend of climate and infrastructure programs teaming public and private efforts. As Ygrene’s numbers make clear, energy efficiency projects are long-term financial winners (to say nothing of the benefits of surviving a hurricane or saving the planet), but paying for them up front is a high bar for property owners.

Now, because of the repayment certainty of having the debt attached to property taxation, PACE loans can be bundled into in-demand securities. Lawson says “they’re triple A assets,” attributing past AA ratings to the newness of the market. In fact, there’s been concern that PACE assets are a little too good, since they get tax-like priority over mortgage repayments. That has in some cases thrown a wrench into home sales and refinancing.

“Governments are thinking about what kind of change to [they] want to effect?” says Lawson. “But business is all about, how do we have that happen, and have that happen sustainably and profitably?” She thinks aggressive marketing of PACE to building owners, in particular, is more a private-sector strength.

Lawson knows quite a bit about getting government and business to work together. In addition to her a tech career, the Californian made a run for Congress in 2012. “You’re getting Wall Street to move green—you couldn’t do that without the government component,” she says. “But also, government couldn’t effect that without private industry players.”

Of course, there are limits to what even the largest building-level projects can do to fight the effects of climate change. It’s widely believed that saving Miami is going to take massive intervention—think Dutch-style seawalls and massive pumps. Projects on that scale will go far beyond the private improvements property owners are making, and mean the government will have to get its hands dirty, too.

Fortune

by David Z. Morris

December 16, 2015, 4:41 PM EST




SIFMA Survey Forecasts Issuance, Interest Rates, Trends for 2016.

Municipal participants who responded to a recent survey conducted by the Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association predict a total of $431.5 billion of new issuance arriving in the market in 2016.

The survey was conducted from Nov. 11 to Dec. 18. The forecasts represent the median values of all submissions of individual member firms that participated, including Citigroup, First Southwest Company, FTN Financial, JPMorgan, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Piper Jaffrey, Raymond James & Associates Inc., RBC Capital Markets, Wells Fargo Advisors, William Blair & Co.

The prediction on volume includes both short and long-term issuance — and is up slightly from the $428.8 billion of issuance that was estimated in 2015, according to the New York and Washington, D.C.-based U.S. securities industries group. Actual issuance for the year to date has totaled $377.29 billion of long term bonds and $32.30 billion of short term notes.

According to the survey, respondents predict $388.5 billion of long term issuance and $43 billion of short term next year.

Long-term tax-exempt issuance will reach $347.5 billion in 2016, according to respondents’ predictions, while issuance of alternative minimum tax securities is forecasted at $10.5 billion in 2016.

Participants expect to see issuance of $30.5 billion of taxable municipal debt.

Refundings are predicted to comprise less of the total issuance, falling to 55%, according to the participants, from the 62.2% they had predicted for 2015.

Variable-rate demand obligation issuance will trend away from the record lows predicted for this year as $8.0 billion of VRDO paper is forecasted to come to market in 2016.

Floating rate note issuance debt to the tune of $12.5 billion is expected to surface in the coming year – after the 2015 volume of about $5.3 billion missed respondents’ expectations on last year’s survey for $12.5 billion in FRN debt in 2015.

In terms of use of proceeds, 62.5% of respondents believe that the largest issuing sector will be general purpose, followed by transportation, education and housing. The general purpose sector has been the largest issuing sector by gross amount in prior years, according to SIFMA.

Meanwhile, the curtailment of the tax-exemption on municipal bond interest once again ranked as a top concern among respondents going into the New Year. Participants said its elimination would have the greatest impact on the municipal market, while fiscal pressures resulting from underfunded pensions and the possibility of a default by one single, large and prominent issuer are also among their chief concerns.

For the purpose of the survey, a default was defined as the occurrence of a missed interest or principal payment or a bankruptcy filing, according to SIFMA.

Overall, respondents said they expect 30 issuers to default on a total par value of $69 billion in 2016 – with a bulk of the par amount in defaults consisting of defaults in Puerto Rico-related debt.

At least one respondent named Basel III capital and liquidity requirements among the factors with the highest importance in 2016, while two others cited “oil bust” and “authority to access Chapter 9” as their primary concerns in the New Year.

Interest rates were another hot topic for the participants, who predicted that the federal funds rate will rise to 0.50% by the end of March 2016, up from 0.38% at the end of December.

They expect it to gradually increase to 1% by the end of 2016, according to the survey.

The ratio of municipals to Treasuries, participants said, is expected to decline before again rising at the end the coming year.

Predictions call for the ratio of the yield on 10-year triple-A general obligation municipal securities to the 10-year Treasury benchmark to fall to 88.5% by the end of December 2015, after peaking to 103.21% at the end of September. However, respondents said that ratio will rise to 90.5% by December 2016.

Respondents expect the two-year Treasury note to increase to 1.65% by the end of 2016 from 1% at the end of December 2015. Additionally, they predict that the 10-year Treasury note yield will increase to 2.75% from 2.33% at the end of December 2015.

THE BOND BUYER

BY CHRISTINE ALBANO

DEC 23, 2015 1:50pm ET




Report Says 2016 Could Be New Era In Bond Refinancing In The Project Finance Sector.

OVERVIEW

LONDON (Standard & Poor’s) Dec. 22, 2015–With the end of the low interest rate cycle now clearly in sight, and the likely consequence of this on swap rates, Standard & Poor’s believes 2016 could herald a new era in project finance bond refinancings.

“Assuming that deal flow matches the high demand for infrastructure investment within the institutional investor market, we believe financing conditions for long-dated debt transactions in the capital markets can only get better,” said Standard & Poor’s credit analyst Michael Wilkins, in the report published today, “Project Finance: Rate Rise May Herald A Wave Of Refinancing In The Bond Market.”

Rising rates could actually provide a boost to refinancings of infrastructure project debt in the capital markets.

In today’s low-yield environment, insurers and asset managers are particularly eager to invest in real assets such as infrastructure. That’s because these projects provide inflation-linked, relatively attractive risk-adjusted returns, with a low correlation to the economic cycle and healthy cash flow and income yield. Also, those low interest rates have meant banks have been able to fund themselves at a historically low cost. This has led to ample liquidity in the market and has helped increase bank lending to project finance and infrastructure (see “Are Rumors For Global Project Finance Bank Lending’s Demise Greatly Exaggerated?” published Jan. 14, 2015, on RatingsDirect).

At the same time, the amount of issuance in the project bond market has ticked higher over the last couple of years, which has also been partly due to low interest rates. Low interest rates have also been a factor in the upsurge in direct lending and private placements to infrastructure projects from institutions. Yet the number of capital market refinancings of bank loans via new project bond issues hasn’t matched this trend, partly due to the disincentives of breaking the swaps associated with bank financings.

However, with the prospect of a low-rate cycle coming to an end, this picture changes. As swap rates go up, the breakage costs for swaps are reduced on a mark-to-market basis, making breakage costs less punitive. Accordingly, refinancings of infrastructure project debt in the capital markets may receive a boost as a consequence.

Standards & Poor’s Ratings Services’ research shows that institutional investor interest and refinancing conditions for loans made and priced at the height of the global financial crisis are now ripe for capital market takeouts. Our simulations show that the mark-to-market swap breakage cost saving could be as high as 40% for some project loans if swap rates rise by 100 basis points (bps) from where they are today.

We have determined, based solely on the developments described herein, that no rating actions are currently warranted. Only a rating committee may determine a rating action and, as these developments were not viewed as material to the ratings, neither they nor this report were reviewed by a rating committee.

The report is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.globalcreditportal.com and at www.spcapitaliq.com. If you are not a RatingsDirect subscriber, you may purchase a copy of the report by calling (1) 212-438-7280 or sending an e-mail to research_request@standardandpoors.com.

Ratings information can also be found on Standard & Poor’s public Web site by using the Ratings search box located in the left column at www.standardandpoors.com. Alternatively, call one of the following Standard &
Poor’s numbers: Client Support Europe (44) 20-7176-7176; London Press Office (44) 20-7176-3605; Paris (33) 1-4420-6708; Frankfurt (49) 69-33-999-225; Stockholm (46) 8-440-5914; or Moscow (7) 495-783-4009.

Primary Credit Analyst: Michael Wilkins, London (44) 20-7176-3528;
mike.wilkins@standardandpoors.com

Research Contributor: Xenia Xie, London;
xenia.xie@standardandpoors.com




Muni Experts Lament Rates, Credit Concerns, Volume as Year Ends.

Municipal experts awaiting this week’s Federal Reserve’s decision on interest rates said a host of other stressors — from a lack of supply and credit concerns to unfunded pension liabilities and yield-curve positioning — were high on their list of concerns.

It’s been a year of headline-making news for troubled municipalities, political and government leaders, municipal legislation, market trends and federal regulation, but municipals took it in stride, according to analysts.

“Municipal investors have undergone a nerve-wracking couple of years, having to contend with the irrational threat of rising rates, the downgrade of very high-profile credits, the potential for market dislocating defaults, a shrinking high-yield sector and sporadic liquidity flare-ups — just to name a few,” Vikram Rai, head of Citi’s municipal strategy group wrote in a Dec. 3 municipal outlook called “A Year on the Edge.”

And 2015 was no different. It had its share of everything from general market and seasonal volatility, to credit distress and fiscal debacles, and high-profile bankruptcies and defaults. Municipal analysts, strategists, portfolio managers, and experts reflecting on 2015 said, at times, there were more downs than ups.

Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, said a lack of net new supply was most problematic for him this year.

He said he was challenged to find municipal bonds that fit into his investment-grade quality bias and longer-term investment parameters. U.S. Bank Wealth Management manages $130 billion of total assets, but declined to disclose the amount of municipal assets under management.

Initially, heavy refunding activity in the first half of 2015 gave Heckman hope for more robust volume throughout the second half of the year.

“That really gave us a firm confidence that the market would do very well this year in the face of rising rates,” he said on Dec. 1. But his thesis “took a hit” mid-year, and “the decline in new issuance is actually getting worse, not better as we finish this year,” Heckman said.

LACK OF SECONDARY TRADING

“We have tried to overcome a lack of supply in investment-grade bonds,” he said. “We have tried very aggressively buying everything we see, but it’s very hard when there is not a lot of secondary trading.” He said recent layoffs in fixed-income trading operations contributed to the lack of trade flow and availability of bonds this year.

In a market and economic report released a day after his interview with The Bond Buyer, Heckman held out hope for a late-year supply burst.

“We expect issuance to surge in the month of December due to an above-average maturity schedule,” he wrote in a report for the week of Nov. 30. “In addition, this may be the last chance for issuers to refinance their debt prior to the Fed beginning to normalize the policy rate. The recent flattening of the yield curve could also add to the issuer incentive to refund in December,” he said in the report.

Heckman said the prospect of rising rates could have a swifter impact on the short end of the yield curve, and that he continues to be pressed to find long-term paper to fit his needs at year end.

“We believe bond portfolios should focus on an average maturity of five to seven years, and should include normal allocations to longer-term bonds, rather than focusing on short-term bonds,” he wrote in his Dec. 2 report.

“We would emphasize credit exposures since spreads are fair relative to high-quality securities, and the premium offered for lower-quality credits tends to compress in rising interest rate regimes,” he said. Heckman said buyers can find some benefits from the relatively steep muni yield curve since it mirrors the Treasury curve.

“This offers investors some ‘extra’ yield to compensate for the risk of longer maturities in a rising rate environment,” Heckman added. He is, however, avoiding certain credits, particularly those struggling with pension liabilities.

Anthony Valeri, senior vice president and investment strategist at LPL Financial, said the potential Fed rate hikes will be a headwind for municipals going into 2016.

“While they have historically held their value slightly better than comparable Treasuries during periods of rising rates, [municipal bonds] cannot completely disconnect from rate hikes,” he wrote in a Dec. 8 fixed-income outlook.

Valeri believes a significant increase in overall municipal debt growth is unlikely in the remainder of 2015. “States and municipalities battle with still-tight budgets that will likely keep bond issuance for new infrastructure projects limited,” he wrote in his report.

Valeri also believes net supply is likely to be limited in 2016, which should provide support to prices. “Like taxable bonds, municipal bonds are likely to witness a low-return environment as well and not escape the challenges facing all bond investors in 2016,” he wrote.

John Mousseau, director of municipal investments at Cumberland Advisors, said the relative attractiveness of municipal bonds was one thing that remained consistent through the year, amid volatility in credit, liquidity and issuance. He said there may be some added opportunities to pick up attractive municipals if a late December supply burst surfaces as issuers attempt to current-refund bonds with 2016 call dates.

“This will be large, but not like the bulge we saw last year,” he said in a recent interview. “In any case, munis of higher- grade variety at 4% are still a giveaway, in our opinion.”

But the opportunity could be short-lived depending on when the Fed decides to act, Mousseau said. He said once the Fed hikes begin, muni-Treasury yield ratios could decline, partly due to higher Treasury yields and declining municipal yields as the municipal supply subsides.

AVOIDING NEGATIVE ARBITRAGE

“If you go to decently lower ratios, that will prompt a flood of advanced refundings with calls out in the 2021 range,” he said. He said many issuers have largely focused solely on advance-refunding bonds out to 2018 and 2019 to avoid the negative arbitrage beyond those years eating into the cost savings.

That behavior could change, however, based on potentially declining ratios.

“With a roll-down the yield curve and lower ratios, refundable bonds with calls from 2021 to 2023 come into play,” Mousseau said. The municipal-to-Treasury ratios will most likely end 2015 near their five-year average, according to Valeri of LPL.

As of Dec. 1, the 30-year ratio was at 104% and the 10-year at 95% — just slightly lower than the start of November, when there was intermediate- and long-term bond outperformance, he said. “We think that the recent strength signals near-term caution, but believe that municipal bonds have attractive long-term valuations,” Valeri noted.

Peter DeGroot, managing director at JPMorgan Securities predicts municipals will outperform Treasuries on a relatively modest lift in long-dated yields. By mid-year 2016, “we believe that the Federal Reserve will have established a gradual approach to normalizing interest rates,” DeGroot wrote in a Nov. 25 municipal market outlook.

He estimates that the two, five, 10-year and 30-year U.S. Treasury yields will be at 1.35%, 2.10%, 2.50% and 3.15%, respectively, about halfway through 2016, and further rising to 1.75%, 2.50%, 2.75% and 3.25%, respectively, by year end.

“Below expected economic growth would serve to limit the Fed tightening cycle and keep the curve closer to its current shape and absolute levels than we have forecast,” DeGroot added.

POLICIES DIVERGE

Dawn Mangerson and Jim Grabovac, co-portfolio managers at McDonnell Investment Management in Oakbrook, Ill., said economic and monetary policy divergence was the key driver of capital market returns and valuations across global markets in 2015.

The consequence was a further strengthening of the dollar that added downward pressure on commodity prices broadly.

“This guided our expectations toward a benign outlook for inflation and limited upside potential for longer-term interest rates in the U.S.,” the managers wrote in a Nov. 30 email.

Going forward, they expect economic and monetary policy to play an “outsized” role in 2016. Economic recovery entering its seventh year and additional labor market gains could afford the Federal Reserve “the opportunity to boost short-term rates off the zero-lower bound for the first time since 2008,” they wrote.

“With global growth moderating, however, and relatively large interest rate differentials in favor of the U.S., we expect a stronger dollar will continue to dampen inflation and U.S. growth at the margin, thereby limiting both the scope and the alacrity with which the Fed pursues its attempt at policy normalization.

Analysts said 2016 should offer a fresh start and new value opportunities for municipal investors, even if volume is down.

JPMorgan forecasts net supply of negative $58 billion in 2016, and approximately negative $58 billion in issuance over 2016 — a 20% decrease from the negative $73 billion expected for full year 2015.

The seasonal factors approaching 2016 appear to be displaying a typical pattern with heavy mid- and end-of-year coupon and redemption periods showing low net supply, according to DeGroot of JPMorgan.

In addition, net supply is expected to support prices during January and February, with net negative $16 billion in supply over the two month period, he said.

“In 2015, expected richening of ratios in the January-February period failed to materialize as 10-year U.S. Treasury yields fell to two-year lows of 1.67%, and supply for the two months was a near record $62.5 billion,” DeGroot wrote.

July and August saw net negative supply of $34 billion, or 24% above forecasted net supply for these months, he added. DeGroot called the relative performance in 2015’s June to August period “solid,” with average 10-year muni-Treasury ratios of 99% versus an average of 102% for the March to May period.

The firm anticipated positive October and November net supply of $4.7 billion, but recently reported that net supply is trending to about negative $6 billion after leaner-than-expected issuance over the two months.

DeGroot is among those keeping an eye on potential defaults in Puerto Rico-based issuers. The commonwealth had a tumultuous year that brought intense fiscal and economic strain and included several credit downgrades, an admission by Gov. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla that the island’s debtors couldn’t meet their responsibilities in the current economy, and a call for federal government assistance and pleas for special legislation allowing Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

“Fortunately, the impact to the broader fund community is far less dramatic given relative concentrated representation of Puerto Rico bonds across mutual funds and that Puerto Rico bond prices have been marked down considerably,” DeGroot said in his report.

“Moreover, credit and cash flow difficulties in Puerto Rico are not systemic across the asset class and are highly idiosyncratic in nature,” DeGrooted added.

Heckman said he will remain bullish through the first quarter of 2016 as he monitors two key market factors — the possibility of continuing interest rate increases and municipalities that have “severely underfunded pension liabilities.” He believes the Fed will be “slow” and “methodical” when it comes to rate hikes in the New Year.

“Once they get into a rising interest-rate environment it’s very difficult to see where they may stop, and that might have some dynamic impact on the yield curve,” he said. “We have seen it flatten to a degree already.”

He said a rising rate environment could benefit the long end of the curve and trigger some changes to his municipal portfolio strategy. “We could see an environment where we go from a longer-dated portfolio to a barbell strategy,” he said.

STAYING CAUTIOUS

He, too, will be cautious about some sectors, including higher education, which faces changes to demographics and declining student population. And he’ll keep an eye on Puerto Rico as it continues its fiscal and economic “saga,” focusing on how Puerto Rico handles a $1 billion coupon payment due Jan. 1. He currently doesn’t own any Puerto Rico paper.

DeGroot said there are risks ahead and investors should be prepared for the unexpected, as was the case this year.

“The forecast for the shape and magnitude of yield changes in 2016 is remarkably similar to our forecast heading into this year,” DeGroot said in his report. However, the expected yield changes in 2015 did not materialize as gross domestic product growth of 2.1% underperformed an estimate of 2.7% and “the Fed chose to be more deliberate than we had anticipated,” he said.

“Not surprisingly, we view lower growth and inflation as the primary risks to our 2016 forecast as well,” DeGroot said. “Our interest rate forecast does not portend a repeat of this year’s spike in advance refunding volume and steep drop in longer dated yields, but a recurrence is clearly a risk to performance as we progress through 2016.”

THE BOND BUYER

BY CHRISTINE ALBANO

DEC 15, 2015 10:18am ET




GASB Statement 68: What's the Impact on Higher Education?

In this CreditMatters TV segment, Standard & Poor’s Director Jessica Wood describes the effect of GASB 68–a reporting requirement related to pension reporting–on higher education entities and certain charter schools.

Watch the video.

Dec. 21, 2015




Reed Smith: Green Bonds – How to Unlock Its Full Potential?

The green bond market is currently one of the fastest-growing fixed-income segments, with issuances tripling between 2013 and 2014. There is a sense of excitement and optimism surrounding the market – initially led and developed by the multilateral development banks (MDBs) and international financial institutions (IFIs), but now actively promoted, sponsored and supported by the private sector.

However, an estimated US$65.9 billion worth of green bond issuance taking place in 2015 is merely scratching the surface for the potential growth in the green bond markets. If the target to limit the increase of average global temperatures to well below 2 degrees Celsius – as envisaged in the Paris climate change agreement – is to be met, it will only be possible with the use of climate finance, raised predominantly from the private sector, supporting the investments necessary to change the way in which we currently source our energy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the current state of play for green bonds, and the impediments to unlocking that growth potential.

Read the full Briefing.

16 December 2015

Reed Smith Client Alerts

Author(s): Peter Zaman, Ranajoy Basu, Claude Brown, Gábor Felsen, Adam Hedley, Nathan Menon




Forever Green.

Green bonds proved to be more than a passing fad in the municipal market this year, as issuers tapped into demand for socially responsible investment.

As of Dec. 17, green bond volume has increased 48% to $4.27 billion from $2.88 billion in 2014 and $693 million in 2013, according to data from Thomson Reuters.

“It’s a developing market, but we think it’s here to stay and it has the potential to grow even further,” said Jamison Feheley, head of banking and public finance at JPMorgan.

Environmental Finance Magazine ranked JPMorgan first globally as lead manager of green bonds through the third quarter. Feheley said that while green bonds are a global product, the U.S. municipal market has seen more growth in green bond issuance than anywhere else.

The green bond market is still relatively new, and subject to a learning curve, Feheley said.

“A lot of this past year was continuing to educate issuers on the green bond market generally, the fundamentals of the green bond principles and the developing market of socially responsible investors,” he said. “As the market continues to develop, we expect many of the large bond funds to increase their allocations to green projects and other social responsible components.”

The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority has been very active in the green bond market over the past few years. Back in July of 2014, DC Water came to market with a $350 million taxable fixed rate green bond with a 100-year final maturity, which was the first U.S. municipal water/wastewater utility to issue a century bond and the first U.S. green bond issuance to include an independent second party opinion.

The green bond mentioned above, financed a portion of the DC Clean Rivers Project, a $2.6 billion effort to construct tunnels that will transport combined sewer overflows to DC Water’s Blue Plains treatment facility. In October of 2015, DC Water issued another $100 million of green bonds, which included a strategy of offering a priority order period for green portfolio and retail investors, which is believed to be the first issue to give green portfolio investors priority order status. The sale generated over $180 million in orders.

“The green bond market has represented a great opportunity for DC Water,” said Mark T. Kim, DC Water’s chief financial officer. “As an issuer, we are committed to the green bond market and have established a very robust program.”

According to Thomson Reuters, DC Water ranks fifth since 2013 in green bond issuance with $450 million, behind the New York City Housing Development Corp. with $494 million; The New York State Environmental Facilities Corp. with $693 million:, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transportation Authority, with $942 million and the state of Massachusetts with $1.02 billion.

Although DC Water is not first in the rankings as far as total issuance, they are constantly pushing the envelope when it comes to best practices and standardization.

“We were the first issuer to have a second party opinion on a green bond and now we are looking to improve on our own best practices,” said Kim. “Right now, we are in the middle of doing a third party “attestation” on our green bond reporting and disclosures. The purpose of the attestation is to provide our investors with additional assurance on the core elements of our green bond program. Specifically, did we spend the money the way that we said we would? Did we meet all of the commitments we made to our investors to report on the environmental outcomes and metrics of the project? The hope is that this will establish a new best practice and investors will demand it going forward.”

Kim said that the hope is that the upfront investment in these best practices today will result in improved pricing for DC Water’s green bonds in the future. Kim also stated that because the municipal green bond market is so new and that issuance volume has only picked up in the last year or two, there are evolving standards and best practices that DC Water is trying to establish to prevent ‘green washing’, which is when issuers claim their bonds are green without offering any proof or evidence to back it up.

“The market is moving towards standardization, but it will be challenging to come up with a single definition of what a green bond is across all industries and sectors,” said Kim. “It would be great if we could reach consensus on a universal definition, but what should happen in my mind is that market discipline would help establish best practices. In other words, if investors simply refuse to buy less-credible green bonds and demand more rigorous and transparent reporting and disclosure practices from green bond issuers, then the expectation is that best practices will begin to emerge.”

Feheley agreed, saying that while the green bond principles are voluntary, market standardization is an important consideration in order to maintain the integrity of the green bond market.

“Not everything is green so a reasonably standardized framework for the offering of green bonds will enhance the overall market,” said Feheley.

While green bond sales have surged, issuers have yet to generate the expected advantage in financing costs due to demand from socially conscious investors. “In the market right now, we don’t see a significant pricing differential between green bonds and traditional bonds, but we expect this may change going forward as allocations to green projects increase,” Feheley said.

Kim agrees that the issue of cost of funds of green bonds versus “traditional” bonds has generated a lot of controversy as there has not been enough empirical evidence to establish whether green bonds offer a pricing benefit.

“I can say without a doubt that green bonds have diversified DC Water’s investor base, but I can’t say that green bonds have offered a definitive pricing benefit at this time” said Kim. “It is still a young market, still in its early days, but I don’t think anyone would claim that there is a pricing penalty associated with issuing green bonds, the real question is how much of an upside benefit is there from a pricing standpoint?”

David Goodman, partner, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, who has worked on green bond deals as a bond counsel, said the green bond market can reach its full potential, as green bonds come naturally to sectors like transportation, water and sewer, education and housing – all of which are in need of more new money deals.

“With all of the unmet demand for project demand for infrastructure and the opportunities within each of those areas to accomplish projects that are green friendly and sustainable, I don’t see why the trend would not continue to increase as there are financial and reputational benefits from green bonds,” Goodman said.

Though growth in green municipal bonds may slow from this year’s pace, issuers say green bonds are here to stay, and that efforts to educate the investors and increase transparency about the environmental benefits of projects will pay off.

“There is no question in my mind that there is a pool of capital in the market that is looking for sustainable green investments and when issuers can credibly come to market with green bonds, they can achieve investor diversification and successful bond sales,” said Kim.

THE BOND BUYER

BY AARON WEITZMAN

DEC 22, 2015 12:13pm ET




S&P: Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act's Passage Does Not Affect Grant Anticipation Vehicle Revenue Debt Ratings.

NEW YORK (Standard & Poor’s) Dec. 8, 2015–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services today said that its ratings on 25 issuers in the grant anticipation revenue vehicle (GARVEE) sector are unaffected by the enactment of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 4, hours before previous funding was set to expire. However, we believe FAST generally supports the sector’s credit quality, due to a longer period of funding certainty and the increased funding levels that the Act provides. Funded mainly by gasoline and diesel fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and $70 billion from various sources within the general fund, the five-year, $305 billion dollar transportation reauthorization act marks the first long-term solution for highway and transit funding since 2005.

FAST replaces the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, which was enacted in 2012 but provided funding for just slightly more than two years, and was extended several times for a few months, or even weeks at a time, as Congress debated various bill components. The Act covers funding through fiscal 2020 (year ended Sept. 30), which we view as preferable compared with what had become commonplace: eleventh-hour short-term extensions. Furthermore, FAST provides a 5.1% increase in highway fund distributions to states for fiscal 2016, and growth rates of 2.1% to 2.4% thereafter. Previous funding growth rates were lower, and until the FAST Act, Standard & Poor’s had cited federal budget deficits as a concern affecting highway funding levels. Overall, the FAST Act authorizes $230 billion for highways, $60 billion for public transportation, $10 billion for passenger rail, and $5 billion for highway safety programs. This is an approximately 11% increase from current funding levels over five years.

Standard & Poor’s ratings in the GARVEE sector range from ‘A’ to ‘AA’ for transactions where only federal funding is pledged, and as high as ‘AAA’ where state agencies blend the federal funding with an additional pledge of state funding. We base the relatively strong ratings in the sector on the issuers’ pledge of HTF grants from the federal government.

Overall, we believe, the FAST Act’s signing confirms Standard & Poor’s views of ongoing and widespread Congressional support for preserving and expanding the national highway system. States and local transportation agencies that receive distributions from the HTF can confidently move forward with complex multiyear transportation projects because the questions surrounding federal funding no longer loom. We will continue to monitor the sector to evaluate how each individual state issuer might adjust its debt or capital spending plans, given the new law.

Separate from the impact on GARVEE debt, other provisions of the FAST Act includes 70% in cuts to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, from $1 billion per year in 2015 and $750 million in 2014 to $275 million-$300 million per year during fiscal years 2016-2020, although the scope of eligible TIFIA projects has been expanded. Furthermore, FAST provides $6.2 billion for a new national freight program, and increases funding for public transportation to $12.6 billion in 2020 from
$10.7 billion in 2015.




Cashing In on the Public Right of Way.

From parking meters to freeway lighting, governments are finding new ways to turn infrastructure liabilities into assets and improve services.

State and local governments can unlock substantial public value by discovering new ways to conceptualize their assets or operations. There is no better example than how more and more cities are now viewing their rights of ways as underdeveloped resources rather than as liabilities merely requiring costly maintenance.

This revolution in thinking began a few years ago in street parking, when cities such as Indianapolis and San Francisco sparked an entirely new way to manage it. Cities today are partnering with technology providers to replace coin-operated meters with systems that accommodate more cars, dynamic pricing, mobile payment platforms and solar-powered pay stations. Somewhat similarly, New York City is converting its obsolete streetside payphones into revenue-producing interactive kiosks, which will use advertising revenue to bring city residents gigabit-speed wireless Internet free of charge.

Now the state of Michigan has implemented a unique public-private partnership to save money on a smart lighting solution for state freeways in the Detroit metro area. The state government is responsible for maintaining the some 15,000 freeway lights that illuminate those roads. In the past, the vast majority of those lamps have been low-efficiency, high-maintenance sodium or metal-halide fixtures. Due to obstacles including fiscal constraints, chronic vandalism and copper theft, the lighting system was operating at only about 70 percent of its potential service level at this time last year. Poor lighting on freeways is associated with increased traffic accidents and diminished regional economic activity, so suboptimal performance of the lighting system was no small problem.

Brighter freeways are safer freeways, but Michigan found a way to make them cheaper freeways, too. With Gov. Rick Snyder pushing his procurement team to look closely at alternative delivery methods for infrastructure projects, the state chose to change its existing way of doing business. Rather than simply continuing to pay for maintenance activities, the Department of Transportation now purchases freeway lighting as a service from a private consortium of equity owners, designers, contractors and operations managers.

This new model — state officials say it is the first of its kind in the United States — no longer encourages contractors to replace bulbs unnecessarily but instead rewards energy efficiency and vigilant upkeep. The consortium is responsible for bringing the performance level of the lighting system up to 100 percent over the next two years by replacing inefficient bulbs with high-efficiency LED fixtures, and it also is required to monitor, maintain and repair the system. State officials estimate that the project will save $18 million in energy costs over the course of the 15-year contract — money that, in turn, is helping to fund the project.

In essence, Michigan has pioneered a way to mitigate the liability the lighting system poses by shifting risk to the private sector, which is more agile than slow moving government procurement models in adapting to rapidly changing technology. But even this breakthrough is only the beginning. Other jurisdictions are looking to rethink their lighting liabilities as powerful data gathering assets.

Earlier this year, for example, San Diego partnered with GE to outfit the city’s lights with sensor-equipped LEDs that can collect ambient data. The pilot is testing the ways that the system could, in the future, enhance a host of municipal government functions, such as reducing traffic congestion, detecting open parking spaces and providing emergency responders with real-time views of an area before they arrive on the scene. Almis Udrys, San Diego’s director of performance and analytics, said the purpose of the pilot is to explore the best hardware and software options for building a “strong analytic platform,” one that also could provide information to the public in an open-data format.

We will continue to follow breakthroughs like these as governments find ways to convert liabilities into assets. What is already clear is that the staples of municipal infrastructure are beginning to emerge as connected platforms for producing broad safety and operational advantages for residents.

GOVERNING.COM

BY STEPHEN GOLDSMITH | DECEMBER 16, 2015

Craig Campbell, a research assistant at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School, contributed research and writing for this column.




What the Fed Rate Hike Means for the Municipal Market.

Short-term interest rates will be rising for the first time in nearly a decade, the Federal Reserve Board announced Wednesday. The move means mixed results for the states and localities that borrow money in the municipal market.

Citing “considerable improvement in labor market conditions this year,” the board announced a scheduled rate hike of one-quarter percent starting in 2016. It would be the first of several small rate hikes, meaning interest rates could rise by more than 1 percent a year from now. In a statement, the Federal Open Market Committee said it is “reasonably confident that inflation will rise over the medium term to its 2 percent objective.”

The move is a signal that the board believes the economy is strong enough to keep growing without as much help from the nation’s central bank. The Fed slashed rates to zero — and has kept them there — following the 2008 financial crisis, in an effort to reboot the nation’s economy. Now, as the fiscal outlook has continued to improve, this week’s announcement was widely expected.

For those who issue municipal bonds, the rate hike has no immediate implications on any outstanding government debt. But it will likely place a slightly higher price tag on the cost of issuing debt in the coming year.

Still, many do not expect it to have a dampening effect on the municipal bond market as a whole.

For one, any government refinancing its debt will still be doing so at a significantly lower interest rate to generate savings.

Another big reason the rate hike will have a muted effect on the muni market is that the Fed’s decision only impacts short-term interest rates, not long-term ones. In fact, sometimes a hike in short-term rates can actually cause a downward tick in long-term rates — saving money for governments that can afford to issue long-term debt.

For example, between 2004 and 2006, the Fed raised the short-term rate from 1 percent to 5.25 percent. During that time period, the rates on a 10-year Treasury bond only went up a half percentage point. And yields on the 30-year bonds actually went down slightly. The reason is because when short-term interest rates are increased, it actually dampens the impact of inflation, which is what plays the larger role in setting long-term interest rates.

“The expectation is the yield curve will flatten and influence the longer term much less,” said Tim Barron, chief investment officer at Segal Rogerscasey. “So if you’re refinancing a 20-year bond, it is likely to have very modest effects.”

But the mere act of raising the rate, even though it was expected, does create a little volatility. That’s because municipal investors will be closely watching to see how soon — and by how much — the Fed raises rates again. Another small step-up next year would signal that the economy is on track with expectations. A bigger hike would indicate a faster-growing economy. If there’s not another rate hike, then it could be a sign of an economy that’s slowing down again.

So, while the impact on government issuers remains to be seen, some entities will see more immediate benefits. Pension funds welcome a higher rate because it likely means more interest income will be generated from their bond investments, said Gail Sussman, managing director at Moody’s Investors Service. The shift comes just months after pension funds reported they had meager earnings in fiscal 2015, due in part to poor returns from global public equities.

Housing finance agencies also benefit from the rate hike. They “will see higher profit margins, greater financing flexibility, and an opportunity to grow loan portfolios in a higher-rate environment,” Sussman said.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | DECEMBER 17, 2015




Public Pensions’ Latest Challenge: Longer Lives.

Increases in retirees’ longevity are likely to make an already dismal fiscal picture look worse.

There is no shortage of self-inflicted wounds plaguing state and local government pension systems. Among the most common are failing to address funding problems even after they become clear, using pension enhancements rather than salary increases to attract and retain employees, and employing unrealistic assumptions about pension-fund investment returns to make their finances appear artificially rosy.

But San Francisco’s current pension troubles are less of the city’s own making. Sure, the fund assumes a 7.5 percent return on its investments and is currently reaping just 4 percent, but there’s a bigger problem: The city’s retirees, like Americans in general, are just living too long.

Last year the nonprofit Society of Actuaries released its first updated projections on Americans’ longevity since 2000. The organization found that the average 65-year old male would live 86.6 years, about two years longer than previously forecast, and that the average 65-year-old female would live 88.8 years, an increase of nearly two and a half years. For public and private pension funds, those additional years of drawing retirement benefits translate into a 4-8 percent jump in funding obligations.

San Francisco’s voter-approved 2011 reforms changed the pension formula for new hires and capped some payments. As a result, pension obligations were expected to peak last year, but they’re still growing, and a large part of that growth is related to retiree longevity. Pension funding is the biggest cause of a $99 million hole in the city’s 2016-17 budget.

The numbers are particularly disheartening because in a booming economy city leaders assumed that controlling pension costs would free up money for transportation infrastructure and other upgrades. Instead, they’re left to figure out how to close a budget gap — and to worry about what to do when the local economy slows down.

What’s happening in San Francisco will likely be seen across the pension landscape as the new longevity numbers are factored in. More and more, the pension crises state and local governments face resemble the Hans Brinker story about the little Dutch boy trying to plug holes by sticking his finger in the dike. Whether self-inflicted or otherwise, there appears to be no end to the new problems.

It’s no wonder that the vast majority of private-sector employers have moved away from traditional but more expensive defined-benefit pensions. And while public-to-private-sector comparisons are often problematic, it seems unrealistic to think governments can resist that trend, as most continue to do, and still deliver the range of public services their constituents expect. I have long advocated for public pension systems to transition to a defined-contribution model, but with a “cash balance” option for the risk-averse that guarantees a set interest rate on both employer and employee contributions.

Governments can continue to offer more-generous retirement benefits than their private-sector counterparts, but taxpayers can no longer afford to shoulder the entire risk for the seemingly endless variables that increase pension liabilities. While few would wish anything but the longest lifespans for retired public servants, it’s becoming clear that increasing longevity is one of the variables that are likely to continue to bedevil the world of pension funding.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHARLES CHIEPPO | DECEMBER 18, 2015




Public Pension Network Opposes Additional Pension Reporting in Puerto Rico Specific Legislation.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
United States Conference of Mayors (USCM)
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
National Association of Counties (NACo)
National Education Association (NEA)
National League of Cities (NLC)
International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO)
National Association of State Auditors Comptrollers and Treasurers (NASACT)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR)
National Conference of State Social Security Administrators (NCSSSA)
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS)
National Council on Teacher Retirement (NCTR)
National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA)

December 11, 2015

VIA FACSIMILE: (202) 224-2499

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majoriy Leader McConnell:

On behalf of the national organizations listed above, representing state and local governments,
elected officials, employees and retirement systems, we are writing to express our strong
opposition to public pension requirements contained in the Puerto Rico Assistance Act of 2015
(S. 2381). These provisions are not limited to the territory of Puerto Rico, but impose a federal
mandate on all state and local governments in areas that are the fiscal responsibility of sovereign
States and localities, and are conflicting, administratively burdensome and costly.

The provisions are not germane to the underlying legislation, nor do they protect benefits, save
costs or improve retirement system funding. They also have neither been introduced this
Congress as stand-alone bills nor received consideration under regular order, including in the
many hearings pertaining to Puerto Rico.

State and local government retirement systems are established and regulated by state laws and, in
many cases, further subject to local governing policies and ordinances. State and local
governments have and are taking steps to strengthen their pension reserves and operate under a
long-term time horizon. Since 2009, every state has made changes to pension benefit levels,
contribution rate structures, or both. Many local governments have made similar modifications to
their plans. A compendium of information that corrects many misperceptions regarding the
financial condition of these governments and their retirement plans can be found here: State and
Local Fiscal Facts: 2015.

Federal interference into the fiscal affairs of state and local governments is neither requested nor
warranted. Therefore, we strongly urge the exclusion of provisions impacting state and local
government retirement systems from legislation relating to Puerto Rico assistance or any other
legislation under consideration.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact any of
our organizations’ legislative staff listed below. We would be more than happy to meet with your
office to discuss this important matter further.

Sincerely,

Jeff Hurley, NCSL, (202) 624-7753
Barry Kasinitz, lAFF, (202) 737-8484
Larry Jones, USCM, (202) 293-2352
Timothy Richardson, FOP, (202) 547-8189
Michael Belarmino, NACo, (202) 942-4254
Alfred Campos, NEA, (202) 822-7345
Carolyn Coleman, NLC, (202) 626-3000
Elizabeth K. Kellar, ICMA, (202) 962-3611
Bill Johnson, NAPO, (703) 549-0775
Cornelia Chebinou, NASACT, (202) 624-5487
Ed Jayne, AFSCME, (202) 429-1188
Emily Swenson Brock, GFOA, (202) 393-8467
Neil Reichenberg, IPMA-HR, (703) 549-7100
Maryann Motza, NCSSSA, (303) 318-806
Hank Kim, NCPERS, (202) 624-1456
Leigh Snell, NCTR, (540) 333-1015
Jeannine Markoe Raymond, NASRA, (202) 624-1417




Fixed Income Outlook 2016: Have Rising Interest Rates Been Priced Into Bonds?

With the Fed finally raising rates — and more hikes likely to come — we look at the opportunities and dangers in fixed income in the New Year

The markets yawned when the Federal Open Market Committee raised its target by 25 basis points for the federal funds rate on Dec. 16, since the widely anticipated move had already been priced into the market. When the Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund halted redemptions from its high-yield fund in early December, there was much consternation but no contagion into other junk bond vehicles.

In a November interview, Kathy Jones, chief fixed income strategist for the Schwab Center for Financial Research, pointed out that the markets had already priced in the Fed rate hike. “Look at two-year notes,” she said, “they’re yielding almost 90 bps; a year ago they were yielding 22, 23, so clearly the market has discounted a couple of rate hikes at the short end.”

However, the pace of further Fed increases in 2016 and the prospects for more volatility, especially in the currency markets, along with more quantitative easing by the European Central Bank and its counterparts in Japan and China, may well affect yields next year.

As for the Fed itself, in a Dec. 22 note to investors, George Rusnak, co-head of global fixed income strategy for Wells Fargo Advisors, pointed out that in its Dec. 16 statement, the Fed “included the word ‘gradual’ twice when referring to the path and probability of future rate hikes. The addition of this word indicates that the Fed will be quite cautious before making future rate increases.”

Just as the Fed communicated regularly before taking action on Dec. 16, Rusnak believes the Fed “will work to clearly guide the markets prior to rate hikes in order to avoid market disruptions.”

As Treasuries are expected to fade, here’s where the biggest money managers are finding value.
Below, we look at the outlook for some specific fixed income sectors. As for the bigger picture for bonds, Timothy Paulson, fixed income investment strategist for Lord Abbett, said in a note to investors on Dec. 21 that the consensus in 2016 is for rising interest rates and a flattening yield curve, in which rates on shorter-maturity issues rise faster than those of longer maturity.

Despite that consensus, Paulson reminded investors that “markets move when expectations change, and those expectations could be volatile as we get more information on economic data” throughout the year. Paulson also reports that Lord Abbett has already seen “some increase in risk premium in asset classes like high yield, emerging-market bonds, and leveraged loans, where yield spreads widened meaningfully in 2015.”

Wells Fargo’s Rusnak said he expects the Fed to raise rates “only two to three times in 2016” and thinks it “very unlikely that the Fed will consider going back down to a zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) anytime soon.”

Jones said Schwab’s view on how fixed income investors should react to higher rates “is that if we’re going to see a flatter yield curve and higher volatility, then we’re cautious on credit — we’re neutral on high yield, we’re underweight EM bonds and international developed market bonds because we think the dollar will continue to go up.”

So what does Jones like? “We’re looking at the upper tranches of the credit quality spectrum,” she said.

Moreover, she suggested that investors might want to use a barbell strategy, where you have some short-term paper — CDs, cash — that will adjust as short-term rates move up and add to the bond portfolio “some high-quality intermediate term bonds to generate the income” that clients need.

Municipals

Dan Solender, director of municipal bonds at Lord Abbett, is bearish on munis for 2016, arguing that “supply should remain on the higher side” but will be matched by “consistently strong” demand. Writing in a Dec. 21 note, Solender said he believes that “other than the few high-profile troubled issuers in the headlines, credit quality should remain on a positive trend, based upon tax revenue strength and the volume of upgrades compared to downgrades from the credit rating agencies.” Munis from those “high-profile” issuers — Illinois and Puerto Rico — will “remain under pressure,” he predicts, but “their issues should remain isolated and not affect the entire market.

Among the trends he thinks will continue in 2016 is that individual investors will decrease holding individual bonds in favor of managed products, while banks will decrease their municipal bond holdings due to regulatory pressure and to reduce their risk. Solender thinks Fed rate hikes could increase investor demand for munis and concludes that the muni market “has had a good 2015; we think it is well positioned for 2016.”

Emerging Markets

Schwab’s Jones says she is underweight EM bonds moving into 2016, and PIMCO analysts Richard Clarida and Andrew Balls agree, saying that “emerging markets remain a potential source of volatility.” Writing in the firm’s December Cyclical Outlook, Clarida and Balls say their “baseline view is there will be less macro spillover from China to the rest of the world, via commodity and trade channels, in the next 12 months compared with the past 12 months.” They argue that China’s slower growth trajectory “is now priced into macro forecasts and markets.” They warn, however, that the Chinese government’s policy, “especially foreign exchange policy, is a key source of risk.”

Overall, the PIMCO analysts see fixed income opportunities not in EM debt, but “across investment-grade, high-yield, U.S. bank senior debt and bank capital in Europe.”

High-Yield Bonds

Steven Rocco, high-yield portfolio manager at Lord Abbett, acknowledges that the high-yield space showed turbulence in 2015, “owing in large part to weakness in the energy and mining and metals sectors.” For 2016, unless the U.S. economy heads into recession, which he calls “not a likely outcome,” he is bullish on high yield. Should U.S. consumer spending continue to advance at a 3% clip in 2016, that would benefit “key high-yield sectors such as retail and restaurants.”

As Treasuries are expected to fade, here’s where the biggest money managers are finding value.
Lord Abbett sees the default rate on high-yield issues “rising to about 4.5% during 2016, versus a level of around 2% in 2015, with most of the increase coming from energy and metals issuers.” But even that development could yield “some buying opportunities within the high-yield market if the default number comes in below the expected level.” Rocco argues that “the real wild card in the market … will be demand for crude oil; any bounce in demand could help spark a rally in energy bonds in the late second half of 2016.”

Writing on Dec. 15, Anthony Valeri of LPL Financial says that “the origin of high-yield weakness has come from the lowest-rated tiers of the high-yield market but has infected the broader market.” While volatility will persist, he nevertheless believes the high-yield bond market “offers good value at current prices for suitable long-term investors but the near-term still looks challenging. Current default expectations in both the overall high-yield market and in the energy sector, 9% and 16%, respectively, are overly pessimistic, but they take a backseat to trading flow dynamics, which can overpower fundamental drivers in the short run.”

Russ Koesterich, BlackRock’s global chief investment strategist, sounds a cautious note. “While we believe high yield (outside of issues from energy and other natural resources firms) can stabilize in 2016, the reality is that we’re getting late in the credit cycle.” To Koesterich, that suggests that “U.S. stocks and bonds may continue to struggle, unless we see a more meaningful acceleration in the global economy.

ThinkAdvisor

By James J. Green

Group Editorial Director
Investment Advisor Group
ThinkJamieGreen

December 23, 2015




U.S. Municipal Bonds on Solid Footing Heading Into 2016.

CHICAGO/NEW YORK Dec 23 – Manageable supply, healthy demand and stable credit outlooks should aid U.S. municipal bond performance in 2016 despite the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates, analysts and investors said.

While municipal bonds are ending 2015 on top of the fixed-income heap, some market analysts expect positive but smaller returns next year.

Tax-exempt bonds beat U.S. Treasuries and corporate and mortgage debt on Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s master indices, with year-to-date total returns of 3.27 percent as of Dec. 17. Barclays’ muni index returns as of Monday of 3.23 percent also outperformed every other U.S. and Canadian fixed-income index.

BofA believes munis can generate about 3.1 percent in returns next year, according to Philip Fischer, a municipal research strategist.

“We think the muni market is in good condition,” he said.

Morgan Stanley’s forecast calls for more-modest returns of 1.25 percent. However, Barclays’ muni analysts project total tax-exempt returns to turn slightly negative at -1.0 percent to -0.5 percent in the coming year.

“Higher Treasury rates, rich valuations and headline risks are set to make 2016 a lackluster year for the municipal market,” Barclays said in a Dec. 4 research note.

Last week’s Fed rate hike and the promise of fatter yields could entice investors who have been sitting on the sidelines with cash to come back into the muni market.

“I think the odds are pretty good that the damage to munis specifically from (federal monetary policy) will be very modest,” said Chris Mier, a managing director at Loop Capital Markets.

Yields on Municipal Market Data’s benchmark triple-A scale are ending 2015 close to where they began the year, with 10-year bonds at 1.93 percent and 30-year bonds at 2.82 as of Tuesday.

But tax-exempt munis, which spent much of the year yielding more than comparable taxable U.S. Treasuries, were yielding less heading into 2016. The 10-year muni/Treasury ratio stood at 86.3 percent and the 30-year at 95.2 percent on Tuesday. Past periods of tightened monetary policy have lowered the ratio, signaling munis were outperforming taxable debt, according to analysts at Janney.

As of Friday, states, cities, schools and other issuers sold $376.6 billion of munis, 20 percent more than in the same period in 2014, with refunding volume outpacing new money issuance, according to Thomson Reuters data.

Projections for 2016 issuance range from $325 billion to $450 billion as still-low interest rates, even after the Fed’s rate hike and an anticipated yield curve flattening, should continue to accommodate refundings, while pent-up infrastructure needs could spur an uptick in new money deals.

Nicholos Venditti, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said supply may initially climb as the Fed rate hike could set off a scramble by muni issuers seeing their “last chance to issue at these incredibly low rates.”

Still, Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, foresees a “big issuance problem.”

“Refundings are increasingly going to dwindle,” he said. “It’s very hard to get ballot initiatives passed that might translate to new issuance.”

Demand remains strong with 11 straight weeks of hefty net inflows to muni funds as of the week ended Dec. 16, according to Lipper.

REUTERS

BY KAREN PIEROG AND HILARY RUSS

(Reporting by Karen Pierog and Hilary Russ; Editing by Dan Grebler)




Not Your Grandfather's Municipal Market: Investors Eye Recovery Value.

Tainted from the Detroit bankruptcy and mired in the Puerto Rico debt crisis, investors are re-evaluating the former safe haven of the bond world, municipals, and emphasizing recovery values in their credit work.

Bonds that had what is known as an unlimited tax general obligation pledge once held the apex of security for muni investors as debt offering documents promised that a municipality would tax its citizens as much as needed in order to make good on its debt payments. Plummeting tax collection rates and a population exodus made this difficult for the Motor City, leading to its historic bankruptcy.

The Detroit case left holders of the unlimited tax GOs with a recovery of 74 cents on the dollar while retirees kept almost all of their benefits, inciting an about face in investor calculus. Now, lawmakers are pushing legislation to assure bondholders of the formerly sacred debt’s “secured status” in bankruptcy.

California passed Senate Bill 222 into law this year, while Illinois’ bankruptcy bill HB 4214 floats in the legislature. Michigan and Nebraska have legislation on the table promising investors a statutory lien on revenue sources. Meanwhile, investors embroiled in Puerto Rico’s debt crisis are battling bankruptcy eligibility in and of itself.

Lawyers agree that the statutory lien could improve recovery values in a Chapter 9 bankruptcy, making bondholder claims secured. The feature helped bondholders in the Central Falls, Rhode Island case, although it was not litigated.

These legal developments may affect the bargaining power afforded to capital markets creditors in future bankruptcies, as they make lien protection unambiguous for bondholders, said Robert Christmas of Nixon Peabody.

And the market seems to agree. Detroit tested its market access in August for the first time since emerging from bankruptcy, coming to market with $245 million in debt, backed by a lien on income tax revenues. The formerly-insolvent city managed to woo investors with 4.5% yields, high for the A credit rating, but arguably low for a city that gave bondholders a haircut.

The successful issuance highlights an evolving approach to municipal investing. Investors are pricing in the statutory lien status, which is only relevant in a bankruptcy, noted William Bonawitz, director of research at PNC Capital Advisors.

Lower yields mean lower costs for borrowers, which leads some to argue that the legislation would be beneficial to cities and school districts nationwide. Others claim it creates an uneven playing field for creditors.

As muni players catch up to their corporate counterparts in the area of recovery analysis, they may hit a brick wall. There is little precedent to determine whether the new legalese will provide investors the security they hope for. Moreover, municipalities can’t simply cease to exist.

If a judge is faced with deciding between funding the public safety and health requirements of a municipality or paying bondholders, the judge might favor tax-paying citizens, investors tell Debtwire.

Recovery analysis is distinctly different in public finance. Buyers of distressed corporate debt can walk away with equity in a company, while a municipality’s biggest assets are its taxpaying citizens. There is no way to boost value so that investors walk away with a bigger piece of the pie.

Municipalities granting secured status to more and more bonded debt could reach a point where the revenue stream backing the bonds becomes diluted, and the value of the lien itself deteriorates, Bonawitz concluded.

Forbes

By Gunjan Banerji

Gunjan Banerji is a reporter for Debtwire Municipals covering distressed credits, particularly in Illinois and Michigan. She also covers education. She can be reached at Gunjan.Banerji@debtwire.com.

DEC 22, 2015 @ 10:34 AM




The Muni Trades That Pushed Pimco to the Top in Year of Distress.

Pacific Investment Management Co.’s high-yield municipal-bond mutual fund is jockeying for the top returns of 2015 after picking winners among pockets of distress. Here are the calls that put it there:

Puerto Rico, the junk-rated Caribbean commonwealth saddled with $70 billion of debt and a stagnant economy? Stay away.

Chicago, which lost its investment grade from Moody’s Investors Service in May because its pensions are underfunded by $20 billion? Jump in.

Tobacco bonds, 80 percent of which Moody’s predicts will eventually default as cigarette consumption declines faster than anticipated? A buying opportunity.

“Those were our big credit decisions,” said David Hammer, who co-manages the $583 million fund with Joe Deane in New York.

The fund returned 5.9 percent through Friday, continuing a neck-and-neck race with Invesco Ltd.’s high-yield muni portfolio for the first-place title among open-end funds with at least $100 million in assets, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Together, the decisions are a microcosm of the year that was in the $3.7 trillion municipal market. Bond buyers sought extra yield as interest rates remained near generational lows, yet many were hesitant to invest in Puerto Rico and Chicago until their financial paths became clearer.

Zero Puerto Rico

In Puerto Rico, the way forward only got murkier in 2015. So Pimco kept its allocation to commonwealth bonds at zero as Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla said the island needs to restructure its debts to emerge from a severe fiscal crisis. This month, he said the U.S. territory could default on Jan. 1, when almost $1 billion of interest is due.

It took the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority more than a year to reach a tentative agreement last week with bondholders and insurers to lower its $8 billion debt, showing how difficult such talks are without the threat of filing for bankruptcy. Getting Chapter 9 extended to the commonwealth hasn’t gained traction in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 will rule on the island’s Recovery Act, a measure allowing for the Puerto Rico’s publicly owned corporations to restructure debt that was struck down in court.

“A key part of our decision to not invest in Puerto Rico up until now is the lack of a clear set of rules to provide Puerto Rico debt relief, which we think is inevitable,” Hammer said. “We want to know what the rules are before we’re willing to commit investor capital.”

The call paid off: Junk-rated Puerto Rico bonds have plunged 13 percent this year, the third worst of all market segments tracked by Barclays Plc.

“I’d expect us to remain very cautious on Puerto Rico until we have a set of investable rules,” Hammer said. “There will be a lot of noise without a lot of clarity, and that’s not good for bond prices.”

Chicago as Junk

Some investors extended their caution to Chicago, the only big city besides Detroit that Moody’s deems junk. Some of its securities fell by more than 10 cents on the dollar in less than a week after the May downgrade, on speculation that Chicago would face a liquidity crisis because the rating cut exposed it to as much as $2.2 billion of payments to banks if it couldn’t refinance its debt.

Pimco saw it as a buying opportunity. The high-yield fund took a $9 million position in general obligations due in 2033 that the city issued in July, making it the fund’s sixth-largest single holding by Sept. 30, Bloomberg data show. The debt priced at 98.5 cents on the dollar to yield 5.64 percent. It last traded in October at 103.6 cents to yield 5 percent.

Chicago avoided a cash squeeze by refinancing. The securities went on to rally after Mayor Rahm Emanuel in October pushed through the biggest property-tax increase in the city’s history — $543 million over the next four years — to help pay the pension-fund bills at the root of the its distress. Emanuel, a Democrat who won re-election in 2015, had resisted raising the levy for years even though it was lower than surrounding localities.

“Our view was that we would get a property-tax increase out of Chicago, that it would go a long way in beginning to address their fiscal imbalances when it comes to underfunded pension liabilities, and that the market would reward Chicago for demonstrating that they have not just the ability but the willingness to raise revenues,” Hammer said.

While the city has challenges ahead, the property-tax increase “does fundamentally improve their credit outlook,” Hammer said.

Tobacco Overload

On the topic of credit outlooks, no major segment of the municipal market seemed to have a worse prognosis heading into 2015 than tobacco bonds.

The agencies that sold the debt, which is repaid from legal-settlement money that states and localities receive from cigarette companies, didn’t anticipate that smoking would decline as much as it has since they started issuing the securities more than a decade ago. Because of that oversight, four out of five will eventually default, Moody’s said in a September 2014 report.

While that could still be the case, failures to pay may be pushed back. Cigarette consumption held steady this year for the first time since 2006. That sparked a rally in the riskiest tobacco bonds: they’ve gained 14 percent in 2015, the second-best of any market segment.

That’s been a boon for Pimco because the three largest holdings in its high-yield fund are tobacco bonds from New Jersey and Ohio.

“The tobacco sector has had pretty significant outperformance versus the broader high-yield muni market,” Hammer said. “Tobacco is still pretty attractive versus other traditional, less-liquid, lower-rated muni names.”

Bloomberg

by Brian Chappatta

December 21, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on December 22, 2015 — 5:10 AM PST




Judge Rejects San Bernardino’s Bankruptcy Proposal.

Judge says plan doesn’t contain enough information for bondholders

A federal judge said San Bernardino’s leaders need to explain their plan to have the southern California city exit bankruptcy protection by repaying a fraction of its debts instead of raising taxes.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Meredith Jury Wednesday rejected—for a second time—the city’s proposal to cut debts, saying it didn’t contain enough information for bondholders, retirees who face health-care cuts and others to vote on the proposal. She agreed to consider another draft of the plan at a March 9 hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside, Calif.

Several groups protested the bankruptcy-exit plan’s wording, arguing that city leaders should explain why they can’t pay a class of debt valued between $130 million and $150 million more than 1 cent on the dollar. That includes $52 million owed to bondholders who extended money to the city so it could pay pensions.

Bondholders’ lawyers have objected to the plan, saying the city should raise taxes instead. In court papers, they pointed out that voters in northern California city of Stockton approved a sales tax of at least $28 million annually to help that city emerge from bankruptcy earlier this year, according to their projections filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Riverside, Calif.

A sales tax increase of 0.25% to 8.50% for San Bernardino could bring in more than $150 million over the next 17 years, they said in court papers filed earlier this year.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Jury didn’t say whether she thought the 1% payment rate was fair. Instead, she said city leaders need to better explain why that amount has remained the same since they suggested new ways to cut costs.

“The city does need to disclose further why it has arrived at a decision that you can’t raise taxes or otherwise increase revenues that way,” Judge Jury said. “The city’s position on that needs to be clarified.”

San Bernardino officials plan to continue making full payments into the pension fund run by California Public Employees’ Retirement System, also known as Calpers, which distributes that money to thousands of retired city workers.

City officials decided to make pension payments, even though federal judges in charge of Detroit and Stockton’s bankruptcy cases ruled that pensions could indeed be cut. In its plan, San Bernardino said it considered breaking ties to Calpers but determined that it wasn’t realistic if the city wanted to attract workers.

Pension benefits enjoy strong protections by states. Some pension plans have tried to overcome shortfalls by cutting benefits for future hires or reducing cost-of-living adjustments. But filing for bankruptcy protection gives a city or county the power to cut contracts, including pension agreements that promise payments for retired and current city workers.

Bondholder officials have criticized that decision through San Bernardino’s bankruptcy.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By KATY STECH

Dec. 24, 2015 9:14 a.m. ET

Write to Katy Stech at katherine.stech@wsj.com




Pension Risks Point to Higher 2016 Borrowing Costs for Some U.S. Cities.

NEW YORK — Some U.S. cities may have to pay higher interest rates to borrow money in 2016 as they contend with a host of new pressures on their underfunded public pensions, including new reporting rules and the impact of this year’s tepid investment returns.

The recession-era ghost of public pensions problems will continue haunting the $3.7 trillion U.S. municipal bond market next year, investors and analysts told Reuters.

Investors are expected to demand greater compensation, especially for financially weak municipalities that for the first time will have to move unfunded pension liabilities from the footnotes of financial statements to their balance sheets.

“A lot of local (general obligation bonds) don’t have, in my opinion, the cheapness to compensate for this new information flow we’re going to get,” said R.J. Gallo, senior portfolio manager at Federated Investors in Pittsburgh.

When interest rate spreads widen on a city’s general obligation (GO) debt, its existing debt underperforms and usually leads to higher rates for new borrowing.

Investment losses during the last U.S. recession – which ended in 2009 – laid bare the fact that many states and cities shortchanged their public employee retirement systems for years. In the third quarter of 2015, unfunded liabilities rose nationally to a near three-year high of $1.71 trillion combined, according to Federal Reserve data.

To be sure, municipal bonds outperformed every other U.S. fixed income product in 2015, returning 3.23 percent as of Dec. 21, according to Barclays’ Municipal Bond index.

But well-known pension problem spots like Chicago, and states such as Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Kentucky will continue to be causes for investor concern.

In addition, a new rule from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) that moves unfunded liabilities onto city and state balance sheets is expected to highlight new problem areas.

The rule, GASB 68, will make lesser-known places like Billings, Montana appear in worse shape than previously thought, according to a forthcoming report by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Reuters exclusively reviewed a draft of the report, which is expected to show that in 92 cities that pay into a cost-sharing state pension plan, unfunded liabilities as a percentage of city revenues will nearly double, to 70 percent in aggregate from 37 percent.

Cities that participate in such state plans do not always have control over their contributions or shortfalls. But other cities that run their own independent plans, such as New Haven, Connecticut, are also expected to look worse.

The rule is in effect for fiscal years ending June 30, 2015 and later. While it will not increase actual liabilities or change required pension contributions, it will make shortfalls more apparent and potentially raise risk premiums.

Moody’s Investors Service has a stable 2016 outlook for both state and local government sectors – with the exception of those “unable to make progress toward funding large pension liabilities.”

Compounding the picture is a changing perception about the GO bond pledge itself after the cities of Detroit and Stockton bankruptcy judgments put bondholders below pensioners – making an under-funded pension a bigger potential problem for investors which buy GO debt.

“The GO pledge, the pledge that the municipal market for its entire existence viewed as sacrosanct, now isn’t,” said Nicholos Venditti, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management in Santa Fe. “Given the strength of the muni market this year, I don’t believe investors have been compensated in general for that incremental risk.”

By REUTERS

DEC. 22, 2015, 1:54 P.M. E.S.T.

(Reporting by Hilary Russ; Additional reporting by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Daniel Bases and Bill Rigby)




GASB Issues Guidance for External Investment Pools and Pool Participants Ahead of SEC Rule Change.

Norwalk, CT, December 23, 2015 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today issued guidance addressing how certain state and local government external investment pools and participants in external investment pools may measure and report their investments in response to changes contained in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule due to take effect in April 2016. References to that rule were previously incorporated in GASB literature.

GASB Statement No. 79, Certain External Investment Pools and Pool Participants, permits qualifying external investment pools to measure pool investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes. The Statement provides guidance that will allow many pools to continue to qualify for amortized cost accounting.

For governments, these external investment pools function much like money market funds do in the private sector. Government investment funds pool the resources of participating governments and invest in short-term, high-quality securities permitted under state law. By pooling their cash together, governments benefit in a variety of ways, including from economies of scale and professional fund management.

GASB Chair David Vaudt said, “The new guidance for qualifying external investment pools and participants in external investment pools will help them to avoid confusion when the regulatory rule changes become effective. Statement 79 will allow those pools the option of continuing to measure and report their investments at amortized cost.”

Existing standards provide that external investment pools may measure their investments at amortized cost for financial reporting purposes if they follow substantially all of the provisions of the SEC’s Rule 2a7. Likewise, participants in those pools are able to report their investments in the pool at amortized cost per share.

Reporting at amortized cost reflects the operations of external investment pools when they transact with participants at a stable net asset value per share. Not having the option to report under amortized cost would represent a significant change from current practice for both pools and pool participants.

Statement 79 replaces the reference in existing GASB literature to Rule 2a7 with criteria that are similar in many respects to those in Rule 2a7. Although the Board considers those criteria to be relevant, it also believes that external investment pool accounting and financial reporting standards should not be subject to regulatory changes that might be made in the future when those changes were not originally intended to be applied to those pools.

The Statement also establishes additional note disclosure requirements for qualifying pools and for governments that participate in those pools. These required disclosures include information about limitations or restrictions on participant withdrawals.




GASB Issues Proposed Guidance on Fiduciary Activities, Asset Retirement Obligations, and Pensions.

Norwalk, CT, December 22, 2015 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today issued three Exposure Drafts proposing accounting and financial reporting guidance related to fiduciary activities, certain asset retirement obligations, and pension issues.

The Exposure Draft, Fiduciary Activities, would establish guidance regarding what constitutes fiduciary activities for financial reporting purposes, the recognition of liabilities to beneficiaries, and how fiduciary activities should be reported. The proposed Statement would apply to all state and local governments.

The Exposure Draft, Certain Asset Retirement Obligations, would establish guidance for determining the timing and pattern of recognition for liabilities related to asset retirement obligations and corresponding deferred outflows of resources. An asset retirement obligation is a legally enforceable liability associated with the retirement of a tangible capital asset, such as the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor.

The Exposure Draft, Pension Issues, addresses practice issues raised by stakeholders during the implementation of Statements No. 67, Financial Reporting for Pension Plans, and No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions.

“These proposed standards are designed to improve the reporting of important activities and transactions in governmental financial statements,” said GASB Chair David A. Vaudt. “The proposals addressing fiduciary activities and certain asset retirement obligations would establish guidance in areas where little or none exists today. The Exposure Draft addressing pension issues comes in response to issues raised by GASB stakeholders as they carried out the process of implementing the recent pension standards. Together, these proposals are designed to improve consistency, comparability, and clarity in governmental accounting and financial reporting.”

Read the Exposure Drafts.

Stakeholders are encouraged to review and provide comments on the Exposure Drafts by the following dates:

Pension Issues

The objective of this proposed Statement is to improve consistency in the application of accounting and financial reporting requirements for employers related to pensions and for pension plans by addressing certain practice issues.

Specifically, this proposed Statement would address issues regarding:

Fiduciary Activities

Governments currently are required to report fiduciary activities in fiduciary fund financial statements. Existing standards are not explicit, however, about what constitutes a fiduciary activity for financial reporting purposes. Consequently, there is diversity in practice with regard to identifying and reporting fiduciary activities.

The central objective of this proposed Statement is to enhance the consistency and comparability of fiduciary activity reporting by state and local governments. The proposal also is intended to improve the usefulness of fiduciary activity information, primarily for assessing the accountability of governments in their roles as fiduciaries.

Certain Asset Retirement Obligations

Existing laws and regulations require state and local governments to take specific actions to retire certain capital assets, such as the removal and disposal of wind turbines in wind farms, and the dismantling and removal of sewage treatment plants. Other obligations to retire certain capital assets may arise from contracts or court judgments.

Under this proposed Statement, a government that has legal obligations to perform future asset retirement activities related to its tangible capital assets would be required to recognize a liability and a corresponding deferred outflow of resources. The proposal identifies the circumstances that determine if and when to recognize these transactions.

The objective of this proposed Statement is to enhance the comparability of financial statements by establishing uniform criteria for governments to recognize and measure these asset retirement obligations, including obligations that previously may not have been reported. This proposed Statement also would enhance the usefulness of the information provided to financial statement users by requiring disclosures related to these asset retirement obligations.




CUSIP: New Municipal Bond Identifiers Issued at Fastest Pace Since July 2015.

CUSIP Global Services (CGS) today announced the release of its CUSIP Issuance Trends Report for November 2015. The report, which tracks the issuance of new security identifiers as an early indicator of debt and capital markets activity, suggests continued growth in new corporate and municipal bond issuance over the next several weeks.

Read the report.




Muni-Bond Buyers Say Forget the Fed as Market Set for Top Gains.

As municipal bonds head toward the strongest returns in the U.S. fixed-income markets this year, investors say the end of near-zero interest rates will do little to knock state and local-government debt off its stride.

Money has been pouring into muni funds at the fastest pace since January. Defaults are falling for a fifth straight year. State and cities are being aided by an influx of tax revenue, thanks to rising real estate prices and falling unemployment. And the push to lift borrowing costs comes after a years-long refinancing wave may have run its course: Most analysts predict that new bond sales will hold steady or even fall in 2016.

 

“Demand for munis has been tremendous,” said John Bonnell, a senior portfolio manager in San Antonio at USAA Investment Management Co., which oversees $20 billion of local debt. “There’s just so much cash in our market looking to get invested.”

The $3.7 trillion muni market has returned 3.1 percent this year, on track for a second straight annual gain, as the income bondholders pocketed from interest outstripped any drop in prices, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s index. That’s three times the return for Treasuries and compares with a 0.6 percent loss in the corporate-bond market amid a selloff in the riskiest securities in anticipation of higher borrowing costs.

Long-Awaited Move

The Federal Open Market Committee unanimously voted to set the new target range for the federal funds rate at 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent, up from zero to 0.25 percent. The Fed signaled that the pace of subsequent increases will be ”gradual” in a statement on Wednesday. The bond markets have long been preparing for Fed Chair Janet Yellen to raise interest rates from near zero, where they’ve been since the depths of the credit crisis in 2008.

A gradual tightening of monetary policy may be a boon to some segments of the market, if history is a guide. That’s because long-term rates often fall in anticipation of slower economic growth and diminished expectations for inflation, which erodes the value of fixed interest payments. From 2004 to 2006, the last time the Fed was boosting rates, munis maturing in 22 years or more saw annual returns of 6.5 percent, more than triple the gains on securities due in 3 years or less, according to Bank of America’s indexes.

 

U.S. Bancorp., USAA Investment Management Co., Barclays Plc and Citigroup Inc. are all projecting a so-called flattening of the municipal yield curve, or a narrowing of the gap between short- and long-term rates. When that happens, bonds with longer maturities tend to outperform.

Investors appear to be expecting just that. In the week through Dec. 9, they added $742 million into tax-exempt funds, the most since January, according to Lipper U.S. Fund Flows data. More than $3 billion has flooded into long-term muni funds over the past 10 weeks.

Fiscal Recovery

The influx comes as governments continue to recover from the financial toll of the recession, which led then to pay down debt from 2011 through last year. State tax revenue rose by 6.8 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, according to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany. A survey by the National League of Cities released in September found that 82 percent said they were better off than a year earlier, the most since at least 1990.

Piper Jaffray Cos. and U.S. Bancorp say the pace of securities offerings will slow next year, while BlackRock Inc. predicts it will be little changed. While Citigroup Inc. projects that issuance will rise to $413 billion from about $397 billion this year, Vikram Rai, the bank’s head of muni strategy in New York, says demand will be strong enough to keep prices in check.

“Demand is strong; issuance is low,” said Peter Hayes, who oversees $111 billion as head of munis at New York-based BlackRock, the world’s biggest money manager. “Our theme for next year is really about maximizing carry, or income, in an environment where rates are fairly benign and don’t rise dramatically.”

This is probably the “most well-advertised rate hike” in Fed history, said Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, which oversees about $130 billion. He sees two to three rate increases coming next year, including one in the first quarter.

“All in all, I think that this is still very muni-positive,” Heckman said Wednesday after the Fed decision.

Bloomberg Business

by Elizabeth Campbell

December 15, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on December 16, 2015 — 11:48 AM PST




Muni Bonds Backed by Junk Companies Feel Pain of High-Yield Rout.

The corporate junk-bond rout has mostly left few ripples in the $3.7 trillion municipal market, with one exception: Tax-exempt debt issued by the high-yield companies.

Local-government bonds sold on behalf of U.S. Steel Corp., the nation’s second-largest producer, traded Monday at an average of about 67 cents on the dollar, the lowest price since they were issued in November 2009 and down from 113 cents to start the year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. They have a B2 rating from Moody’s Investors Service, five steps below investment grade. Trading in tax-free debt backed by Marathon Oil Corp. jumped to a two-month high on Dec. 11, with prices touching the lowest in nine days even though it has an investment-grade rating.

Fortunately for high-yield muni buyers, corporate-backed credits make up only a sliver of the tax-exempt market. There’s about $7 billion of fixed-rate, non-investment-grade and tax-free industrial-development bonds, Bloomberg data show. By comparison, Puerto Rico has $70 billion of debt outstanding, while states and localities have sold $23 billion of junk-rated tobacco securities, the data show.

“The drop in commodity prices and the plunge in oil has certainly had an impact on several of the corporate credits” in the municipal market, said Jim Colby, who runs the $1.7 billion Market Vectors High Yield Municipal Index exchange-traded fund, the largest of its kind.

Apart from corporate borrowers, “there’s healthy appetite for municipal high-yield,” he said. His fund has returned 3.9 percent this year, compared with a 6.8 percent loss for the largest ETF that invests in junk-rated companies. “There’s still plenty of cash for investment going into the end of this year.”

Individuals have poured money into high-yield muni mutual funds for 10 straight weeks, adding $1.8 billion over the period, Lipper US Fund Flows data show. By contrast, funds focused on junk-rated corporate borrowers saw $3.5 billion of withdrawals in the week through Dec. 9, the most since August 2014, the data show.

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

December 14, 2015 — 9:51 AM PST




Puerto Rico Teaches OppenheimerFunds Perils of Hunting for Yield.

Puerto Rico had a strategy over the past decade to paper over its deficits: Issue billions of dollars worth of tax-free municipal bonds.

OppenheimerFunds Inc. had a strategy over the same period to deliver outsized returns to its muni mutual-fund shareholders: Buy billions of dollars worth of the commonwealth’s high-yielding debt.

For both the Caribbean island and the New York-based investment firm, 2015 marked an abrupt change in course. Puerto Rico is locked out of the public markets after its governor said it couldn’t pay all its debts. OppenheimerFunds is starting to see cracks in its long-held strategy of buying bonds that offer high yields. Ten of its 20 muni funds have at least a 15 percent stake in junk-rated Puerto Rico. Nine of those rank in the bottom 10 percent of their peer group this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg through Dec. 10.

In a year when high-yield muni funds earned the top returns, OppenheimerFunds’s underperformance shows the disconnect between the market for Puerto Rico bonds and the $3.6 trillion of other state and local government securities. The island’s $70 billion of debt offers interest that’s exempt from federal, state and local income taxes, which attracted managers that have funds focused on a single state.

Starkest Examples

The OppenheimerFunds Maryland portfolio is the firm’s starkest example of following that strategy, with a 43 percent allocation to Puerto Rico securities, according to Morningstar Inc. data. It has trailed 94 percent of peers this year, Bloomberg data show. The firm’s Virginia fund is the next-most-concentrated, with a 37 percent stake in commonwealth debt. It has lost 2.65 percent in 2015, the worst of any muni mutual fund, even though it pays the second-highest dividend yield.

The only fund with a greater exposure to Puerto Rico than those two is the Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund, which buys territory debt, according to Morningstar. It has declined 2.1 percent this year.

“In bond funds, the total return is mostly driven by yield,” said Beth Foos, an analyst at Morningstar in Chicago. “But investors really have to pay attention to the portfolio and the makeup of the funds, because when you’re getting a higher yield for a particular security, there’s a reason why.”

Taking Risks

Meredith Richard, a spokeswoman in New York for OppenheimerFunds, said the company had no comment on its performance this year.

OppenheimerFunds has a “Puerto Rico Roundup” section of its website that provides the firm’s latest thoughts on the island’s fiscal crisis. The last post came on Dec. 11. It discussed a bill proposed last week by Senators Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and Lisa Murkowski that would assist the commonwealth, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on the constitutionality of the island’s Recovery Act.

“We have seen the Puerto Rico securities held by our funds deliver highly competitive levels of tax-free income and what we believe to be high value relative to the risk they incur,” the website says. “We hope our shareholders have seen this, too.”

Speculative Investments

Out of 602 open-end muni mutual funds tracked by Bloomberg, OppenheimerFunds has seven of the 10 highest-yielding offerings. That’s because over the years, in addition to taking on Puerto Rico securities, the firm’s money managers have invested in airline-backed debt, small private colleges, tobacco bonds and real-estate development deals, all of which feature speculative qualities.

The strategy has often paid off because their funds pay out more interest than their competitors, padding returns. The $2.1 billion Oppenheimer Rochester AMT-Free Municipals Fund, with a yield that’s over 1 percentage point higher than any other peer, has ranked in the top 10 percent returns among peers over a one-, three- and five-year period, Bloomberg data show.

That used to be the norm across its suite of funds. Yet the $5.6 billion Oppenheimer Rochester Fund Municipals portfolio, with the third-highest dividend of any open-end muni offering, returned in the bottom 10 percent of comparable funds in the past one- and three-year stretches, the data show.

Only Segment

The difference between the two funds? The former has an 11 percent allocation to Puerto Rico, according to Morningstar. The latter has a 21.4 percent stake.

Puerto Rico bonds have plunged 7.3 percent this year, the only segment of the municipal market to lose money in 2015, according to Standard & Poor’s Dow Jones Indices data. And it might not get immediately better for investors in the coming months as the island veers closer to a restructuring of its debt.

“It’s hard to assume much in the way of positive price surprises in the near-term for any Puerto Rico securities,” Matt Fabian and Lisa Washburn at Concord, Massachusetts-based research firm Municipal Market Analytics wrote in a Dec. 7 report.

 

Puerto Rico bonds may have room to rally as the island’s path to restructuring becomes clearer. Some securities have been trading at dollar prices lower than the recovery rates assumed by Moody’s Investors Service. Any gain would be a boon to investors currently putting money into OppenheimerFunds’s muni offerings.

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority securities reached the highest price since June 2014 after some investors agreed to take losses of 15 percent. Tax-exempt debt due in July 2017, which fell to 49.7 cents in July, climbed to 68.5 cents in November. OppenheimerFunds is the largest holder of the bonds, Bloomberg data show.

January Payments

Shareholders don’t appear to be waiting for a rebound. They’ve yanked almost $3 billion from the company’s 20 muni funds in 2015 through Nov. 30, according to Bloomberg data, which analyzes the change of assets net of performance. That outflow represents 11.4 percent of the $26.2 billion they had to start the year. Muni mutual funds as a whole have added $10.6 billion in 2015, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

The firm’s three muni funds with the least exposure to Puerto Rico, however, saw net inflows through the first 11 months of the year, Bloomberg data show.

The commonwealth faces $958 million of bond payments in January that it may fail to make, even after the unprecedented step of clawing back revenue from some debt to pay general obligations. Add to that squabbling among lawmakers in San Juan and Washington about the best path to resolve the crisis, and it follows that fund flows show individuals are leery about investing in Puerto Rico.

“Holders not prepared for strange doings, confusion, and political interference should not still be holding Puerto Rico securities,” MMA’s Fabian and Washburn wrote.

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

December 13, 2015 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on December 14, 2015 — 11:51 AM PST




Kramer Levin: Florida Open for Clean Energy Financing After Court Removes Barrier to PACE Programs.

In an Oct. 15 opinion, the Florida Supreme Court rejected a challenge to property-assessed clean energy (“PACE”) programs, which provide upfront financing to residential and commercial property owners that allows them to use green energy technology to improve their properties. The decision continues the trend of an increasingly friendly environment for clean energy producers and providers — as well as the investment funds that back them.

The decision is a victory for both the renewable energy industry and municipalities in Florida, as it should help expand the use of such programs across the state. Residential PACE programs — which surpassed their commercial counterparts in 2014 — represent a tremendous growth opportunity for financing activity. The ruling confirms Florida as the 30th state in the U.S. to authorize PACE programs, and the state could become the second-largest residential PACE market in the country, behind California. While some areas, including Miami-Dade County, already allowed PACE programs, Broward County and other jurisdictions had suspended implementation of local programs due to the uncertainty caused by the court challenge. In conjunction with the current political and regulatory focus on increasing the use of renewable energy, opportunities in this area are likely to increase now that the court has removed a barrier.

California has led the way on PACE projects to this point. Program administrators retained by counties and other municipal entities have successfully placed a series of rated securitizations of PACE assets. Leading the way has been the HERO program of Renovate America, which has issued five deals in its program. In July, Ygrene Energy Fund also announced a $150 million private securitization transaction to help fund 6,210 energy and water conservation projects in partnership with local municipalities.

In its decision, the Florida Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Bankers Association, saying the group did not have standing to fight the program. The bankers’ group — echoing concerns expressed by federal housing regulators — had argued that PACE loans could negatively affect mortgages should they be paid back before mortgages.

The Florida decision was significant for the future of residential PACE programs in Florida, where they have previously been used only on a limited basis. Combined with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan Rule, announced in August, these decisions further contribute to market conditions that are increasingly hospitable to investments in renewable energy projects

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Last Updated: December 4 2015

Article by Laurence Pettit

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP




Vanguard's New Venture: Indexing Muni Bonds.

Stable market conditions and client demand signal the right time for the firm to launch the first tax-exempt index open-end mutual fund.

In August 2015, Vanguard launched the market’s first tax-exempt index open-end mutual fund, Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index (VTEAX), which also features an exchange-traded fund share class, Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond (VTEB).

Muni indexing isn’t a new concept for the firm. Vanguard had filed to launch three new muni index funds several years ago, and representatives argue that it had the mechanics in place to successfully track the indexes at that point. However, Vanguard withdrew the request with the Securities and Exchange Commission in January 2011 amid market turbulence and outflows. Volatile market conditions and a surge of outflows didn’t augur well for a successful muni index fund launch. More recently, however, muni market conditions have stabilized, with investors having returned anew to muni funds in 2014 and early 2015 amid improving issuer fundamentals and receding headline risk. This should allow a newly launched index fund to build assets more quickly and therefore better track its index.

While relatively stable market conditions go a long way toward answering the question of “Why now?”, client demand was also an important factor. Ultimately, Vanguard notes that the launch of Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond Index was a response to a growing number of requests from clients looking for passive exposure to the muni market. Also, the ETF share class opens up a wider distribution network for investors interested in the strategy.

Run by muni portfolio manager Adam Ferguson, the fund tracks the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, a broad, market-value-weighted index designed to mirror the performance of the investment-grade muni market in the United States. By design, this benchmark focuses on the muni market’s most liquid issuers by requiring a minimum credit rating of BBB- for bonds included in the index and a minimum par amount outstanding, among other factors.

Given the benchmark’s emphasis on larger, more-liquid, high-grade issues and a duration that’s currently running longer than the category norm, Vanguard’s fund will likely be more interest-rate-sensitive than the typical intermediate-term muni fund. Over time, it’s expected that the fund’s duration, a measure of overall interest-rate sensitivity, will land between five and eight years.

Weighing the Options: Muni ETFs

Until the launch of Vanguard’s fund, passive investment options for muni investors consisted exclusively of ETFs with a municipal focus. As of November 2015, 34 muni ETFs appeared in Morningstar’s database. Of these 34 ETFs, 29 were passively managed, while the remaining five were actively managed. Only a handful of these funds offer broad-based coverage of the muni market and have garnered more than $1 billion in assets to date.

The largest of these is iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond (MUB). Launched in September 2007, this ETF has gathered more than $5.5 billion in assets. Like Vanguard’s muni index offering, MUB tracks the S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Index, providing national exposure to the investment-grade muni space and with an expense ratio of 25 basis points. Although that’s roughly double the fee of VTEB, both are relatively low when compared with most actively managed muni funds. For example, the median expense ratio for no-load shares in the muni-national intermediate Morningstar Category was 57 basis points in 2014.

Since its Sept. 7, 2007, inception, MUB’s average total return of 4.4% per year (through October 2015) carries a modest average annual tracking error of 12 basis points, indicating that the fund is performing as expected. Those results are also competitive when compared with active muni funds: Its since-inception annualized return has topped more than two thirds of actively managed muni funds in the category.

While the Vanguard and iShares funds are broadly similar, there are some initial differences to note. For one, MUB is a much larger fund, with more than $5.5 billion in assets versus VTEB’s roughly $73 million (as of Oct. 31, 2015). In the realm of ETFs, size tends to beget liquidity, as measured by trading volume in an ETF’s shares. Indeed, the iShares ETF is far more liquid than the Vanguard ETF at this point. Also, size also lends itself to broader sampling and thus (in theory) more-efficient tracking. However, it should be noted that VTEB has shown very modest tracking error to date despite its much smaller asset base.

Active or Passive: Things to Consider

Those looking for broad, high-quality exposure to the national investment-grade muni market would be well-served in considering a muni index fund. As with other high-quality index-based strategies, the passive nature of the structure significantly reduces manager risk. At the same time, rock-bottom fees on these strategies can burnish long-term results, especially in the current low-yield environment.

With that, the index’s longer duration and only limited exposure to the more risky segments of the market mean that it will have a different performance profile than funds in the muni-national intermediate category. It will likely be more rate-sensitive than the category and will lag more-aggressive peers, at least on a gross-returns basis, when muni markets are healthy and credit risk is rewarded.

Investors looking for a specific interest-rate risk profile, either shorter or longer than the average muni index, should consider an actively managed strategy tailored to that segment. Active managers typically stick to a defined interest-rate band but can add value by favoring different parts of the yield curve or by identifying mispricings in call risk.

Reasonably priced actively managed strategies are also a good option for those looking for more yield and total return from mid- to low-quality fare and a more credit-intensive approach. That’s particularly true post-credit crisis given the collapse of a number of muni-bond insurers and the shrinking of the AAA segment of the muni market. The combination of thousands of unique debt obligors, ambiguous legal pledges to repay debt, and the lack of timely and consistent disclosure on the part of municipal borrowers can create opportunities for active managers to add value through detailed research and analysis when investing in lower-quality securities. This is particularly true for below-investment-grade muni bonds, as this segment represents just a small portion of the overall municipal market but often offers higher yields for those willing to take on the risk.

Morningstar

By Elizabeth Foos | 12-10-15

About the Author Beth Foos is a senior analyst covering fixed-income strategies on Morningstar’s manager research team.

 




Baker Administration Introduces 'Modernization' Bill for Municipalities.

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — Gov. Charlie Baker unveiled a raft of legislative amendments on Monday designed to remove outdated obstacles to efficient local government.

Baker and Lt. Gov. Karen Politio introduced “An Act to Modernize Municipal Finance and Government” after months of meetings with municipal officials across the state. The measure is supported by, among others, the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Mayors Association.

“As two former local officials, the lieutenant governor and I promised to make partnership with cities and towns a focus and priority of our administration,” said Baker. “We were proud to establish a Community Compact Cabinet and keep our commitment to increase local aid by 75 percent of revenue growth in our first budget, the largest such boost in nearly a decade, and look forward to implementing greater independence and flexibility that empowers our local municipal officials to best serve their communities.”

Surrounded by state and local officials on the Grand Staircase at the State House on Monday afternoon, the state’s elected leaders said the amendments were the result of feedback solicited from hundreds of elected officials and municipal administrators. The Division of Local Services received more than 550 individual responses and more than 1,300 suggestions from over 215 municipalities and 20 regional school districts.

The MMA posted a summary of the legislation here.

Polito had also been querying officials about better ways to partners during her “Building Stronger Communities,” visiting more than 130 municipalities since taking office last year.

“Over the past 11 months, I have traveled across the commonwealth meeting with and listening to local officials as chair of the Community Compact Cabinet,” said Polito. “Signing over 70 commitments to promote best practices at the local level has afforded me the tremendous opportunity to connect with local officials and hear many great ideas that are reflected in this bill, including streamlining state oversight and eliminating obsolete laws.”

According to the administration, four foundational themes for the proposed municipal modernization bill are: eliminating or updating obsolete laws; promoting local independence; streamlining state oversight; and providing municipalities with greater flexibility. It noted some of the laws have not been modified since the early 1900s.

Among the many changes being proposed by the Baker-Polito administration are lifting caps and other limits on the use of municipal funds in procurement and transfers; permit more flexibility in revolving and stabilization funds; allow the use of online postings for contracts; allow local advertising to fall under Open Meeting Law rules rather than bylaws or attorney general approval; allow selectmen, with the approval of a finance committee, to make certain end-of-year transfers rather than calling town meetings to meet the July 15 deadline; let municipalities impose liens for delinquent utility ratepayers in other districts; to combine tax collector and treasurer posts without having to go through a special act; allow the use of 10-year bond anticipation notes; and allow a chief administrator to approve deficit spending for snow and ice accounts.

The bill would also repeal a retiree health cost sharing measure passed in 2010 that allowed municipalities to seek reimbursement from other towns in which its employees had worked. While supported by municipalities, a summary posted by the Massachusetts Municipal Association described the bill “as unworkable in practice.”

It would also change the three-year property evaluation process to five years and reduce state-owned land evaluations from four years to two.

MMA President David Dunford, an Orleans selectman, said the bill “will remove unnecessary and obsolete barriers to efficient government and effective service delivery.”

“These proposals will allow our communities to modernize their management systems, streamline their operations, and move faster than ever to grow our local economies.”

North Adams City Council President Lisa Blackmer, MMA vice president, agreed.

“Taken together, these proposals will allow our communities to modernize their management systems, streamline their operations, and move faster than ever to grow our local economies,” she said. “All of this will make our taxpayers happier, and our state stronger and more competitive than ever.

“I applaud Governor Baker and Lieutenant Governor Polito for building a powerful partnership with cities and towns, and for standing with us to make Massachusetts a model for the rest of the nation.”

iBerkshires

Staff Reports

10:51PM / Monday, December 07, 2015




Student Housing P3s Under Development.

Universities in three states are moving ahead with plans to use public-private partnerships to add to or replace their student housing stock.

The Regents of the University of California approved the UC Merced 2020 project, in mid-November, reported yourcentralvalley.com. The university can now issue a request for proposals to three teams that were shortlisted in January.

UC Merced 2020 will be the university system’s largest design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) P3 and the first U.S. educational DBFOM that includes availability payments, reported Infrastructure Investor (paywall).

The developer will build academic, administrative, research, recreational, student residence and service buildings on a 219-acre, university-owned site and 136 undeveloped acres to allow the university to meet its goal of increasing enrollment from 6,600 to 10,000 students by 2020.

The university expects to receive proposals in 2016 and have construction begin in 2018.

Louisiana State University has shortlisted two teams to develop two new residence halls and related amenities on a 28-acre site on its main campus in Baton Rouge, the university announced Dec. 2.

American Campus Communities is competing with RISE Real Estate for the project, which attracted 10 bidders. The Nicholson Gateway Development Project will provide 1,670 beds, lounge spaces, study areas, community gathering areas, retail food service and up to 50,000 square feet of retail space on a former stadium site. The university expects to select the developer in spring 2016.

Eastern Kentucky University has selected a development team consisting of Grand Campus Properties and F2 Companies, a construction firm to build two residence halls on its Richmond campus. This will be the university’s first P3, reported KyForward.

The $75 million, 1,100-bed dorms will open in fall 2017, if the state General Assembly, which must approve all projects that cost more than $600,000, authorizes it, reported the Lexington Herald-Leader on Dec. 2.

By NCPPP

December 10, 2015




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (Rating Activity For the Week Slows as 2015 Winds Down)

In this week’s segment of Extra Credit, Senior Director Dave Hitchcock explains our recent outlook revision on Massachusetts, and Directors Helen Samuelson and Nick Waugh discuss our rating changes affecting the City of Chicago Sales Tax Revenue Bonds and Boston University, respectively.

Listen to the podcast.

Dec. 4, 2015




S&P: Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act's Passage Does Not Affect Grant Anticipation Vehicle Revenue Debt Ratings.

NEW YORK (Standard & Poor’s) Dec. 8, 2015–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services today said that its ratings on 25 issuers in the grant anticipation revenue vehicle (GARVEE) sector are unaffected by the enactment of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 4, hours before previous funding was set to expire. However, we believe FAST generally supports the sector’s credit quality, due to a longer period of funding certainty and the increased funding levels that the Act provides. Funded mainly by gasoline and diesel fuel taxes deposited in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and $70 billion from various sources within the general fund, the five-year, $305 billion dollar transportation reauthorization act marks the first long-term solution for highway and transit funding since 2005.

FAST replaces the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, which was enacted in 2012 but provided funding for just slightly more than two years, and was extended several times for a few months, or even weeks at a time, as Congress debated various bill components. The Act covers funding through fiscal 2020 (year ended Sept. 30), which we view as preferable compared with what had become commonplace: eleventh-hour short-term extensions. Furthermore, FAST provides a 5.1% increase in highway fund distributions to states for fiscal 2016, and growth rates of 2.1% to 2.4% thereafter. Previous funding growth rates were lower, and until the FAST Act, Standard & Poor’s had cited federal budget deficits as a concern affecting highway funding levels. Overall, the FAST Act authorizes $230 billion for highways, $60 billion for public transportation, $10 billion for passenger rail, and $5 billion for highway safety programs. This is an approximately 11% increase from current funding levels over five years.

Standard & Poor’s ratings in the GARVEE sector range from ‘A’ to ‘AA’ for transactions where only federal funding is pledged, and as high as ‘AAA’ where state agencies blend the federal funding with an additional pledge of state funding. We base the relatively strong ratings in the sector on the issuers’ pledge of HTF grants from the federal government.

Overall, we believe, the FAST Act’s signing confirms Standard & Poor’s views of ongoing and widespread Congressional support for preserving and expanding the national highway system. States and local transportation agencies that receive distributions from the HTF can confidently move forward with complex multiyear transportation projects because the questions surrounding federal funding no longer loom. We will continue to monitor the sector to evaluate how each individual state issuer might adjust its debt or capital spending plans, given the new law.

Separate from the impact on GARVEE debt, other provisions of the FAST Act includes 70% in cuts to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, from $1 billion per year in 2015 and $750 million in 2014 to $275 million-$300 million per year during fiscal years 2016-2020, although the scope of eligible TIFIA projects has been expanded. Furthermore, FAST provides $6.2 billion for a new national freight program, and increases funding for public transportation to $12.6 billion in 2020 from $10.7 billion in 2015.

We have determined, based solely on the developments described herein, that no rating actions are currently warranted. Only a rating committee may determine a rating action and, as these developments were not viewed as material to the ratings, neither they nor this report were reviewed by a rating committee.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, part of McGraw Hill Financial (NYSE: MHFI), is the world’s leading provider of independent credit risk research and benchmarks. We publish more than a million credit ratings on debt issued by sovereign, municipal, corporate and financial sector entities. With over 1,400 credit analysts in 26 countries, and more than 150 years’ experience of assessing credit risk, we offer a unique combination of global coverage and local insight. Our research and opinions about relative credit risk provide market participants with information and independent benchmarks that help to support the growth of transparent, liquid debt markets worldwide.

Primary Credit Analyst: Peter V Murphy, New York (1) 212-438-2065;
peter.murphy@standardandpoors.com

Secondary Contacts: Mary Ellen E Wriedt, San Francisco (1) 415-371-5027;
maryellen.wriedt@standardandpoors.com

Geoffrey E Buswick, Boston (1) 617-530-8311;
geoffrey.buswick@standardandpoors.com

Research Assistant: Maegan Hearney, New York




Pension Funds: Diversity Rocks.

Two pension funds this week announced they were diversifying — albeit in quite different ways. The Oregon Investment Council this week announced it is taking steps to reduce the reliance of the state’s biggest pension fund on the stock market. It will invest $900 million in so-called alternative investments including timber and infrastructure, which are industries that are somewhat detached from the nation’s economic swings. More than half of the money is going into a private equity fund called KKR Americas Fund XII L.P. The Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund has invested in funds managed by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. since 1981 and over that time they have generated average annual profits of 18 percent for Oregon.

Meanwhile in Texas, the $3 billion Dallas Employees’ Retirement Fund announced it wants more ethnic and gender diversity among its fund managers because such diversity typically drives up returns on investments. According to Asset International, nearly 90 percent of senior money managers in the U.S. are white and most of them are men, however. Meanwhile, small or new investment firms tend to include more minorities and women. The Dalles fund said this week it will now allocate 10 percent of its portfolio to new investment managers with strong performance records. It is already on its way to achieving that goal and the fund is now launching its Next Generation Manager program to generate interest more among women and minorities who may not have considered such careers and who otherwise wouldn’t get access to major investment opportunities.

Dallas isn’t the only pension fund seeking a tryout period with smaller fund managers in an effort to increase diversity — CalPERS also has an emerging managers program where it seeks out well-performing managers from small firms to handle a small — $20 million, for example — initial investment. If the manager performs well, the pension fund is likely to extend the relationship.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | DECEMBER 11, 2015




Is 'Fair Value' Accounting Actually Fair?

The practice is loved by government accountants and scorned by bankers and investors.

On Oct. 8, 2008, investors were desperate to understand why stocks were cratering and banks had quit lending. It was the height of the financial crisis. That day William Isaac, a former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, went on television and blamed an unlikely culprit: bankers’ accountants. “The Securities and Exchange Commission has destroyed $500 billion of bank capital by its senseless marking to market of these assets for which there is no marking to market,” he said. “That has destroyed $5 trillion of bank lending.” In other words, accounting rules enforced by the federal government were at the heart of the then-unfolding financial catastrophe. Many bankers and investors shared Isaac’s view.

By contrast, government accountants, led by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), have embraced these same rules — known as “fair value” accounting — with the same enthusiasm that bankers’ and investors’ accountants have scorned them. In fact, during the past three years the people who write accounting standards for states and localities have made fair value a key factor in how governments manage their pensions, investments and retiree health care. Strange as it might sound, that’s a good thing.

How could fair value be deemed unfair by some and fair by others? It’s all in the eye of the beholder. If you ask an accountant what something is worth, you’ll get one of two answers. The usual one is “whatever you paid for it.” If a local government purchased a piece of land 10 years ago for $1 million, the fair value of that land is $1 million. Accountants call this “historical cost.”

But what if a developer really wants that land and is willing to pay three times the original purchase price? Is that a fair market value? The accountant’s answer would be no. Until someone actually pays that price, it’s just a guess. That’s why accountants are credible. They deal in real numbers.

Of course, sometimes the real and the hypothetical converge. For instance, the prices of stocks offered on the New York Stock Exchange are updated every second. Those prices are technically estimates, but they’re based on millions of real transactions. That’s why accountants are comfortable equating a stock’s offered price to its fair value. The same applies to other types of investments that can be “marked to market” because they’re bought and sold in an active market.

Banks and other financial institutions mark their investments to market constantly. That’s great when market prices are up. If markets run dry, however, as they did during the financial crisis, the damage is obvious and immediate. That can shake investor confidence. That’s also why in the throes of the crisis, the finance industry put enormous pressure on the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend mark to market accounting. The better approach, they argued, was to report fair market values averaged over time to better reflect “normal” market conditions. Regulators almost capitulated then — but didn’t. Now they’re reconsidering.

GASB, by contrast, has upped its own fair value ante. In its new standards on pension liabilities, it restricted governments’ ability to “smooth” the fair value of their investments. That is, to report the average value of pension investments over time, rather than a specific point in time. With interest rates low and the stock market volatile, those investments have not performed well, and that could mean higher pension funding costs and less certainty when budgeting for those costs. GASB’s new standards on other post-employment benefits like retiree health care could have the same effect. The accounting group also broadened its own fair value framework for governments.

Many of GASB’s most important stakeholders have disagreed with its interpretation of fair value. That said, there’s no question that they’ve applied that definition clearly and consistently. Put differently, they have resisted the temptation to politicize this arcane but crucial corner of accounting. That’s bringing some badly needed fairness to fair value.

GOVERNING.COM

BY JUSTIN MARLOWE | DECEMBER 2015




Public Pensions Challenge Private Equity Fees.

Late last month, California disclosed for the first time how much its pension system paid private equity managers in performance fees: $3.4 billion over the past 25 years. The fees, which are in addition to typical managerial fees, have come under scrutiny in recent years — and not without reason.

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) said the fees were based on $24.2 billion in profits earned from investments in private equity funds. Performance fees, which are unique to so-called alternative investments, have been poorly reported — if at all — by pension plans. But as calls for financial transparency in all areas of government intensifies, that’s starting to change.

Unlike stock market investments, pensions enter into a separate contract with each private equity fund manager. There is no standardization of those contracts or the fees charged. What’s more, it’s time consuming for a pension plan to flesh out how much they’re paying in so-called profit sharing payments, which are essentially a cut of the earnings private equity managers take off the return on investment.

Now, CalPERS and a handful of other plans are calling for private equity managers to conform to proposed industry-wide disclosure standards. It could give investors more of a bargaining chip with private equity managers. As it stands, pension plans are unable to easily compare how expensive their managers are. “Public plans need to be able to very plainly disclose this information at a plan level for their beneficiaries, stakeholders and policymakers,” said Lorelei Graye, founder of the consulting firm Leodoran Financial. “Eliminating the opaqueness eliminates the controversy and fear of unknown or hidden costs.”

CalPERS, the South Carolina Retirement System Investment Commission and the Washington State Investment Board, among other private equity investors, are backing a proposed fee-reporting template. Notably, the template would require managers to make clear the performance fees they are taking off the top of investment returns. Designed by the Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA), the final template will likely be released in January.

A big reason fees have remained largely undisclosed is that private equity funds as an asset class are secretive about how they generate their returns and charge for their work. Pension plans invest as one of many limited partners in a fund, and the fund manager buys, builds up and sells entities — like companies — at their own discretion. Typical managerial fees for private equity managers are 2 percent of the total investment; profit-sharing fees are typically 20 percent of the earnings. By comparison, most other asset classes have managerial fees under 2 percent and no additional profit-sharing agreements.

Pension systems like private equity funds because, unlike public funds that are tied to the stock market, the success of private equity funds are detached from economic booms and busts. Instead, success hinges on the manager. In other words, it’s up to pension plan investment officers to judge the manager’s performance and whether their strategy fits into their broader portfolio. In their view, the higher fees for managers are justified because private equity funds have generated higher returns.

Critics, however, point out that private equity performance is only a little better than stock market performance. That’s been the case in Kentucky where the system’s private equity investments have performed about a half-percent better than the S&P average over the past five years, according to David Peden, the system’s chief investment officer. Over the past decade, the plan’s private equity has performed slightly under the stock market. Peden, who said Kentucky is “very excited to adopt whatever standards are developed” by ILPA, said the past few years of an outperforming stock market has skewed the picture. “At whatever point that spread narrows and it doesn’t make sense anymore, then we won’t invest in it,” he said.

Another problem, according to critics, is that pension systems aren’t exactly sure how much they’ve paid in total private equity fees. CalPERS isn’t the first plan to start sniffing around: Kentucky and South Carolina’s plans have hired outside consultants in recent years to investigate the performance of the investments and the performance fees.

While the consultants’ reports have revealed more about the market for pensions, it’s also led to increased criticism. Pressure has also been building at the federal level ever since the Securities and Exchange Commission released a report last year finding that half of the 400 private equity funds they analyzed charged investors bogus fees.

More than supporting ILPA’s proposal, CalPERS has already adopted it, requiring its managers to conform to the template. That could ding CalPERS in the short term, said Graye, as private equity managers may simply choose not to work with the fund. That’s why, she added, it is important to watch who adopts the final ILPA standards next year. “It’s a bigger deal than some people realize,” she said of CalPERS’ early move. “But that’s leadership and if enough limited partners [investors] push for these disclosures, the managers will come back. Collectively, the limited partners are going to shape this industry.”

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | DECEMBER 10, 2015




Muni Buyers Plow Into Long Bonds to Win Once Fed Increases Rates.

Municipal-bond investors are snapping up the longest-maturing tax-exempt debt as the Federal Reserve prepares to raise interest rates, even though yields signal it’s the worst time to do so in almost three years.

That’s because if history is any guide, the securities will be the best performers in the $3.7 trillion market when the Fed tightens monetary policy, a move it may take next week after seven years of holding borrowing costs near zero.

The buying spree pushed the extra yield buyers pick up for holding 10-year debt instead of two-year securities to as little as 1.34 percentage points on Monday, near the lowest since January 2013, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The shift shows how investors are positioning to gain from higher interest rates, which are typically a drag on returns in the fixed-income market.

 

The suppressed interest rates on the longest-maturing bonds are also a boon to states and cities because they usually finance infrastructure projects with debt that doesn’t come due for decades. They sell short-term securities mostly for cash-flow needs, which have declined as their finances recovered from the recession.

When the Fed last boosted interest rates from 2004 through 2006, munis maturing in 22 years or more delivered annual returns of 6.5 percent, more than triple the gains on securities due in 3 years or less, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes.

The market is primed for a repeat, according to John Dillon, managing director at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management in Purchase, New York. Analysts at Janney Montgomery Scott and RBC Capital Markets are predicting the same.

“My expectation is that you do see out-performance on the mid-part of the curve to the back-end of the curve,” Dillon said in a telephone interview. “You could get a lot more flattening of the muni curve as we go forward.”

Investors agree. They’ve poured $3.1 billion into long-term muni mutual funds over the course of nine weeks, the longest stretch of inflows in at least a year, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

Muni buyers have been projecting that longer-dated bonds would fare well once the Fed starts raising short-term rates, with the securities seen as the best positioned to remain stable or gain because of subdued inflation expectations over the next year. There’s a 78 percent chance the Fed will raise its benchmark at its Dec. 15-16 meeting, according to futures data compiled by Bloomberg.

Risk and Reward

Investors usually demand greater yields to own bonds that mature far in the future because of the risk that inflation will erode the value of fixed interest payments. When buyers are confident that inflation won’t pick up, they can capture more yield by extending the maturity of their holdings.

Prices are expected to hold relatively stable: the Fed expects inflation of 1.7 percent next year, according forecasts released in September, less than the 2 percent rate that it targets.

“The risk-reward calculation when you extend duration at this point indicates that people are getting paid for moving out on the curve,” said Chris Mauro, head of muni strategy at RBC in New York. “There doesn’t seem to be a lot of pressure on the longer end of the curve right now given the economic backdrop.”

Benchmark 30-year muni yields touched 3.02 percent last week, the lowest since April and down 0.23 percentage points over a two-week span, Bloomberg data show. By contrast, two-year yields have jumped to the highest since June 2013. That has narrowed the difference between the two to 2.3 percentage points, a 10-month low.

Over the past four weeks, investors have added $1.8 billion to muni mutual funds as the central bank assures markets that the pace of increases will be gradual, the Lipper data show. That suggests investors are less concerned about the impact of a rate increase then they were in September, when they yanked $1.4 billion from the funds in the four weeks leading up to the Fed’s decision.

“Investors should feel comfortable moving out on the yield curve: Long-term rates aren’t going to go shooting up just because the Fed is hiking short-term rates,” said Alan Schankel, a managing director at Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia. “That’s based on a lethargic economic growth scenario and a lack of inflationary concerns.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

December 7, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on December 8, 2015 — 7:51 AM PST




Hedge Funds Leave U.S. Pensions With Little to Show for the Fees.

Here’s what U.S. state and city pension funds are getting this year for the hundreds of millions of dollars in fees they’re forking over to hedge funds: almost nothing.

The investment pools gained 0.4 percent through November, putting them on pace for the worst year since 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The industry’s struggle was underscored over the past two months as BlackRock Inc., Fortress Investment Group and Bain Capital closed hedge funds after running up losses.

The low returns are dealing a setback to governments that boosted exposure to hedge funds, seeking windfalls to help close a $1.4 trillion shortfall that’s facing public-employee retirement systems nationwide. The investment funds have underperformed stocks since 2008 as share prices rallied and volatility whipsawed global financial markets.

“The bull market of the last six years allowed public pension plans to become poor consumers,” said South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis, who has criticized the fees his state has paid firms including hedge funds. “The plans viewed hedge funds as an ‘elite investment’ and therefore neglected to perform strenuous and ongoing due diligence.”

Public pensions count on investment returns of more than 7 percent a year, so anything less puts pressure on governments to set aside more to ensure they can cover all the benefits promised to employees. The retirement systems boosted their stakes in hedge funds to $184 billion this year from $94 billion in 2011, according to Preqin, which tracks the industry.

 

With their investments faltering, funds with more than $16 billion of assets have announced plans to shut down this year, including those run by some of Wall Street’s most well-known firms, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. BlackRock decided to close its Global Ascent hedge fund following losses that triggered withdrawals by investors including the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System, Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund and the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System.

The Arizona fund doesn’t discuss investment decisions, said Christian Palmer, its spokesman. Michael Golden, a spokesman for the Maryland system, and Mary Kay Glass, a spokeswoman for the Fort Worth system, declined to comment.

Averting Bigger Losses

The hedge fund investments have sheltered some retirement plans from steeper losses during the swings in stock and bond prices this year.

New York City’s civil employees pension, with $52 billion of assets, saw its hedge funds lose 0.7 percent through September, which was less than the 2.26 percent loss for its entire portfolio. For New Jersey, hedge funds posted a 1.7 percent gain during the first nine months of the year, limiting the pension’s losses, though they’ve posted about half the returns of its equity investments over the past five years.

“Over the long term, which is what we invest for, hedge funds have significantly outperformed stocks and bonds,” Christopher Santarelli, spokesman for the New Jersey Treasury Department, said in an e-mail.

Not all pensions think it’s worth it. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the U.S.’s largest public pension, said last year it would liquidate its $4 billion hedge-fund portfolio because of the cost and complexity. Sam Won, managing director of Global Risk Management Advisors, said some pensions have used the lackluster returns to push for lower fees and more information about investment strategies.

“It continues to give investors more leverage,” said Won.

The Cost

The firms typically charge investment fees of 2 percent and keep 20 percent of the gains. They’re free to pursue strategies aimed at profiting even when stock or bond prices drop, allowing them to deliver gains to investors or protect them from losses elsewhere. In 2008, during the worst of the credit-market crisis, when the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index tumbled 38 percent, hedge funds lost about half as much.

Since then, the investments have left some pension money lagging the broader markets as stock prices rallied, according to Jeff Hooke, a managing director with Focus Investment Banking in Washington. His study of five state pensions over five years found that the median return on hedge-fund investments was 7.3 percent, more than 6 percentage points less than the benchmark Vanguard Balanced Index Fund.

“Hedge funds have cost the states tens of billions in opportunity costs the last five years,” said Hooke.
U.S. public pensions, after years of chronic under funding, by 2014 had 74 percent of the assets needed to pay retirees, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Illinois and the state’s largest city, Chicago, are both contending soaring bills to retirement systems after years of failing to make sufficient contributions. Such pressure helped push Detroit into the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in 2013.

“Public pension funds are trying to achieve very high returns in an environment that makes this difficult,” said Donald Boyd, senior fellow at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy research arm of the State University of New York. “If they’re not successful, taxpayers and those who count on government services and investments will pay the price.”

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

December 8, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on December 9, 2015 — 6:03 AM PST




Return to Friendly Skies Keeping Buyers Bullish on Airport Bonds.

Bondholders such as Nuveen Asset Management are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the resurgence in air travel among U.S. consumers, and they don’t see an end in sight.

Debt issued to fund airport improvements are outperforming the broader $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market for an unprecedented fifth consecutive year. That’s likely to continue because the bonds have dedicated revenue streams and they still offer higher returns than top-ranked municipals, said John Miller, Nuveen’s co-head of fixed income in Chicago. He said he’s looking to buy more.

With the U.S. economy growing by about 2.5 percent in 2016, airlines will see enplanements, or the number of passengers arriving or departing at airports, rise by 4 percent, according to Moody’s Investors Service. The credit-rating company expects airports to exceed their budgeted growth and a few to win positive changes to their ratings or outlooks this year, said Earl Heffintrayer, a Moody’s analyst in New York.

“There is still a need in the marketplace to have that additional spread and that additional yield without an enormous amount of credit risk,” said Miller, whose company oversees about $100 billion in munis.

Securities in the Standard & Poor’s Municipal Bond Airport index are yielding 2.33 percent, compared with 1.98 percent for bonds in the national investment-grade index, according to J.R. Rieger, vice president of fixed-income indexes at S&P in New York. In October, the gap in the yield between the two indexes was 0.26 percentage point.

This year has been a good one for airports already: enplanements have increased by almost 5 percent, which was more than the 4 percent expected by Moody’s. Enplanements are key since they drive a range of cash-generating avenues from parking fees to beer sales at the terminal bars.

It’s been a good year for bondholders too. Airport debt has gained 3.5 percent through Dec. 8, beating the market’s 3 percent advance, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show. A fifth straight year of outperformance would be the longest streak since the firm began tracking the data in 1993.

Issuance has been “subdued” and should remain so in 2016 apart from projects such as the replacement of the terminal at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, Miller said. Airports this year have issued $8.2 billion in securities, up from last year’s $7.2 billion, but are unlikely to reach the tally of $10.7 billion seen in 2012, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Moody’s median rating for airport bonds is A2, four steps lower than the median Aa1 grade for U.S. states. Airports with higher grades serve a vital purpose in large markets, while lower-ranked ones face more competition, Heffintrayer said.

Jet Fuel

Fuel costs comprise “an important component” for airport bonds to outperform the overall market next year, said Alan Schankel, a Janney managing director in Philadelphia. The price of jet fuel declining by 44 percent since 2011 has helped support the airlines’ profitability, and consumers saving on gas for their cars have more money to spend on travel, he said.

Lower fuel costs prompted airlines to add more seats this year, and airports in Fort Lauderdale and San Diego were among the fastest growing as tourists passed through them, Heffintrayer said.

“We should continue to see strong performance across the board and especially in those regions that are more tourism dependent,” he said.

Although travelers from overseas may decline due to weakening economies in China, Latin America and Europe, U.S. passengers should compensate for that, Moody’s said.

Nashville Sale

An example of a medium-sized U.S. airport that has seen a “tremendous amount of growth” partly due to tourism is Tennessee’s Nashville International Airport, Heffintrayer said.

Investors have noticed. Tax-free 10-year revenue bonds sold Tuesday by the authority running the airport were priced to yield 2.31 percent, 0.29 percentage point over top-ranked munis. That’s lower than the 2.55 percent for similarly rated revenue debt. Moody’s and S&P gave the securities the fifth-highest rank, A1 and A+ respectively.

Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority received $1.1 billion in orders for $200 million in bonds, said Lauren Lowe, director at the agency’s financial adviser PFM Group.

The airport expects enplanements in 2016 to rise by 5 percent from the previous year, following an annual growth of 4.4 percent over the past five years, according to bond documents.

The bond deal “showed a lot of investor confidence in this market and in what we’re doing here at the airport and in our future growth,” said Robert Wigington, president and chief executive officer of the authority.

Bloomberg Business

by Romy Varghese

December 9, 2015 — 9:02 PM PST Updated on December 10, 2015 — 4:54 AM PST




Muni Inflows Are Highest Since January as Buyers Ignore Fed.

Investors added the most money to municipal-bond mutual funds since January in the past week, a sign that they’re not fretting about the Federal Reserve raising interest rates for the first time in almost a decade.
Individuals poured $742 million into tax-exempt funds in the week through Wednesday, Lipper US Fund Flows data show, marking the 10th straight week of inflows. Those investing in long-term and intermediate-term securities received cash, as did high-yield funds.

Benchmark 30-year munis yield 3 percent, the lowest level since April, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Investors are betting that if the Fed tightens monetary policy at its Dec. 15-16 meeting, the longest-maturing tax-exempt debt will fare the best.

Munis have returned 3.2 percent this year, compared with 1 percent for Treasuries and no gain for investment-grade corporate securities, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show.

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

December 10, 2015 — 3:00 PM PST Updated on December 11, 2015 — 6:17 AM PST




Fitch: U.S. Airport Credits Remain Strong; Traffic to Expand.

Fitch Ratings-New York-09 December 2015: U.S. airports ratings remain largely in the ‘A’ category with passenger traffic volume growth supporting stable financial profiles for most U.S. airports despite the ongoing capital program needs in the sector, according to a new Fitch Ratings report.

‘Approximately 90% of airport sector ratings currently have Stable Outlooks, demonstrating the relatively low credit risk and the resilience of airport cash flows,’ said Seth Lehman, Senior Director in Fitch’s Global Infrastructure Group.

Fitch upgraded the rating on two airports during the past 12 months (San Jose to ‘A-‘ and Commonwealth of Northern Marianna Islands to ‘B+’) as well as revised the Rating Outlook on six airports to Positive (including large-hubs Chicago O’Hare Airport and Hillsborough County Airport Authority/Tampa Airport).

Highest rated airports are typically those with a strong underlying market or franchise driving demand, overall stability of cash flows through contractual agreements with airlines and other commercial users and healthy financial metrics. Conversely, weakest rated airports include those serving small markets or secondary airports subject to competition for passengers, or thinner financial metrics and elevated leverage.

The report ‘Peer Review of U.S. Airports’ is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.

Contact:

Seth Lehman
Senior Director
+1-212-908-0755
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
33 Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004

Jeffrey Lack
Director
+1-312-368-3171

Emma Griffith
Director
+1-212-908-9124

Media Relations: Sandro Scenga, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0278, Email: sandro.scenga@fitchratings.com.

Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.




From the Makers of Catastrophe Bonds, a New ‘Resilience Bond’.

Some of the people who brought you “catastrophe bonds” now want to bring you “resilience bonds.”

“Cat bonds” are securities that help insurers or an entity such as a municipal transportation authority pay for claims after a hurricane or other catastrophe. Amid protracted low interest rates, many U.S. and Canadian pension funds have been scooping up these securities because they yield more than conventional bonds while also offering diversification—though a massive catastrophe could wipe out their principal.

Now, some of the brains behind cat bonds, which have been around since the late 1990s, are pioneering a variation of this security. Among developers of this new resilience bond are big European reinsurance powerhouse Swiss Re SSREY -1.10% and RMS, a leading catastrophe risk-management and modeling firm. They are well-known names in the cat-bond world.

The idea is that resilience bonds would appeal to, say, flood-prone cities, public utilities and other entities that need to build infrastructure like seawalls and flood barriers, RMS said in an announcement this morning. RMS is working with Swiss Re, the Rockefeller Foundation and design firm re:focus partners on the new framework.

Multiyear resilience bonds could provide money for property-damage claims should a big disaster strike while the infrastructure project is under construction. In that way, resilience bonds would serve as insurance as cat bonds do—and might reduce dependence on disaster aid.

But unlike ordinary cat bonds, they could provide “resilience” rebates. While many details remain to be determined, the rebates would reflect the reduction in risk that occurs as seawalls or flood barriers begin to provide protection.

About $22 billion of cat bonds were outstanding as of mid-year, according to Marsh & McLennan Cos.MMC -2.00%’ Guy Carpenter reinsurance unit.

Cat bonds, which typically are in place for three to five years, originally were developed to provide insurance companies with an alternative to traditional reinsurance, but have increasingly been used by public or quasi-public entities to augment traditional insurance or reinsurance, according to RMS and its partners in the resilience-bond effort.

Among those with cat-bond programs are railroad Amtrak, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the California Earthquake Authority, and state-run insurance pools in Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Texas.

Aon Securities said cat-bond issuance reached $7 billion in the 12 months to June 30, a decrease of the prior-year record of $9.4 billion, “yet still the third highest annual issuance in the sector’s history.” Mostly, the bonds relate to possible catastrophes in the U.S., though some expose buyers to risks in Japan and Europe.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By LESLIE SCISM

Dec 9, 2015




South Carolina Port Authority Eyes Pension Funds to Finance Expansion.

South Carolina’s Port Authority is courting pension funds and other institutional investors to help pay for billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements as traditional sources of financing dry up.

The authority has announced plans to spend $1 billion over the next four years on expansions and improvements to ports throughout the state, and is embarking on a $5 billion joint venture with the Georgia Ports Authority to build a terminal along the Savannah River.

Past projects were financed by issuing municipal bonds, including a $290 million sale in November. But the port has effectively maxed out its ability to borrow, requiring new sources of funding, said Jim Newsome, the port authority’s chief executive. The port has hired BMO Capital Markets as advisors and has met with pension funds in several states as well as Canada.

“There’s just not enough public sector debt available to fund all the infrastructure and terminal improvements we need,” Mr. Newsome said in an interview.

South Carolina’s ports need to grow to handle growing volumes of containers and other cargo, and to accommodate larger ships from Asia expected to arrive after the Panama Canal completes an expansion next year. Ports along the East Coast are competing for the same business, stretching their finances to dredge deeper harbors, raise bridges and build new terminals.

“A lot of these issuers have good balance sheets, but not enough cash on hand” for large infrastructure projects, said Emma Griffith, who heads port infrastructure research for Fitch Ratings Inc. “People are looking for more flexible forms of capital.”

The South Carolina Port Authority’s charter prevents it from selling stakes in its terminals, a common way for private port operators to win outside investment. Instead, the authority is offering to pay an annual return at a fixed rate, plus a dividend tied to any increase in cargo volumes, Mr. Newsome said.

Such an arrangement has been used to fund infrastructure projects in Europe and Australia, as well as toll roads in the U.S. Ports can be an attractive investment because they produce stable revenues. The challenge will be to get the rate of return high enough for pension fund and investors specializing in infrastructure, who typically require an annual return of 10% or more, said David Ambler, an infrastructure analyst with AllianceBernstein LP.

For the current fiscal year, South Carolina’s ports project a return of 4.5% last year on its $1.1 billion in assets, meaning the port authority expects to earn a profit of about $45 million.

Mr. Newsome said the authority hopes to boost returns by attracting larger ships, increasing the revenue from fees that the port collects on each container and each car that passes through the port. The authority is also investing in technology to increase efficiency and keeping the port open longer hours.

“We are aware that we need to attain a certain return on capital to get investors interested,” Mr. Newsome said. “People look at ports as a utility that should just sort of be there, and that doesn’t work … Ports have got to be run more like a business.”

In recent years, pension funds and private investment firms have invested in or purchased terminals at several U.S. ports. In 2014, Alinda Capital Partners, a Connecticut private equity fund, and a British pension fund bought a marine terminal at the Port of Virginia. The largest terminal at the Port of Newark, on New York harbor, is owned by a fund controlled by German bank DeutscheBank AG.

But such investments are rare when the port authority operates its own terminals. South Carolina’s situation is different because its ports are owned and operated by the port authority, which is run by a state-appointed board.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By ROBBIE WHELAN

Dec. 11, 2015 1:54 p.m. ET

Write to Robbie Whelan at robbie.whelan@wsj.com




GASB Issues New Pension Guidance Designed to Assist Certain Governments.

Norwalk, CT, December 11, 2015 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today issued guidance designed to assist governments that participate in certain private or federally sponsored multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans (such as Taft-Hartley plans and plans with similar characteristics).

During the implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, stakeholders raised concerns regarding the inability of a small group of governments whose employees are provided pensions through such multiple-employer pension plans to obtain measurements and other relevant data points needed to comply with the requirements of that Statement.

GASB Chairman David A. Vaudt said, “This new guidance removes an impediment to complying with the GASB’s financial reporting requirements for governments participating in certain multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans. It also promotes enhanced consistency among those applying the standards.”

The new guidance in GASB Statement No. 78, Pensions Provided through Certain Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans, assists these governments by focusing employer accounting and financial reporting requirements for those pension plans on obtainable information. In lieu of the existing requirements under Statement 68, the new guidance establishes separate requirements for employers that participate in these pension plans. Statement 78 establishes the criteria for identifying the applicable pension plans and addresses measurement and recognition of pension liabilities, expense, and expenditures; note disclosures of descriptive information about the plan, benefit terms, and contribution terms; and required supplementary information presenting required contribution amounts for the past 10 fiscal years.




Fitch Takes Rating Actions on U.S. Availability Projects; Applies Revised Criteria.

Fitch Ratings-New York-07 December 2015: Fitch Ratings has taken rating actions on its U.S. portfolio of Availability Payment project financings following the recent publication of its revised ‘Rating Criteria for Availability-Based Projects’ on Oct. 14, 2015. Fitch’s actions on its European Availability Payment portfolio are covered in a separate release published on Dec. 3, 2015.

The rating actions taken include four upgrades (three public and one private) and two affirmations based on Fitch’s assessment of cost risk, realistic outside cost (ROC) stresses, indicative debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) thresholds, breakeven cost analysis as well as completion risk where applicable. In addition, Fitch upgraded one credit due to counterparty credit strength.

Full List of Rating Actions::

Treasurer of State (Ohio):
–Portsmouth Gateway Group, LLC (PGG) (Portsmouth Bypass project) upgraded to ‘A-‘ from ‘BBB’;

Indiana Finance Authority:
–WVB East End Partners LLC (Ohio River Bridges East End Crossing project) upgraded to ‘BBB+’ from ‘BBB’;

New Jersey Economic Development Authority:
–NYNJ Link Borrower LLC (Goethals Bridge Replacement project) upgraded to ‘BBB’ from ‘BBB-‘;

Regional Transportation District:
–Denver Transit Partners, LLC (Eagle project) upgraded to ‘A-‘ from ‘BBB-‘;

Indiana Finance Authority:
–I-69 Development Partners LLC (I-69 Section 5 project) affirmed at ‘BBB’;

Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority:
–KentuckyWired Infrastructure Company, Inc. (Next Generation Kentucky Information Highway project) affirmed at ‘BBB+’.

The Rating Outlook on all credits is Stable.

A brief rationale for each of the rating actions is described below. In addition, Fitch has also assigned public sector counterparty ratings for each availability payment project using its ‘Rating Public Sector Obligations in PPP Transactions’ criteria published on July 23, 2015, with description of the rationale for these actions also below.

Portsmouth Gateway Group, LLC (PGG) (Portsmouth Bypass Project)

Project Rating

The upgrade to ‘A-‘ from ‘BBB’ reflects Fitch’s Stronger assessment of the project’s exposure to cost risk under Fitch’s revised availability criteria with an all cost breakeven of 81%, which translates into a ROC multiple of over 16x given the low operating responsibilities of this project. The overall Stronger cost risk assessment is derived from Stronger assessments for scope risk and cost predictability and a Midrange assessment of cost volatility & structural protections. The rating further reflects the experience of the managing partner of the design-build joint venture (DBJV), Dragados USA (parent company Dragados, S.A., the construction arm of ACS Group), and the project’s sizable security package that covers the worst-case replacement cost scenario. Once operational, the project will benefit from a strong revenue counterparty, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), and relatively low complexity operation, maintenance, and lifecycle requirements with the ability to withstand financial stresses.

The rating action applies to the following debt issuances:

— Treasurer of State’s (Ohio) approximately $227 million of senior private activity bonds (PABs), series 2015 on behalf of Portsmouth Gateway Group, LLC;
–Approximately $208 million subordinate Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan to Portsmouth Gateway Group, LLC.

Grantor Rating

Fitch has assigned a PPP Grantor Counterparty rating of ‘A+’ with a Stable Outlook to the ODOT’s Portsmouth Bypass project payment obligations. The credit quality of ODOT’s counterparty obligation, two notches below the grantor Issuer Default Rating (IDR), reflects Midrange financial and legal attributes of the financing. ODOT receives large statutorily-determined allocations of motor fuel tax revenues and is not overly leveraged. Its capacity to make payments for this financing from its annual resources is strong.

WVB East End Partners LLC (Ohio River Bridges East End Crossing Project)

Project Rating

The upgrade to ‘BBB+’ from ‘BBB’ reflects Fitch’s Midrange assessment of the project’s exposure to cost risk under Fitch’s revised availability criteria with an all cost breakeven of 64% which translates into a ROC multiple of over 8x. The overall Midrange cost risk assessment is derived from Midrange assessments to scope risk, cost predictability, and cost volatility & structural protections. In addition, the rating reflects the strength of the DBJV, which includes Walsh Construction and Vinci S.A. (rated by Fitch ‘BBB+’/Outlook Stable), the progress to-date in construction with expected completion remaining on schedule and on budget despite slight delays on the tunnel portion of the project. The project also benefits from availability and milestone payments during construction and operation from a highly rated counterparty, the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA).

The rating action applies to the following debt issuances by the IFA on behalf of WVB:

–$482.3 million series 2013A (long-term private activity bonds [PABs]);
–$194.5 million series 2013B (short-term PABs).

Grantor Rating

Fitch has assigned a PPP grantor counterparty rating of ‘AA’ with a Stable Rating Outlook to the IFA’s payment obligations for the Ohio River Bridges project. IFA’s counterparty obligations are intentionally structured nearly identically to the authority’s commitments for appropriation-backed debt issued on behalf of Indiana. There are parallel legal documents using similar language. Fitch views IFA and Indiana’s reporting of the obligations as mixed relative to the criteria assessment, and still evolving. Availability payment PPP structures are still relatively new in the state.

NYNJ Link Borrower LLC (Goethals Bridge Replacement Project)

Project Rating

The upgrade to ‘BBB’ from ‘BBB-‘ reflects Fitch’s Midrange assessment of the project’s exposure to cost risk under Fitch’s revised availability criteria. In addition, the rating also considers the current stage of construction as well as an all cost breakeven of 62% which translates into a ROC multiple of over 8x. The overall Midrange cost risk assessment is derived from Midrange assessments of scope risk and cost volatility and a Stronger assessment of cost predictability & structural protections. The rating further reflects the project’s construction progress remaining on schedule and with sufficient funding to achieve completion prior to the long-stop date. Once operational, the project will receive a stable revenue stream from a highly rated revenue off-taker in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The rating action applies to the following debt issuances:

–$460.9 million PABs issued by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority on behalf of NYNJ Link Borrower LLC;
–$473.6 million (excluding capitalized interest) TIFIA loan to NYNJ Link.

Grantor Rating

Fitch has assigned an ‘A’ rating with a Stable Outlook to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s (Goethals Bridge Counterparty) rating. The rating considers the various operation and maintenance (O&M), developer finance arrangement (DFA) and capital maintenance (CM) payment obligations to NYNJ Link LLC (NY) as defined under the concession agreement relating to the Goethals Bridge renewal project. This rating considers the terms of the various payment streams in their totality vis-a-vis their priority within the Port Authority’s Consolidated Bond Resolution. The specification of CM and DFA payments as subordinated special obligations is a key rating factor.

Denver Transit Partners, LLC (Eagle Project)

Project Rating

The upgrade to ‘A-‘ from ‘BBB-‘ reflects a direct link to the rating of Fluor Corporation (rated by Fitch ‘A-‘/Outlook Stable), the project’s contractor and operator, which guarantees completion, as well as O&M and lifecycle endeavors. If Fluor was to be downgraded or the guarantee was to go away, the rating of the project would likely be downgraded. Fitch has assessed the project’s exposure to cost risk as Midrange under Fitch’s revised availability criteria, and this cost risk assessment was derived from Midrange assessments of scope risk, cost predictability, and cost volatility & structural protections. The project also benefits from availability payments from a highly rated counterparty, the Regional Transportation District (RTD).

The rating action applies to the following debt issuance by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) on behalf of DTP:

–$398 million in tax exempt PABs, series 2010.

Grantor Rating

Fitch has assigned a PPP Grantor Counterparty rating of ‘A-‘ with a Stable Outlook to RTD’s payment obligations for the Denver Eagle P3 Project. Voter approved sales tax revenues provide a stable revenue stream but the TABOR portion service payment is subordinate to RTD’s senior lien bonds and FasTracks bonds (rated ‘AA+’ and ‘AA’, respectively, both with Stable Outlooks) and the non-TABOR portion is on parity with RTD’s appropriations for O&M and Certificates of Participation (rated ‘A’/Outlook Stable) .

I-69 Development Partners LLC (I-69 Section 5 Project)

Project Rating

The rating affirmation at ‘BBB’ reflects Fitch’s Midrange assessment of the project’s exposure to cost risk under Fitch’s revised availability criteria with an all cost breakeven of 91%, which translates into a ROC multiple of over 12x. The overall Midrange cost risk assessment is derived from Midrange assessments of scope risk and cost volatility and a Stronger assessment of cost predictability & structural protections. The project benefits from a strong availability-based revenue profile and debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) profile that provides cushion against the risk of higher operating and lifecycle cost than forecast. Despite financial metrics that indicate the potential to be rated higher the project is currently capped at the ‘BBB’ level by completion risk given the credit strong of the contractor and security package. The project also benefits from availability and milestone payments during construction and operation from a highly rated counterparty, the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA).

The rating action applies to the following debt issuances by the IFA on behalf of I-69 Development Partners LLC:

–Approximately $3.53 million PABs serial bonds, due 2017;
–Approximately $240.32 million term PABs, due over various maturities no later than 2046.

Grantor Rating

Fitch has assigned a PPP grantor counterparty rating of ‘AA’ with a Stable Outlook to the Indiana Finance Authority’s (IFA’s) payment obligations. IFA’s counterparty obligations are intentionally structured nearly identically to the authority’s commitments for appropriation-backed debt issued on behalf Indiana. There are parallel legal documents using similar language. Fitch views IFA and Indiana’s reporting of the obligations as mixed relative to the criteria assessment, and still evolving. Availability payment PPP structures are still relatively new in the state.

KentuckyWired Infrastructure Company, Inc. (Next Generation Kentucky Information Highway Project)

Project Rating

The rating affirmation of ‘BBB+’ reflects Fitch’s Stronger assessment of the project’s exposure to cost risk under Fitch’s revised availability criteria with a breakeven of 42%, which translates to a breakeven of over 5x. The overall Stronger cost risk assessment is derived from Stronger assessments of scope risk, cost predictability, and cost volatility & structural protections. The rating further reflects the project’s adequate security package and experienced contractors completing a relatively low-risk project. A stable revenue profile is expected due to modest performance requirements and a fully indexed revenue component under the availability-based contract with a highly rated commitment from the Commonwealth of Kentucky (the Commonwealth). The project is able to withstand prolonged financial stresses during the operating phase due to the market-based repricing of the O&M contract every 10 years.

The rating action applies to the following debt issuances by the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority on behalf of the KentuckyWired Infrastructure Company, Inc.:
–Approximately $232 million senior tax-exempt revenue bonds series 2015A;
–$58 million senior taxable revenue bonds series 2015B-1 & 2015B-2.

Grantor Rating

Fitch previously assigned a PPP Grantor Counterparty rating of ‘A’ with a Stable Outlook to the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s payment obligations under the Kentucky Wired transaction. Project Agreement terms, including termination provisions and eventual Commonwealth ownership of the asset, clearly establish the significance of Kentucky’s commitment for availability and milestone payments. However, Fitch views the commitment as slightly weaker than that for general fund supported appropriation debt, supporting the one notch distinction with the rating on those bonds (‘A+’/Outlook Stable). The executive and legislative branches have both demonstrated support for the specific project and the Commonwealth’s use of PPP procurements through specific statutory, budgetary, and administrative actions.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

These rating actions purely reflect the update to Fitch’s rating criteria, with the exception of Denver Eagle P3. As such the rating sensitivities remain unchanged from Fitch’s previous publications. (For additional details, see:

–‘Fitch Rates Portsmouth Gateway Group’s Sr. PABS & Sub. TIFIA Loan ‘BBB’; Outlook Stable’, dated April 7 2015;
–‘Fitch Affirms Indiana Finance Authority’s Revs at ‘BBB’; Outlook Stable’, dated Feb. 27, 2015
–‘Fitch Affirms New Jersey Economic Development Authority PABs at ‘BBB-‘, Outlook Stable’, dated May 29, 2015;
–‘Fitch Affirms Regional Transportation Dist, CO’s PABs at ‘BBB-‘; Outlook Stable’, dated May 27, 2015;
–‘Fitch Assigns Indiana Finance Auth’s PABs ‘BBB’ Rating; Outlook Stable’, dated July 23, 2014;
–‘Fitch Rates KentuckyWired Infrastructure Company, Inc.’s Senior Debt’, dated Sept. 3, 2015.

The rating for the Denver Eagle P3 project is tied to the guarantee from Fluor and therefore additional sensitivities as described in the rationale above would apply.

Contact:

Project Ratings

Scott Zuchorski
Senior Director
+1-212-908-0659
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
33 Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004

Stephanie Jenks
Analyst
+1-212-908-0751

State/Local PPP Counterparty Ratings
Eric Kim
Director
+1-212-908-0241

Committee Chairperson
Bernardo Costa
Senior Director
+55-11 4504 2607




Updated GASB Codification and GARS Online to be Released in March 2016.

Release of the latest edition of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Codification and Original Pronouncements and the June 2015 update to the Governmental Accounting Research System and GARS Online has been delayed until March 2016.

This delay results from the need to extensively revise the Codification to conform to the simplified structure of the GAAP hierarchy as defined by GASB Statement 76. The new Codification will consist of two categories of authoritative GAAP, compared to four previous categories: Category A (Statements) and Category B (Technical Bulletins, Implementation Guides, and AICPA guidance cleared by the GASB). The objective of the new hierarchy is to enable state and local governments to more easily identify the appropriate standard for a given circumstance.

We appreciate your patience and hope that you will find the enhanced documents and GARS update to be valuable resources.




Muni Pros Scold P.R. For Lack of Financial Disclosure.

Municipal investors said Puerto Rico’s $355 million Government Development Bank note payment and claw-back debt management plan did little to resolve the island’s debt crisis.

Buyside experts on Wednesday said the commonwealth remains in a precarious situation, as a now-crucial $1 billion debt service payment looms on Jan. 1. Some said Tuesday’s plan merely postpones an inevitable default, while jeopardizing future payments to some bond holders by clawing back revenue from lower-tier debt to pay general obligations.

“It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul,” said Alexandra Lebenthal, co-chief executive officer at Lebenthal Holdings in New York City. “If I’m Peter I’m not very happy.”

James T. Colby III, senior municipal strategist and portfolio manager at Van Eck Global, which owns a variety of Puerto Rico credits in two municipal high-yield exchange traded funds, said the firm viewed Gov. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla’s testimony to Congress this week with “heightened sensitivity” to the potential repercussions for the debt.

“While we were encouraged by the near-term decision to make payment and meet their near-term obligations, by failing to give greater clarity on any plan for addressing their cash needs — save the comment about a possible ‘claw back’ to provide some working capital — holders such as ourselves were left no better off than 24 hours earlier,” Colby said on Wednesday afternoon. “We are left to wonder if this gesture was one of recognition of the GO full faith and credit pledge or just the play of a bargaining chip.”

Others reiterated the need for increased financial disclosure.

Even though the commonwealth has the ability to claw-back revenue to secure the repayment of general obligation debt service, Peter Delahunt, managing director at Raymond James & Associates, said there needs to be more clarity as Puerto Rico manages its future debt responsibilities and strives to recover from its overall fiscal malaise.

“What is unclear is an actual audited accounting of the commonwealth’s finances,” Delahunt told The Bond Buyer, noting that the commonwealth has not produced audited financial statements for the past two fiscal years. “The lack of audited financials discredits the accuracy of the commonwealth’s recent Financial Information and Operating Data Report, which was reinforced last week when the administration published an Errata Notice that disclosed this report had included erroneous data,” Delahunt said.

“Claims have been made that the report overstates the commonwealth’s general fund debt service burden by as much as 30% to 60%,” Delahunt continued.

“The lack of audited numbers enables a good deal of ambiguity. Until the ambiguity is cleared up, a proper debate for resolution is pointless,” he said.

Michael Comes, a portfolio manager and vice president of research at Cumberland Advisors, said the actions of the commonwealth reflect “one step in many of the process by which Puerto Rico will deleverage its balance sheet and shore up its liquidity in the absence of an orderly resolution process.”

The firm only owns P.R. debt insured by Assured Guaranty and MBIA, Comes said. He said there is concern in the market over the Jan. 1 payments as well as other future debts.

“I don’t think they’re going to be able to make the payment,” Comes said. “They simply do not have the money. The collective unwillingness of creditors and the issuer to achieve consensus has led to a worse outcome than if they had.”

While the commonwealth is faced with limited liquidity, it also must place a high priority on providing services to its citizens, said Peter Hayes, head of the Municipal Bonds Group at BlackRock Inc., which oversees $111 billion in municipal assets and does not own the direct debt of Puerto Rico in its municipal funds.

“This means that it will be more difficult to find sources of funds going forward, making each payment date more tenuous, particularly as markets are closed to them,” he said. “Puerto Rico is clearly trying to pay debt service and avoid litigation, while buying time for consensual negotiations.”

Overall, municipal experts agreed the negatives still outweigh positives for Puerto Rico investors.

“For those credits subject to the claw back, this is clearly a negative credit event – but one that is already being factored into current pricing levels,” Jeffrey Lipton, managing director and head of municipal research and strategy at Oppenheimer & Co. said.

He said while the executive order comes as no surprise and is consistent with the governor’s prior statements and actions, it also underscores the severity of the commonwealth’s liquidity crisis.

At the same time, he said, “it is very difficult to gauge just how serious the cash erosion is given the transparency issues and systemic shuffling of monies that have been characteristic of Puerto Rico for many years.”

Hayes said the commonwealth will need to suspend payments for other issuers in the future, unless there is “a quick settlement with bondholders on a restructuring that includes postponing debt service payments.” He said such a solution seems unlikely.

“Time is running out and the current debt levels are unsustainable,” Lipton said.

“Without broad restructuring capability or access to Chapter 9, the only course of action would be to pursue a PREPA-like restructuring, which as we know has consumed a great deal of time and expense,” Lipton said. He referred to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s efforts for more than a year to complete a business and debt agreement.

“Multiplying this by several more credits will likely create much greater uncertainty,” Lipton added.

THE BOND BUYER

BY CHRISTINE ALBANO

DEC 2, 2015




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (Rating Activity for the Week Slows as 2015 Winds Down).

In this week’s segment of Extra Credit, Senior Director Dave Hitchcock explains our recent outlook revision on Massachusetts, and Directors Helen Samuelson and Nick Waugh discuss our rating changes affecting the City of Chicago Sales Tax Revenue Bonds and Boston University, respectively.

Listen to the Podcast.

Dec. 4, 2015




High Yield Municipal Bonds: Understanding Where Credit Risk Lives.

Even among nonrated bonds, defaults are generally rare and focused on narrow areas.

Moody’s regularly publishes a study that examines defaults in the rated universe of distressed municipal bonds, but it leaves out a sizable portion of the municipal market that is unrated. To provide clarity on the full municipal market, we conducted our own study using Bloomberg data. Here’s what we found.

With over $3.7 trillion municipal bonds currently outstanding, there are approximately $57 billion in municipal bonds (or 1.5% of the outstanding municipal market) in Bloomberg that are coded as distressed. Distressed in this instance can mean that the issuer fully defaulted on a bond payment, partially defaulted on a bond payment, or is in violation of a covenant (i.e., the debt service coverage ratio is below the set-forth amount).

As the table below indicates, the sector with the largest number of distressed bonds is Tobacco, with $14.2 billion or 23.5% of the total. Such bonds are funded with settlement money and categorized as distressed due to the overall decline in smoking and the fact that some large issuers have drawn on their liquidity reserve funds to pay interest. General Obligation (GO) bonds account for $13 billion or 21.6% of the total. This should not be taken as an indication of poor credit quality in GOs overall; it’s more that names that have received extensive headline coverage for fiscal concerns-Puerto Rico, Detroit and Jefferson County-all have bonds in the category. The Power sector, the third largest ($8.2 billion or 13.6%), is largely composed of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) debt, which is subject to similar pressures as other municipal issuance from the commonwealth.

Sector Par Outstanding Number of Distressed Credits
Tobacco Settlement 14,240,689,199 40
General Obligation 13,061,406,880 375
Power 8,199,925,000 244
Other* 8,140,559,192 894
Development 4,509,884,983 543
Water 2,324,284,636 212
Pollution 1,427,215,000 46
Facilities 1,292,044,000 191
Nursing Homes 1,192,993,593 311
Medical 1,038,405,000 232
Multifamily Housing 1,000,142,118 195
Airport 830,615,000 19
Transportation 755,055,441 64
Build America Bonds 681,670,000 6
Education 445,625,000 79
Higher Education 350,010,000 53
Utilities 341,515,000 42
Mello-Roos 292,915,000 126
Housing 237,733,785 29
Single Family Housing 62,504,423 32
School District 7,880,000 10
Bond Bank 195,000 1
Total $60,433,268,251 3,744

*Other refers to Special Tax District, Bonds, Tax Increment Bonds and certain Community Development District bonds.
Source: Bloomberg, Neuberger Berman, data as of November 23, 2015.

By definition, high yield municipal bonds carry greater credit risk than their investment grade municipal counterparts. But it bears noting that distressed credits are less common among high yield municipals than their corporate high yield counterparts, where 2.3% of bonds are considered to be distressed. 1 As such, we believe that the municipal market continues to be a good place to add credit risk in exchange for additional yield, particularly among what we would characterize as quality non-investment grade issues. Of course, when investing in higher yield bonds, it is important that investors undertake careful analysis of issuer credit fundamentals as they pertain to long-term payment prospects.

1 As defined by the Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Index.

This material is provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. This material is not intended as a formal research report and should not be relied upon as a basis for making an investment decision. The firm, its employees and advisory clients may hold positions of companies within sectors discussed. Specific securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold or recommended for advisory clients. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities identified and described were or will be profitable. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm as a whole. Information presented may include estimates, outlooks, projections and other “forward looking statements.” Due to a variety of factors, actual events may differ significantly from those presented. Neuberger Berman products and services may not be available in all jurisdictions or to all client types. Investing entails risks, including possible loss of principal. Investments in hedge funds and private equity are speculative and involve a higher degree of risk than more traditional investments. Investments in hedge funds and private equity are intended for sophisticated investors only. Unless otherwise indicated returns shown reflect reinvestment of dividends and distributions. Indexes are unmanaged and are not available for direct investment. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The views expressed herein may include those of those of Neuberger Berman’s Asset Allocation Committee which comprises professionals across multiple disciplines, including equity and fixed income strategists and portfolio managers. The Asset Allocation Committee reviews and sets long-term asset allocation models and establishes preferred near-term tactical asset class allocations. The views of the Asset Allocation Committee may not reflect the views of the firm as a whole and Neuberger Berman advisers and portfolio managers may recommend or take contrary positions to the views of the Asset Allocation Committee. The Asset Allocation Committee views do not constitute a prediction or projection of future events or future market behavior.

December 02, 2015, 12:00:00 AM EDT

By Sarah Gehring | Senior Research Analyst, Municipal Fixed Income, Neuberger Berman

This material is being issued on a limited basis through various global subsidiaries and affiliates of Neuberger Berman Group LLC. Please visit www.nb.com/disclosure-global-communications for the specific entities and jurisdictional limitations and restrictions.

The “Neuberger Berman” name and logo are registered service marks of Neuberger Berman Group LLC.

© 2009-2015 Neuberger Berman LLC. | All rights reserved

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.




Clinton Proposes $275 Billion Infrastructure Plan With Bank, BABs.

DALLAS — Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton outlined a plan for $275 billion of new federal infrastructure funding, including a revival of the stimulus-era Build America Bonds program, at a campaign stop on Sunday in Boston.

Clinton’s proposal includes $250 billion of direct federal funding for roads, transit systems, and ports — in addition to whatever transportation spending is contained in a compromise multiyear highway bill expected to be released on Monday night — and a $25 billion federally funded infrastructure bank that she said would generate an additional $225 billion of low-interest loans to spur private investments in public projects.

“This would be on top of what the Congress should finally get around to authorizing,” Clinton said of the $275 billion proposal at the Nov. 29 “Hardhats for Hillary” rally. “That is just the floor. We have to build on that. We are trillions of dollars behind. We have to add to what the Congress appropriates.”

Clinton did not provide details of her infrastructure plan at the Boston rally, but a campaign spokesman said the additional funding would come from corporate tax reform.

“Our roads and bridges are potholed and crumbling,” Clinton said. “Our airports are a mess, our ports need improvement, and our rail systems do as well.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who also is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, in January proposed a $25 billion national infrastructure bank as part of his $1 trillion, five-year infrastructure program.

Sanders’ Rebuild America Act proposal (S. 268) would boost expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund to $75 billion a year from fiscal 2015 through fiscal 2022 from the current $53 billion. His infrastructure plan would provide $735 billion of transportation funding, including $75 billion for passenger and freight rail infrastructure, and $145 billion for local and state water projects.

The latest short-term extension of federal transportation funding authority, a 14-day fix signed into law the week before Thanksgiving, will expire at midnight Friday unless Congress passes either a multiyear bill or, more likely, another quick fix to give lawmakers a few more days to agree on a compromise measure being developed by a House-Senate conference committee.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the conference committee resolving the differences between competing House and Senate highway bills, said he expects a bipartisan conference report on a five-year highway bill will be released Monday night.

The compromise proposal would shorten the six-year bills to five years to boost annual funding levels, bringing them closer to the per-year amounts in the Senate proposal.

Shuster, who is also chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and chief sponsor of the House highway bill, told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review in an interview published on Sunday that he would have preferred a full six-year funding measure rather than the five-year plan that will be recommended in the compromise bill.

“It’s always a battle, but you can’t expect to get everything you want. None of us get that in life,” Shuster said. “But you work together to get things passed because it’s what is right for the country.”

The Senate’s DRIVE Act (H.R. 22) would allocate $273.4 billion for highways and $59.3 billion for transit through fiscal 2021. The House adopted an amended version of the Senate measure that authorized $261 billion of federal highway funding and $55 billion for public transit.

The original bills included full funding for only the first three years, with billions of dollars in general revenue offsets to support the $40 billion per year of dedicated taxes deposited into the HTF. Expenditures from the HTF in fiscal 2015 totaled $53.7 billion.

THE BOND BUYER

BY JIM WATTS

NOV 30, 2015 1:54pm ET




Memo to Puerto Rico: Alabama County Shows Limits of Bankruptcy.

Four years after filing what was then the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, Jefferson County, Alabama, is learning that having debt wiped out in court doesn’t solve all one’s financial problems.

Alabama’s largest county emerged from bankruptcy in 2013 freed from $1.3 billion of bonds that hastened its collapse, only to still be unable to make up for deep spending cuts for police, road work and health care. It’s at risk of defaulting on some debt as soon as 2017. And it’s counting on returning to the bond market next year for the first time since leaving court protection, seeking to free up needed cash by refinancing debt left behind.

“They’re floundering, still bogged down with remnants of their past,” said Richard Ciccarone, president of Merritt Research Services in Chicago, which tracks municipal borrowers. “They still have remaining structural issues that weren’t resolved by their bankruptcy.”

The 661,000-person county, which is home to Birmingham, provides a lesson for Puerto Rico, the Caribbean island 1,650 miles (2,654 kilometers) away. There, with the government rapidly going broke after running up $70 billion of debt as the economy sputtered, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla is pleading with U.S. lawmakers to give it the power to file for bankruptcy, just as local governments can. They’ve so far declined.

While such a step allows governments to escape from debts if a judge approves, it can leave behind other liabilities, delaying a fresh start, and doesn’t always address the root cause.

Detroit, which was once felled by rising debt, pension bills and a shrinking population, in 2024 will have to start paying about $194 million a year in workers retirement bills that were delayed by the bankruptcy. Jefferson County is still contending with debt that was left intact and the blow of a court verdict that struck down a tax that provided 40 percent of its revenue.

“Bankruptcy was never a panacea, but necessary to deal with an unimaginable debt load,” said James Stephens, president of the Jefferson County Commission, in an e-mail.

Jefferson County’s bankruptcy was triggered by a sewer project that was dogged by mismanagement and corruption. When the price tag more than doubled to over $3 billion, officials refinanced debt with floating-rate bonds and derivatives, like homeowners who used exotic loans to buy houses they couldn’t afford. The tactic backfired during the 2008 credit-market crisis, leaving the county on the hook for hundreds of millions in fees and demands to pay off the debt early.

Then, in 2011, an Alabama judge ruled that a wage tax that raised $75 million a year was illegal. That finally pushed it to file for bankruptcy, which allowed it to cut its sewer debt to $1.8 billion from $3.1 billion.

Still, the county reduced its workforce by 1,200, or one-third, in response to the loss of the tax. One jail was closed, and the county has been hard-pressed to invest in new infrastructure. The budget has been cut by 46 percent since 2008, according to Fitch Ratings, which estimates that the county will need to drain $38 million from its reserves this year.

Jefferson County is now seeking to free up money for infrastructure projects by refinancing about $666 million of debt sold for its schools in 2004 and 2005 as soon as first quarter of 2016, said Stephens.

Default Risk Lingers

It plans to do the same with about $69 million of obligations backed by leases on county buildings. The county has struggled to meet those bills: It initially planned to have bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc. cover some of the debt payments due this fiscal year, which Standard & Poor’s said would be a default, until it was able to secure funds. That sparked a two-level upgrade by S&P on Dec. 1 to CCC, eight steps below investment grade.

“Because there’s not a plan to make those payments after 2016, we think they’re still vulnerable,” said Jim Tchou, analyst at S&P.

By refinancing the school debt and pushing payments into the future, the county will be able to access about $36 million a year of taxes that support the debt and provide $18 million for schools, said Stephens, the county commissioner.

Jefferson County convinced state lawmakers to allow it to use some of the 1 percent sales tax that now goes to the school debt for other expenses after the refinancing. The sale still has another hurdle: The county’s awaiting approval of the deal from an Alabama judge. A group of residents is also seeking to have the sales tax thrown out in court, which, if successful, would deal a fresh hit to the public purse.

“Bankruptcy provides more runway to deal with financial pressures but it doesn’t resolve the systematic problems that existed before,” said James Spiotto, managing director at Chapman Strategic Advisors LLC, which advises on financial restructuring.

In Puerto Rico, officials would like to give it a try. If only Congress would let them.

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

December 3, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on December 4, 2015 — 5:01 AM PST




Moody's: U.S. State and Local Government Outlooks are Stable for 2016.

New York, December 04, 2015 — The 2016 outlook for both US states and local governments remain stable as the continuing recovery of the US economy drives moderate tax revenue growth, Moody’s Investors Service says in two new annual outlook reports.

State tax revenue should rise 4%-5% in 2016. While this is slightly below last year’s forecast, it is consistent with the post-recession average.

However, regional challenges will cause economic and revenue performance to vary across the country. Oil and gas producing states, particularly those with budgets heavily reliant on the sector, could be forced to reduce their budgets and lower their forward revenue assumptions.

Other pressures to state budgets include K-12 education, Medicaid, and infrastructure maintenance.

“Even with slower revenue growth and headwinds from rising spending costs, we expect most states will successfully keep their financial positions in balance with prudent budgeting,” Kenneth Kurtz, a Moody’s Senior Vice President, says in “US States 2016 Outlook – Moderate Revenue Growth Supports Fiscal Stability for Most States.”

Property taxes, which are the primary source of most local government revenues, are expected to improve by 2%-3% amid local tax base growth. Though still below prerecession growth of 4%-5%, some local governments are limited by tax caps and slower-than-expected recoveries.

In addition, the stable outlook for local governments is supported by an increase in median fund balances. Fund balance levels indicate the financial resources a local government has available to meet future contingencies, Moody’s says, and currently median fund balances are higher now than in 2008.

Unfunded pension liabilities and other fixed costs remain a long-term challenge for some local governments, however.

“Net pension liabilities will continue to grow in 2016, particularly given weaker June 30, 2015 investment returns and because local governments’ annual pension contributions are often below actuarial requirements,” David Strungis, a Moody’s Analyst, says in “US Local Governments 2016 Outlook – Growing Property Tax Revenue and Improving Fund Balances Underpin Stable Outlook.”

Moody’s outlooks reflect its expectations for the fundamental financial and economic conditions in a sector over the next 12-18 months.

The reports are part of a series of outlooks on a wide variety of sectors globally published by Moody’s. For other reports in the series, go to www.moodys.com/2016outlooks.

The state outlook is available to Moody’s subscribers here and the local government outlook is located here.




Standard & Poor's U.S. Public Finance Transportation Rating Transitions and Defaults Study Spotlights Stability.

Although U.S. public finance transportation sector ratings tend to be lower than in other areas of municipal finance, the sector is among the most stable regarding the level and number of ratings. The sector includes airports, ports, mass transit, parking facilities, and toll roads and bridges. In this CreditMatters TV segment, Senior Director Larry Witte highlights the report’s key findings.

Watch the video.

Nov. 23, 2015




Why Are Closed End Bond Funds On Sale Like Its Black Friday?

Many closed end bond funds (“CEFS”) are trading at large discounts to net asset value (“NAV”).

I selected Western Asset Managed High Income Fund for this chart, but there are many closed end bond and loan funds (including funds invested in Municipal Bonds) that exhibit similar patterns.

We have seen the discount to NAV (the yellow line) increase. This has largely been due to the price performance of the CEF, as the underlying NAV has been reasonably stable as of late.

The most common reasons I hear for the discount to NAV on so many CEFS are:

I will attempt to address each of these reasons in turn and will add one additional reason to consider deeply discounted funds.

A December Rate Hike and Bond Prices

According to Bloomberg, the market is pricing in a 72% chance that the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee will raise the Federal Reserve Fund Target Rate range by 0.25% in December.

I wanted to be explicit about what rate is being hiked because it is crucial to understand that the Fed has limited ability to set longer term rates. The treasury market yield curve for bonds with maturities 2 years or less is heavily influenced by the Fed Funds Rate and by the messages the Fed sends. As you move further out the curve, to 10 years and beyond, rates are influenced by longer term policy indications and fears (or hopes) of growth and inflation.

With the rate hike so well telegraphed, there is little reason to believe that bond yields across the curve will move by much. Any change in longer term yields are more likely to more based on the tone of the Fed meeting – which will likely be very dovish and show that they will be extremely cautious in terms of future interest rate hikes.

So based solely on the hike, there should be little movement in bond prices.

There is concern that the rate hike will cause the dollar to strengthen, causing yet more pressure on commodity prices, in turn hurting bonds of those producers. That is a possibility, but as we have seen time and time again, when something is so logical and widely anticipated, it rarely occurs. The market has had almost a year to digest the impact of the first rate hike, and the dollar (as measured by the DXY Index) is already at highs of the past 12 years (first reached in February).

So being concerned about further dollar strength is rational, it may already be priced in.

The Impact of Leverage

A rate hike will likely increase the cost of the leverage used by most CEFs. Assuming the fund borrows using short term rates (3 month LIBOR for example), without an interest rate floor, then the cost of those borrowings is likely to increase. That will impact the Net Interest for the CEF (Total Interest minus Cost of Funds).

For most funds that will have a very small impact on what can be distributed, as it will likely only be 0.25% and only on the amount of money borrowed (typically 25% to 33% of the funds size). I anticipate that cost will be around 0.1% in the first quarter of next year for most funds, which is small relative to dividend yields and current discounts to NAV.

So while the direct cost of increased borrowing costs is real, it is small relative to current dividend yields and NAVs for many funds. MHY, which does not use leverage, has a 9.5% dividend yield and 15.6% discount.

Leverage does amplify price moves in the underlying asset classes, but that is ongoing and has nothing to do with a change in rates. It also works in both directions, so any price increases in the underlying assets will also be impacted. Whether or not bond prices will increase or decrease from here is unknown, the impact of leverage on the return of the underlying assets cannot be ignored and bond prices could drop further, but the current discount to NAV can be a large offset over time.

Asset Quality

Much has been made about the difficulty in valuing and trading bonds. While that is true it can be overstated. According to TRACE data, the market has been averaging over $15 billion of investment grade bond trading on a daily basis for the past month. High Yield volumes are much smaller but not insignificant.

I like to look at the ETF’s to judge how “well” a market is trading. If a market is out of favor or very difficult to value, I would expect the ETF for that market to be trading at a discount to NAV.

But that is not currently the case as the ETF’s for Municipal Bonds, Investment Grade Bonds, and High Yield Bonds are all trading at a premium to NAV.

Asset Class ETF Premium
Municipal Bonds MUB 0.2%
Investment Grade LQD 0.0%
High Yield HYG 0.5%
High Yield JNK 0.5%
Leveraged Loans BKLN -0.2%

That premium to NAV should ease concerns that the asset class is “for sale”. In fact the difference in the high yield market, where many of the CEFS trading at the largest discount to NAV invest versus the ETF’s trading at a premium is striking.

Leveraged loans, which also have many CEFS, are a bit more concerning as the main ETF for that market continues to trade at a discount to NAV and experience outflows.

Tax Loss Harvesting

This can be a valid strategy, particularly if coupled with buying a similarly discounted CEF – to capture the tax loss without creating a wash sale issue (please talk to your accountant for any tax related issues).

That could be causing some selling pressure but that tends to dissipate as we near year end. Furthermore, we often see new allocations to fixed income in the first part of the year where investors tend to “annualize” the yield they can receive – not a strategy I condone as I believe fixed income should be managed throughout the year, but it is a flow that tends to occur with regularity so I would not want to ignore that.

So this is a real issue, but a temporary one that should be nearing the end of this year’s flows.

Manager Buying

As we near year end, we could see some managers buy back shares of some of their most heavily discounted CEFS. I have spoken to several managers of CEFS and they all tend to start buying back shares to support prices in the 15% to 18% discount range (some types of funds start earlier). Managers do not like their funds to experience high discounts to NAV for prolonged periods as they feel it can reflect poorly on the manager.

So we are nearing levels on many funds, where another possible source of capital inflows could enter the market, supporting the trading price versus NAV.

Are CEFS the Doorbuster of the Market?

There remains a lot of risk in the bond market, but good managers can find value, and while we have all been trained to buy what retailers “discount” so far, we generally have the opposite tendency when it comes to markets. The discount to NAV for many represents fear, rather than the impulse to get a good deal.

For myself, I am not sure that the pain is over in the bond market, but well managed CEFS trading at a deep discount to NAV is interesting, especially when so many of the reasons we are seeing that phenomenon can be explained away.

Disclaimer: The content provided is property of Peter Tchir and any views or opinions expressed herein are those solely of Peter Tchir. This information is for educational and/or entertainment purposes only, so use this information at your own risk. Peter Tchir is not a broker-dealer, legal advisor, tax advisor, accounting advisor or investment advisor of any kind, and does not recommend or advise on the suitability of any trade or investment, nor provide legal, tax or any other investment advice.

NOV 29, 2015 @ 09:30 AM

Peter Tchir

Barron’s




Muni Volume Dips 21.6% in 3rd Month of Decline.

Municipal bond volume fell for a third straight month in November, as refundings declined by more than one-third from the same month last year.

Long-term muni bond issuance declined by 21.6% to $23.19 billion in 834 issues from $29.56 billion in 995 issues during the same period last year, according to Thomson Reuters data. The last November with lower volume was in 2000, when the monthly issuance totaled $19.80 billion.

“I am not totally surprised by the decline but a little surprised by the magnitude,” said Dan Heckman, senior fixed income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management. “It is playing out how we thought, all in and all. This trend will continue and will make for continued outperformance for munis.”

The drop is “evidence of the volatility in the overall market,” said Natalie Cohen, managing director at Wells Fargo Securities, who noted that Federal Reserve policymakers have continued to put off raising interest rates from historic lows. “At the end of August, there was a major equity drop and a rally in municipals,” she said. “Since then we have been very bouncy. After the rates didn’t rise, it took some time until we starting seeing issuance again.”

Refundings have now declined in four of the past five months, plunging 39.5% to $7.42 billion in 319 deals in November from $12.26 billion in 444 deals a year earlier.

“Refundings have fallen off a cliff and it is getting more and more challenging with how much refunding has taken place, there is not much left to refund,” Heckman said. “We are not issuing enough to keep up with number of bonds that have been called.”

New money issuance slipped 1.7% to $11.93 billion in 449 transactions from $12.13 billion in 473 transactions a year earlier.

Issuance of revenue bonds fell 17.1% to $14.22 billion, while general obligation bond sales dropped 27.7% to $8.97 billion.

Negotiated deals were down 15.3% to $17.43 billion and competitive sales decreased by 26.8% to $5.62 billion.

Taxable bond volume was 22.7% lower to $1.69 billion from $2.19 billion, while tax-exempt issuance declined by 24% to $20.42 billion. Minimum tax bonds more than doubled to $1.08 billion from $508 million.

Bond insurance broke a three-month streak of decreases, as the par amount of deals with guarantees improved by 16.8% to $2.09 billion in 121 deals from $1.79 billion in 147 deals in November 2014.

Cities and towns saw an increase of 49.4% increase to $4.37 billion in 224 transactions from $2.92 billion in 254 transactions, while state governments, state agencies, counties and parishes, districts, local authorities, colleges and universities and direct issuers all saw decreases and hefty declines at that.

“When it comes to cities and towns, that’s a reflection of some of the large borrows doing refundings in the month and a reflection of infrastructure that state and local governments are doing what they need to do. The logic is there with the rates being low so they are saying ‘let’s get it done’,” Cohen said.

Cohen also said that while large deals by the likes of Industry City, Calif., Los Angeles municipal development corporation, Miami-beach and Anchorage had an effect, the system for bringing deals to market is more complex for cities and towns than it is for revenue bonds. The combination of delayed deals and new ones coming to market all at once could be another reason why issuance by cities and towns improved, she said.

The sectors were evenly split this month, with five seeing increases and five seeing decreases. The education, electric power, environmental facilities, housing and public facilities sectors gained.

“One of the bigger questions is why there isn’t more borrowing. The rates are low and we need infrastructure. but there has been this overhang of people saying ‘I can’t raise taxes’ but there was some change in that recently and you could see that in the local elections,” said Cohen.

Both the housing and public facilities sectors saw gains despite having a lower number of transactions, compared with November 2014. Housing transactions increased 23.7% to $1.19 billion in 35 deals from $967 million in 44 deals while public facilities issuance jumped up 46% to $1.65 billion in 49 deals from $1.13 billion in 57 deals.

With only one month now left in 2015, California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania remain the top issuers for the year to date.

The Golden State kept the top spot with $52.29 billion of issuance thus far in 2015, while the Lone Star State is second with $44.63 billion. The Empire State is third with $39.15 billion, the Sunshine State came in fourth with $19.93 billion and the Keystone State ranked fifth with $16.63 billion.

While it had looked like the market was almost certain reach the $400 billion plateau for yearly issuance, it now seems less likely, as a volume total of roughly $23 billion would be needed in December.

“I am not sure we will reach the $400 billion plateau,” Heckman said. “It will be very close – the drop off in new issuance is significant.”

Heckman said his firm expects the Fed to raise the benchmark rate by 25 basis points as it takes a “patient and methodical” approach to normalization.

Cohen expects issuance to reach the $400 billion mark and rates to rise in December, but says the bigger question is what will happen in the subsequent meetings in 2016.

“Will it be raise, raise raise? I think they will take it slow, raise it a little in December and wait and see from there on out,” she said. “Hopefully markets do not react dramatically. The global factor is a big one: it will be interesting to see how global events impact the market after December, once the rates are higher.”

THE BOND BUYER

BY AARON WEITZMAN

NOV 30, 2015 4:00pm ET




What’s a Fair Fare?

As transit agencies move toward income-based discounts, they still need to keep larger issues in mind.

Like so much of government, transit agencies walk a tightrope between providing a public service and not breaking the bank. Thanks to advances in smart-card technology, transit policymakers can now use income-based fare discounts to take a more nuanced approach to the public service-vs.-efficiency challenge. But the fundamental tension — and the need to focus on customer service — remains.

Nowhere is the balance between access and solvency harder to achieve than in Boston, a compact metropolitan area that relies heavily on transit. The region’s density and high cost of living must be weighed against the fragile physical condition and precarious finances of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). The agency owes about $9 billion in debt and interest, it faces a maintenance backlog of more than $7 billion, and it famously collapsed under the weight of this year’s brutal winter.

The MBTA’s financial problems are worse than most, but other transit agencies have the same types of challenges. According to the American Public Transportation Association, more than 70 percent of American public transit systems cut service, raised fares or did both during the Great Recession and its aftermath.

In the wake of last winter’s meltdown, the MBTA was put under the control of a Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB), which is contemplating fare increases that would take effect next summer. One option board members are considering is introducing low-income fare discounts to counterbalance the fare hikes.

Boston’s wouldn’t be the first transit agency to try that approach. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency implemented a plan called Muni Lifeline in 2005, but even though 20 percent of Bay Area residents live below the poverty line, only about 6 percent of system riders participate, One reason for the limited participation could be that the discount applies only to Muni’s bus and rail services, not Bay Area Rapid Transit trains.

Seattle presents a better comparison. Under a system implemented in March, together with the system’s sixth fare hike in eight years, those with annual incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($47,700 for a family of four and $23,340 for an individual) ride for $1.50, less than half of peak fares. Local transit officials estimate that 45,000 to 100,000 eligible residents will take advantage of the discount.

Low-income discounts are also an issue in Denver. In January, bus fares will rise from $2.25 to $2.60 and a monthly pass will cost $99. Advocates there are pushing for $1.30 fares and $49 monthly passes for recipients of public assistance.

In an era of scarcity, transit agencies can’t offer discounts to large swaths of riders without recouping the money elsewhere, and government isn’t a good candidate to kick in more. A 2014 U.S. Government Accountability Office report projected that state and local government tax revenues, as a percentage of gross domestic product, won’t reach pre-Great Recession levels until 2058.

But at the same time, transportation infrastructure has no more basic purpose than to facilitate economic growth. That includes providing low-income residents with a way to get to and from their jobs and an opportunity to climb the economic ladder.

Ultimately, the fate of transit agencies’ worthy experiment with low-income fare discounts will rest on the answer to one question: Are more affluent riders willing to make up the difference by paying more, or will higher fares push them to other transportation options?

Seattle’s transit agency awaits the answer to that question. Boston and Denver may soon join the list. Whether those riders choose to stay or go provides a reminder of why customer service needs to be job one throughout the transit industry.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHARLES CHIEPPO | DECEMBER 1, 2015




The Accounting Rules That Bankrupt Cities.

The cash-basis accounting system allows governments to make financial commitments that they won’t be able to fulfill in the future.

In November 2014, a Michigan bankruptcy judge confirmed a plan that allowed Detroit’s government to shed $7 billion in liabilities, averting a total financial collapse. One year later, however, many in Detroit are still dealing with the fallout of the massive debt reorganization.

Among the many shortchanged by the city’s bankruptcy, Detroit’s retired municipal workers have gotten a particularly raw deal. The plan imposed deep cuts in future pension and health-care benefits. Perhaps more galling, it also required retirees to pay back a decade of interest they earned on city-sponsored retirement savings accounts. These so-called clawbacks averaged nearly $50,000 per retiree. In one circumstance, a retiree returned $96,000.

These losses for retirees seem unusual, but many more like them could follow. The same accounting strategy that led Detroit to make unfulfilled promises is widely used by state and city legislators throughout the country. By using an accounting method known as cash-basis accounting, legislators project future spending without having to consider billions of dollars of long-term financial commitments, leaving many budgets balanced in name only.

It may be easiest to think in terms of personal finance. Imagine you purchase a car for $20,000 in 2015, but under a special promotion no payments are due on your bill until 2018. In what year did you incur the $20,000 bill? Most people would say 2015, the year you acquired the car. That’s the answer mandated under accrual accounting, a method of financial reporting required of all public companies by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. But many state and city legislatures disagree. They operate with the conviction that a bill is not incurred until the money leaves your bank account to pay it. So if you choose not to pay the bill for your car until 2018, for accounting purposes the bill will only appear that year.

When converted to accrual accounting, Virginia’s $50 million surplus turned into a $674.3 million deficit.
Cash-basis accounting is a recipe for fiscal disaster. State and local governments make long-term commitments for programs like employment compensation plans and public works projects. But they write their budgets on a year-to-year basis, as if starting all over again each year with fresh revenue and expenses. They leave out any revenue not received or, more importantly, any expense not incurred that year. The implications of this financial-planning decision can be immense. In 2010, Virginia reported that it had a cash-basis surplus of nearly $50 million in a budget of $34 billion. When converted to accrual accounting, the surplus turned into a $674.3 million deficit.

Government pension funds are a prime example of the kinds of expenses that state and local governments hide. When legislators announce an increase in upcoming pensions for government employees, the government amasses large new financial liabilities and makes a legally binding obligation for expenses incurred. But under cash-basis accounting, the new pension liabilities won’t show up in the budget until the government starts to pay out decades later. This is what happened in Detroit, which declared bankruptcy two years ago in large part because enormous pension and health-care payments were due and the city couldn’t pay for them.

Fearing precisely this sort of fiscal calamity, the Financial Accounting Standards Board outlawed cash-basis accounting decades ago in much of the private sector. This policy ensured that companies would understand their fiscal health before making any significant decisions involving costly long-term commitments.

The International Federation of Accountants and the Big Four accounting firms have been calling on governments to change their practices for years. They say that accrual accounting gives the public better information about its governments’ finances and, as a result, helps avoid a fate like Detroit’s. New York City, for example, made the switch in 1975 as part of its effort to avoid bankruptcy. Around the world, many governments—including some in Africa, Asia, and Latin America— are planning to shift to accrual accounting in the near future.

The shift to accrual accounting isn’t painless for new adopters. Once forced to reckon with long-term liabilities, state and city governments will likely find they have amassed much bigger deficits than they realized. Legislators may then need to cut spending and entitlements in an effort to balance their budgets.

Accrual accounting is also a far more complex method. Small municipal governments might not have enough manpower to adopt an accounting method that—beyond recording revenues received and expenses incurred as those events happen—requires projections about the budget extending in the coming years.

But states and large cities like Detroit cannot afford to ignore accrual accounting.

With budgets worth billions of dollars, their legislatures should have the expertise to handle its rigors. And by making tough budget decisions now, these governments might avoid making tougher decisions down the road.

THE ATLANTIC

JEREMY LISS

NOV 23, 2015




U.S. Public Finance Ratings Notch Three Straight Years Of Positive Performance.

The third quarter marked 12 straight quarters in which Standard & Poor’s upgraded more U.S. public finance ratings than we downgraded. In this CreditMatters TV segment, Senior Director Larry Witte explains the significance of these results and where most of the rating actions occurred.

Watch the video.

Nov. 23, 2015




Chicago Pension Ruling Seen as a Loss For Investors.

As Chicago awaits the ruling on whether Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to save its retirement funds from insolvency is dead or alive, investors are already marking the fight down as a loss that will strain city coffers and boost pension costs by billions.

Conning, which oversees $11 billion of municipal bonds including Chicago debt, has encouraged investors to reduce their holdings for more than a year, and said the projected negative ruling affirms that view. Wells Fargo Asset Management, which holds $475 million of Chicago general obligations, said the market is “emotionally prepared” for the loss, and hasn’t materially changed position.

The Illinois Supreme Court is weighing whether to uphold or overturn a lower court’s July ruling that deemed the restructuring of two non-public-safety retirement funds illegal. If the overhaul is not upheld, it’s expected that the unfunded liabilities of the municipal pension fund would increase by $2 billion, according to the Civic Federation, which cited actuarial reports. Moody’s Investors Service said Nov. 10 that rejecting the pension fix could pressure Chicago’s credit quality, but has factored such a decision into its speculative-grade rating on the city that has a $20 billion pension shortfall.

“As an investor, you have to assume that the city is going to lose,” according to Matt Fabian, a partner at Concord, Massachusetts-based Municipal Market Analytics, who said the city is still a good purchase for investors seeking tax-exempt income. “The city doesn’t have many triggers left to pull.”

After shortchanging its pensions by billions over the last decade, the city enacted a plan Jan. 1 to make the laborer and municipal workers’ pensions 90 percent funded by the end of 2055. The move forces employees and the city to pay more while trimming cost-of-living increases.

Bond prices for the most-actively traded Chicago debt over the last three months have climbed since a circuit court judge struck down the pension changes in July. The city council passed a 2016 spending plan on Oct. 28 that includes a record property tax increase to fund police and fire pensions.

A portion of taxable Chicago debt that matures in January 2033 traded Nov. 20 for an average of 106 cents on the dollar to yield 6.8 percent, up from 102 cents to yield 7.2 percent on July 24, the day of the lower court’s decision.

Unions that sued to block changes say benefits cuts make the plan unconstitutional, while the city argues this will keep the funds from running out of money in the next 10 to 13 years. The justices heard oral arguments on Nov. 17 in Springfield, the state capital. Stephen Patton, the city’s lawyer, noted that most of the unions that represent the affected workers supported the changes. He sought to distinguish the fix from the state’s act in May that was found unconstitutional.

Under Consideration

“The act avoids this looming disaster for the funds and their participants by massively increasing the city’s contributions and imposing a new obligation that the city must pay each year whatever amount the funds’ actuaries determine is necessary to ensure that the funds are fully funded and that all pensions will be paid,” Patton told the justices in his opening remarks.

The case is under consideration, and a decision will come whenever the justices are prepared to release one, said Bethany Krajelis, a spokeswoman for the court. There’s no deadline or timeline on a decision, she said.
Lawyers for unions that sued argued that the changes unquestionably cut benefits, making it illegal as Illinois’s constitution bans reducing worker retirement benefits.

Market analysts including Fabian, Paul Mansour of Conning and Dan Heckman of U.S. Bank Wealth Management don’t expect much of a market reaction, unless the justices reverse the lower court’s decision in a surprise move.

Longer View

“If the city wins, you could see some positive price action just because it’s been void of victories from a financial standpoint,” Gabe Diederich of Wells said. After the win on higher property taxes rallied Chicago bonds, a positive court ruling on the pension overhaul “just shows they’re taking steps, and they’re taking steps that are being either recognized, or upheld that can get put through.”

While a favorable ruling on the municipal and laborers pensions would certainly be a positive, it doesn’t change the “long-term view” that the city still has high pension obligations that they need to cover and meet, said Mansour, who oversees funds for insurance companies.

If the court doesn’t uphold the pension changes as constitutional, that will “severely limit” how the city can manage its mounting retirement debt, said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, which tracks the city’s finances.

“If the courts don’t allow it to negotiate benefit changes that protect the fund, then that’s going to put additional financial pressure on already a severely strained city government,” Msall said. “It will bode ill for Chicago public schools and all other local governments throughout the state of Illinois that are challenged to meet their pension obligations.”

Bloomberg Business

by Elizabeth Campbell

November 23, 2015 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on November 24, 2015 — 5:30 AM PST




Local Free Community College Plans May Be Template for U.S.

CHICAGO — An economic engine. A jumpstart for lower-income students. A partnership with businesses to groom a workforce. The idea of free community college has been touted as all these, by President Barack Obama, Democratic presidential candidates, and some Republicans.

The idea is to curb student debt and boost employment by removing cost barriers. Educators are split on its merits, with some worrying the push could divert students away from four-year schools. And some proposals could cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and may still leave students with debt.

But thousands of high school graduates have just started community college for free, with the first batch enrolled in independent first-year programs in Tennessee, Chicago and soon Oregon doing so under different price tags and philosophies — offering templates of how a federal program might look and potential glitches.

“My family wasn’t going to be able to support me financially,” said 19-year-old aspiring doctor Michelle Rodriguez, who’s taking classes for free in Chicago after concluding that even with in-state tuition and a scholarship a state university would be tough. “I’m the oldest. I’m the first generation to go to college.”

Tennessee is at the forefront, with over 15,000 students enrolled in what’s characterized as a jobs program. Chicago has just under 1,000 recent graduates in its City Colleges plan, with a push toward getting students into four-year schools at a discount. Oregon is accepting applications for next fall, with as many as 10,000 applicants expected. Other states are watching and considering their own programs.

Cost is bound to be a contentious issue, especially with strapped state and municipal budgets.

The Chicago’s Star Scholarship — a signature Mayor Rahm Emanuel initiative — is the most generous. Beyond tuition, it picks up books and transportation. “All I have to worry about is ordering my books on time, getting my homework on time and studying,” Rodriguez said. The price tops $3 million for the inaugural class.

Tennessee, which this year relies on roughly $12 million from lottery funds, is a “last dollar program” — paying what federal aid doesn’t cover, with an average of $1,165 a person. Related costs are up to students. For now, Oregon has set aside $10 million, and will cover up to the average tuition of $3,500 annually per student.

Obama has floated a $60 billion nationwide plan calling for two years of free community college available to most anyone with a family income under $200,000 who can keep a 2.5 grade point average.

Republicans criticized the cost, and at least one presidential candidate, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, has said it’s a bad concept. But Republican Jeb Bush likes the general idea and has supported Tennessee Promise. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both have proposed affordable college plans, and Sanders has introduced legislation to make four-year public universities free.

Using public dollars for such programs is relatively new. Organizers studied plans utilizing private dollars as a model. Graduates from Kalamazoo, Michigan, have had free tuition available at some public colleges for a decade. Philanthropists have run a similar Knoxville, Tennessee, fund since 2008.

Still, Democratic state Sen. Mark Hass, who pushed the Oregon Promise, had a hard time convincing his own party of benefits. He went to the economics.

“To make a business case out of it, you look at the social costs that some of those people would likely incur on the way to poverty,” he said. “A year of community college is a lot less than a lifetime on food stamps.”

GOP-led Tennessee, which has all 13 of its community colleges participating, saw an 18 percent enrollment bump at technical colleges, according to Mike Krause, executive director of Tennessee Promise.

“This is a jobs conversation,” he said.

With most students in Tennessee and Chicago just finishing their first semesters, it’s early for data on dropouts, higher degrees or job placement. Education experts, though, say the Tennessee and Oregon models could still leave students with debt.

“Students from low-income families, even when getting their tuition paid for, still have substantial shares of their cost of attendance to cover,” said Debbie Cochrane, research director at the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success. “They’re not borrowing for tuition. They’re borrowing for costs beyond tuition.”

That organization says 69 percent of 2014 college graduates left school with outstanding student loans, which averaged $28,950.

Octavia Coaks, an 18-year-old in Chicago, said she feels lucky that her parents, a nursing assistant and railroad engineer, don’t have to borrow more.

“I have a sister in college, they’re (already) taking out loans. I don’t want to put that kind of burden on them,” said Coaks, who wants to study forensic science.

Setting the qualification parameters is one way to define the program. Unlike Obama’s plan, the state and Chicago programs are limited to recent graduates.

Tennessee has no grade requirement. Oregon will require a 2.5 average. Chicago requires a 3.0 GPA.

City Colleges of Chicago Chancellor Cheryl Hyman said that level is a signal students “have the persistence and dedication to their studies needed to succeed in college.”

Some researchers worry the program could divert students, at least initially, from four-year schools.

“Typically, students who have a 3.0 are already going to go to college,” said Sara Goldrick-Rab, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who studies such programs. “It doesn’t usually change who goes to college, it might change where they go.”

But many in the Chicago program say they’re trying to complete general requirements and then transfer. A dozen Chicago-area colleges say they’ll offer scholarships to Star Scholars. Chicago graduate Oscar Sanchez, 18, says he’s inspired by his older classmates in community college.

“If they’re putting that much effort, why can’t I?” he said.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NOV. 27, 2015, 12:25 P.M. E.S.T.




Black Friday Finds Municipal Market Offering Very Few Bargains.

Looking for a Black Friday bargain? You won’t find it in the municipal-bond market.

Benchmark 10-year munis yield about 2.1 percent, close to the lowest in a month and down from 2.22 percent two weeks ago, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The rally has kept yields below those on similar-maturity Treasuries for 22 straight trading days, the longest stretch since November 2014.

With prices in the $3.7 trillion market climbing, “things become more foreboding for December” as the Federal Reserve decides mid-month whether to raise interest rates for the first time in almost a decade, Matt Fabian and Lisa Washburn at Municipal Market Analytics wrote in a report this week. Munis are “rich and likely primed to coast into month-end, assuming little turbulence from Treasuries,” they said.

Investors use the yield ratios of AAA munis to U.S. Treasuries to gauge relative value between the two assets, both of which are assumed to be close to risk-free. Historically the figure remained below 100 percent because state and local debt offers tax-exempt interest. For the highest earners, it would take a 10-year Treasury yield of 3.7 percent to match the equivalent tax-free rate from top-rated munis. It hasn’t been that high since February 2011.

Contrary to the historical trend, the ratio has averaged above 100 percent over the last five years as investors worldwide plowed into Treasuries because they offered higher yields than some other sovereign debt. That depressed yields relative to municipal securities, which don’t typically benefit from demand outside the U.S.

Taxable Equivalent

That’s what makes this four-week stretch unusual. The 10-year AAA muni index yield of 2.1 percent compares with 2.21 percent for Treasuries due in a decade. The ratio, at 95 percent, is down from as high as 110 percent in August.

Similarly, benchmark 30-year munis yield 107 percent of those on similar maturity Treasuries, down from as high as 122 percent in April. The ratio touched 102 percent on Nov. 10, the lowest this year, Bloomberg data show.

Across all maturities, munis appear too expensive, wrote Fabian, a partner at Concord, Massachusetts-based MMA, and Washburn, a managing director. “Investors should either solicit incremental spread or be prepared for the likelihood of near‐term losses.”

Munis have outperformed in 2015 relative to other fixed-income assets. They’ve returned 2.7 percent this year, compared with 0.9 percent for Treasuries and 0.2 percent for investment-grade corporate bonds, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show.

Historical Comparison

Fixed-income assets have fluctuated this year as investors watch for when the Fed will raise interest rates from near-zero, where they’ve been since the worst of the credit-market crisis in late 2008.

The market implied probability of a Fed move in its Dec. 15-16 meetings is 74 percent, close to the highest since August, based on the assumption that the effective fed funds rate will average 0.375 percent after liftoff, compared with the current range of zero to 0.25 percent.

Munis gained 5.5 percent in 2004, when the Fed last began raising rates, compared with 3.5 percent for Treasuries, Bank of America data show. It was a volatile year, with state and local debt losing 3.2 percent in the second quarter, the steepest three-month decline since 1994. Treasuries dropped 3.1 percent.

When the Fed looked prime to raise rates in mid-September, benchmark muni yields rose 0.1 percentage point over three weeks on bets the central bank would act.

If history repeats itself, muni-bond buyers may find better bargains if they skip Black Friday and make purchases with the last-minute holiday shoppers.

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

November 26, 2015 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on November 27, 2015 — 5:05 AM PST




Review of GASB Standards on Nonexchange Transactions.

Post-Implementation Review Concludes GASB Standards on Nonexchange Transactions Achieve Their Purpose.

News Release.

GASB Statement 33 and 36 PIR Report.

GASB Response to FAF PIR on Statement 33 and 36.




MSRB: Muni Trading Plummets in Third Quarter.

WASHINGTON – Municipal market trading plummeted to $551 billion in the third quarter, the lowest level since at least 2005 when the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board began recording the statistics, according to the board.

The 18% drop in the total par amount traded from $672 billion in the third quarter of 2014 is one of a series of findings from the MSRB’s quarterly muni market statistics report released on Thursday. The report covers the period from July through September 2015.

The total par amount traded has steadily fallen from a peak of more than $1.8 trillion in 2007, according to the data. The largest drop occurred between the first quarter of 2008, when the amount was $1.8 trillion, and the first quarter of 2009, when the level fell to roughly $900 billion.

Matt Fabian, managing director at Municipal Market Analytics, said the decrease is mostly due to low yields and tight spreads in the market.

“The spreads are so tight that participants haven’t seen much upside in trading,” Fabian said. “In the sort of low-yield, low-supply environment that we have had, bonds have been going away in the primary market and not trading very much after.”

He added that with market participants expecting the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in the near future, it does not make sense for investors to buy bonds now when they could wait six months.

The MSRB report also shows that customer purchases of munis increased slightly in the third quarter of 2015 when compared to the same period last year. The average of 15,189 customer purchases per day is 9% higher than the roughly 13,953 customer purchases per day in last year’s third quarter. Fabian said the third quarter of 2014 was a low-point for customer purchases and that it made sense that the quarter “would be an easy target to beat.”

Retail-sized trades, roughly considered those of $100,000 or less, also increased slightly last quarter when compared to the same quarter the year before. The trades accounted for a daily average of $405 million, or 9% of all customer purchases in the past quarter. During the third quarter of 2014, the trades averaged $364 million, or 7% of all customer purchases, on a daily basis.

Puerto Rico bonds also remained some of the most actively traded bonds in the third quarter. Seven of the top 50 most actively traded bonds by par amount and six of the top 50 rated by number of trades were Puerto Rico bonds. A 2014 general obligation bond issue from the commonwealth ranked second among the par amount of trades and a 2012 GO issue ranked fourth among the number of trades.

The volume of interest rate resets also followed their multiyear trend by declining to 134,817 in the third quarter of 2015 compared to 155,182 in the third quarter of 2014. Fabian attributed the continued decline to the fact that some variable rate demand obligations were replaced by direct placements with banks.

THE BOND BUYER

BY JACK CASEY

NOV 19, 2015 3:14pm ET




GASB: On The Horizon.

The GASB plans to issue two final Statements and three proposed Statements before the end of 2015. Here’s what’s coming:

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS

In December, the GASB is scheduled to issue final guidance on local government certain investment pools operated by governments (also known as external investment pools). This proposal is intended to address rule changes recently adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that will impact the related financial reporting requirements based on a reference to those rules in current GASB literature.

Some local government investment pools function much like money market funds. Typically, those government investment funds pool the resources of participating governments and invest in various securities as permitted under state law. By pooling their cash together, participating governments benefit in a variety of ways, including economies of scale, professional management, and enhanced liquidity.

Under the SEC’s new rules that have been incorporated by reference in current GASB standards, which take effect in 2016, many of these pools and their participants are not expected to qualify for reporting investments on an amortized cost basis, which is currently allowed under the SEC’s “2a7-like” pool provisions in the standards. After deliberating comments received on the June 2015 Exposure Draft, the GASB is completing final guidance that will establish criteria for pools and pool participants to qualify for reporting investments at amortized cost.

More information on the project can be found here.

PENSIONS

The GASB plans to issue guidance related to pensions through two separate standard-setting projects:

Pensions Provided through Certain Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans

In December, the Board plans to issue guidance to assist governments participating in certain private-sector or federally sponsored multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans that do not have access to information required by the new GASB pension standards, which took effect this summer. Plans envisioned to be addressed by the guidance include Taft-Hartley plans and plans with similar characteristics.

Stakeholders alerted the Board that a small number of governments do not have access to the information required to comply with the new pension standards when they participate in certain private-sector or federally sponsored multiple-employer plans. To address this issue, the Board proposed in October to scope these governments out of GASB Statement 68 (Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions) requirements and to provide them with alternative guidance.

The forthcoming Statement will set separate standards for employers participating in certain multiple-employer pension plans that have specific characteristics. These standards will address recognition and measurement of pension expense and liabilities, note disclosures, and required supplementary information.

More information on the project can be found here.

Pension Issues

In December, the GASB expects to issue an Exposure Draft containing proposed guidance to address certain issues raised by stakeholders during the implementation of the new GASB pension standards.

The proposal addresses:

More information on the project can be found here.

ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS

In December, the GASB is scheduled to issue an Exposure Draft containing proposed standards on asset retirement obligations (AROs) involving power plants, sewage treatment facilities, and other capital assets other than landfills.

One of the most common AROs encountered by governments involves closure and post-closure care for landfills. While existing GASB literature provides guidance for landfill AROs, it does not include guidance on AROs for other capital assets.

Through this project, the Board will establish recognition and measurement guidance for AROs relating to governmental capital assets other than landfills, which is meant to improve consistency and comparability in this area of financial reporting.

More information on the project can be found here.

FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

Finally, the GASB is also expected to issue an Exposure Draft in December on accounting and financial reporting for fiduciary activities.

Currently, governments are required to present financial statements regarding their fiduciary activities in their fiduciary fund financial statements. However, the concept of what constitutes fiduciary activity is not clearly defined. GASB research and inquiries from stakeholders have indicated there is diversity in practice in the current reporting of various types of fiduciary activities.

In the Board’s forthcoming Exposure Draft, the Board will propose specific criteria for when and how a government would report a fiduciary activity. The proposal will also address classification of fiduciary funds and recognition of fiduciary fund liabilities.

The Board is scheduled to issue a final Statement in late 2016.

More information on the project can be found here.




GASB: What You Need to Know - The Financial Reporting Model Reexamination.

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is now considering how to improve the governmental financial reporting model—the blueprint of state and local government financial statements.

Guidance that could be impacted by this project includes Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, and other related pronouncements.

Issued in 1999, Statement 34 set the contents of financial statements in place today, ushered in important innovations to general purpose external financial reporting, and made it possible to more fully assess a government’s overall financial health.

WHY DID THE GASB EMBARK ON THIS PROJECT?

Once Statement 34 was implemented, users of financial statements had access to a comprehensive, big-picture view of a government’s financial health along with information that would allow them to better assess how much it costs each year to provide services.

In recent years, reexamination of the model has become a high priority for the GASB’s primary stakeholders. The Board’s advisory group—the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council—for a number of years ranked reexamination of the financial reporting model as a top priority. The Board added the topic to its slate of pre-agenda research activities in 2013.

In September 2015, the GASB decided that, based upon the results of two years of extensive research, it was important as part of its commitment to maintaining the effectiveness of its standards to reexamine the financial reporting model.

WHAT ARE POTENTIAL AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT?

While the results of the research conducted by the staff indicate that most components of the financial reporting model remain effective, they highlighted a number of areas that could be improved. The reexamination will consider several key areas of the model, including:

In conjunction with this reexamination, the Board’s efforts to develop recognition concepts for information presented in governmental funds have resumed. The GASB’s conceptual framework project on recognition, which had been put on hold pending a decision on whether the financial reporting model should be reexamined, recommenced in October.

WHAT’S AHEAD?

The overall objective of the many improvements being considered is to enhance the effectiveness of the financial reporting model in providing information essential for decision-making and assessing a government’s accountability. The project also is intended to address application issues.

One of the primary criticisms of governmental financial reports is they are not available on a timely basis. Over the course of the project, the Board will keep a keen eye out for appropriate changes to the financial reporting model that could positively impact the timeliness of government financial reports.

Depending on how the Board ultimately elects to define the project’s scope, the reexamination may continue into 2021. The Board began deliberations in October 2015 and anticipates issuing an initial due process document for public comment and feedback by the end of 2016.

As always, sharing your views with the Board will be a critical element of a successful outcome in this process.




GASB: Approaching Effective Dates.

Below is a listing of the upcoming effective dates for guidance issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

Effective Date Statement
Fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2015
  • Statement No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application
  • Statement No. 73, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68 (provisions related to accumulated assets and amendments to Statements 67 and 68)
  • Statement No. 76, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for State and Local Governments
Fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015
  • Statement No. 77, Tax Abatement Disclosures

 




Study Predicts Increasing Use of P3S to Meet Transportation Needs.

The transportation landscape is likely to change dramatically over the next five to 15 years in response to technological advances, changing driver demographics and continuing uncertainty over how much federal support will be available for road construction, a new study conducted by the National League of Cities indicates. These developments are likely to influence how cities, states and even the federal government finance, build and maintain large public transportation projects, the study, “City of the Future: Technology & Mobility,” released Nov. 6, indicates.

New approaches to funding and conducting these projects will be necessary as a continuing decrease in the number of drivers on the nation’s roadways, coupled with increased fuel efficiency, further reduce the amount of gas tax revenue that is funneled into the Highway Trust Fund. Still, an analysis of city and regional transportation planning documents from 68 large communities nationwide indicates that half of these plans include recommendations for new highway construction.

As a result, states will increasingly turn to public-private partnerships to fund major road projects, including toll roads, parking structures and other types of infrastructure “that fall outside the traditional purview of city management,” the study predicts. One example is the Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency program, through which federal, city and state agencies, Amtrak and six private freight railroads are making improvements to the regional rail system to increase Chicago’s rail capacity and ease congestion.

States and the federal government are also likely to consider establishing infrastructure banks (I-banks), which “typically consist of revolving investment funds that can provide fiscal support to different types of infrastructure projects within the state” to meet transportation infrastructure needs. “Currently, 32 states and Puerto Rico have established some variation of a state I-bank and some states that do not have them, such as Connecticut and Maryland, are considering them,” the report states.

The report also presages a rise in the number of cities that adopt “paid road models”— user fees — to pay for such projects. Oregon started a pilot system in July that charges drivers for vehicle miles traveled and will test various collection mechanisms and Washington, Nevada, Minnesota, California and university transportation centers are exploring their feasibility. “… [G]iven the perpetually depleted nature of the Highway Trust Fund, many more states will feel pressure to consider this model,” the report says.

States and cities can use these approaches to identify and pursue financing and expertise from private sources, reducing the need for federal support, which experts view as a positive direction for future infrastructure development.

“There is a great deal of innovation coming out of the private sector and government has started embracing it and applying it in ways that meets civic needs and goals,” Gabe Klein, who formerly headed Chicago’s and Washington, D.C.’s transportation departments, says in the report.

Klein’s comments are echoed elsewhere in the report. “Public-private partnerships have experienced a surge in popularity in the last couple of years and they will continue to become more common as success stories in this vein become more and more prevalent. Effective partnerships between the public and private sectors heed possibilities for improved service delivery, more effectively developed and maintained infrastructure and incorporation of new and innovative modes and technologies into the existing mobility network,” the report concludes.

NCPPP

By November 19, 2015




S&P: Upgrades Have Outpaced Downgrades in U.S. Public Finance for 12 Consecutive Quarters, Article Says.

SAN FRANCISCO (Standard & Poor’s) Nov. 20, 2015–The third quarter of 2015 marked 12 straight quarters in which Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services upgraded more U.S. public finance (USPF) ratings than were downgraded, making these three years the longest quarterly streak of upgrades outpacing downgrades since the first quarter of 2001, said an article published today by Standard & Poor’s, titled “U.S. Public Finance’s Positive Ratings Streak Reaches Three Years.”

“Despite the difficulties in a handful of specific sectors and isolated jurisdictions, the broad, ongoing U.S. economic recovery has generated higher fees, tax revenues, and job growth, benefiting many public finance issuers, and we expect this macroeconomic climate to last at least through early 2016,” said Standard & Poor’s analyst Larry Witte. Among the other highlights of the USPF rating changes in the third quarter:

The leading cause of the improvement in the three most active public finance categories–local government, state government, and utilities–was stronger finances, spurring 198 of 285 upgrades in those areas and 223 upgrades in USPF as a whole. Conversely, deteriorating finances–the main reason for the 71 downgrades during the quarter–affected more issues in local government, state government, and higher education than any other factor. Standard & Poor’s cited inadequate liquidity as the main cause of lowered ratings in the case of 42 downgrades.

The report is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.globalcreditportal.com and at www.spcapitaliq.com. If you are not a RatingsDirect subscriber, you may purchase a copy of the report by calling (1) 212-438-7280 or sending an e-mail to research_request@standardandpoors.com. Ratings information can also be found on Standard & Poor’s public Web site by using the Ratings search box located in the left column at www.standardandpoors.com. Members of the media may request a copy of this report by contacting the media representative provided.

Primary Credit Analyst: Lawrence R Witte, CFA, San Francisco (1) 415-371-5037;
larry.witte@standardandpoors.com

Secondary Contact: Jason M Ontko, New York (1) 212-438-2784;
jason.ontko@standardandpoors.com

Media Contact: John J Piecuch, New York (1) 212-438-1579;
john.piecuch@standardandpoors.com




DC Project May Unlock PACE Funding For Affordable Housing Across U.S.

Property-assessed clean energy (PACE) funding has typically been reserved for commercial buildings or well-off homeowners, but Washington D.C. may have just set a precedent for PACE to bring clean energy’s economic benefits to affordable housing across America.

Last week the District of Columbia’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (DC PACE) Program announced $700,000 in financing to add solar, highly efficient energy and water, and LED lighting to the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA housing complex as part of a $17 million dollar renovation.

While the project will reduce utility bills for the 100-year old community institution and ensure it remains affordable housing for at least 40 years, the larger meaning is much deeper. This investment is the first PACE financing approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a HUD-assisted public housing property, and could become “a model for the nation” to spread sustainability across America’s disadvantaged communities.

Continue reading.

CleanTechnica

November 13th, 2015 by Silvio Marcacci




California Launches Debt Data Website.

LOS ANGELES — California’s treasurer has launched an open data website that he says will make it easier to analyze $1.5 trillion in debt issued in the state since 1984.

State Treasurer John Chiang said during a presentation in Sacramento Monday that his aim is to empower Californians to hold the government accountable for its borrowing decisions. Chiang said he also wanted to make the information available to researchers, journalists and investors.

“I never want another Bell to happen,” Chiang said.

The treasurer was referring to the city that saw eight former city leaders prosecuted in 2014 for stealing millions from city coffers. The city also defaulted on a $30 million private activity bond to Dexia, a Belgium bank. Current city leaders reached a settlement agreement that cured the default last year by selling the property the bond had been issued to purchase.

The DebtWatch website brings the data “out of the shadows and presents it in an easy-to-use, more accessible way,” Chiang said.

The California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission has offered some of the debt data for years, but in more of a raw data format.

The new website includes debt issued by the state, local governments, cities, special districts, K-12 schools, community colleges and public universities. The cost of issuance, and bond and tax election results are also available.

A user can download raw data into a spreadsheet format or screen for a multitude of characteristics and run comparisons on debt sold by different issuers. It also allows users to create charts.

For instance, a user could compare the volume of pension obligation bonds issued by three cities during a set time frame or compare issuance costs among different issuers drilling down to costs by underwriters, bond attorneys, financial advisors and insurers.

“It allows anyone to slice and dice the data and get to the heart of the matter,” said Jan Ross, the treasurer’s chief of information technology.

The 2.8 million points of data on the website are currently constrained to what was available when the bond sale closed, and proposed debt.

The data will be updated monthly, but the information is fairly static at this point in that it only includes data through the closing of a bond deal, said Robert Berry, CDIAC’s deputy executive director.

It doesn’t contain information on how much of that debt has been paid down, what is outstanding or whether defaults have occurred.

Describing the DebtWatch website as an early 1.0 version, Chiang said issuers are not currently required to provide that information to the state. He plans to sponsor a bill that will change that, he said. If it passes, and the state is able to collect that information, it would be added to the website, he said.

The project grew out of a conversation the treasurer and others at the treasurer’s office had with investors during a trip to New York City, Chiang said.

Referring to a trio of websites Chiang launched during his eight years as controller that make information about revenue and taxes available, the investors asked him why not credit and debt?

The websites Chiang launched as controller include one that tracks public employee salaries; another that shows how tax revenues from temporary Proposition 30 tax increases are being spent; and the “By The Numbers” site that tracks revenues, expenditures, liabilities, assets, and fund balances for each city and county.

The Bond Buyer

by Keeley Webster

NOV 17, 2015 12:08pm ET




S&P 2014 U.S. Public Finance Transportation Rating Transitions and Defaults.

Although ratings in the U.S. public finance transportation sector tend to be lower than in other areas of U.S. municipal finance, the sector is among the most stable in terms of the level and number of ratings. Transportation projects financed with municipal debt help meet a variety of the nation’s critical transportation needs, even while those projects sometimes face significant exposure to economic cycles and competitive pressure from other providers of similar services. For example, a toll road could contend with non-toll roads that serve the same routes. The ratings on transportation bonds therefore reflect these two forces. Many ratings are stable, and less likely than other U.S. public finance (USPF) issues to move to Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ higher rating categories, but transportation ratings also tend to skew lower than most USPF issues, providing a greater cushion against economic and competitive pressures. Most ratings are in the ‘A’ category, while only 20% are in the ‘AA’ or ‘AAA’ category, compared with about 45% of USPF ratings overall. Reflecting the lower ratings relative to USPF as a whole, transportation ratings are more susceptible to default than other municipal bonds, although the number of actual defaults has been small.

The overall stable, but low investment-grade, ratings in the transportation sector mask significant differences among the various asset types within it. Debt ratings for assets such as airport facilities and transit facilities trended upward in recent years, despite the revenue volatility that can sometimes affect these projects. Conversely, ratings on other asset types, like toll roads and bridges, or port facilities, are generally lower than the rest of the transportation sector because revenues can be more dependent on economic factors beyond the control of issuers. Nevertheless, we see the USPF transportation sector debt as generally resilient, with a mild upward trend in overall ratings over the past 30 years, partly because the mix of ratings has changed toward more highly rated asset types such as grant-supported transactions.

Overview

Continue reading.

17-Nov-2015




Muni-Bond Deals Stage Comeback After Falling Behind Record Pace.

The $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market is about to face the biggest wave of new deals this year. It probably won’t be enough to catch up to 2010’s record year.

Even though issuers have $16.5 billion of sales set for the next 30 days, that pales in comparison to the $54 billion borrowed over the same period in 2010, when municipalities rushed to sell federally subsidized Build America Bonds before the program expired. Last week, 2015’s pace fell behind where it was five years earlier for the first time since January, with states and cities issuing $345 billion of debt through Nov. 13, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

With money flowing into municipal-bond mutual funds, the offerings should be sold without putting added pressure on prices as the Federal Reserve draws closer to raising interest rates for the first time in more than nine years, said Peter Hayes, head of munis at BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money-management company.

“There’s not going to be that pent-up issuance that we thought might come to market and severely elevate supply,” said Hayes, who manages $111 billion of munis. “It seems the market has a better overall fundamental tone coming into year-end.”

As interest rates held near half-century lows, states and cities already rushed earlier this year to refinance debt amid speculation that the Fed would tighten monetary policy in the second half of the year, Mikhail Foux, head of muni strategy at Barclays Plc, wrote in a Nov. 13 report. That led to a flood of supply in February that made it appear that sales were poised to set a record.

By September, issuance plunged to lowest monthly total since February 2014, Bloomberg data show. The reason: localities tend to put offerings on hold when the Fed appears poised to raise rates, said Vikram Rai, head of muni strategy in New York at Citigroup Inc. That could cause a similar slowdown next month ahead of the Fed’s next decision on Dec. 16, he said.

“In September we saw refunding supply drop off a cliff because none of the issuers wanted to fall on the Fed hike,” Rai said. “The hopes of a Fed hike in December have gone up, and that’s impacting refunding supply again.”

Most of this week’s biggest deals are for construction projects, not refinancing. The New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority borrowed $627 million Tuesday to fund the state’s highways and bridges, while Connecticut issued $650 million of general obligations. The San Diego Unified School District is selling $450 million of voter-approved debt Wednesday to finance building improvements.

Municipal-bond yields have been volatile this year amid speculation about when the U.S. central bank will ease off the zero interest rate policy that’s been in place since the worst of the credit-market crisis in late 2008.

When the Fed opted to keep borrowing costs unchanged in mid-September, 10-year AAA muni yields plunged 0.25 percentage point in two weeks. After hovering near six-month lows in October, they climbed 0.15 percentage points in early November to as much as 2.22 percent, before easing back over the past week to 2.19 percent.

As yields edged higher, muni-bond mutual funds received cash for six straight weeks, the longest streak of inflows since March, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

Most of December’s issuance will take place before the Fed’s Dec. 15-16 meetings, Chris Mauro, head of muni strategy at RBC Capital Markets in New York, wrote in a Nov. 16 report. That will make it difficult to match the average $32 billion of offerings for the month, he said.

“The Fed has introduced enough volatility to cause muni issuers, who are pretty risk-averse, to delay or defer some of their refundings,” Phil Fischer, head of muni research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York, said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t look like we’ll get the full-fledged rush to market that we thought we’d get and the one we probably should have. But we’re still going to have a big year.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

November 17, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on November 18, 2015 — 5:58 AM PST




Municipalities Pushing Out Payments Spur Balloon Debt Resurgence.

U.S. cities and school districts struggling to keep up with expenditures are increasing sales of debt that delays interest until the bonds mature, often resulting in ballooning final payments that are many times the amount originally borrowed.

Issuance of capital-appreciation bonds, known for their balloon payments due at maturity, is on pace to increase 54 percent this year to $2 billion, the largest amount since 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The surge has come as states including Texas and California, which have the highest volumes of the securities, have passed laws restricting its use because of mushrooming amount of debt and interest that must be paid when the bonds mature.

Use of the debt, also known as zero-coupon bonds, had been declining since coming under fire in recent years for letting officials postpone paying for schools, roads and other capital projects. Texas passed a law this year that limits governments to only having one-fourth of their debt in capital appreciation bonds.

“It allows local governments to borrow and shift the burden to future generations of taxpayers,” said James Quintero, director of local governance at the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin, which pushes for restrained taxes and spending.

Higher Payments

The risk with capital-appreciation bonds is that by delaying annual payments for principal and interest they can result in sharply higher payments when the debt matures, forcing government officials to scramble to come up with funds needed to pay bondholders. The $91 million of capital appreciation bonds sold by the Wylie Independent School District near Dallas in February will cost about $268 million when they come due in 2050.

Puerto Rico’s capital appreciation bonds threaten to saddle the commonwealth’s bond insurers, Ambac Financial Group Inc. and MBIA Inc., with much higher liabilities then is reflected in the principal amount borrowed. Once interest is included, Ambac said its Puerto Rico exposure increases to $10.5 billion from $2.4 billion. For MBIA’s National Public Finance Guarantee Corp., it more than doubles to about $10.5 billion.

Most of the increase has come in California, where borrowing through capital-appreciation debt so far has more than doubled to $900 million this year. It’s still well under the $2.1 billion that state’s municipalities borrowed using the debt in 2007. California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation in 2013 designed to limit use of the debt structure. That was after reports that one district that borrowed $179 million from 2008 to 2011 with capital-appreciation debt would have to repay $1.27 billion of debt service by 2051.

Tax Avoidance

Zero-coupon debt accounts for about $253 billion of the outstanding securities in the $3.7 trillion municipal market, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The debt is seen as a way around limits on tax rates and debt service that may keep borrowers providing needed capital improvements or services. In Texas, where borrowers are expected to sell about the same $700 million they did last year, a cap on the amount of property tax that can be levied for debt payments has pushed many of the fastest-growing school districts in the state to adopt the structure. It lets them borrow without collecting the property tax until earlier borrowings have been repaid.

The Wylie schools used them in response to a 173 percent increase in the number of people in the city from 2000 to 2010, making it the one of the fastest-growing suburbs in the country, said Michele Trongaard, the chief financial officer. Her district did refinance $20 million of capital-appreciation bonds to achieve a present-value savings of about $4 million in October, she said.

Texas Sales

“I understand the issues people have with it, but when you have the kind growth we did, you really don’t have any choice,” Trongaard said. “We do everything we can to get the most we can for taxpayers’ money, but sometimes you have to let your enrollment catch up with your buildings.”

Companies that rate municipal debt have been expressing concern about the increasing use of the bonds in Texas. In 2012, Fitch Ratings cut the Leander Independent School District’s rating one level to AA-, in part because of the district’s increasing reliance on capital-appreciation bonds, which slow the district’s ability to pay down its debt.

When Texas’s new law took effect, Moody’s Investors Service praised it as a “credit positive because it will deter school districts from issuing debt based on uncertain future taxable value growth projections.”

Besides limiting the amount of capital-appreciation borrowers can issue, the law limited maturities to 20 years, half 40-year terms many school districts previously used, Moody’s said.

In Texas, the Leander school district near Austin refinanced $101 million of the $114 million in capital-appreciation bonds it had outstanding in June, leaving $13 billion of the debt outstanding, said Lucas Janda, chief financial officer.

“It’s for savings for our taxpayers,” said Janda.

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

November 19, 2015 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on November 20, 2015 — 6:02 AM PST




Fitch: U.S. Military Housing Bonds Facing Longer Term Pressures.

Fitch Ratings-New York-18 November 2015: Recently announced details on personnel cuts by the U.S. Army should not affect ratings for military housing bonds for now, though they could come under pressure longer term if the force continues to shrink, according to Fitch Ratings in a new report on military housing.

This round of cuts stands to affect 30 Army installations, according to Senior Director Maura McGuigan. ‘Of the 25 bases throughout the military branches that secure Fitch rated bonds, five are on the list planned for changes,’ said McGuigan. ‘One base will gain a small amount of personnel in the plan and the other four will lose approximately 5%-6% of its respective Army military personnel.’

The prospects of prolonged military personnel cuts and the shrinking of the force is a longer term trend Fitch will keep a close eye on over time. For the time being, though, they should not affect military housing bond rating performance, which has been largely stable. Fitch has affirmed 23 military housing bonds against just two downgrades while three bonds maintain Negative Outlooks. Helping the stable outlook has been the construction of military housing which has progressed as originally planned with no project missing original initial development phase end dates.

What is likely to continue to be affected next year is the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), with the Department of Defense (DoD) introducing modifications to BAH designed to slow its growth. This will ultimately reduce the rental revenue stream to MHBs. ‘The fiscal 2016 proposal for the defense budget gradually slows the annual BAH increases by another 4% over the next two to three years until rates cover 95% of housing rental and utility costs,’ said McGuigan.




Fitch: Cook County, IL Budget Includes Novel Pension Funding Approach.

Fitch Ratings-New York-19 November 2015: The Cook County, IL (‘A+’/Negative Outlook) fiscal 2016 budget, which was approved by the county commission yesterday, includes an alternative pension funding mechanism that Fitch Ratings believes has the potential to advance the discussion on appropriate funding of public pensions in Illinois.

The county’s pension strategy is notable, as it includes actuarially determined funding of the pension liability, but appears to ignore the restrictions imposed by the current pension statute, leaving the county vulnerable to potential litigation from taxpayers challenging the increased payments.

Fitch will monitor these developments closely to assess the impact on long-term credit quality. The Negative Outlook incorporates Fitch’s concerns including those surrounding the county’s ability to implement an affordable plan to shore up pension funding. This plan, if it survives legal testing, could address those concerns; but if legal challenges invalidate it, the county will again become reliant upon state legislative action to improve pension funding.

County administrators drafted a pension reform proposal, which included changes to the benefit structure and actuarial funding of pensions, but were unable to gain state legislative support for passage. Structural changes to pension plans, including changes to funding, require state legislation in Illinois. The fiscal 2016 budget includes a modified version of the pension reform plan, excluding the benefit structure changes, but retaining the actuarial funding aspect. Fitch occasionally sees local governments seeking to pay more than their legally required amount, but rarely significantly more, as Cook County is doing.

Under an intergovernmental agreement between the county and the pension fund, the county contracts to make payments on an actuarial basis, using a 30 year layered amortization structure, with future payments subject to annual appropriation by the county board of commissioners. The statutory pension payment required under existing law of $195 million for fiscal 2016 is payable from a separate property tax levy dedicated to pensions. The county is planning to make an additional payment of $270.5 million in fiscal 2016 and $340 million in fiscal 2017. After that, it anticipates the amount of the additional payment will rise by a manageable 2% annually through 2046.

The additional contributions will be funded by a 1% increase in the county sales tax. With this change, the county’s portion of the 10.25% sales tax will be 1.75%. The increase will be effective Jan. 1, 2016 and is budgeted to provide $308 million in fiscal 2016 (representing eight months of collections) and $473.8 million in fiscal 2017 (full year of collections). In addition to the supplemental pension payments, the sales tax increase is budgeted to provide funding for several other priorities, including highway funding to address deferred maintenance, increased debt service costs, and pay-go technology implementation. Total general fund expenditures, net of the supplemental pension payment, are budgeted to increase by a modest 2.2%.

Contact:

Primary Analyst
Arlene Bohner
Senior Director
+1-212-908-0554
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
33 Whitehall Street
New York, NY 10004

Secondary Analyst
Eric Friedman
Director
+1-212-908-9181

Tertiary Analyst
Shannon McCue
Director
+1-212-908-0593

Media Relations: Sandro Scenga, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0278, Email: sandro.scenga@fitchratings.com.

Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.




CUSIP Request Volume Reverses 5-Month Slump, Forecasts Surge in U.S. Corporate and Municipal Bond Issuance.

“What we’re seeing in the current CUSIP issuance numbers is a ‘dash for debt’ among U.S. corporate and municipal issuers who are looking to raise fund ahead of an interest rate increase from the Fed,” said Richard Peterson, Senior Director of Global Markets Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ. “CUSIP request volumes will be instructive as we draw closer to a rate rise, offering us an early look at how capital markets might respond in a rising rate environment.”

Read the Full Press Release.




Municipal Securities Trading Volume Falls to Lowest Level in 10 Years.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today released municipal market statistics for the third quarter of 2015, showing the lowest par amount traded since at least 2005, when the MSRB first began collecting real-time trade data. Total par traded of municipal securities fell 18 percent to a total of $551 billion in third quarter 2015, compared to $672 billion traded in the same period one year ago. The number of trades for the quarter, 2.33 million, is up compared to the 2.19 million trades in the third quarter of 2014.

The MSRB, which regulates the municipal market, is the official source of municipal market trading and disclosure data, and operates the free Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website that disseminates the information in real time. The website also houses aggregate trading, disclosure and new issuance data.

Other third quarter 2015 municipal securities trading highlights:

The MSRB’s quarterly statistical summaries include aggregate market information for different types of municipal issues and trades, and the number of interest rate resets for variable rate demand obligations and auction rate securities. The data also include statistics pertaining to continuing disclosure documents received through the MSRB’s EMMA website.

The EMMA website is a centralized online database operated by the MSRB that provides free public access to official disclosure documents and trade data associated with municipal bonds. In addition to current credit rating information, the EMMA website also makes available real-time trade data and primary market and continuing disclosure documents for over one million outstanding municipal bonds, as well as current interest rate information, liquidity documents and other information for most variable rate municipal securities.

Date: November 19, 2015

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer
(703) 797-6600
jgalloway@msrb.org




Moody's: Chicago's Possible Pension Funding Paths Examined in New Scenario Analysis.

New York, November 10, 2015 — Today, Moody’s Investors Service released a scenario analysis of the City of Chicago’s (Ba1 negative) possible pension funding paths. The scenarios incorporate the city’s recently adopted property tax increase as well as the outcomes of two key decisions pending with the State of Illinois (Baa1 negative) and the Illinois Supreme Court. The analysis indicates that, despite significantly increasing its contributions to its pension plans, Chicago’s unfunded pension liabilities could grow, at a minimum, for another ten years.

“Chicago’s statutory pension contributions will remain insufficient to arrest growth in unfunded pension liabilities for many years under each scenario,” Moody’s AVP-Analyst Matthew Butler says in the new report, “Chicago’s Pension Roadmap: A Scenario Analysis.”

The scenario that Moody’s views as having the most positive credit impact for Chicago consists of a favorable Illinois Supreme Court decision, as the city’s budget assumes, but state legislative action that does not conform to the city’s adopted plan. Senate Bill 777 has been passed by the Illinois General Assembly, but requires the governor’s approval to become law. The bill lowers Chicago’s current statutory public safety pension contributions relative to existing statute, granting the city more time to meet statutory funding targets. Without Senate Bill 777, the city’s 2016 statutory pension contribution will be much higher than the city has budgeted.

“This scenario is the most credit positive over the long term. Although it would require larger pension contributions than currently budgeted, the higher payments would achieve the slowest and least extensive growth in unfunded liabilities among the four scenarios,” Butler says.

The city’s adopted budget assumes the governor signs Senate Bill 777 and the Illinois Supreme Court reinstates PA 98-0641, the latter of which would preserve benefit reform of Municipal and Laborer pensions and reduce the plans’ risk of insolvency. While the adopted budget notably increases the city’s pension contributions relative to prior years, the amounts contributed under these assumptions could enable unfunded pension liabilities to grow for up to 20 years.

Two other scenarios assume an unfavorable ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court, which would raise the possibility of substantial cost growth for the city over the next decade, with or without Senate Bill 777.

“This would exert additional negative credit pressure on Chicago’s credit quality because it would likely remove all flexibility to reduce unfunded liabilities through benefit reform and raise the probability of plan insolvency,” Butler says.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Fading Obamacare Gains Put Drag on 16% Hospital Muni-Bond Rally.

For municipal-bond buyers, the boost from Obamacare is waning.

Quarterly results from U.S. hospital chains such as HCA Holdings Inc. — which make more frequent disclosures than non-profit competitors — suggest financial gains from the federal law are growing more limited, according to Barclays Plc. That provides an early look at a trend that may also affect non-profit hospitals, whose municipal bonds have rallied, delivering 16 percent returns in the past two years as the providers were stuck with fewer unpaid bills.

“The effect of the Affordable Care Act is fading,” said Mikhail Foux, the head of municipal strategy at Barclays in New York. “We don’t really have any new states adopting Medicaid so you don’t have that expansion.”

The federal law has provided health-care coverage to 17.6 million Americans as a majority of states expanded access to the Medicaid program for the poor and others bought subsidized insurance. The factors that have driven that growth are now weakening: only one state, Montana, is set to expand Medicaid in 2016, while rising premiums may cause some consumers to go without or lose their policies for not paying their bills.

 

About 9.9 million people were paying for coverage purchased on the exchanges created by the law as of June 30, a decline of 300,000 from March 31, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services estimates that about 9.1 million people will be enrolled by the end of the year. The Obama administration is targeting a range of 9.4 million to 11.4 million by the end of 2016.

Mergers and acquisitions in the insurance industry — such as Anthem Inc.’s proposed purchase of Cigna Corp. — could strengthen the ability of companies to cut payments to hospitals for treatments, according to Foux.

“It’s very safe to bet that a lot of hospitals across the country are not going to see as many people getting insurance as they had expected,” said Jason McGorman, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.

Consumers may be dropping plans purchased on exchanges because they don’t cover their preferred provider, he said.

The law, which took full effect in January 2014, has been a boon to investors who hold tax-exempt bonds sold by hospitals: The securities have delivered outsized returns since then, beating a dozen other revenue-bond sectors, including toll roads, airports and utilities, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s indexes. The bonds’ prices have slipped 0.4 percent over the past month amid speculation that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates as soon as December.

The potentially diminished fiscal benefits were highlighted when HCA, whose 168 hospitals make it the largest system in the U.S., reported earnings for the quarter ended Sept. 30. Uninsured admissions increased 13.6 percent from a year earlier, boosting its costs for charity care and patients without insurance by $525 million, the Nashville, Tennessee-based company said.

 

Tenet Healthcare Corp. reported charity and uninsured admissions increased 3.7 percent in the quarter. Both HCA and Tenet said the growth was coming from uninsured patients in Florida and Texas, two states that haven’t expanded their Medicaid programs.

For-profit corporations can serve as bellwethers for the industry. Unlike publicly traded hospital companies, non-profit and government-run systems aren’t required to report financial information quarterly.

Last year, an improved economy and Obamacare boosted hospital admissions and revenue. With coverage expanding, hospitals didn’t need to write off as much charity care. In 2014, their unpaid bills for treating the uninsured and those with little coverage dropped by $7.4 billion, $5 billion of which came from states that expanded Medicaid, according to a March estimate by the Obama administration.

Growing Very Rich

On Nov. 5, BBB rated tax-exempt hospital bonds — or those with the lowest investment-grade ratings — yielded 0.03 percentage point less than the index of like-rated revenue bonds, according to Barclays. That’s a shift from May 2014, when hospital debt yielded 0.15 percentage point more.

Lower-rated hospitals “got very rich,” Foux said. “I think that they’re vulnerable when we start seeing financial results.”

The spread, or extra yield, that hospitals offer over benchmark municipal debt has narrowed by more than 0.7 percentage point since early 2014, said Tom DeMarco, fixed income strategist with Fidelity Capital Markets, the trading arm of Fidelity Investments.

“That’s been a heck of a run,” he said. “I don’t think, from a relative value perspective, the sector is that compelling.”

The slowing gains from Obamacare may affect smaller hospitals the most, analysts said. That’s because they have fewer resources to invest in technology, don’t have as much clout to negotiate better prices for drugs and medical equipment and pay more to borrow.

“You’re certainly seeing more haves versus have nots,” said Emily Wadhwani, a Fitch Ratings analyst. “By a growing proportion, the have nots tend to be smaller providers.”

BloombergBusiness

by Martin Z Braun

November 12, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on November 13, 2015 — 8:05 AM PST




Junk Deals Derailed as High-Yield Muni Funds Pull in Less Cash.

The municipal-bond market is forcing high-yield borrowers to scrap their junk.

The Florida Development Finance Corp. this week postponed a $1.75 billion unrated bond sale for All Aboard Florida, a passenger railroad backed by Fortress Investment Group LLC, that underwriters have been marketing since August. A Texas agency has delayed pricing $1.4 billion of speculative debt for a methanol plant since releasing offering documents Oct. 19. And the Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, struggling to access capital as the island staggers toward default, couldn’t lure buyers even with yields of 10 percent.

The struggle to sell the munis mirrors the slowdown in the corporate-debt market for much of the year amid signs of a weakening Chinese economy and declining commodity prices. With speculation growing that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade and Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis escalating, the flow of money into funds that invest in the riskiest munis has slowed to $1.2 billion this year, compared with $8.8 billion in 2014, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

“You’re not seeing a tremendous amount of money coming in and really burning a hole in people’s pockets,” said Mark Paris, who runs a $7.3 billion high-yield muni fund from New York at Invesco Ltd. He said he or a colleague visited Florida and Texas to analyze the rail and methanol offerings, though he declined to say whether he’ll buy the bonds. “Size is becoming an issue — you’re not going to have every high-yield fund in these. There are only a certain amount of bonds funds can take.”

Large junk-bond deals are rare in the $3.7 trillion municipal market, which is mostly made up of states, cities, counties and school districts at little risk of defaulting. Until Puerto Rico issued $3.5 billion of general obligations last year, the biggest speculative-grade deal was $1.2 billion.

There are only 12 open-end funds focused on high-yield munis that have more than $1 billion in assets, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Many have large stakes in investment-grade borrowers like California, which has had its credit rating raised repeatedly since the recession as its finances improved.

By contrast, All Aboard Florida’s bonds are unrated, which is an indication they’d receive a junk rating. It’s parent, Florida East Coast Industries, was ranked seven steps below investment grade by Standard & Poor’s last year. The methanol-plant bonds for OCI N.V.’s Natgasoline LLC will probably have a rank three steps below investment grade, according to David Ambler, who analyzes high-yield munis at AllianceBernstein Holding LP in New York. The Puerto Rico agency, known as Prasa, has the third-lowest mark, Caa3, from Moody’s Investors Service.

Size An Issue

“The biggest issue that’s postponing these deals is just the absolute size of each one, and they’re certainly speculative,” said Mike Petty, manager of the $1.8 billion MainStay High Yield Municipal Bond Fund. “It’ll be difficult to get that many bonds done within our space. The underwriters have been trying to get crossover interest as well.”

With Puerto Rico veering toward default, some hedge funds and distressed-debt buyers may be leery of buying more high yield munis, said Invesco’s Paris. Such investors, know as crossover buyers because they’re not limited to specific markets the way mutual funds frequently are, hold as much as a third of the island’s $70 billion of debt, according to Mikhail Foux at Barclays Plc. Puerto Rico’s bonds have slumped more than 10 percent this year.

“There’s a lack of crossover hedge fund buyers who can come in and take up the slack of what the tax-exempt buyers don’t buy, and that’s slowed down the order process,” said Paris, whose fund has gained 3.8 percent this year, beating 93 percent of its high-yield peers. “I’ve been surprised at how long people have talked about these deals.”

High-yield munis have delivered lackluster gains this year. They’ve returned 0.8 percent, about half what was seen in the broad municipal market, Barclays data show. That’s partly because of Puerto Rico, whose bonds make up at least 25 percent of the index.

Gauging Risk

The offerings that have struggled to find buyers carry more risk than typical munis.

Puerto Rico’s sewer agency, which shelved a $750 million sale, could be swept up in the commonwealth’s debt restructuring, with Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla seeking to persuade investors to accept less than they are owed. All Aboard Florida would be the first new privately run U.S. passenger railroad in more than a century, a project whose success will hinge on travelers’ willingness to abandon their cars in favor the 235-mile (378-kilometer) train line running from Orlando to Miami. The methanol plant is an effort to break into a business dominated by foreign competitors.

All Aboard Florida spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield didn’t return phone calls seeking comment. Omar Darwazah, a spokesman for OCI, didn’t respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment.

With interest rates near generational lows and the Federal Reserve signaling it may end its almost seven-year policy of keeping borrowing costs close to zero, investors are rightfully slow to commit to new deals, said Jim Murphy, who manages T. Rowe Price’s $3.3 billion high-yield fund from Baltimore.

“It’s that much more important to be careful when spreads are tight and rates are low like the environment we’re in,” Murphy said. “People are being really careful and that’s refreshing.”

BloombergBusiness

by Brian Chappatta

November 11, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on November 12, 2015 — 5:59 AM PST




California Bonds Lose Allure as AIG Stake Cut by Most Since 2010.

The Golden State is losing its luster to municipal-bond buyers such as American International Group Inc. and Principal Global Investors.

AIG’s California debt holdings were reduced by $764 million, or 17 percent, to $3.86 billion in the three months ended Sept. 30, the steepest quarterly decline since at least 2010, company filings show. As a result, the state makes up just 14 percent of the New York-based insurer’s $27.5 billion municipal portfolio, the smallest share in two years.

Following a five-year run when California bonds outperformed the $3.7 trillion municipal market, investors are starting to retreat: They’re demanding the highest yields in 16 months to own the state’s 10-year securities instead of benchmark debt. The shift is threatening the rally ignited by a wave of good financial news that’s led to eight upgrades to its credit rating since the end of the recession.

“We’re pretty much at the top” of the California rally, said Mark Wuensch, senior fixed-income analyst in New York at Principal Global Investors, which manages $5.3 billion in munis as the asset-management arm of Principal Financial Group. It decided against buying in California’s most recent sale. “It can’t continue to get better than this. It’s just not enough spread for institutions and even retail to get involved.”

California, the most-indebted U.S. state, with about $76 billion of general-obligation bonds, has turned its finances around since the end of the recession in 2009, thanks to the growth of technology industry, a real estate rebound and Governor Jerry Brown’s successful push for a tax increase on the highest earners.

The influx of revenue has allowed the state to put an end to once-chronic deficits, pay off debt and save ahead of the next slowdown, with California projecting that its rainy-day fund will more than double this fiscal year to $3.5 billion. That’s in stark contrast to states like Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which have been besieged by rating cuts as they struggle to balance their budgets.

In a sign of the market’s favor, California bonds traded near parity with those from AAA rated Texas as recently as August after Standard & Poor’s upgraded the Golden State to AA-, the fourth-highest rank.

Moody’s Investors Service raised it in June 2014 to an equivalent Aa3, the highest since 2001. When California sold $972 million of debt on Oct. 20, general obligations due in 10 years were priced to yield 2.14 percent, compared with 2.06 percent for an index of AAA munis, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The tide has turned, with investors starting to demand higher yields relative to top-rated securities. The yield difference between 10-year California bonds and AAA munis is 0.32 percentage point, near the highest since July 2014 and up from as little as 0.17 percentage point at the start of the year, Bloomberg data show.

Jennifer Hendricks Sullivan, a spokeswoman for AIG, declined to comment on why the company reduced its California bond holdings. Overall, the company trimmed $116 million from its municipal exposure during the quarter.

Too Expensive

Principal Global Investors didn’t buy bonds in California’s October offering because they were too expensive, said Wuensch, the analyst. The Des Moines, Iowa-based company isn’t seeking additional state debt to buy, he said, though it also isn’t selling what it already owns.

Other money managers are betting the rally will resume because the recent rise in yields will draw investors, who are seeking higher returns as the market’s rates hover near five-decade lows.

“The credit story will be stable to positive, the economy is still chugging along, and the revenue growth will be there,” said Paul Brennan, a portfolio manager in Chicago at Nuveen Asset Management, which oversees about $100 billion of munis and bought some bonds in the October sale.

“Conditions are pretty favorable for potentially more tightening” because California isn’t scheduled to issue more general obligations in 2015, Brennan said.

With the state gaining financial momentum, its bond yields have held well below two like-rated states, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, leaving California debt expensive in comparison. Connecticut’s 30-year securities yield 0.59 percentage points more than top-rated debt, while Pennsylvania’s are 0.64 percentage point higher. That’s more than twice the premium demanded of California.

The upgrades that have sustained California’s rally may also be subsiding: Moody’s, S&P and Fitch Ratings all have stable outlooks on the state, indicating no changes are imminent.

“We like the story” of its improved financial situation, Wuensch said. But when it comes to the value of California bonds, “how much richer can they get?”

BloombergBusiness

by Brian Chappatta and Romy Varghese

November 9, 2015 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on November 10, 2015 — 6:38 AM PST




What America’s Biggest Counties Have in Common.

If people are willing to move long distances to an area, it’s a good sign that things there are going well.

New migration data published by the Internal Revenue Service, based on tax returns filed in 2013 and 2014, shows where Americans are moving to or from at the county level. We’ve identified the top migration flows occurring over more than 200 miles.

Nationally, domestic migration rates remain near historic lows, and when Americans do move, they generally stay within a metropolitan region. But some of the nation’s most populated counties attract large numbers of people from far away each year. For example, more than 9,800 people moved from Los Angeles County, Calif., to Clark County, Nev. (Las Vegas) — the top year-over-year migration flow over a long distance — while about 5,700 moved in the opposite direction.

Continue reading.

GOVERNING.COM

BY MIKE MACIAG | NOVEMBER 2015




Funding for Public Private Partnership Projects – of Significant Interest to Public Officials and Prime Contractors.

The success of public-private partnerships (P3s) over the past decade has demonstrated emphatically that government can collaborate successfully with private sector partners. And in the niche world of the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, these collaborations not only succeed, they are quickly growing in numbers.

Interestingly enough however, too few public officials and prime contractors who collaborate with government understand the program. Since the EB-5 Program has become a valuable alternate financing tool, it seems timely to raise the visibility and explain how it works.

Congress created the EB-5 program in 1990 “to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors.” Administered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the program allows foreign nationals willing to invest $1 million in a commercial enterprise in America to acquire U.S. citizenship. The money is then made available for projects that create at least ten jobs for American workers.

Government interest in the EB-5 program has grown steadily as a result of tightening budgets and the need to launch critically-needed large public projects.

Critics say the program essentially allows foreign investors to buy their citizenship. That may be true, but the program is now more than 25 years old and while it was used primarily for commercial projects in the beginning, governmental entities are now benefitting as well. And, thousands of jobs for American workers have resulted. The Brookings Institute estimates the EB-5 program has created 85,500 full-time jobs and attracted approximately $5 billion in investments since 1990.

Unlike conventional capital providers—such as investment banks, private equity funds, REITs, life insurance companies, and pension funds—the EB-5 investor’s prime reason for investing is to secure a visa. Because these investors are highly motivated, the program provides extraordinary flexibility and attractive terms for financing projects. As long as foreign investors believe the project will allow them to qualify for the visa and safely regain their capital over time, they are often willing to accept a below-market, if not minimal, return on investment.

Financing through the EB-5 program can be used for all types of projects and capital invested has ranged from $500,000 to more than $600 million. Over the past five years, EB-5 funds have played a key role in financing several large-scale public projects, particularly in major urban areas.

Many public officials and prime contractors have become quite adept at accessing this alternative funding source. In Miami, the city’s planning and zoning commission, along with a panel of EB-5 experts, is actively involved in vetting EB-5 projects. The City has a P3 office for EB-5 projects and just announced plans to use money from Chinese investors to build affordable housing.

In Vermont, EB-5 projects are reviewed carefully before they go to market, and the state oversees transparently and ensures regulatory oversight. The fact that the state is involved provides credibility and security to cautious investors.

The city of Dallas has also been successful in launching public-private partnership projects using EB-5 funding. Some of these projects have included assisted living facilities, call centers, and multi-family apartments in the Dallas area.

The bottom line: EB-5 funds are available to governmental entities, private sector contractors and commercial developers. It is reasonable to assume that, whether entities choose to use this type of investment capital or not, the program deserves a look.

With thousands of critical projects languishing for lack of funds, the EB-5 federal program may be an attractive option. Who knows – it might even provide the impetus for the nation to begin repairing its crumbling infrastructure.

MASS TRANSIT

BY MARY SCOTT NABERS ON NOV 10, 2015

Mary Scott Nabers is president and CEO of Strategic Partnerships Inc., an Austin-based business development company specializing in government contracting and procurement consulting throughout the U.S.




The Bond Buyer Names Finalists for 14th Annual Deal of the Year Awards.

The Bond Buyer this week announced the finalists for its 14th annual Deal of the Year Awards. These issuers were honored for Deal of the Year in eight categories, revealed online Nov. 2-6 in a series of posts at BondBuyer.com.

Each category award winner is a finalist for the national Deal of the Year Award, which will be announced at a Dec. 3 ceremony at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City and posted later that evening at BondBuyer.com.

For more than a decade, the editors of The Bond Buyer have selected outstanding municipal bond transactions for recognition. The 2015 awards, which considered deals that closed between Oct. 1, 2014, and Sept. 30, 2015, drew nominations that represent the diverse range of communities and public purposes served by the municipal finance market.

“Nominees this year faced stiff competition from many eminently qualified deals,” said Michael Scarchilli, Editor in Chief of The Bond Buyer. “We chose the finalists for innovation, the ability to pull complex transactions together under challenging conditions, the ability to serve as a model for other financings, and the public purpose for which a deal’s proceeds were used.”

The finalists are:

NORTHEAST REGION

The Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority’s $721.5 million Pennsylvania Rapid Bridge Replacement Project transaction, which is the biggest Private Activity Bond financing of a public-private partnership in U.S. history — and the first P3 in the U.S. to bundle multiple bridges into a single procurement. This approach is projected to save 20% on the average cost to design, construct and maintain each of the 558 bridges for 28 years.

SOUTHWEST REGION

The North Texas Tollway Authority’s strategic refinancings of more than $2 billion, which provided an opportunity for the issuer to dramatically improve its debt profile seven years after more than doubling its debt for a major expansion of its toll system. The transactions enabled NTTA to lower its maximum annual debt service to a level that brought multiple credit rating upgrades, its first since the 2008 recession.

MIDWEST REGION

The Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority’s debut issuance, a sale small in size but big in its aim to serve as a game-changer for the struggling Northwest Indiana city. The $30 million tax increment-backed airport development zone revenue bonds marked the final essential piece in the financing scheme for a $174 million runway expansion needed to meet FAA standards on wider jets and keep the airport open.

SOUTHEAST REGION

The Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority’s $232 million public-private partnership to bring high-speed Internet to all 120 of its counties. The deal forged new territory in the P3 market as a unique, first-of-its-kind approach to broadband connectivity on a statewide basis, and was the first non-transportation P3 to use a novel tax-exempt governmental purpose bond structure that achieved full risk transfer.

FAR WEST REGION

The Regents of the University of California’s giant of a bond deal to save the system hundreds of millions of dollars. The university refunded $2.3 billion of tax-exempt debt and raised about $650 million in new money for capital projects in a series of deals notable for their size, scope and complexity. The 2015 transaction was the largest ever in the higher education sector.

NON-TRADITIONAL FINANCING

Hawaii’s $150 million sale of Green Energy Market Securitization Bonds, which took advantage of a financing structure that has been demonstrated to the market: rate reduction securitization. The debt service coverage created by that structure landed the deal triple-A ratings across the board, creating a low-cost pool of capital that can be used to issue loans to fund distributed solar and other green energy investments.

HEALTHCARE FINANCING

The New York and Presbyterian Hospital’s first-ever transaction in the public finance market, a $750 million issuance of taxable bonds. This was the first time a hospital with Federal Housing Administration-insured debt had issued unsecured, rated debt in the public markets. The bond issue was 2.3 times oversubscribed, receiving nearly $2 billion in orders from about 60 investors and achieved a better-than-expected yield of 4.023%.

SMALL ISSUER FINANCING

The newly-created Alamito Public Facilities Corp.’s $125 million sale to repair and rehabilitate the El Paso Housing Authority’s aging public housing. The transaction marked the largest single issuance of housing tax credits ever approved by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs and mapped a new path toward saving public housing for El Paso’s neediest population.

The Deal of the Year gala will also include the presentation of the Freda Johnson Award for Trailblazing Women in Public Finance. This year marks the second in which the organization is honoring two public finance professionals; one from the public sector and one from the private. The 2015 honorees are New York City deputy comptroller for public finance Carol Kostik and Boston-based public finance section head at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC, Meghan Burke.

THE BOND BUYER

NOV 6, 2015




Hawkins Advisory (GASB 68)

This issue of the Advisory describes in brief the principal accounting changes resulting from GASB 68, and considers how official statement disclosure may be impacted.

Read the Advisory.




Ballard Spahr: Where We Stand on Issue Price for Tax-Exempt Bonds.

The U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) held a public hearing on the definition of issue price for tax-exempt bonds on October 28, 2015. The hearing is another step in the process of changing what issuers of tax-exempt and tax-advantaged (tax credit bonds) will need to review and consider in structuring bond issues and executing various closing documents.

Since 1993, the general rule has been that the issue price was the first price at which a substantial amount (10 percent) of the bonds was sold to the public. With respect to those maturities in a publicly marketed transaction that did not meet the 10 percent actual sales, the issuer was permitted to rely on the reasonably expected issue price. The practice under these long-standing regulations has been for issuers to rely on underwriter certificates as to the reasonable expectations of the issue price of bonds.

Beginning in 2006, the IRS started challenging the issue price of bonds by questioning whether the information provided in underwriter certificates to the issuer regarding issue price was accurate. IRS agents routinely cited pricing information from the database maintained for securities law purposes by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board as proof that the issue price provided by the underwriter had not been correctly reported. The uncertainty caused by the IRS audits led the IRS to publish proposed regulations changing the definition of issue price. These regulations were widely criticized and then withdrawn and a new definition of issue price was re-proposed on June 24, 2015 (the 2015 Proposed Regulations). On October 28, 2015, the IRS held a hearing on the 2015 Proposed Regulations on the definition of issue price for tax-exempt bonds.

What do the Re-proposed Regulations Say About Issue Price?

The 2015 Proposed Regulations which were the subject of the public hearing generally provide the following:

All four speakers at the hearing, including Linda Schakel from Ballard Spahr, speaking on behalf of the National Association of Bond Lawyers, agreed that 2015 Proposed Regulations present a number of challenges for issuers and several issues need to be addressed to make the rules workable:

Treasury and the IRS gave no timetable for finalizing the issue price regulations. While as a technical matter an issuer could elect to apply the 2015 Proposed Regulations to bonds issued before the regulations are finalized, the unanswered questions, including those described above, may not provide the certainty as to issue price an issuer would prefer. The existing regulations from 1993, including the ability to rely on reasonable expectations, continue to apply.

Attorneys in Ballard Spahr’s Public Finance Group have participated in every kind of tax-exempt bond financing. These financings include bond issues for hospitals and health care institutions, as well as universities, colleges, and student housing.

November 9, 2015

by Linda B. Schakel, Vicky Tsilas, and Adam Harden

Copyright © 2015 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.




Pennsylvania's Rapid Bridge Repair Project Shows Promising Early Results.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) public-private partnership with Plenary Walsh Keystone Partners to repair 558 of the state’s rural bridges over three years is moving along at a brisk clip.

Plenary Walsh is designing, financing, replacing and maintaining the project through a 25–year agreement. The consortium is funding the work upfront and will be repaid in six installments once it meets specific project benchmarks.

Thus far, the project is moving quickly, in part because many of the bridges have similar design features. As a result, the contractors can rely on one of three basic designs and use prefabricated parts that can be altered to suit each site, officials at PennDOT and Plenary Walsh Keystone Partners said.

“Due to the similar designs, many of the bridges can be built in 75 days from closing the old one to opening the new one. For example, 496 bridges are less than 100 feet long and builders know they will use about 2,900 pre-stressed concrete beams on 417 of them over the life of the contract,” the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Nov. 9.

“For the most part, a lot of the parts are interchangeable. It allows you to work faster once you get used to working with them,” Plenary Walsh’s public information manager, Dan Galvin, told the newspaper.

The ability to move small crews of workers efficiently from one site to another also expedites the process. Most crews consist of four to 12 workers and can shift among projects quickly if one incurs delays. Plenary Walsh has about 250 people working on the P3 throughout the state in addition to subcontractors who are rebuilding some of the bridges.

PennDOT also worked to expedite the project launch by preparing to obtain environmental and other necessary approvals for the first 87 bridges to be repaired quickly after the developer was selected, which could allow Plenary Walsh to replace many of those that need major repair or are vital to their communities in year one. Several bridges already have been repaired in as little as one to two months, project blog entries indicate.

Other counties and municipalities in the state are inquiring about this P3’s approach to bridge repair, which PennDOT is considering using for other projects.

“At PennDOT, we’re in the bridge-building business. The counties and local municipalities aren’t, so something like this might be attractive to them,” said Michael Bonini, director for the PennDOT Office of Public-Private Partnerships.

Although pleased with the progress Plenary Walsh has made to date, he hopes the pace of construction will move even faster during the next two years.

“We’re hoping there is some learning that goes on this year that leads to running even more smoothly in the future,” Bonini said.

NCPPP

November 12, 2015




Muni Bonds: Preparing for Rising Rates.

Income investors have few good options, but munis offer relative safety if rates rise. They provide attractive yields for investors in higher tax brackets.

Income investors have grown accustomed to making the best of a bad situation. Even the pros have grown weary of the will-they-or-won’t-they game regarding the Federal Reserve’s action on interest rates. Falling stocks and weak global growth only exacerbate a bad situation.

Matt Freund, chief investment officer at USAA Mutual Funds, concedes there are not many great options for income investors. Instead, he says, there are investments with acceptable levels of risk. First on his list: tax-free municipal bonds.

That’s not to say munis are terrific buys now. But high-quality munis are a good place to ride out the expected volatility in rates. Investors who stick with top-rated bonds can expect to earn a yield of around 2.4% with little credit risk. That works out to an attractive 4% tax-equivalent yield for high-income investors.

In the last month, Treasury yields have risen about 22 basis points (0.22%), while muni yields inched up just a few basis points. “Munis will be much more defensive in a rising-rate environment than Treasuries are,” says Jim Robinson, manager of Robinson Tax Advantaged Income (ticker: ROBAX), a fund made up of closed-end muni funds.

Gary Lasman, a portfolio manager at MFS Investment Management, says as Fed communications continue to indicate a slow and gradual pace of rate hikes, returns should be stable. “You’ll earn the coupon, a little less if rates rise modestly,” says Lasman. “That should be fine for investors looking for stability and tax-exempt income.”

Short-term munis will fall in price if the Fed hikes rates, says Vikram Rai, municipal strategist at Citi Research. But prices of long-term munis might rise. That’s what happened during the last period of rate hikes, from 2004 to 2006, as the yield curve flattened and long rates came down, says R.J. Gallo, who heads the muni group at Federated Investors. He believes the yield curve will flatten again, mainly because inflation risks, which drive the long end of the curve, have been muted.

IF THESE EXPERTS ARE WRONG, there’s some built-in protection: If muni yields do start to rise, retail investors may start buying more. Gallo says there is an old muni investor saying, “Retail loves a 5% coupon around par.” But this time around, he thinks a 4% coupon would bring in retail demand—not that he expects it to get that high anytime soon. Now 30-year triple-A rated munis, callable after 10 years, are issued with yields of about 3.25%.

Citi Research published a report last month arguing that individual investor portfolios are too short in maturity—where yields are lower—and investors should put more money to work at the longer end of the yield curve.

Of course, long-term munis are vulnerable if rates rise more than expected. This is a particular risk for closed-end muni funds. Funds that use leverage to boost yields have even longer durations (a measure of how much a fund could lose if interest rates rise by 1%) and also face higher borrowing costs as rates rise. To hedge against this risk, Robinson uses short positions in Treasury futures, which he calls his fund’s “value-add” since that’s hard for individual investors to do. But Robinson believes selling in muni closed-end funds will be limited because discounts are already much wider than average—now at the 7.5% level. If discounts get to 9%, he says institutional buyers typically come in.

Investor flight has been a problem for the muni market in the past, even if it doesn’t seem imminent now. Freund says muni investors should make sure they won’t be forced to sell in a downturn. While munis look good relative to most other income investments (he also thinks some high-yield bonds and dividend-raising stocks offer decent reward relative to risks), investors still need to be cognizant of the risks.

BARRON’S

By AMEY STONE

November 14, 2015




Oakland Mayor Turns to Old Playbook to Fund Raiders Stadium.

The type of municipal bonds that Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf says she is examining to pay for a new Raiders stadium are the same kind the city used in 1996 to build Mount Davis, an expansion of the Coliseum that left the city and county with millions of dollars in debt.

Municipal bond experts say “lease revenue bonds” are a form of raising revenue for public projects that could ultimately expose taxpayers to risk, because, as with any municipal bond, the debt falls back on the city if the revenue stream dries up.

But with pressure mounting to make a deal with the Raiders, Schaaf says she is contemplating lease revenue bonds as a tool to fund a new football stadium — only on the condition, she says, that taxpayers never wind up holding the bag.

If a city were to default on its municipal bond, it would see its credit rating slump — and that itself could cost taxpayers down the line when they want to borrow money for another project, said Matt Fabian, managing director of the independent research firm Municipal Market Advisors.

For taxpayers to truly be shielded, he said, it has to be clear “that there’s no connection to Oakland.”

Schaaf incorrectly insisted on Thursday that the type of bonds used for Mount Davis were general obligation bonds, but a check of records show they were indeed lease revenue bonds.

Although the mayor has steadfastly claimed she would never allow a public cent to be spent to build a new Raiders stadium, she told NFL owners Wednesday in a presentation that she was studying the use of lease revenue bonds and an incremental tax. In a statement released Friday afternoon, she said she has never changed her position against “publicly subsidizing stadium construction.”

In the same statement, she acknowledged that she is studying the lease revenue bond approach but would support it only if it “would not pose any risk to the City’s General Fund.”

Mount Davis debacle

Lease revenue bonds made up the financing scheme for Oakland’s disastrous 1996 renovation to the Coliseum’s east end, which left both the city and Alameda County saddled in debt. It was given the name Mount Davis in an allusion to Raiders then-owner Al Davis — father of current owner Mark Davis — who negotiated the reconstruction before moving the team back to Oakland from Los Angeles. Oakland had pledged to pay off the debt by selling personal seat licenses, but it overestimated the number of licenses it could sell. Both the city and county to this day pay $11 million a year for that renovation.

“I’m not going to repeat mistakes of the past,” Schaaf said, noting that the Mount Davis debt was secured by the general fund. She wants the new debt to be secured by a private entity, perhaps the Raiders themselves. Such setups helped finance new facilities for the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons and MLB’s Miami Marlins, she said.

The Falcons stadium is still under construction, and the Marlins stadium’s funding plan prompted controversy because it left Miami-Dade County on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the Miami Herald.

Schaaf told The Chronicle on Friday that she’s still analyzing these funding methods and trying to draft an iron-clad agreement that would put all the debt burden on the Raiders.

Stanford University sports economist Roger Noll says there’s no way the Raiders could pay a “plausible” rent that would cover the cost of building and operating a stadium.

Schaaf said she’s still weighing her options.

“If after the analysis I’m not satisfied, then that’s not a tool we’d use,” she said.

Fabian cited several examples of cities tethering their debt to future revenue streams and winding up in the hole, even when they had no contractual obligation to pay back investors.

He recalled a case in which the city of Vadnais Heights, Minn., financed a sports facility with lease revenue bonds, on the hope that the venue would ultimately pay for itself.

The facility tanked, and so did Vadnais Heights’ credit rating, after officials claimed the city wasn’t legally obligated to pay, Fabian said.

“Bondholders flipped out,” he said. “Vadnais Heights may never borrow again.”

Golf course fiasco

In another case, the city of Buena Vista, Va., used lease revenue bonds to build a golf course, and pledged the mortgage for Buena Vista City Hall as collateral. The golf course failed to pay for itself, Fabian said.
“So the bondholders have been trying to foreclose on City Hall for two years,” he said. “But the courts that they would use to foreclose are also inside City Hall.”

Sports facilities that aren’t privately financed tend to be bad deals for cities, and there’s no evidence they lead to economic growth, said David Berri, an economics professor at Southern Utah University.
“That’s been pretty consistently shown,” Berri said.

Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, which is financed partly by a “payment in lieu of taxes” scheme that requires the 49ers to pay $24.5 million in annual rent instead of property taxes, is a prime example of taxpayers subsidizing a private facility, said Vanderbilt University economist John Vrooman.

Raiders owner Davis, who is currently pursuing a $1.7 billion stadium in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson that the Raiders would share with the San Diego Chargers, said none of Oakland’s funding tools amount to much, since Schaaf still hasn’t unveiled a concrete plan.

“Even if we had the funding, I don’t know where it would be,” Davis said.

SFGATE

By Rachel Swan

Updated 10:31 pm, Friday, November 13, 2015

Chronicle staff writer Vic Tafur contributed to this report.

Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail rswan@sfchronicle.com




Fitch Ratings Updates Criteria for Water and Sewer Bonds: Butler Snow

On September 3, 2015(1), Fitch Ratings updated its sector-specific rating criteria for water and sewer bonds. The new report replaces Fitch’s existing rating criteria published July 31, 2013, but Fitch does not anticipate changes to existing ratings as a result of the update. The report sets forth Fitch’s four key credit rating drivers for municipal water and sewer systems and explains what Fitch refers to as the “10 Cs,” specific factors included in the key rating drivers.

The four key rating drivers, as well as the specific factors included therein, that Fitch has determined affect the credit quality of water and sewer revenue bond issuers are as follows:

1. Governance and Management: Fitch assesses the management, staff and management policies to measure a utility’s operating and fiscal health.

Crew: Management practices should seek to maximize expenditure stability by anticipating future regulatory and growth/supply demands, implementing necessary rate increases, ensuring sufficient liquidity and operating relatively free from day-to-day political interference.

2. Financial Profile: Fitch evaluates both historical and forecast financials to judge the utility’s ability to fund operating and capital needs and meet its debt obligations.

Coverage and Financial Performance (Primary indicator of a utility’s ultimate credit rating): Fitch reviews coverage of all the utility’s debt to provide a complete assessment of its ability to pay operating and debt obligations. Fitch employs a number of stress analyses and financial performance indicators.

Cash and Balance Sheet Considerations: Fitch assesses a utility’s cash and balance sheet to measure its ability to meet near-term liabilities, unforeseen hardships or difficult operating conditions.

Charges and Rate Affordability: Fitch emphasizes the importance of rate flexibility. Utilities should consider the impact of operational and capital programs on rate affordability, thus necessitating a balance between raising rates to preserve financial strength and maintaining sustainable and affordable rates. A major credit strength of municipal utilities is local control of rate-setting, free from external oversight.

3. Debt Profile: Fitch analyzes the level and structure of a utility’s debt in determining overall creditworthiness.

Capital Demands and Debt Burden: Fitch evaluates a utility’s outstanding debt on customer and per capita bases, as well as projected customer and per capita debt levels five years into the future. Fitch also evaluates the amortization of all debt payable from system revenues because it may show how much future strain will be put on a utility’s financial flexibility and borrower capacity for potential capital needs.

Covenants: Fitch views standard bond covenants as those that limit parity bond issuances to instances when historical and/or projected revenues cover 120% of annual debt service, require rate-setting annually to cover 120% of operating and debt service costs and create debt service reserve funds at the maximum levels allowed under tax law.

4. Operating Profile: Fitch evaluates the utility’s operations to ascertain the utility’s ability to provide service to its customers and generate revenues sufficient to meet its financial obligations.

Customer Growth and Concentration: Fitch views as a central component of a utility’s operating profile the level of growth of its customer base and the level of customer concentration.

Capacity: Fitch evaluates a utility’s plans to maintain existing facilities and replace aging or obsolete assets. Fitch also assess whether a water utility has adequate water supplies to meet customer demands.

Compliance with Environmental Laws and Regulation: Fitch assesses whether a utility proactively stays ahead of increased regulatory requirements. If a utility currently faces regulatory enforcement, Fitch evaluates the events that led to such action and the utility’s plans for corrective action.

Community Characteristics: Fitch analyzes the service area’s employment statistics, wealth levels, poverty rates and major employers relative to the total employment base.

Butler Snow serves as bond counsel and disclosure counsel for municipal water and sewer utilities across the country.

Footnotes

1 For greater detail on each of the factors Fitch uses to rate the creditworthiness of a municipal water and sewer utility, you can access the complete report at www.fitchratings.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Last Updated: November 5 2015

Article by Michael W. Russ and Ryan L. Pratt

Butler Snow LLP




Final Report on Connecticut State Retirement Systems.

Connecticut is considering an overhaul of its largest pension system as the retiree fund careens toward insolvency. The state employee fund, SERS, has less than half of the assets it needs to meet liabilities and many believe that its generous accounting standards hide something even worse. The plan has started paying out more to retirees than it is receiving in contributions. Meanwhile, observers expect state payments to SERS to balloon to $6 billion — a third of the current state budget — by 2032. Lawmakers are now asking for some creative solutions to the problem.

On Nov. 10, the Center for Retirement Research presented its recommendations to the state. The main suggestions were to lower the plan’s assumed rate of return it uses to calculate its overall pension liabilities. Connecticut’s 8 percent return assumption is higher than the median 7.75 percent across all state pension plans. Many experts also say the past decade of slightly lower investment returns than the historical average should force plans to lower their return assumptions to at least below 7 percent so that governments and employees will put in more money now to keep the fund from running out of money. The other main recommendation is something that Gov. Dannel Malloy supports — splitting the plan in two. The pension fund would keep workers hired after 1984, who have less expensive benefits than the pre-1984 hires. The older hires’ benefits would be paid for directly out of the state’s annual budget. The split would essentially remove the unfunded liabilities from the pension plan’s overall liabilities.

The plan has received unenthusiastic reviews. The state’s treasurer has questioned the legality of the split. Pension blogger Mary Pat Campbell pointed out splitting the plan into one part that is funded and one part that isn’t (as opposed to having one big underfunded pool) won’t to make the pensions more secure. “I love these plans where the already accrued pension promises aren’t affordable right now will somehow magically become affordable in the future,” she wrote.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | NOVEMBER 13, 2015




DiNapoli Expands State Pension Fund's In-State Investment Program.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli today announced the creation of the $200 million New York Credit Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Fund to provide credit financing to eligible companies and deliver attractive returns to the state pension fund.

New York’s $184.5 billion state pension fund, the third largest public pension fund in the country, is one of the first to offer credit financing through an in-state-focused fund. The new fund will be managed by Hamilton Lane. Additional investors in the SBIC fund are TD Bank, Bank of NY Mellon, HSBC Bank, Deutsche Bank and First Niagara Bank.

“The state pension fund is helping New York’s growing businesses move to the next level,” said DiNapoli. “By working with Hamilton Lane, we’ve joined with five major banks to bridge the gap between New York’s companies and the financing they need to excel. These investments are in line with our priority of generating returns for the pension fund, while helping to boost our state’s economy.”

Many banks have been reluctant to lend smaller businesses capital due to scale, efficiency and risk requirements. The SBIC fund will provide capital to businesses that are implementing growth strategies, expanding operations or transitioning ownership. The state pension fund has committed $50 million to the program, which, combined with funding from Hamilton Lane and participating banks, will deliver $200 million in debt and mezzanine financing. The program is targeted at New York companies with revenue between $5 million and $50 million. Capital for the program is leveraged by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

New York’s state pension fund is now one of few public pension funds across the country offering multiple sources of capital for in-state companies, which include credit (SBIC), equity (In-State Private Equity Investment Program) and small business loans (New York Business Development Corporation).

“Through the continued support of and partnership with State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Hamilton Lane is excited about the expansion and growth of our investment mandates,” said Hamilton Lane CIO Erik Hirsch. “We see significant, attractive opportunities to support growing businesses in the state through both equity and debt investments.”

Hamilton Lane has a long-standing relationship with the state pension fund. The firm has invested in 27 companies on behalf of the state pension fund through the In-State Private Equity Investment Program. Investments managed by Hamilton Lane’s Hudson River Co-Investment Fund include Sleepy’s and Autotask.

Companies interested in the SBIC program can contact NYSCRFInvestmentproposals@osc.state.ny.us.

About the In-State Private Equity Investment Program

The In-State Private Program partners with private equity managers investing in New York-based companies. The program provides investment returns consistent with the risk of private equity while also expanding the availability of capital for New York businesses. As of June 2015, the In-State Program has invested $820 million in 310 companies, created or supported more than 4,500 jobs, and achieved $322 million in returns for the state pension fund. There is $472 million available for new investments. Learn more about the In-State Program.

About the New York Business Development Corporation Partnership (NYBDC)

The state pension fund provides the NYBDC with funds to make loans to New York small businesses for working capital, equipment or real property. With its focus on small business lending, NYBDC can frequently offer more favorable terms than other financial lenders. To date, $362 million has been loaned to 1,082 small businesses across the state. Almost $50 million remains available. Learn more about the partnership with NYBDC.

About the New York State Common Retirement Fund (CRF)

The New York State Common Retirement Fund is the third largest public pension fund in the United States ($184.5 billion, as of March 31, 2015). The Fund holds and invests the assets of the New York State and Local Retirement System on behalf of more than one million state and local government employees and retirees and their beneficiaries. The Fund has consistently been ranked as one of the best managed and best funded plans in the nation. The Fund’s fiscal year ends March 31, 2016. Learn more about the CRF.

About Hamilton Lane

Hamilton Lane is an independent alternative investment management firm providing innovative private markets solutions to sophisticated investors around the world. The firm has been dedicated to private markets investing for more than two decades and currently has more than 250 employees operating in offices throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. With more than $239 billion in total assets under management and supervision*, Hamilton Lane offers a full range of investment products and services that enable clients to participate in the private markets asset class on a global and customized basis. Learn more about Hamilton Lane.

As of September 30, 2015




Moody's: Vulnerable U.S. Public School Districts Can Experience Credit Pressure from Competition.

New York, November 11, 2015 — Some US public school districts are facing heightened fiscal pressure owing to competition over enrollment from charter schools and school-choice programs, leaving the most vulnerable districts at risk for additional revenue loss, Moody’s Investors Service says. This competition can quickly and unpredictably depress public schools’ revenues, which can lead to a “downward spiral.”

“Depending on how these competing entities are funded, the competition can represent severe credit pressure for the most vulnerable K-12 school districts,” Moody’s Assistant Vice President — Analyst Dan Seymour says in a new report on public schools, “Competition Creates ‘Downward Spiral’ for Vulnerable School Districts.”

Publicly funded, independently operated charter school revenues are often shared from the same mix of property taxes and state aid that fund area public schools. Additionally, in some states school-choice programs allow students to attend schools in other districts. In both instances, the per-pupil funding follows the participating students, depriving the original public school district of the revenue.

Charter schools and school-choice programs do not affect school districts uniformly across the country, Moody’s says. Many urban school districts with high percentages of students in charter schools, such as Cleveland Municipal School District (A2 stable) and Indianapolis Public Schools (Aa2 stable) remain highly rated. Generally, districts most reliant on state aid tied to enrollment are the most exposed.

The loss of students and revenue due to charter schools or school-choice programs can cause a downward spiral as districts react by cutting costs, which may, in turn, weaken their educational product and encourage more students to seek alternatives.

“The downward spiral happens when a district loses students to charters or school choice, then loses the revenues associated with those students,” says Seymour. “The district cuts expenditures to cope, which weakens its educational product, encouraging more students to attend schools outside the district. The loss of those students results in additional revenue loss, and the spiral continues.”

The most vulnerable school districts in Michigan (Aa1 stable) and Pennsylvania (Aa3 negative) are examples of those facing mounting credit pressures due to competition. In Michigan, the loss of revenue to charter schools and from students moving to other districts has led to 46 school district downgrades this year, while Pennsylvania’s charter schools are the primary driver of credit strain for the state’s most exposed districts, including the Philadelphia School District (Ba3 negative).

Despite these pressures, the majority of public school districts experience minimal fiscal stress due to competition, a testament to the solid nature of the sector’s institutional framework. However, the fact that charter schools operate heavily in poorer, urban areas means that competition frequently exerts itself on the districts with the weakest demographics and lowest resilience against fiscal stress.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Equity Shortage Plagues Partnerships.

High leverage keeps pension funds out of many public-private deals

U.S. public pension funds looking to follow their peers in Canada, the U.K. and Australia into public-private infrastructure partnerships face yet another hurdle to direct investing.

The lack of infrastructure equity available through PPPs, or P3s, which in most cases are vastly debt-heavy, compounds cultural and some political hurdles that remain.

That lack of equity hinders even veteran pension fund players in infrastructure like the C$154.4 billion Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, Toronto. “It’s frustrating,” said Andrew Claerhout, senior vice president at Teachers’ Infrastructure Group, the C$14 billion ($10.7 billion) infrastructure investment unit of OTPP. Ontario Teachers has participated in public-private partnerships for years, Mr. Claerhout said, “but … it’s hard for us to do. These deals are highly leveraged — as much as 95% of a partnership vs. only 5% equity. For $1 billion in the partnership, that’s $50 million in equity — that’s too small for an investor like us. There’s no way for equity to outperform our cost.”

In addition to political or legal restraints that still exist in about half of the states, U.S. public plans face other roadblocks, sources said.

“There are two limitations in the U.S. market,” said David Altshuler, partner and co-head of infrastructure and real assets at StepStone Group LP, a San Diego-based private markets consultant with $70 billion in assets under advisement. “It’s at a nascent stage in the U.S., more because of the traditional mode of financing through municipal bonds, and because of the capital structure of PPPs, transactions tend to be more debt than equity, which limits how much opportunity there is for investment.

“There are relatively few PPPs in the U.S. vs. other markets. Part of the reason is that the U.S. has had a successful bond market to finance public infrastructure. … More than half of states have passed legislation to enable PPPs, so we think interest will increase. But the other aspect is that the equity requirements tend to be on the lower side.”

Sources said they were unaware of any U.S. public pension fund doing direct investing in P3s; instead pension plans are investing through infrastructure managers in separate accounts that include the partnerships as part of their portfolios.

“These are new to the U.S.,” said Brian Budden, executive vice president of Plenary Group USA, Los Angeles, a brokerage that has been facilitating P3 deals in Canada and Australia. “Canada is 10 years ahead of the U.S. in its P3 approach. The political regime in the U.S. makes it pretty challenging to get investors there. But the market there is almost identical to Canada. We started 10 years ago buying off the underwriter, and now Canadian funds go in directly. That’s how I suspect (U.S. plans) will eventually go.”

Mr. Budden said Plenary has four large public funds waiting to invest in infrastructure equity via P3s. He would not identify the plans.

Added Thomas Robinson, senior managing director and portfolio manager, private fixed income, at Sun Life Investment Management, Toronto: “Local infrastructure investing is at an early stage in the U.S. We’re not seeing the same level of sponsorship as we are in Canada.”

For the year ended Oct. 31, 14 public-private partnerships closed in Canada with a total long-term financing value of C$3.7 billion, according to Sun Life.

That’s not to say there aren’t opportunities in the U.S. Mr. Budden pointed to the recent P3 deal in Pennsylvania to repair and reconstruct 558 bridges overseen by the state’s Department of Transportation. However, the partnership, which closed in March, included only $58 million in infrastructure equity as part of the overall $1.1 billion deal; the remaining funds came from tax-exempt private bonds ($793 million) and government payments.

Added issue

Such a dearth of equity in P3s is an added issue to other restraints to U.S. pension plans participating in direct infrastructure investing — not the least of which is the tradition of funding U.S. infrastructure work through the issuance of municipal bonds.

“The reasons it’s at an early stage include the availability of municipal bonds and the political allotment of private capital, and the difficulty faced by local institutional investors such as pension plans other than the largest ones in having the illiquidity budget and/or capability or resources to do this,” said Toby Buscombe, partner and global head of infrastructure, Mercer LLC, London. “Consequently, there’s not a lot of activity. It’s not for a lack of providers, whether infrastructure managers or brokers, but more a lack of political will.”

Canadian specialists in P3s have an advantage in looking for U.S. business because of their experience with such partnerships, sources agreed.

“Canada just happened to be an early adopter of the P3 model, and its institutional investors were early into the private placement game,” said Sid Vittal, senior infrastructure specialist at Mercer in Toronto. “Definitely, Canadian firms have been working with P3 markets for 10-plus years. Naturally, they understand the process and have that competitive advantage.”

U.S. pension funds can also follow the process that’s been successful for Canadian retirement plans, said Sun Life’s Mr. Robinson: Find the opportunities, select the most optimal kind of infrastructure available for investment — social infrastructure like roads, hospitals and courthouses, and operational infrastructure like airports and water-processing systems — and find like-minded investors.

“There’s a huge demand from the institutional market,” Mr. Robinson said. “They need to assess what’s out there. They have a big role to play to let their governments know that there’s capital available.”

Mr. Claerhout at Ontario Teachers said that more opportunities, not just for U.S. pension funds but all institutional investors, could be generated by P3s that broaden their investments beyond social infrastructure. “We’re arguing that P3s should continue but be ambitious with other investments, like toll roads, ports and other infrastructure with operating risk and the ability to generate revenue. Instead of availability payments from sponsors, you own it, and market forces determine what your return on investment is.”

PENSIONS & INVESTMENTS

BY RICK BAERT | NOVEMBER 16, 2015

This article originally appeared in the November 16, 2015 print issue as, “Equity shortage plagues partnerships”.

— Contact Rick Baert at rbaert@pionline.com | @Baert_PI




Fitch Replay: Prop 39 / San Diego Unified School District.

‘AAA’ rating recently assigned to San Diego Unified School District could set a precedent for other school district ratings throughout California.

Listen to Fitch’s US Public Finance team discuss their rating of SDUSD and their opinion on Prop 39.




How Safe are Municipal Bonds from a Fed Interest Rate Hike?

Summary

The bond market (NYSEARCA:BND) is bracing for a smackdown when the Federal Reserve hikes interest rates. The CME Group’s FedWatch Tool shows the Fed-funds futures market is pricing in a 52% chance of a 50 basis point increase at the Fed’s Dec. 16 meeting. That’s a sharp rise from a 34% reading last week before the Fed’s policy statement. The probability gauge rises to 61% for the January meeting next year and 75% for March 2016. Intermediate and long duration bonds of all stripes will lose principal when rates rise. Municipal bonds (NYSEARCA:MUB), however, are relatively safe from a rate hike. The stars seem to be aligning in their favor. Here are five reasons why.

1. The supply of new issues will likely fall as rates rise, creating an imbalance between supply and demand.  New issue volume has been falling since June. September new issue volume was the lowest in one and half years, according to Janney Montgomery Scott’s monthly municipal bond report from October. Municipalities will likely issue less debt in a rising rate environment.

Refundings fell 38.3% in October 2015 from the year-ago period, according to RW Baird, citing Bond Buyer data. Total issuance declined from October 2014. Sept. 2015 issuance also dropped year over year.

(Robert W. Baird Municipal Bond Market Weekly, Nov. 2, 2015)

“Because so much issuance this year has been refunding of older debt due to current low rates there could be a reduction in new issuance making munis more valuable as a result of better supply/demand technicals,” says John Donovan, senior vice president of municipal trading at Drexel Hamilton in New York City. “And somewhat counterintuitively, the start of tightening could lead to lower equities and add to the demand for munis in a rotation type trade.”

Matthew Carbray, CFP®, ChFc®, a certified financial planner and partner at Carbray Staunton Financial Partners LLC in Avon, Conn., says: “With reduced new supply coming to market and the likelihood that there will be less refinancing activity on existing muni debt due to higher rates, the fundamentals for municipal bond investing look strong.”

Carbray recommends buying high-yield munis (NYSEARCA:HYMB) because spreads have widened enough to justify the credit risk in many cases.

(Janney Montgomery Scott, “Municipal Bond Market Monthly,” Oct. 6, 2015)

2. Historically municipal bonds have avoided losses in a rising interest rate environment.  It’s doubtful that longer-term rates will rise dramatically when the Fed lifts the policy rate. The yield curve will likely flatten. Long-term rates (NYSEARCA:BLV) are more sensitive to expectations of inflation, which is basically non-existent thanks to falling commodity prices. Energy prices are expected to remain low for the foreseeable future because of the fracking boom.

A primary indicator of municipal relative value is the ratio of 10-year AAA yields to like maturity Treasury yields (NYSEARCA:IEF). Janney Montgomery Scott’s graph below shows during rising interest-rate periods in the late 1980s, the mid-1990s and the mid 2000s, muni ratios fell. That means muni yields fell (as prices rose) relative to Treasuries.

“With ratios currently hovering around 100%, despite high marginal income tax rates, we see more downside bias to M/T ratios than upside likelihood,” Alan Schankel, managing director at Janney, wrote in a client note issued Sept. 17.

(Janney Montgomery Scott, “Munis in a Tightening Cycle,” Sept. 17, 2015)

3. Municipal bonds currently are trading at attractive historical levels relative to taxable bonds.  The lower the credit rating and the longer the duration, the higher the muni valuation relative to equivalent Treasuries as this chart from RW Baird shows.

Muni Index Ratios by Maturity and by Credit Rating

(Data Source: Bloomberg; Baird Municipal Bond Market Weekly Nov. 2, 2015)

“This has a very important implication for investors, as it means that despite the fact that municipal bonds’ income is tax-free – consequently, their rates should be lower. But their yields on maturities greater than 20 years are higher than those on treasury bonds,” Keith Lanton, president of Lantern Investments with $1 billion in client assets in Melville, N.Y. “Of course, the latter are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Nevertheless, municipal bonds levels over 100% are high by historical standards.”

4. Arguably, muni bond prices have already priced in an interest rate hike because it has been anticipated for so long.  Jefferies’ team of economists and analysts used a handful of complicated models to conclude there will be a December liftoff. They project a 2% Fed funds rate at year-end 2015. They forecast the Fed funds to reach at least 3% by year-end 2016 and 3.75% or higher in late 2017.

“The rate normalization process, of course, will depend upon the economy and inflation continuing down the path toward more normal economic and inflation conditions,” Ward McCarthy, managing director and chief financial economist at Jefferies and his colleagues wrote in a client note Oct. 30. “Consequently, the projected fed funds rate in all of these models is based on the same projections for a continued decline in the unemployment rate to as low as 4.5% and a gradual rise in inflation back toward the Fed’s 2% target.”

Jefferies’ model does not factor in overseas uncertainty. Crude oil prices and import prices are huge wild cards that could affect the inflation rate.

5. Knee-jerk market reactions present a chance to take advantage of volatility.  When bonds sell off, yields rise. Therefore, educated investors can swoop up higher-yielding bonds to increase income. Over the past two decades, muni yields have typically fallen from their highs. Over the long term, yields are the primary contributor to total returns than price appreciation for muni bond investors. Over the short term, income helps cushion price declines. Unless credit quality deteriorates, bond prices usually stabilize relatively quickly as the yield rises.

Franklin Templeton’s chart below shows that although prices of municipal bonds dropped in 12 out of the 24 calendar years between 1990 and 2014, the bonds’ yield income helped offset losses in price. After factoring in income, municipal bonds only saw negative total returns in four out of the 24 years.

 

(Franklin Templeton, “In the Know: Seven Myths About Municipal Bonds,” May 7, 2015)

Seeking Alpha

Robert Kane, BondView
Research analyst, municipal bonds, event-driven, macro

Nov. 5, 2015 4:48 PM ET




House Committee Approves Legislation to Classify Muni Bonds as High-Quality Liquid Assets.

Earlier today, the House Financial Services Committee voted overwhelmingly to favorably report legislation (H.R. 2209) that would allow large banks to count some of their municipal bond investments as high-quality liquid assets under federal bank liquidity standards. The legislation, which was introduced by Representative Luke Messer (R-IN), was approved by a vote of 56-1, with Democrat Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts casting the lone opposition vote.

H.R. 2209 would modify a regulation the Federal Reserve, the Department of Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released in October 2014 to ensure that large banks hold enough liquidity to continue making payments during periods of financial stress. Under the rule, banks with at least $250 billion in assets (or $10 billion in foreign exposure on their balance sheet) must maintain a minimum liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) comprised of certain financial investments that are considered “High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLAs).” The rule will permanently take effect on January 1, 2017.

Despite the urging of NCSHA and other advocates, the agencies did not include municipal bonds as HQLAs in the final rule. This means that large banks cannot currently use any municipal bond investments they hold towards meeting their LCR. H.R. 2209 would require that all investment-grade municipal bonds that are “liquid and readily marketable” be classified as level 2A HQLAs. This would allow banks to count such municipal bonds towards their LCR, but only at a value that is 15 percent below each investment’s market value. In addition, banks cannot use level 2 assets to account for more than 40 percent of their HQLAs. Regulators would have three months to incorporate these changes into the current regulations.

In May, the Federal Reserves issued a proposed rule that would allow some municipal bonds to be considered as HQLAs. However, the proposed rule would only apply to uninsured general obligation bonds. This means that housing bonds, and other private-activity bonds, would still not be considered HQLAs. Further, because the Federal Reserve issued this proposed rule unilaterally instead of jointly with Treasury and the FDIC, it would only apply to the large banks the Federal Reserve oversees.

H.R. 2209 has not been scheduled yet for full House of Representatives consideration.

National Council of State Housing Agencies

November 04, 2015




California Private Placement Market May Be Pivoting.

PHOENIX – The relatively opaque private placement market, which has been very strong in California, may be slowing down after years of growth and shifting from a totally bank-dominated market to a more diverse range of purchasers, market participants believe.

The line between a private placement of municipal securities and a more traditional bank loan is sometimes fuzzy and full of ambiguity over disclosure, but issuers have turned increasingly to both techniques in recent years because of the relative simplicity of dealing with only one investor or lender.

The limited disclosure requirements that apply to non-public offerings of municipal bonds, particularly to loans, make it difficult to pin down exactly how big the multi-billion dollar market is nationally or in the Golden State. Observers described evolving practices in California.

Banks have been ramping up their muni holdings, with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data showing that bank holdings of municipal bonds have risen from just over $270 billion in June 2013 to about $325 billion in June this year.

Banks have been attracted to the strong performance munis have provided and the better risk profile attached to municipal securities compared to other kinds of debt.

Data provided by Thomson Reuters shows that private placements of munis totaled about $24 billion in 2014, with California accounting for some $4.4 billion of that total.

That was up from just $1.8 billion nationwide in 2005, of which $277 million were in California.

As of Nov. 4, Reuters data shows that neither the nation nor California are on pace to reach last year’s levels, with California’s activity slowing more.

Total private placement volume through Nov. 4 sat at $15.4 billion nationally and at $850 million in California.

Roger Davis, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in San Francisco, said he and other lawyers at his firm have been involved in California private placements, sometimes as counsel to the issuer and sometimes as counsel to the purchaser of the securities.

He said such deals occur as they traditionally have, with unrated or lower-rated credits, but have also broadened to include more types of transactions and include all sectors.

“They’re occurring both where you would expect them to and replacing more traditional financing,” Davis said. “We see it in the general government area, we see it in healthcare, we see it in K-12 education.”

Davis said private placements have long been a bank-dominated market, but in his experience may be pivoting a bit away from that.

“It may be the case that there are somewhat fewer of those,” Davis said of bank direct purchases.

He said that he has seen an increasing number of purchases made by hedge and infrastructure funds.

Davis said it’s not clear from his perspective whether the direct placement market in California is losing steam.

“I can’t say that it’s shrinking or growing,” he said. “They’re still a material factor in the market. It’s hard to tell how material a factor they are.”

Several market participants discussed the California private placement market in at The Bond Buyer’s California Public Finance Conference last month in San Francisco, saying the market may have peaked a year or two ago.

Those discussions also indicated that between 15 and 20 banks are consistently active with private placements in the state.

Dmitry Semenov, vice president and commercial relationship manager at Umpqua Bank in Roseville, Calif., said he has seen a number of smaller commercial banks getting involved in the private placement market over the last couple of years.

The new competition has given issuers more access to inexpensive borrowing, but it is unclear how long that will last, Semenov said.

“They’re aggressive,” Semenov said of the new market entrants, adding that he has seen some examples of very loose covenants and a potential lack of due diligence. “Lots of cheap money.”

Semenov said that his bank is very active in the private placement market, totaling about $500 million in the last five years. Private placements are used for almost everything now, he said.

“At this point it covers pretty much the entire spectrum of issuers,” Semenov said.

Some private placements are more of a one-off from banks who generally don’t do them.

C.J. Johnson, chief financial officer at Mechanics Bank, a community bank in the San Francisco Bay Area, said his bank’s recent decision to purchase $3 million of social impact bonds in a private placement was not a normal part of Mechanics’ business.

In that deal, Richmond, Calif. is issuer of $3 million of bonds with a 0% coupon for the Richmond Community Foundation to use to acquire abandoned houses and sell them to qualified low-income homebuyers. The deal is risky, as Mechanics only gets its potential 10% annual return on its $3 million of the project is a success.

The bank gets credit under the Community Reinvestment Act, which encourages financial institutions to meet the credit needs of their communities. Regulators take a bank’s CRA performance record into account when considering an institution’s application for deposit facilities.

“I would say we’re not really active in this market at all,” Johnson said when asked about private placement activity. “It’s a little bit of a one-off.”

Johnson said the bank was motivated more by the local community angle, calling the situation “unique.”

“We’re a community bank, and this is our community,” he said of Mechanics, which has three Richmond branches.

Regulators are in the midst of trying to bring clarity to the private placement sector, where there is significant confusion and controversy.

Issuers and banks are often unsure of whether an instrument is a loan or a security subject to Securities and Exchange Commission and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rules, and broker-dealer groups have said repeatedly that some municipal advisors are acting improperly as placement agents soliciting banks to participate in these types of non-public transactions.

Analysts have called for more prompt voluntary disclosure by issuers of all their debts.

The Government Finance Officers Association executive board recently approved a best practice document recommending voluntary disclosure of information on direct placements, loans, and other credit arrangements with private lenders or commercial banks.

THE BOND BUYER

BY KYLE GLAZIER

NOV 5, 2015 1:30pm ET




Kroll Firm to Expand Bond Rating Coverage.

With an infusion of new capital from a private-equity investor, Kroll hopes to double in size in the next three years.

Competition may be heating up in the credit rating business as Kroll Bond Rating Agency, armed with an infusion of new capital, expands its coverage of corporate and municipal bonds.

KBRA, which was founded by CEO Jules Kroll five years ago, has specialized in coverage of the structured finance market. Last week, it announced private-equity investor Wharf Street had acquired a majority stake, positioning it to pursue future growth and challenge the “Big Three” agencies — Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch Ratings.

“The last five years we’ve really built a name for ourselves in the structured finance market and are beginning to build a name for ourselves in municipals and financial institutions,” KBRA president Jim Nadler told Reuters. “There is a real need for research in the band from A down to BB within the corporate finance sector, where we are not currently as active.”

KBRA hopes to double in size in the next three years. “Everywhere we go, we need to prove ourselves and so far investors have been our best allies,” Kroll said.

The firm has so far published more than 600 ratings linked to over $400 billion of issuance. The “Big Three” rating agencies issue around 95% of credit ratings globally, a total unchanged since the financial crisis.

According to Kroll, KBRA’s goal is to offer deeper insight than competitors in areas where there is such a need. One possible area is airports where, Kroll said, other agencies have stuck to single-A ratings for the sector despite evidence that some airports were much more creditworthy.

Wharf Street now owns around 90% of KBRA after buying out early investors and much of Kroll’s stake.

by Matthew Heller

November 9, 2015 | CFO.com | US




A Simple (But Hard) Way for Governments to Stay Out of Pension Trouble.

Chicago’s fiscal 2016 budget is like a cautionary tale about what happens when state and local governments fail to deal with long-festering pension problems. A policy brief published in September by the libertarian Reason Foundation offers sound advice about one of the ways to avoid Chicago’s fate.

The city’s $7.8 billion spending blueprint includes an historic $543 million property-tax increase to be phased in over four years, along with fee increases and spending cuts. The fact that Mayor Rahm Emanuel would propose such a budget and that the City Council would approve it — and by a 35-15 margin — is testament to the lack of viable options in the face of a state-mandated $550 million payment to Chicago’s police and firefighter pension systems, each of which is less than 30 percent funded.

Draconian as it may seem, Chicago’s budget may not go far enough. It assumes that the Illinois Supreme Court will find the city’s 2014 pension reforms constitutional when it takes up the matter this month. It also assumes that the state will pass legislation allowing the city to spread out the mandated pension payment over a longer period.

There’s no silver bullet when it comes to helping state and local governments avoid what has happened to Chicago, but one thing that would certainly help would be for them to base their pension contributions on more realistic investment assumptions. The Reason brief proposes several options, such as tying assumed pension-fund returns to the yield on the jurisdiction’s own bonds or on the expected rates of return on municipal or high-grade corporate bond indexes.

As I have written previously, another reasonable approach would be to base assumed returns on actual long-term pension-fund returns; to avoid manipulation, the period on which historical returns are calculated should include at least two economic downturns.

Whichever approach is used, the Reason brief wisely recommends phasing in the change in anticipated returns over a period of years. A typical assumed rate of return for pension investments is around 8 percent. Cutting that to 5 or 6 percent, as one of the approaches mentioned above would likely do, would require state and local governments to significantly increase their pension contributions.

Calculating reasonable pension investment return assumptions is simple. Actually adopting them is hard because it runs contrary to human nature. Why should an elected official make painful budgetary decisions now when the benefits — or the harm from kicking the can down the road — won’t likely be felt until he or she is long out of office?

Yes, the solution is simple. The hard part is finding courageous public officials who will implement it.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHARLES CHIEPPO | NOVEMBER 6, 2015




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast: (How Climate Change Could Affect Ratings and the Outlook for the City of Los Angeles).

In this week’s segment of Extra Credit, Managing Director Geoff Buswick discusses how climate change could affect ratings and Director Jennifer Hansen explains what’s behind our outlook on the City of Los Angeles.

Listen to the Podcast.

Nov. 6, 2015




USDA Provides $314 Million in Water and Waste Infrastructure Improvements in Rural Communities Nationwide.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2, 2015 – USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced loans and grants for 141 projects to build and improve water and wastewater infrastructure in rural communities across the nation.

“Many rural communities need to upgrade and repair their water and wastewater systems, but often lack the resources to do so,” Vilsack said. “These loans and grants will help accomplish this goal. USDA’s support for infrastructure improvements is an essential part of building strong rural economies.”

USDA is awarding $299 million for 88 projects in the Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program and $15 million for 53 grants in the Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant (ECWAG) program.

ECWAG grants enable water systems that serve eligible rural communities to prepare for, or recover from, imminent or actual emergencies that threaten the availability of safe drinking water. Water and Waste program recipients can use funds to construct water and waste facilities in rural communities.

The Big Sandy Rancheria Band of Western Mono Indians in Fresno, Calif., has been selected to receive a $494,300 ECWAG grant to drill a well and connect it and another well to the water system.

The Columbia Heights Water District in Caldwell, La., has been selected to receive a $736,000 water and waste loan to upgrade the water storage tank and related equipment at the wastewater treatment plant. The community is in an area of persistent poverty that USDA has targeted for special assistance through the StrikeForce for Rural Growth and Opportunity Initiative.

Three recipients receiving funding today were given priority points through a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill that encourages communities to adopt regional economic development plans. These projects are centered on regional collaboration and long-term growth strategies. They leverage outside resources and capitalize on a region’s unique strengths.

The recipients are the West Stewartstown (N.H.) Water Precinct, the Lowcountry Regional Water System in Hampton, S.C., and the city of Waubun, Minn. All three projects involve upgrades to water and wastewater systems. The Hampton, S.C., project is in a high-poverty area designated as a Promise Zone. In areas designated as Promise Zones, federal, state and private-sector partners work with local communities and businesses to create jobs, increase economic security, expand educational opportunities, and increase access to quality, affordable housing.

Six of the projects announced today will provide $3.9 million to benefit Native American areas. These water and waste awards include the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota and five projects in California, including Big Sandy Rancheria, two awards to the Cortina Band of Wintun Indians, the Grindstone Indian Rancheria and the Yurok Tribe.

Two projects will provide $9.1 million for colonias in New Mexico. The recipients are the Garfield Mutual Domestic Water Consumers & Mutual Sewer Works Association and the La Luz Mutual Domestic Water Association. Colonias are unincorporated, low-income, mostly Hispanic U.S. communities along the Mexico border that lack adequate housing, drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

Since 2009, USDA has helped provide improved water and wastewater services to nearly 18 million rural residents by investing $12.3 billion in 5,174 projects.

Funding of each award announced today is contingent upon the recipient meeting the terms of the grant and loan agreement.

Here is an example of how a previously funded project has helped improve water service in a rural community. In Sparta, Tenn., antiquated equipment could not handle rainwater runoff, causing sewage to spill out of drains. In 2011, USDA provided $2.9 million to Sparta to build a new wastewater system, ending the major sewage problem.

USDA Rural Development is accepting applications for loans and grants to build rural water infrastructure. Applications may be completed online through RDAPPLY, a new electronic filing system, and at state and local Rural Development offices. Public entities (counties, townships and communities), non-profit organizations and tribal communities with a population of 10,000 or less are eligible to apply. Interest rates for this program are at historically low levels, ranging from 2 percent to 3.25 percent. Loan terms can be up to 40 years.

President Obama’s plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President’s leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way – strengthening America’s economy, small towns and rural communities.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users)




With Risks, P3s and Design-Build Seen as Beneficial to Infrastructure Planning.

At an Urban Land Institute conference last week, two panels of transportation experts – one from the public sector, the other from the private sector – discussed the issues plaguing tri-state transportation systems and the potential of public-private partnerships to address them.

“Transportation agencies are great at delivering state-of-good-repair projects, delivering normal replacement projects,” former New York State Department of Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald said during the first panel. “I’m not so sure that transportation agencies are the entities best-suited to do some of these mega projects that are not just about transportation.”

With transportation infrastructure, a public-private partnership, or P3 agreement, is used most often in a design-build contract – design-build is a method of project-delivery in which a private contractor wins a bid to design and construct a project. Ongoing regional public-private infrastructure projects include the construction of a new Port Authority Bus Terminal and an MTA project to build a Long Island Rail Road station beneath Grand Central Terminal (known as East Side Access).

Organized by the Urban Land Institute’s New York, New Jersey and Westchester/Fairfield chapters, the forum was hosted at Shearman & Sterling’s East Midtown headquarters, drawing a crowd of around one hundred.

During the panel of current and former public officials, moderated by CityLab New York bureau chief Eric Jaffe, the speakers disagreed on the role of public-private partnerships in terms of their potential for improving transportation infrastructure.

“The bigger you get, when you have many more stakeholders, many more local zoning laws, then it becomes more difficult,” Steve Santoro, New Jersey Transit’s assistant executive director of capital planning, said of expansive P3 projects.

All agreed, however, that area transportation infrastructure is in a state of crisis.

“The term ‘transportation Armageddon’ has been used,” Jaffe said, referring to Senator Chuck Schumer’s remarks about the potential results of the damaged Hudson River tunnels. If the existing New York-to-New Jersey tunnels close – a plausible scenario given their age, deterioration and the fact that they have reached current capacity – it would be disastrous for commuters and the regional economy.

In remarks after the panel, Drew Galloway, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor chief of planning and performance expressed openness to working with a private sector contractor on the Gateway Project, a proposed high-speed rail corridor planned to help solve a potential crisis with the tunnels, which are used by NJTransit and Amtrak and bring many commuters into New York City.

“We absolutely intend to consider [public-private partnerships] and will welcome the proposals as it goes forward,” Galloway told Politico New York.

After the conference’s 15-minute networking break, the private sector panel convened to discuss the best P3 business practices globally, as well as the potential hazards and benefits of P3s.

“You have competition among entities of the private sector to come up with the best and most cost-effective design,” Karen Hedlund, national P3 advisor for Parsons Brinckerhoff, said at the panel, which was moderated by Urban Land Institute’s senior vice president, Rachel MacCleery.

For underfunded tri-state transportation agencies, design-build can be an attractive method of cutting project costs. As Mike Parker, of Ernst & Young Infrastructure Advisors, LLC, pointed out, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey estimated that it saved ten percent by using a P3 for the Goethals Bridge reconstruction versus a public plan.

In the case of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, Hedlund explained, its dire need for infrastructure repair may repel potential private partners.

“Would they be willing to accept the cost of bringing the Northeast Corridor up to a state-of-good-repair?” Hedlund asked. “It’s a much more complicated question than sometimes some politicians would like you to believe.”

Last year, P3s, especially as design-build, were recommended by the MTA Transportation Reinvention Commission, a team of 24 local, regional, and international transportation experts. In July, New York State Budget Director Mary Beth Labate again endorsed their use in a letter to MTA Chair Thomas Prendergast, calling design-build and other P3 tools a means of reducing the agency’s capital program costs and achieving “faster project delivery.”

Certainly, the MTA needs faster project delivery – a recent report by the Citizens Budget Commission (CBC), a nonpartisan watchdog group, estimated that MTA repair and upgrade projects will be finished by 2067 at their current rate. The Second Avenue Subway extension is notoriously behind schedule and beyond budget.

But though public-private partnerships are recommended for MTA repair projects, the CBC report warns that a “P3 can leave public agencies at risk when private parties fail to perform adequately,” as they did in the early 2000s with a London Underground repair project.

“The London experience showed that there’s some problems with P3s that dealt with a lot of maintaining existing assets and bringing existing infrastructure up to a state-of-good-repair,” Jamison Dague, the report’s author, told Gotham Gazette. “And that’s not to say that you can’t have a P3 that does those things successfully, but that was one challenge that they saw there.”

Meanwhile, design-build contracts for New York infrastructure, Dague added, have proven successful in the past. The newly approved (and controversial) MTA five-year capital plan was reduced by billions of dollars after the agency accounted for increased use of design-build and other cost-saving strategies.

From a policy standpoint, measures can be taken to prevent private sector malfeasance when engaging companies in major infrastructure projects. In his remarks, Galloway emphasized the need for transportation officials to independently estimate a project’s cost before private sector involvement.

“Otherwise, they will price their own investment in such a way to cover that risk,” Galloway said. “And you very quickly lose some of the advantages that you would otherwise see in a public-private partnership.”

Transportation officials and others have suggested oversight mechanisms as a means of preventing similar problems before. Independent evaluation of projects before private-sector involvement was recommended by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli in a 2013 report, which also calls for the creation of an oversight entity for public-partnership agreements and other changes to the state’s P3 policies.

Jaffe mentioned the ongoing concern: “The fear is always that in the long run, the public will end up paying more than they said they would pay up front.”

***

by Ryan Brady, Gotham Gazette

Nov 04, 2015

@GothamGazette




Experts Offer Strategies for Educating Stakeholders, Public on Benefits of P3s.

Never underestimate the importance of educating key stakeholders and the public about the benefits of using public-private partnerships to develop social infrastructure both before and after project launch. Failure to convey the advantages of P3s to those who will be affected by such projects could lead to pressure on public agencies to reject this procurement method in the future. This message was delivered repeatedly by a broad range of successful P3 partners during NCPPP’s second annual P3s for Public Buildings Summit, Oct. 22-23 in Washington, D.C.

The list of people who should be educated thoroughly on the advantages of P3 procurement is extensive. It includes investors, public agencies, local and state residents, legislators and the media. It equally is important to engage with individuals and organizations located near the project, unions and local contractors, session participants stressed.

All descriptions of P3s also should simply and thoroughly define the procurement method, which often is poorly understood, these experts added. Confusion over what P3s are abounds even in Canada, where unlike the United States, they are used to build a range of public buildings, including schools and hospitals.

“When we talk about P3s, we’re not talking about privatization. The government owns, controls and is accountable for that asset. But we also have to dispel the notion many government officials have that P3s don’t involve any government funding. They don’t know what private financing means. We have a saying: ‘P3 — not P-free,’” said Mark Romoff, president and CEO of the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, who moderated a session on how to garner community and stakeholder support for P3.

He described other myths that surround P3s in Canada, such as the assumption that unions universally distrust them. “Several large unions, such as Laborers’ International, are part of a P3 group and all of the collective bargaining agreements we have negotiated with them are observed,” he explained.

Romoff also stressed the importance of publicizing the beneficial effects P3s have on people’s quality of life. “It’s not enough to keep saying that a project has been completed on time and under budget. Tell a story simply and connect emotionally. You’ll make more headway.”

The highly successful Long Beach, Calif. courthouse P3 is a case in point, recounted Stephen Reinstein, director of integrated delivery at AECOM and former CEO of Long Beach Judicial Partners. “Judges’ complaints about the poor condition of the facilities they’d been working in didn’t make a difference. What was compelling was hearing about someone who had a heart attack and died on the sixth floor because the elevators weren’t working,” he said.

Reinstein also stressed the importance of attracting support from public officials at various levels of government for such projects. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who sent aides to Canada to study its P3 procurement models, endorsed the courthouse project, as did officials at the county and city levels, in part because the new construction was seen as the first step in rehabilitating a blighted neighborhood.

The developers also heeded the concerns expressed by influential members of the community in designing the project. When administrators at a nearby school questioned the safety of having a courthouse next door, developers promised that no doors would be built on the side of the building that faced the school, which eased the school officials’ misgivings, reported Reinstein.

“We also signed a good agreement with the public union that was afraid its members would be negatively impacted by developing the courthouse as a P3. The union became a big supporter and we were able to the message across that, ‘No public jobs were harmed in building this project,’” he added.

Reinstein took pains to communicate with all of the local newspapers and the other Los Angeles media about the project and the P3 concept but acknowledged that he found it difficult to explain the procurement method “in a sound bite.”

“I used simple language and analogies that I thought people would easily understand, such as likening it having a house mortgage that includes the services of a gardener and a handyman for 39 years,” he explained.

Jessica Murray, who recently joined Walsh Construction as vice president of strategic initiatives, recalled state officials’ reluctance to educate the media to counteract the effects of negative stories about a P3 to expand Interstate 70 in northeast Denver. While working for Skanska, which is part of a consortium that is bidding for the project, she reached out to reporters and created an informational video about the P3. As a result, “reporters started calling me to check on the accuracy of what other people were saying,” she recalled. She urged state officials to capture the media’s attention in a project’s early stages, especially if they anticipate negative reactions. “If you can’t do that, talk to the cab drivers who talk to everyone on the planet. Bad word-of-mouth snowballs,” she warned.

The importance of engaging internal and external stakeholders early in the planning process also is vital, stressed participants in the summit’s opening general session.

When The College of New Jersey decided to build a multi-use development that included student housing as a P3, faculty and students expressed concern that they no longer would be dealing solely with the college, a trusted agent, over quality-of-life issues. Some faculty members criticized the decision to allow a tanning salon to locate on retail space in the complex, for example, said Stacy Schuster, the college’s associate vice president for college relations. The school was pleased with the pace at which work and approval processes were conducted, however, and ultimately, “the campus community came on board,” paving the way for development to enter into a second phase. “People on campus had trouble at first accepting that an external company would manage the project and handle maintenance. Now everyone is comfortable with this project, but if we take on another P3, we might hold internal conversations differently,” she said.

“Agencies need to pay attention to the facility user — the customer. You need to explain how it will be used and how it will accommodate changes in the future,” advised Douglas Koelemay, director of the Virginia Office of Public-Private Partnerships (VAP3). Agencies used to convey this information through public hearings but that avenue alone is no longer sufficient, he noted.

“It’s not just about telling people what is going to happen but answering their questions. You have to, as the saying goes, ‘get sticky’ with them. Social media is a big help with that,” Koelemay said, adding that it is important to know what citizens want, value and will support. “They can give you permission to proceed, even if they’re not actually promoting a project.” With this in mind, VAP3 adopted a new set of guidelines to conduct risk management and to engage the public.

P3 developers should make the time to reach out to their elected legislators to educate them on the benefits of using this procurement model to build public infrastructure as well, said Timothy Merriweather, president of the Texas Infrastructure Council. “We’re represented by U.S. senators and representatives, and state, county and city officials. Take the time to make calls, visit their offices, leave a flyer and tell them, ‘If you have a question about P3s, ask me. I’m your constituent and this is what I do.’ My county judge calls me to ask questions about P3s.”

One woman “with an extensive e-mail list” advocated so tirelessly against a proposed P3 that she “killed it singlehandedly,” he recalled. “The people who don’t understand what P3s are and can do and complain, they’re the squeaky wheel. They are heard. We’re the larger group but we’re not making that noise. We have to counter misinformation and misunderstanding with facts,” he said.

NCPPP

November 2, 2015




Here’s Why RIDOT Says a Truck-Toll Bond Would Save RI $612M.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) – The debate over Gov. Gina Raimondo’s toll proposal is actually multiple debates rolled into one.

Among the questions: Should the state spend more money on bridge repairs, and if so, how much should it spend? Should the state institute a toll on large trucks, and if so, how should it work? Should the state float a bond backed by the toll revenue and get the money up front, even though it will have to pay interest?

It’s that last debate – whether toll revenue should be promised in exchange for a big infusion of capital, or used on a pay-as-you-go basis as it comes in each year – that may be the wonkiest.

The current version of RhodeWorks, as the governor has dubbed her big transportation plan, calls for the state to float a roughly $600-million bond on July 1 to be repaid by toll revenue. The bond proceeds would yield $500 million for bridge repairs, with the rest of the money covering toll-gantry construction, financing costs, and a debt reserve fund.

Borrowed money has to be repaid with interest, of course, and the RhodeWorks bond is no exception: the R.I. Department of Transportation says the state would need to make $578 million in interest payments over 30 years to pay off the bond in full, bringing its full cost to $1.16 billion. Critics have choked on that number, noting the bond will cost the state more in interest ($578 million) than it yields for bridge repairs ($500 million).

RIDOT officials don’t dispute that $578 million in interest payments is a lot of money. But they argue critics are being penny-wise, pound-foolish, because they’re not including what RIDOT estimates will be $1.2 billion in construction savings from floating the bond. The reason, they say, is that it will let bridges get fixed before they deteriorate further and become much more costly to repair.

Officials compare the concept to a homeowner who borrows money to repair a roof, or an individual who borrows money to fill a cavity, avoiding a future root canal.

“We’re engineers,” RIDOT Director Peter Alviti told WPRI.com. “If giving money to the lending institutions ends up costing taxpayers less during that same 10-year period, then we should do it that way.”

RIDOT has developed a list of all 827 bridges that would be tackled under RhodeWorks, ranked by priority based on what the agency calls its Bridge Improvement Program (BIP) scores. The score includes factors such as condition, size, average traffic, weight limits, route importance, and the cost of detours. The projects would be tackled in roughly the same order under either the bond plan or the pay-as-you-go plan, officials said.

(The worst-ranked bridge in Rhode Island, according to RIDOT: the Huntington Avenue Viaduct in Providence, which carries the Olneyville Expressway section of Route 6 over Troy and Westminster streets.)

RIDOT’s engineers calculate that if the $500 million in bond money is available immediately, it will cost $1.7 billion to do all the projects, and the state’s bridges will be 90% structurally sufficient by 2025. However, they say, if the bond money is not available and toll revenue can only be used as it comes in, the same projects will cost $2.9 billion, and the state’s bridges won’t be 90% structurally sufficient until 2034.

RIDOT attributes that $1.2 billion in savings to the benefits of a “surge” in bridge projects that the bond will allow. By using the infusion of borrowed money, the level of construction spending on bridges is forecast to quickly hit a peak of $266 million in 2017-18 before falling, versus a gradual increase under the pay-as-you-go budget:

RIDOT Bridge Repair Budget w Tolls paygo vs bond Oct 2015

RIDOT Deputy Director Peter Garino said that “surge” would allow the agency to preserve a large group of bridges that will otherwise deteriorate to the point where they need to be rehabilitated or even reconstructed, which is far more expensive to do. That is the reason his team recommended a bond rather than a pay-as-you-go approach, he said.

“What we looked at is, how do we compress things so they cost the least amount of money?” Alviti said.

The bottom line: RIDOT says even after making the $578 million in interest payments on the toll-backed bond, the “surge” approach will still save taxpayers a net $612 million thanks to the $1.2 billion in construction savings due to projects happening earlier.

“It’s only because we have a one-time upfront cost to get us to a regular place where we can normalize bridge repair that it makes sense,” Garino said. “If we did a deep dive on bridges when we first got here and if that was a flat curve, then you need an ongoing revenue source. But it wasn’t a flat curve. It was a bell upfront. And because of that, this is really the only reason why it makes sense to bond.”

Alviti said part of the reason for the “bell curve” in RIDOT’s projected needs is because so many of Rhode Island’s bridges were all built during the same period, the postwar era of major transportation expansions nationwide in the 1950s and ’60s. That’s left many of them falling into worse shape on roughly the same schedule, he said.

“More than 70% of our infrastructure is over 50 years old,” said Dave Fish, RIDOT’s acting chief engineer. “We’ve got so many of those bridges that are on the brink.”

As an example of how the cost of a bridge changes depending on how long it takes to tackle it, RIDOT offered four internal estimates: the Greenwich Avenue Bridge in Warwick, which would need $2.6 million in 2017 while it’s still a preservation project, but $10.4 million in 2025 when it would be a reconstruction project; the Concord Street Bridge, a $1.9-million preservation project in 2018 but a $7.5-million reconstruction project in 2028; the Phenix Avenue Bridge East in Cranston, a $3.8-million rehabilitation project in 2022 but an $8.1-million reconstruction project in 2032; and the Goat Island Bridge in Newport, an $8-million rehabilitation project in 2017 but an $11.9-million rehabilitation project in 2025.

The infusion of bond money would allow RIDOT to do those lower-cost projects for each bridge, while the pay-as-you-go plan would require the more expensive ones, according to Alviti. “The real savings is getting the ones that we can get preserved,” he said.

Alviti acknowledged the “surge” plan – and the costly bond – only make sense if RIDOT goes on to invest the necessary money to maintain the bridges once they’re back in good shape. The agency is beefing up its maintenance department by hiring 40 new employees there and is budgeting more money for those projects in the future, he said.

“If all we were doing was planning to do the surge, fix the bridges and leave everything else the same, you’re right, it would be cyclical,” Alviti said. “By increasing maintenance, we’ll get that capability up so that now instead of these 30-year cycles we get into, of having to reconstruct the bridges, we’re making them last longer.”

If bridges are properly maintained going forward, RIDOT officials think they could potentially last for 80 to 100 years, if not indefinitely. “If we can even just extend from 50 years to 80 to 100 years, we’re cutting the cost of these bridges in half over time,” Alviti said.

Critics have also questioned the type of bond called for under RhodeWorks. The governor wants to float what’s known as a revenue bond, with repayment directly tied to the money from tolls, as opposed to a general-obligation bond. Choosing the former is more costly: RIDOT is projecting an interest cost of roughly 5% for the toll-backed revenue bond, compared with an average rate of 2.4% on a general-obligation bond the state floated earlier this year.

From the Raimondo administration’s perspective, there are multiple benefits to the revenue bond: the governor can continue to argue taxpayer money will never be used to pay the bond, and unlike with a general-obligation bond, no voter referendum is required to approve the borrowing.

Garino also said the revenue bond provides a safeguard to prevent future governors or lawmakers from redirecting toll revenue to other types of spending. “We really want to make sure that the revenue from the tolling goes to those bridges,” he said.

RIDOT hasn’t won over critics with those arguments, however. Rep. Patricia Morgan, a leading Republican opponent of the toll bond, tweeted Monday: “Governor’s gift to Wall St banks: Revenue bonds with no voter approval carry higher Interest rates. Make repairs more expensive.” She has called for bridge repairs to be funded out of existing state revenue, and does not include the same “surge” RIDOT wants.

Other groups have also called for alternatives to RIDOT’s proposal, with the Rhode Island Trucking Association suggesting about $13 million a year in new revenue last week, and the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity suggesting a public-private partnership modeled on Pennsylvania that could cost $570 million with interest.

State House leaders have suggested the General Assembly will take up the toll proposal next year, and could act on it within the first few months of the annual legislative session. If that happens, RhodeWorks-funded projects could begin next summer, Alviti said.

WPRI.com

By Ted Nesi

Published: November 2, 2015, 6:40 pm Updated: November 3, 2015, 9:30 am

Ted Nesi (tnesi@wpri.com) covers politics and the economy for WPRI.com. He hosts Executive Suite and writes The Saturday Morning Post. Follow him on Twitter: @tednesi




Alaska Dusts Off Plans for $1.6 Billion Pension-Obligation Bond.

Alaska may double this year’s supply of pension obligation bonds as it considers borrowing $1.6 billion to help fund its cash-strapped retirement trust.

As of 2013, Alaska had the fourth-worst funded pension among U.S. states, reporting it had 52.3 percent of the money needed to pay retirees, better than only Illinois, Connecticut and Kentucky, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Since then, the state has done some one-time fixes — like a $1 billion cash injection into the trust last year — but hasn’t made strides to permanently fix the fund, said Deven Mitchell, the state’s debt manager at the Alaska Department of Revenue.

Prompted by Governor Bill Walker, Alaska is looking into the possibility of a $1.6 billion general obligation pension bond, Mitchell said. “It appears that this interest rate environment provides an opportunity for us to get in on the leveraging side at a low rate,” Mitchell said. “We’re thinking it’s not a bad time to consider this alternative.”

The state’s plan isn’t new. Alaska almost issued pension obligation bonds in 2008, back when its funded ratio was at 75.7 percent, Mitchell said. At the time, the state legislature created the Pension Obligation Bond Corporation, a conduit that the securities could be issued through, and approved up to $5 billion of debt, Mitchell said.

The deal team published a preliminary offering statement, gave rating company presentations and was in the process of picking a sale date when the stock market started to crash. The pension obligation bond dreams were over.

“The funny thing is, if we had bitten the bullet and ate the high interest rates [in early 2009], we would have been doing great now,” Mitchell said. For a pension obligation bond to be “in the money,” the eventual investment returns made with the proceeds have to exceed the initial borrowing rates.

This time around, Governor Walker has asked Mitchell to pick up from where they left off in 2008 and see if the economics still make sense. Mitchell said the deal will be ready to come to market if Governor Walker gives the green light. Because of the work done in 2008, the governor won’t need legislative approval to issue the potential bonds.

Selling bonds to pay back other debts may not seem intuitive, but it’s becoming a regular occurrence for those struggling to fund their pension systems. This year, state and local governments have sold the most GO pension obligation bonds since 2008 even as sentiment against them has grown.

The Government Finance Officers Association recommended, in a January advisory, that state and local governments refrain from issuing the bonds, reminding its 17,500 members that the proceeds from the deal might not return as much as the interest rate on the bond itself.

“People really don’t know what’s going to happen in the market, a lot of folks in the market don’t know what’s going to happen in the market,” said Dustin McDonald, a director at the federal liaison division of the GFOA. “Ultimately you’re betting on positive market outcomes that you may or may not see.”

Fitch reiterated the concerns in an Aug. 13 report, telling investors the debt “won’t fix U.S. public pensions” and the issuance of these types of bonds will only ever be neutral or negative for a credit.
According to Matt Fabian, a partner at Municipal Market Analytics, “they’re always a bad idea.”

If Alaska goes through with its deal, this year’s total pension obligation bonds issues will be more than $3 billion, almost ten times last year’s supply, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Issuers have argued that not all pension obligation bonds are equal. If the bond proceeds go directly to the pension trust and just reduce rather than replace annual payments, then there’s nothing for investors to be concerned about, said Kansas State Treasurer Ron Estes. Kansas sold $1 billion of pension obligation bonds in August, raising its funded ratio to 65 percent from 62, Estes said.

“There are risks in doing this, but the biggest risk is not funding your pension,” Estes said.
Mitchell said he’s framing Alaska’s potential deal to mimic Kansas’s. So far Mitchell has arranged an underwriting syndicate and put together a “shell” of a preliminary offering statement.

As Alaska considers ways to repair its pension system, it also faces a $3.5 billion structural budget deficit, equal to about 55 percent of general fund expenditures, according to a note from Standard & Poor’s from Nov. 2.

Bloomberg

by Kate Smith

November 4, 2015 — 6:52 AM PST




Fitch: CA School District Special Revenue Recognition Could Have Broader Rating Implications.

Fitch Ratings-New York-04 November 2015:  Fitch Ratings’ assignment of an ‘AAA’ rating to San Diego Unified School District’s (SDUSD) upcoming general obligation bonds recognizes that tax revenues supporting repayment of debt would be considered ‘special revenues’ under the bankruptcy code. As such, Fitch believes the revenues and timely debt service payments would be uninterrupted in the unlikely event of a bankruptcy filing by the district.

Fitch’s conclusion was supported by legal opinions applying specifically to SDUSD bonds but many California school district GO bonds have been issued under constitutional provisions similar to SDUSD’s proposed bonds. Fitch is in the process of determining its protocol for applying the special tax analysis to other California school district bonds with the same legal construct, and expects to provide further guidance to the market in the near term.

Contact:
Amy Laskey
Managing Director
+1-212-908-0567
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
33 Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004

Laura Porter
Managing Director
+1-212-908-0575




Fitch: Nevada School District Reorg Plan May Hike Credit Risk.

Fitch Ratings-New York-06 November 2015:  Clark County, NV, School District’s (‘A’, Stable Outlook) reorganization plan presents mid-term risks, Fitch Ratings says. District reorganization plans might present uncertainties for bondholders – as a 2010 restructuring in Utah did – because the resulting distribution of property taxes, potential limits of future bond issuance, and operating environments of the smaller districts are unknown. Several steps must occur for a reorganization to take effect. Therefore in the short term we expect there to be no impact on Clark County School District.

Nevada Assembly Bill 394 requires that an advisory committee submit a plan to reorganize the Clark County School District to the State Board of Education by Jan. 1, 2017. The bill requires the committee to consider a number of issues, including equitable funding, the authority to issue bonds and raise revenues, and personnel contracts and collective bargaining. The school district superintendent has outlined a proposal to break the district into seven local precincts. The plan calls for continued centralization of operational departments with each precinct having flexibility on instructional issues. Under either a true district division or a hybrid scenario, Fitch expects outstanding debt to continue to be payable from the current levy that includes the taxable property of the entire school district.

However, new entities could emerge, each with a portion of the tax base and with potentially different tax rates. Depending upon the size and scope of the potential reorganization, precincts could have different operational aspects, including management and financial policies and practices. A reorganization plan could also affect the recent reauthorization of the district’s 10-year, $4.1 billion rolling bond program under which taxable property is assessed at $0.55 per $100 of AV. The program comes after several years in which the district lacked the capacity to issue bonds and in response to continued deferred maintenance and a backlog of new construction needs.

A district reorganization occurred in Utah when voters approved a ballot measure to break up the previous Jordan School District (ULTGO rated ‘AAA’ Stable Outlook) into two districts in 2007. The new district, Canyons School District (ULTGO rated ‘AAA’ Stable Outlook), began operations in fiscal 2010 under a separate school board. Following modest credit uncertainty at the time of the break-up, Fitch’s ratings recognize the strength of each district’s operations and the tax base from which the bonds are repaid.

Bonds issued prior to the breakup continue to be payable from the proceeds of unlimited ad valorem taxes levied on the taxable property of the prior combined district. Each district’s separate tax levy for the debt is set according to the size of their respective annual debt service repayment. The resulting revenues are restricted solely for the purpose of repaying those bonds, alleviating bondholders’ mid-term risks of the reorganization. Any other use would be against state law.

Contact:

Shannon Groff
Director
US Public Finance
+1 415 732-5628
650 California Street
San Francisco, CA

Rob Rowan
Senior Director
Fitch Wire
+1 212 908-9159
33 Whitehall Street
New York, NY




National League of Cities Local Jobs Report.

NLC’s monthly analysis of the jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with a specific focus on local government employment.

October 2015

City and county governments gained 2,400 jobs in October, marking the 10th month in the past 11 that local government employment (excluding education) has increased. September’s jobs report was revised up to reflect the 12,100 jobs that were added in local government and the highest increase since October 2014. NLC’s recently released City Fiscal Conditions 2015 report showed that city fiscal conditions are stabilizing in the wake of the Great Recession, and the local employment gains provide further evidence of an economic recovery in cities. In the past year, city and county governments have gained 45,000 jobs, although employment remains approximately 170,000 jobs below the post-recession peak in December, 2008.

October 2015 jobs report graphic




Municipal Bonds Shine in Bleak Landscape.

Investing in boring bridges and sewers is paying off once again.

Municipal bonds sold by U.S. state and local governments are returning about 2% this year, according to Barclays PLC data, beating corporate bonds and many other supposedly higher-performing asset classes.

It is the second year of near market-leading returns from a sector typically prized for its low, steady performance. Muni bonds last year posted a total return of 9%, which comprises price appreciation and interest payments, approaching the S&P 500’s total return of 14%.

At a time of low returns and high volatility in other markets, the concerns facing muni bonds—including the threat of defaults from Puerto Rico, the U.S. commonwealth that has some $72 billion of debt outstanding—seem relatively manageable to many investors, compared with the risk of a steep pullback in stocks or other riskier assets.

Municipal bonds are considered nearly as safe as Treasurys because they are backed by tax revenue or fees on critical public services, such as water. The debt also is boosted by interest payments that are typically tax-free, often used to fund peoples’ retirements.

Even buyers who can’t enjoy the tax breaks are purchasing municipal debt, said David Kotok, chief investment officer at Sarasota, Fla.-based Cumberland Advisors. “If you look around the world, the forces in the advanced economies that would drive interest rates lower, or keep them low, are in place,” he said.

Investors have struggled to find better performance.

Total returns in 2015 amount to about 1% for Treasury debt and near-flat returns for highly rated corporate bonds. The S&P 500 has returned 3.9%.

Other market sectors have fared worse. Hedge funds were down an average of about 1.5% in 2015 through September, according to research firm HFR Inc. Commodities are down 17% year to date as measured by the Bloomberg Commodity Index.

The durability in the $3.7 trillion sector persisted even as municipal debt faced challenges throughout the year, including the first default from Puerto Rico and concerns about the financial health of Chicago and states such as Illinois. Investors also spent several months on the sidelines, concerned about possible interest-rate increases earlier in the year.

Those worries diminished when the Federal Reserve didn’t move rates, and demand for municipal debt increased. Investors have added money to municipal-bond mutual funds in five of the past six weeks, after withdrawing more than they put in every month from May to September, according to Lipper data. About $2 billion has flowed into municipal-bond mutual funds this year through October.

“Investors began to get more comfortable with the fact that we weren’t going to see increased interest rates, which led to more robust demand, and that’s helped recent performance,” said Peter Hayes, head of municipal bonds at BlackRock Inc., which manages about $111 billion in tax-exempt debt. Mr. Hayes also noted rates have begun to tick up of late.

Investors have returned to munis after a 2013 selloff spurred by fears of a Fed rate increase and another that began after analyst Meredith Whitney predicted widespread defaults in a December 2010 television interview. There were no defaults on debt rated by Moody’s Investors Service in 2014, and several analysts said the market includes thousands of diverse municipal entities, many of which have improving resources after the recession.

Meanwhile, the supply of bonds for new borrowing has dwindled, even as state and local governments rushed to take advantage of low rates, according to research firm Municipal Market Analytics. Though issuers have sold almost one-third more debt than during the same period of last year, most refinanced outstanding bonds, constricting the total available.

A supportive foundation leaves municipal bonds poised to benefit as rates increase, said David Hammer, executive vice president and municipal bond portfolio manager at Pacific Investment Management Co. Historically, the debt has outperformed other bonds when interest rates rise, and with state and local finances improving along with the U.S. economy, investors are facing less risk than in recent years, he said. “That creates a pretty attractive backdrop,” Mr. Hammer said.

Some analysts said persistent demand has driven up prices, reducing the tax-free income that makes the debt attractive. Many in the market would prefer lower prices and higher yields, which would make it easier to sell bonds or mutual funds, said Matt Fabian, partner at Municipal Market Analytics. Bond yields fall as prices rise.

“You don’t buy an income-producing asset if it doesn’t produce income,” he said.

Still, several investors said the market has provided enough income relative to other assets to shrug off concerns about potential defaults from Puerto Rico, which skipped its first debt payment in August.

Lyle Fitterer, managing director for Wells Fargo Capital Management, which oversees about $39 billion in municipal bonds, said he is still concerned about the impact of possible Puerto Rico defaults. Still, such risks are low marketwide, and once investors consider their tax bill, municipal debt still looks compelling, he said. “Sometimes, superboring can be good,” he said.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By AARON KURILOFF

Nov. 4, 2015 7:05 p.m. ET

 




Long Lives and Rocky Markets Have Some Pension Systems Recalibrating.

For decades, state and local pension systems thought of themselves as America’s ultimate long-term investors.

Companies could go bankrupt by the thousand; corporate boards could show C.E.O.s the door. But the states and cities would be there forever. That meant their pension funds — and the local taxpayers who guarantee them — could invest aggressively, even if that meant taking more risk. In an infinite time frame, today’s loss would always be offset by tomorrow’s gain.

Or so the thinking went. Now, a long-living baby boom generation, rapidly fluctuating global markets and municipal bankruptcies are blowing holes in the notion that for public pension funds, time is infinite. It turns out that the short term matters too.

And it matters now more than ever. According to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, virtually all public pension funds are in what is called a “cash-flow negative” state. That means that every year, they pay more in benefits to retirees than they receive in contributions. And that signals, for some at least, an urgent need to reconsider traditional investment strategies.

The trustees of California’s giant pension system, known as Calstrs, are among them.

“It’s really very simple,” said Allan Emkin, co-founder of Pension Consulting Alliance, in a recent presentation to the board of the organization, officially the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.

“The actuary is saying that you’re going to get 7.5 percent every year,” he said, referring to the grail-like investment assumption that virtually all public pension boards factor into their decisions, which affect millions of people and trillions of dollars.

“And that may well be your average,” he said. “But getting to that average, if you take a really big hit in the early periods, you may not be able to recover.”

He paused to let the heresy sink in: It is possible to hit your long-term actuarial target and still go insolvent. And the long term will not matter if you run out of money in the short. Think Central Falls, R.I., or Prichard, Ala. Think Puerto Rico.

It is possible for two funds, each starting with the same balance, and with the same average return over 20 years, to have vastly differing performances over the period. In the two cases below, the annual returns are the same, but occur in the opposite chronological order. When losses happen in the early years, as for Fund B below, the balance can be wiped out well before the 20 years are up.

Mr. Emkin was helping Calstrs’s trustees with an asset-allocation review, a monthslong process in which the board was examining its investment approach in detail and considering changes. The board is scheduled to vote on a proposed new approach, called Risk Mitigating Strategies, this month. The general idea is to cut back on stocks and increase investments that are expected to rise when the stock market falls.

It was necessary, Mr. Emkin said, because reducing the $194 billion pension fund’s exposure to another stock-market rout is “the single most important decision you’ll make on the investment side.”

Indeed, cutting back on stocks means backing away from the approach that virtually all public pension funds have taken for decades. Some of the trustees seemed concerned that none of their peers were going this way, but Mr. Emkin told them that company pension funds had been moving away from stocks for years.

Public pension funds have “matured,” and that means doing things differently, he urged. Plans that were young in the 1950s or 1960s now have lots of retirees, who are living longer, healthier lives than their actuaries assumed they would. Assuming shorter life spans meant setting aside less money, and this is one reason so many state and local pension funds have shortfalls today.

This is not a death knell, but it means investment losses have outsize impact.

“When you’ve got negative cash flow, the math gets wicked bad,” said Sean McShea, president of Ryan Labs Asset Management, an investment management firm that specializes in bonds. “Poor performance gets amplified.”

Since annual contributions do not cover the payouts, pension funds with negative cash flow generally rely on investment income to close each year’s gap. They need every year to be a good year, but they tend to invest heavily in equities, and the stock market can, of course, fall. A couple of back-to-back bad years — like 2001 and 2002, or 2008 and 2009 — can wreak havoc.

“If the pension fund has a bad sequence of returns, all of a sudden it’s, ‘How are you going to pay this?’” Mr. McShea said. “You can’t grow your way out. It’s almost mathematically impossible to close the gap.”

The crash of 2008 showed what can happen. Public pension funds in growing, relatively prosperous places could fall back on their local taxpayers to fill the giant holes that opened. But not all “mature” pension funds are sponsored by wealthy states or cities. In many places, the obligations that workers and retirees have earned now dwarf the jurisdictions that sponsor them.

Many of the roughly 1,700 California school districts paying in to Calstrs are like that. And there is an added complication: The annual pension contributions are set by state lawmakers in Sacramento, not by Calstrs.

From Wall Street to Washington and in the towers of academia, people are buzzing about what some say is the pernicious focus in corporate America on short-term profits.

For years, lawmakers set Calstrs’s rates far too low to cover what its promised benefits cost. Time passed, the system matured, cash flow went negative and then came the crash of 2008.

Calstrs lost $54 billion and could not bounce back. By 2014, it was paying out $12 billion to roughly 270,000 retired teachers and surviving spouses, and taking in only $6 billion a year in contributions. By conservative measures, it had an $80 billion shortfall. Even if it achieved its long-term investment-return assumption of 7.5 percent, its actuary said, it would probably run out of money around 2047. And if it missed its target, it would run out of money even sooner.

In 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law to substantially increase the money going to Calstrs every year, starting at $450 million a year and rising to $4.5 billion. The biggest increase, about $3.2 billion, is to come from California’s school districts, community colleges and other local governments. Additional amounts are to come from the state, and from Calstrs’s 480,000 teachers and other school employees.

If everyone does their share, Calstrs projects it will close the gap in about 30 years as long as the invested money returns an average 7.5 percent per year over the long term. It is not going to be easy. Fitch Ratings has warned that less affluent school districts may have a hard time keeping up as the amounts rise. Until 2014, they were expected to contribute 8.25 percent of each payroll to Calstrs; by 2021 it will be 19.1 percent.

And for the state, a temporary tax increase that helps cover the increase will expire in 2019.

It was hard to get the promised billions, and the last thing Calstrs wants is to put the money into stocks, then see it vanish in another stock crash.

Calstrs still aspires to 7.5 percent average annual returns — otherwise everybody would have to kick in even more — but it now wants to “reduce downside risk” at the same time. The idea behind Risk Mitigating Strategies is to attempt that by selling off as much as $20 billion of its equities and placing the money instead in Treasury securities, two types of hedge funds and possibly infrastructure projects.

Specifics were deferred until later. Much of the board meeting was devoted to comparing the results of modeling various hypothetical portfolios. Calstrs’s current portfolio was shown to have about a 30 percent chance of another big fall by 2019 — the year, ominously, when the state tax increase is scheduled to expire.

Other modeled portfolios seemed to have a lower probability of a crash in the near term.

“I’m putting on my skeptic’s hat,” said one trustee, Paul Rosenstiel. “This sounds too good to be true, that we have figured out a way to eliminate downside risk, without sacrificing return, but no one else has.”

But Mr. Emkin quickly countered: “We’re not talking about eliminating risk. We’re talking about reducing it at the margin,” he said. “What we’re trying to do here is to minimize potential for there to be increased costs to the employer, or the employee, going forward. That’s the goal.”

THE NEW YORK TIMES

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

NOV. 4, 2015




House Committee Approves Bill to Classify Investment Grade Munis as High Quality Liquid Assets.

On November 3, 2015, the House Financial Services Committee approved HR 2209, bipartisan legislation that would require federal regulators to classify all investment grade municipal securities as high quality liquid assets (HQLA). This important legislation is necessary to amend the liquidity coverage ratio rule approved by federal regulators last fall, which classifies foreign sovereign debt securities as HQLA while excluding investment grade municipal securities in any of the acceptable investment categories for banks to meet new liquidity standards.

Not classifying municipal securities as HQLA will increase borrowing costs for state and local governments to finance public infrastructure projects, as banks will likely demand higher interest rates on yields on the purchase of municipal bonds during times of national economic stress, or even forgo the purchase of municipal securities. The resulting cost impacts for state and local governments could be significant, with bank holdings of municipal securities and loans having increased by 86% since 2009.

The next stop for HR 2209 is the House floor, but the date for its consideration has not been determined yet. GFOA is urging its members to send letters to their congressional delegations urging support for this bill. A draft letter has been developed for your use which is available here. Please reach out to your House members today and urge them to support HR 2209.

GFOA

Thursday, November 5, 2015




Budget Deal Would Suspend Debt Limit, Extend Sequestration for BABs.

WASHINGTON – A budget deal negotiated by key members of Congress and administration officials would suspend the debt limit through March 15, 2017, but also extend sequestration of direct-pay bond subsidies by an additional year, through fiscal 2025.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which would be a House amendment to a Senate amendment of H.R. 1314, was released late Monday, days before the Nov. 3 deadline to address the debt limit. It may be considered by lawmakers this week, according to the House’s website, and municipal bond experts expect it to be enacted prior to the debt-limit deadline. H.R. 1314 was previously a trade bill, but is to be used as a vehicle for the budget measure, which would suspend rather than raise the debt limit through March 15, 2017.

Then on March 16, 2017, the debt limit would be raised to the amount of obligations outstanding at the time.

A suspension of the debt limit until 2017 would mean that Congress would not have to revisit the debt-limit issue until after the next presidential election. Once the debt limit is suspended, sales of State and Local Government Series securities (SLGS) will resume.

When the debt limit was reached in March, the Treasury Department suspended sales of SLGS as one of the extraordinary measures it takes to preserve the nation’s borrowing capacity. State and local governments often purchase SLGS for their advance refunding escrows.

Bill Daly, director of governmental affairs for the National Association of Bond Lawyers, said that the reopening of the SLGS window would relieve issuers of having to solicit bids for open market Treasuries in lieu of purchasing SLGS. Purchasing Treasuries “can get expensive, particularly for small issues,” he said.

Frank Shafroth, director of the Center for State and Local Leadership at George Mason University, said the reopening of the SLGS window is a “big plus” because anything that increases the efficiency of the muni market could reduce issuance costs.

He also said that the long debt-limit suspension removes the threat of a downgrade of the United States’ credit rating and the ratings of state and local governments.

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association president and chief executive officer Ken Bentsen said that the group “strongly supports efforts to avoid any default on our nation’s debt.”

The budget agreement would raise discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Doing so likely removes the threat of a federal government shutdown in December, Shafroth said. The current continuing resolution funding federal agencies expires in the middle of that month.

But the agreement would reduce spending in fiscal 2025 by extending to that year sequestration of mandatory spending, which would mean cuts to federal subsidy payments for Build America Bonds and other direct-pay bonds.

Sequestration of mandatory spending was initially supposed to last through fiscal 2021, but it was extended through fiscal 2023 under a 2013 budget agreement. It was then extended through 2024 in February 2014 in a bill that repealed reductions in cost of living increases for younger military retirees.

Daly said that when Congress wants offsets, mandatory sequestration is a “little piggy bank they keep going to.”

John Godfrey, senior government relations director for the American Public Power Association, expressed disappointment with the extension of sequestration for direct-pay bonds. He added that extending mandatory sequestration to offset increased discretionary spending caps is not fiscally responsible because it’s just switching from indiscriminate cuts today to indiscriminate cuts years from now.

Some members of Congress have proposed reviving the BAB program, and the Obama administration is proposing the creation of a similar direct-pay bond program. But the budget agreement “undermines the chance of using this tool in the future” and highlights the need to make no changes to traditional tax-exempt bonds, Godfrey said.

Bond Dealers of America is disappointed to see that Congress may hurt direct-pay bonds but is pleased with the outline of the budget agreement overall, said Mike Nicholas, the group’s CEO. He said that the agreement “will reduce the risks associated with federal budget and debt limit uncertainty for an extended period of time, which would be a positive development for state and local governments and the overall economy.”

While experts expect the Bipartisan Budget Act to be approved by Congress, there may be both Republicans and Democrats that vote against it. Some Republicans will find fault with the fact that the deal is an agreement with the White House and raises the discretionary spending caps, while some Democrats may find the cuts to Medicare and Social Security spending in the deal to be problematic. There could be adjustments made to the measure to ensure it passes the House, Daly said.

THE BOND BUYER

BY NAOMI JAGODA

OCT 27, 2015 1:15pm ET




S&P: The EPA's Clean Power Plan Is Not an Immediate Credit Threat to U.S. Public Power and Co-Op Utilities, But Uncertainties Remain.

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final carbon emissions regulations under the Clean Power Plan (CPP) banner this past August, it essentially recast the operational landscape for electric generation in the U.S. The rules establish a national target for reducing power plants’ carbon emissions by 32% by 2030 compared with 2005’s levels, based on underlying state-by-state reduction mandates. (Emissions measurements are in pounds of carbon per megawatt-hour [MWh].)

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services believes the rules could create operational and financial burdens for many public power and electric cooperative utilities, particularly those that rely extensively on coal generation to meet customers’ electricity needs. However, we do not view the rules as an imminent threat to the sector’s credit quality.

Overview

Continue reading.

20-Oct-2015




How Standard & Poor's Rates U.S. State and Local Government Department Appropriation-Backed Debt.

Appropriation-backed debt is a common financing structure in the U.S. municipal bond market. These obligations come in various forms, but the most prevalent are lease revenue bonds, certificates of participation, and service contract bonds. Payment of debt service on appropriation-backed debt is contingent on the inclusion in the enacted budget of annual appropriations sufficient to cover principal and interest directly (see “USPF Criteria: Appropriation-Backed Obligations,” published June 13, 2007, on RatingsDirect).

Occasionally, however, we’re asked to review appropriation-backed structures for capital facilities that are less-direct obligations of a state or local government, but which receive support from that government’s annual appropriations from departments or agency revenues. Examples of these include bonds whose repayment source is limited to a specific department or agency’s resources, rather than the full resources of the government, or debt that a given department issues outside of the general government’s typical capital funding program. In these cases, we apply our government department appropriation-backed criteria (“USPF Criteria: Rating Government Department Appropriation-Backed Debt In U.S. Public Finance,” Nov. 7, 2007), in conjunction with our appropriation-backed obligations criteria. In analyzing these transactions, we assess the appropriation process, project/financing authorization, and level of state/local government involvement, along with how well the financing structure conforms to our criteria and where the obligation will be accounted for.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services believes some additional context on how it rates government department appropriations for U.S. state and local governments may be useful to investors and other market participants.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do government department appropriation-backed obligations differ from more traditional appropriation-backed structures?
The main differences are how they authorized and appropriated or budgeted, and the revenues that are available to make the appropriation from. The general government authorizes traditional appropriation obligations and pays them from its general operating funds. Department obligations can come in an array of structures. In some cases, the structures closely resemble traditional appropriation or lease revenue-backed bonds; in others, payments from the state or local government aren’t part of the traditional budget appropriation process, and there may be a more limited flow of funds to support the appropriation or a different authorization process from traditional appropriation obligations. The transaction’s structural features and the extent to which the state or local government recognizes it as an obligation will determine the strength of the financing relationship to that entity.

Do Standard & Poor’s government department criteria replace the broader appropriation criteria when rating these obligations?
No. When rating government department obligations, we use both criteria. As a first step, we apply our broader appropriation-backed obligations criteria to evaluate the structural security features of the bonds. Then, we apply our government department appropriation-backed debt criteria to evaluate the obligation’s financing link to the general government, if any. In other words, our government department appropriation criteria don’t take the place of our appropriation criteria, but rather provide additional guidance on how to address certain security features that might be similar to those for traditional appropriation debt, but may not have the same direct ties to a state or local government’s debt issuance or budgeting process. In analyzing government department obligations, we still rely on our appropriation-backed obligations criteria to evaluate leases, service contracts, or certificates of participation if these are part of the security structure. We rely on our government department criteria to analyze additional key considerations that in turn allow us to evaluate the obligation’s link to the general government; the latter assessment helps us determine whether to link the obligation rating to that of the general government or rate it independently.

What are the key considerations Standard & Poor’s evaluates when rating government department debt?
Standard & Poor’s evaluates certain factors to determine how similar a government department’s debt issue is to other debt of the state or local government and what role the obligation plays in the government’s overall capital plan and structure. Factors that indicate a strong link to the general government include:

Can government department obligations achieve ratings as high as those on traditional appropriation structures?
Yes. If a government department obligation meets certain conditions, Standard & Poor’s may assign the same rating as it would to an appropriation obligation of the general government (e.g., one notch below the general obligation [GO] rating). To achieve this, the department or agency must demonstrate that it has authority to enter into the contractual agreement by a legislative act or resolution. That is, a government level higher than the department or agency must approve the agreement. It’s also important that the state or local government recognize the long-term obligation. We can determine this in several ways, including:

Does Standard & Poor’s always rate government department appropriation obligations one notch below the GO rating or issuer credit rating?
No. We could rate these obligations one or more notches below the GO rating or the issuer credit rating on the general government or, in certain cases, independently from it. In some cases, the department of a state or local government has received legislative authority to enter into a contractual obligation for capital purposes, but the state or local government doesn’t consider it debt or a direct long-term contractual commitment. For example, a government might be statutorily required to make payments to another agency or department, and that entity then agrees to issue bonds backed by that statutorily mandated payment. In this instance, the government might not view these payment obligations or the appropriation-backed bonds as its own obligation. Although we recognize the strength of the statutorily required payments, these obligations don’t benefit from the same treatment at the general government level — that is, the government doesn’t view itself as the obligor, and thus we might assign a rating more than one notch below the GO rating on that government. In some other cases, we’ve been asked to rate transactions issued by an independent agency that perhaps receives funds from the government, but is not itself an agency of the government and has not received formal approval from the government to issue the debt. An example of this is a regional transit authority that is an independent authority, but receives funds from one or more governments. Absent formal approval to issue the debt by the participating government or governments, the government revenues becomes a part of the agency’s revenue stream and are incorporated in the analysis as other sources of revenues available to fund the debt service on any appropriation-backed bonds issued. In this case, an evaluation of the agency will likely be necessary to determine the appropriate rating, independent of the ratings on the governments providing the revenues.

Under Standard & Poor’s policies, only a Rating Committee can determine a Credit Rating Action (including a Credit Rating change, affirmation or withdrawal, Rating Outlook change, or CreditWatch action). This commentary and its subject matter have not been the subject of Rating Committee action and should not be interpreted as a change to, or affirmation of, a Credit Rating or Rating Outlook.

30-Oct-2015

Primary Credit Analyst: John A Sugden, New York (1) 212-438-1678;
john.sugden@standardandpoors.com

U.S. Public Finance Criteria: Liz E Sweeney, Criteria Officer, New York (1) 212-438-2102;
liz.sweeney@standardandpoors.com




S&P's Public Finance Podcast: (University of Alabama and the EPA's Clean Power Plan).

In this week’s Extra Credit, Director Bianca Gaytan-Burrell discusses what’s behind our rating action on the University of Alabama and Senior Director David Bodek explains the EPA’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan.

Listen to the Podcast.

Oct. 30, 2015




How Much School Funding Is Enough?

Nearly every state has faced legal battles over school funding. In November, the political battle moves to Mississippi, where voters face two competing (and confusing) ballot questions on the issue.

“They say money can’t fix everything,” said Billy Joe Ferguson, superintendent of the Carroll County School District in Mississippi. “But I’ve never had any money, so I wouldn’t know.”

Ferguson says his school district, with a little over 1,000 kids, doesn’t have enough money to run effectively. So he officially retired two years ago so the county wouldn’t have to pay for his $80,000 salary and started collecting his $18,000-a-year pension while still going to work every day.

This issue, money in education, is precisely what Mississippians will be heading to the polls to vote on Nov. 3. Initiative 42 is a ballot measure that would change Mississippi’s state Constitution to promise an “adequate and efficient system of free public schools.” Currently, Mississippi’s constitution says nothing about the quality of public education. The ballot measure would also give a court oversight to enforce the requirement.

It looks like a straightforward issue: Advocates argue that Mississippi’s poor education record means more money is essential. Opponents argue that the measure is too far-reaching.

The debate comes from the Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP), which the Mississippi legislature passed in 1997. MAEP is a formula that establishes “adequate current operation funding levels necessary for the programs of each school district to meet a successful level of student performance,” according to the Mississippi Department of Education’s website. The department gives schools annual letter ratings. A school providing an adequate education has been deemed by the legislature to be any with a C-rating or above.

The exact MAEP formula is complex but essentially works like this: The Department of Education looks at expenditures of C-rated schools from the previous year, and it averages that amount among the districts and then divides by the number of students in a school. (That’s the “adequate” per pupil funding.) It also allocates additional money to districts based on their number of free-lunch participants.

But because Mississippi’s legislature doesn’t have a legal obligation to fund MAEP, it’s has only been fully funded twice in the 18 years since the law passed, and according to a judge in a recent lawsuit over the state’s education funding.

The lawsuit — brought by former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, who pushed for passage of MAEP — wanted to hold state lawmakers accountable for not funding MAEP. Hinds County Chancery Judge William Singletary ruled that “MAEP should be annually funded to the fullest extent possible,” but he wouldn’t issue an order because of an addendum to the law, passed in 2006, that offers the alternative to ‘phase in’ full funding over four years. The MAEP hasn’t been fully funded since 2008.

Conflicts over state education budgets aren’t unique to Mississippi. More than 40 states have faced school funding lawsuits. Most recently, Kansas is in the middle of rewriting its school funding formula after a court ruled that the current system doesn’t meet the required legal standard; and a similar ruling in Washington state resulted in tuition cuts at state universities and an additional $1.3 billion for K-12 education.

Opponents of Initiative 42 feel like proponents aren’t considering the financial implications of the ballot measure.

“Our public schools aren’t doing their job,” said Grant Callan, president of Empower Mississippi, a group opposed to Initiative 42. “Our schools very often aren’t up to par — there’s no debate about that. But Initiative 42 is ultimately saying that more money is going to solve the problem, without thinking about the practical implications for the rest of the state.”

If Initiative 42 passes, the legislature has pledged to fully fund the MAEP to avoid judicial action.

“If that happens, it’ll mean an 8 percent cut across other state agencies. What will that mean for Medicaid? What will that mean for corrections? For our roads and bridges?” Callan said.

But it’s not just the money that bothers the measure’s opponents — it’s the judicial oversight, which they say is an example of overreaching government.

“If you don’t like the way your state legislatures are handling the budget, then you can vote them out. We see this measure as taking power away from the citizens since it gives one judge in Hinds County [where Jackson is located] more power than their own elected officials,” Callan said.

That’s where the alternative to Initiative 42 comes in. Introduced by state Rep. Greg Snowden, Initiative 42A makes no mention of judicial oversight or adequate funding and reads: “The Legislature shall, by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of an effective system of free public schools.”

Calling Initiative 42 a “lawsuit hand grenade,” Snowden wanted to write something that kept the authority within the state legislatures.

“You don’t measure success by how much money you’re throwing at something,” Snowden said. “If you’re going to insert a standard for our schools, let’s make it an effective one that focuses on output. We can’t allow things to be litigated that don’t need to be litigated.”

In order for either Initiative 42 or 42A to pass, a majority must first vote ‘Yes’ on the first ballot question to change the state constitution. Then, a majority must choose either 42 or 42A, and that majority must also represent 40 percent of the total votes cast in the election.

If that sounds confusing, that’s because it is, said Patsy Brumfield, a spokesperson for 42 For Better Schools. “We feel 42A was only created to confuse people so they would end up not voting for Initiative 42,” she said.

For lawmakers like Snowden, Initiative 42 would put an unnecessary strain on legislatures to fulfill financial promises that are impossible.

“The recession hit and we had to make sacrifices,” said Snowden. “We’re finally back to pre-recession levels, and we’ve been steadily increasing school funding.”

But, according to Ferguson, that hasn’t been enough for Carroll County School District to pay for what it needs.

“We have to be innovative. Our teachers use a lot of workbooks and materials from the Internet since we don’t have textbooks for the students to take home, and they don’t do a lot of complaining. But still — the average book in our library is 25 years old, 101 of our computers still use Windows XP and 40 percent of our bus fleet is more than 15 years old.”

There aren’t any projections for how the election will turn out, but Ferguson isn’t hopeful because of the convoluted language on the ballot and the stipulations needed for Initiative 42 to pass.

In one sense this debate is simply a disagreement about how to fund schools. Some also describe this as an example of how Mississippians are divided about how to try to improve the state.

“It’s become a battle for the heart and soul of Mississippi,” Brumfield said.

GOVERNING.COM

BY MATTIE QUINN | OCTOBER 27, 2015




Puerto Rico Default Won't Derail Market, Bond Insurer Says.

A bond default by Puerto Rico won’t derail the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market as the investor base for the commonwealth’s securities has shifted to hedge funds from individuals and mutual funds, according to Tom Metzold, a managing director at National Public Finance Guarantee, which insures some of the debt.

“Is Puerto Rico the first domino?” Metzold said Wednesday at a forum sponsored by Standard & Poor’s at the Harvard Club in New York. “The answer is no.”

Negotiations between commonwealth officials and holders of some of Puerto Rico’s $73 billion of bonds fell apart last week. The administration of Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla has said it may run out of cash next month. Puerto Rico has about $720 million of bond payments due in December and January.

“We’re obviously hoping very much that they don’t want to go nuclear and not pay that,” Metzold said. “We can assist, but we’re looking for a little give and take here so that potentially this can extend for a longer period of time.”

Puerto Rico’s Government Development Bank, which oversees the island’s borrowing, is facing a Dec. 1 debt payment of $354 million. The GDB said Wednesday that it had net liquidity of $875 million as of Sept. 30. If the GDB doesn’t make the payment, it would be a violation of the commonwealth’s constitution, Metzold said.

Bond Insurers

MBIA Inc., the parent of National Public Financial, has been in talks with Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority and other insurance companies that guarantee repayment on some of utility’s bonds to delay payments to free up cash and and help restructure $8.3 billion of debt, two people with knowledge of the matter said last week. Assured Guaranty Ltd. and Syncora Guarantee Inc., along with MBIA, back about $2.5 billion of the bonds.

Tim Ryan, a portfolio manager at Nuveen Asset Management, said he expected the price spreads to widen between how much bonds are offered and how much buyers are willing to bid if there’s a default. Bid-offer spreads have increased on other news, such as when the Obama administration proposed giving Puerto Rico a form of bankruptcy protection, he said.

“There will be an adjustment in prices,” Ryan said. “There are individuals on the island that own direct debt. If there’s a default and temporary suspension in payments, their game has changed.” Some investors may sell Puerto Rico debt, driving prices down, if there’s a default, Ryan said, adding that it’s difficult to quantify the risks to bondholders given the uncertainty of the political and legal process.

Commonwealth general obligations with an 8 percent coupon that mature in July 2035 traded Thursday at an average price of 73.1 cents on the dollar, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The bonds yield 11.5 percent.

Giving Puerto Rico the ability to file bankruptcy “is a slippery slope,” Metzold said, because it could result in more litigation. Congress isn’t likely to approve the Obama plan, both Metzold and Ryan said.

“Negotiation means a give and take, not I want, I want, I want,” Metzold said. “There are realistic solutions if people are willing to be realistic in their expectations.”

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun & Michelle Kaske

October 28, 2015 — 2:38 PM PDT Updated on October 29, 2015 — 7:31 AM PDT




Vanguard Muni Chief Says Death of Liquidity Greatly Exaggerated.

In the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market, dealers have cut inventories and trading has been on the decline. But the man who oversees tax-exempt debt for the world’s largest mutual-fund company isn’t worried the market will freeze up.

Chris Alwine, the head of state and local-government debt for Vanguard Group Inc., said even if buyers rush for the exits and bond prices slide, Wall Street will still be there, willing to step in to make a profit.
“The Street doesn’t go in there and say I’ll lose on the next 50 trades to make sure the market is really tranquil,” Alwine, who oversees $120 billion of municipal bonds for the Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based company, said in an interview Wednesday in New York. “They’re in the business to make money, plain and simple.”

Wall Street has been awash with speculation that a bond-price rout could be exaggerated by a exodus of capital from U.S. fixed income markets when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates for the first time since 2006. While concern that dealers won’t buy during a sell-off has largely focused on the corporate and Treasury market, then Securities and Exchange Commissioner Luis Aguilar in February said the drop in liquidity could foist steep losses on municipal investors once rates climb.

The municipal market, which is divided among more than 50,000 issuers and is dominated by individual investors, has long been less liquid that the Treasury and corporate markets, and it weathered the turmoil since the recession without seizing up. When mutual funds dumped holdings of Puerto Rico bonds as the island’s debt crisis escalated, hedge funds snapped up the securities, which continue to trade frequently even as the government edges closer to a record-setting default.

The average daily trade volume for municipal bonds is less than 2 percent of what it is for Treasuries and less than half that of corporates, according to Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association data. Last year, $2.7 trillion of municipal debt changed hands, a decline of 16 percent decline from 2011, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board statistics.

Such trading is handled between dealers, rather than on centralized exchanges, which can make it harder for investors to shop for bids to buy and sell.

Alwine said liquidity is best gauged by the cost of trading, the ease of doing so and the ability to buy and sell large blocks of bonds without affecting their price. None of those factors are easy to measure with official statistics, he said.

Positive Sign

By one indicator, the money manager said, there’s little sign of liquidity drying up: Bid-offer spreads, or the difference between where an investor offers to sell and another to buy, are less than they were before the 2008 credit crisis.

That comes despite a withdrawal by securities dealers, which have been keeping fewer bonds in their inventories in hope of selling them later. Dealers’ holdings fell to about $19 billion at the end June from $40 billion in 2010, according to Federal Reserve data, as regulations and narrower profits due to low interest rates led banks to devote less capital to the market.

That doesn’t mean they won’t come back. The firms are waiting until there’s more money to be made, Alwine said. After Chicago’s credit rating was cut to junk by Moody’s Investors Service in May, the price swings made dealers active traders in the city’s debt, he said.

“Credit was hit, the bond traded down, volume spiked and all the dealers were much more active in that name once there was a potential to make more money,” he said.

Another example: The “taper-tantrum” of 2013, when speculation that the Fed would raise interest rates pushed yields on top-rated 30-year municipal bonds to as much as 129 percent of comparable Treasuries. “Waves of demand” came in as AAA rated bonds were yielding the equivalent of 8 or 9 percent on other debt, once the tax break was factored in, he said.

To take advantage of opportunities when the market sells off, Vanguard ensures that it has enough cash and holds higher-rated bonds from states such as California and New York, where demand for tax-exempt bonds is strong. These securities can be more easily traded during times of market stress, he said.

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

October 29, 2015




Fitch Updates State Revolving Fund and Leveraged Muni Loan Pool Criteria.

Fitch Ratings-Austin-29 October 2015:  Fitch Ratings has published an updated report titled ‘State Revolving Fund and Leveraged Municipal Loan Pool Criteria’. This report replaces the report of the same title published on Oct. 22, 2014. There have been no changes to Fitch’s underlying methodology.

Read the Report.




Fitch: U.S. Public Finance Upgrades Exceed Downgrades for Sixth Straight Quarter.

Fitch Ratings-New York-28 October 2015:  During the third quarter of 2015 (3Q’15) and for the sixth straight quarter, U.S. public finance rating upgrades outnumbered downgrades, according to Fitch Ratings. The tax-supported sector had the largest share with 17 out of 42 upgrades across U.S. public finance. Despite ongoing spending pressures, the tax-supported sector has experienced modest revenue and financial stability. The number of tax-supported downgrades also decreased to four from 10 in 2Q’15.

Par value for upgrades exceeded downgrades this quarter. Moreover, the majority of downgraded par value (81%) was due to downgrades of debt in the Chicago area. The amount of downgraded par value reduced drastically from the quarter prior, largely due to the downgrades of Puerto Rico debt in 2Q’15.

Fitch downgraded 17 credits, which represented approximately 2.2% of all rating actions and $11.6 billion in par value. Fitch upgraded 42 credits, which represented 5.5% of all rating actions and $19.4 billion in par value. Strong financial position and operations were common factors cited for credit upgrades.

The number of Positive Rating Outlooks (119) in 3Q’15 exceeded the number of Negative Rating Outlooks (118) for the first time since 1Q’08. The number of Positive Rating Outlooks increased from the prior quarter, and the number of Negative Rating Outlooks continued to decrease. The number of Negative Rating Outlooks was at its lowest since 3Q’08.

A majority of the rating actions (84%) during the third quarter were affirmations. Furthermore, 93% of ratings had a Stable Rating Outlook at the end of the third quarter. Based on the present distribution of Rating Outlooks and Watches within U.S. Public Finance, Fitch expects ratings to remain stable for most sectors throughout the year.

The full report ‘U.S. Public Finance Rating Actions Third-Quarter 2015’ summarizes these rating actions by sector and can be found at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.




Fitch: USPF State Revolving Funds & Municipal Loan Pools Remain Strong.

Fitch Ratings-Austin-29 October 2015: U.S. Public Finance State Revolving Fund (SRF) and Leveraged Municipal Loan Pool (MLP) programs remain highly rated with strong performance, according to a new Fitch Ratings report.

‘These high (sector) ratings are largely attributable to the strong credit quality of the program pool participants, the financial strength of the programs’ structures or a combination of these two factors,’ said Major Parkhurst, Director at Fitch.

Reflecting the stability of the sector, there have been no rating changes to Fitch’s rated pooled programs since its initial peer review report in 2013. The majority of the metrics monitored by Fitch also remains the same or similar to those presented in Fitch’s 2013 and 2014 peer reviews.

For more information, a special report titled ‘SRF and MLP Peer Study’ is available on the Fitch web site at www.fitchratings.com.




How Muni Bonds ‘Yield’ 4% in a 2% World.

If you see fat 4% “yields” for the municipal bonds in your brokerage-account statement, don’t believe them.

Overstating the expected income on municipal bonds in brokerage or advisory accounts is one of the most pervasive and persistent ways the financial industry fools the investing public. It was going on when I was a cub bond-market reporter in 1988, and it’s still going strong. It’s high time investors fought back.

The Barclays Municipal Bond Index, a measure of the market for these tax-free bonds issued by state and local authorities, yields 2.2%. Even the Vanguard Long-Term Tax-Exempt Fund, which specializes in municipal debt maturing many years in the future, yields only 2.3%.

So how can so many brokers and financial advisers be such astute bond-pickers that they can claim to be earning yields of 4% and up without jeopardizing your capital?

They can’t. Those yields are an illusion.

You would never know it from looking at your account statement, however. Brokers and financial advisers are able to report the yield on many municipal bonds without adjusting for an inevitable decline in their price—thus significantly overstating the income you will earn.

To understand why, note that in a world of low interest rates, bonds are often issued at a “premium over par,” or initial price greater than $100 per $100 of par or principal value. But they almost always mature—or are “called,” if the issuer buys them back before maturity—at $100.

Imagine this streamlined example: You pay $110 for a bond that pays 4% interest and matures four years from now. Each year, you will earn $4 in interest on each $100 you have invested in the bond. And when it matures, you will get $100 back—not $110.

So you will earn $16 in simple interest but lose $10 on your principal at maturity, a total gain of $6. Your adjusted return is nowhere near 4% per year; it’s approximately 1.5% ($6 divided by four).

Under federal accounting and tax rules, a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund would be required to report the yield on that bond as approximately 1.5%. A broker or financial adviser, operating under rules from an industry self-regulator called the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, can report it at 3.6% ($4 in income divided by $110). Your brokerage or advisory account statement excludes future losses (or gains) on the bond’s principal when it reports yield. It’s simply an incomplete picture of your money.

Alex Alimanestianu is the retired chief executive of Town Sports International Holdings, an operator of fitness clubs. In 2007, a year after the company sold stock to the public, he invested in a portfolio of municipal bonds through his brokerage account at Credit Suisse CSGN.VX -0.02%. Last year, Mr. Alimanestianu realized that the “estimated yield” on his account statements was overstating what he would earn from his munis.

Oddly, the broker disclosed the failings of its calculation. In a footnote, Mr. Alimanestianu’s account statements explained that “return of principal may be included in the figures for certain securities, thereby overstating them.” Morgan Stanley MS -1.70%, Charles Schwab SCHW -1.55% and many other firms make similar disclaimers.

Mr. Alimanestianu says the yields reported to him by Credit Suisse were “deceptive” because “part of what the bonds were yielding was my own money, the premium that I paid above what they’re going to pay me back.” He has since moved his municipal-bond holdings to Vanguard Group.

A Credit Suisse spokeswoman declined to comment.

A muni-bond portfolio manager says calculating yield this way is “a silly, antiquated, misleading measure that isn’t good for anything except putting the bonds in an unfairly good light.” While we were on the phone, he looked at sample account statements from several brokerage firms and found that none of them adjust yield for return of principal. “I didn’t even realize they all do it this way until you asked,” he said.

Should this change? “I don’t think [such disclosure] is misleading,” says John Bagley, head of market structure at the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. “But could it be confusing to some investors? Yes, I think that’s possible.”

He adds, “we’ve done some education on this topic, but it’s something we may potentially look into more to improve transparency.”

In the meantime, ask your broker or adviser to tell you the “yield to worst” on your munis, adjusted for return of principal. If she can’t or won’t tell you, maybe you need a new adviser.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By JASON ZWEIG

Oct 30, 2015

— Write to Jason Zweig at intelligentinvestor@wsj.com, and follow him on Twitter at @jasonzweigwsj.




Jon Bon Jovi, the Jersey Shore and the Impact Investing Strategy.

The rock star Jon Bon Jovi was in London three years ago this week when Hurricane Sandy wiped out the New Jersey beach towns that played a big part in his childhood memories. He flew home to New York to be with his family and then headed south to his home state to see the devastation firsthand.

Mr. Bon Jovi used his celebrity to bring in relief money. He said he persuaded Gov. Chris Christie to put his hometown Sayreville, which was hit hard by the storm but is not on the coast, on the list of towns receiving federal money to buy home sites that couldn’t be built on again. He donated $1 million of his own money to Sandy relief and was one of the headline acts at a concert that raised $50 million more to help the affected areas.

Still, as often happens with disasters, money poured in right after the crisis, but the rebuilding took longer than expected. More than a year ago, Mr. Bon Jovi said in an interview, he and his wife, Dorothea, decided they wanted to do more to help the towns still far from their prestorm condition along the Jersey Shore.

That was when a financial adviser told them about impact investing as a way to finance redevelopment.

“It was interesting to us,” Mr. Bon Jovi said. “We’d never considered the concept of impact investing. In disaster relief, one is quick to write a check. Long after the TV cameras go away, people are still suffering.”

Impact and socially responsible investing have moved from the fringes to, if not the mainstream, pretty close to it. The strategies are now discussed by a range of investors, as diverse as environmentalists and rock legends. All are interested in having their investments perform a social good — housing for displaced residents or financing for local businesses — while also earning a return close to the market rate.

But that quest, noble as it sounds, presents another challenge: avoiding strategies that promise to do good but then go bad.

Selecting an investment to perform a dual role is only getting harder as impact strategies proliferate, all fueled by the money flowing to them. A report last year by the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment said one out of every six dollars managed by professional investors was invested using socially responsible investing criteria.

And impact investing may now open up further. Last week, the Department of Labor made it easier for the retirement plans it regulates to consider factors like environmental, social and governance goals in making investments, even if the pure financial returns are less.

In some ways, how people select these investments should not be that different from how they choose other investments. But passion can cloud judgment. Few people are going to get emotionally attached to a domestic equity fund, but plenty of impact investors are passionate about how their investment dollars can improve educational outcomes.

“At the end of the day, we’re talking about investments designed to perform in a basic investment portfolio,” said Andy Sieg, head of global wealth and retirement solutions at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “These are not philanthropic activities masquerading as for-profit investments. Impact investments should stand on their own two legs in terms of investment return.”

Investors can start by assessing the returns and whether they are high enough to justify the risk taken to achieve them. They also need to look at the fees charged by the manager and how much those fees subtract from the return.

While this area is still relatively new, Mike Loewengart, vice president of investment strategy at ETrade, said investors should also try to analyze a manager’s track record.

“You want to have a long-tenured management team to properly assess what they’ve done,” he said. “You want a repeatable investment process. It’s difficult.”

But the desire to do good through investing makes applying these rational criteria challenging. Mr. Sieg said he recently dissuaded a client from investing in a fund that the client was excited about — a fund the client probably would not have considered if it hadn’t been marketed for its impact. After some investigation, Mr. Sieg said he concluded that the fund’s fees were too high and its impact too low to justify putting any more into it.

“We need to be clear-eyed about what we’re achieving with impact investing,” he said. “We’re going to be able to find impact vehicles with an environmental focus, a social policy focus, global impact, local impact.”

Carra Cote-Ackah, director of partnerships and strategic initiatives at the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, said it is often easier for impact investors to work backward from what they want to achieve. If, she said, it is helping poor children learn to read, that should be the goal, and investors should then find a way to invest in organizations that are trying to achieve that.

Yet, she said, certain issues lend themselves to impact investing better than others. Arts, humanities and cultural organizations do not, she said. Disasters, like Hurricane Sandy, work well, as do initiatives aimed at chronic problems in disadvantaged communities.

“It’s more about the process and rigor of the approach than the issue,” she said. “I hope this approach is used in other disaster communities but also as a way to bring together investors, donors and community partners to drive social change.”

Maria Tanzola, a private wealth adviser at UBS Wealth Management Americas who is working with the Bon Jovis on their selection of impact investments, said UBS hoped to raise $100 million for debt and equity impact investments in New Jersey. With money from the Bon Jovis’s JBJ Soul Foundation and others, the company has raised about $10 million so far.

“Whatever return we get,” Mr. Bon Jovi said, “we’re putting back into the foundation.”

This strategy allows philanthropists to leverage the money in their foundations by putting it into impact investments so it does good while it grows before they give it away. “People sometimes think of their philanthropy as just the giving,” Ms. Tanzola said. “This investment strategy amplifies the philanthropy on the ground. It’s another way to support things that are important to you.”

But it’s also a way for less wealthy people to make a difference. “We determined that there was donor fatigue, but there was still an opportunity for an investment strategy,” she said.

The minimum investment in UBS’s Impact New Jersey portfolio strategy is $250,000. But Mr. Loewengart said ETrade’s retail clients have increasingly asked for impact options and the company now has more than 100 equity mutual funds on its service that market themselves as socially responsible.

On the debt side, the investments can be in loans to build homes and affordable rental apartments, mortgage-backed securities that are created from the loans, or municipal bonds to rebuild infrastructure.

In the case of the communities affected by Hurricane Sandy, many were beach towns that were not densely populated and so lacked the tax base to pay for municipal projects.

“This represents a form of coalition building within the private sector,” said David Sand, chief investment strategist and interim impact investment officer at Community Capital Management, which manages more than $2 billion in fixed-income impact investments and is investing the fixed-income portion of the Bon Jovi portfolio. “We see all kinds of potential opportunities in other markets in similar but not identical situations.”

Yet he said the fund often turns down opportunities in communities in need because the credit quality of the debt is not high enough or the returns are too low to hit its benchmark.

Success as an impact investor is unlikely to be measured in the kind of returns that allow easy benchmarking. For Mr. Bon Jovi, “it’s in rebuilding communities,” he said. “I’ve seen these families who didn’t know what to do. I think people want to invest in their community. Sea Bright — those beach towns were an important part of my childhood. I put my money where my mouth is.”

THE NEW YORK TIMES

By PAUL SULLIVAN

OCT. 30, 2015




Notice of Support Availability: Training and Technical Assistance Services for Pay for Success Initiatives.

This notice of support availability (NoSA) offers in-kind support in the form of training and technical assistance (TTA) services from the Urban Institute’s Pay for Success initiative (PFSI) to guide, design, and assess potential and existing pay for success (PFS) projects.

Urban is offering training and technical assistance only, not direct grantmaking or other monetary investment; the NoSA will not be used to distribute subgrants or other funding. The Urban Institute (Urban) anticipates making multiple TTA awards through this NoSA but reserves the right to select as many or as few recipients for support as it deems reasonable.

Submitting an application does not guarantee that an organization will receive support.

Download the pdf.

The Urban Institute

Issued: October 14, 2015

Kimberly Walker




Fitch: Work Force Evaluation Integral to U.S. Local Government Ratings.

Fitch Ratings-New York-22 October 2015: The relationship between a U.S. local government and its work force has become an important barometer into the strength of the government’s credit rating, according to Fitch Ratings in a new report.

As the largest component of local U.S. government spending, labor costs have come into greater focus since the most recent economic downturn, as well as state laws that govern work forces. Multiple laws can govern different types of employees, with laws in some states changing in recent years and more proposals on the table, according to Managing Director Amy Laskey.

‘The formal bargaining relationship between labor and management provides insight into the level of flexibility management has to adjust this key area of spending,’ said Laskey. ‘Contractual agreements are also important indicators of how quickly spending will grow and how quickly a local government will respond should a change in the broader economy require shifts in spending.’

Above all, the level of cooperation among parties and how committed they are to maintaining financial stability is Fitch’s preeminent indicator of a government’s ability to make adjustments necessary to maintain budget balance. As such, it is an important piece of Fitch’s methodology for local governments, currently in the form of an exposure draft for comment through Nov. 20. In short, a consistently applied work force evaluation is key to assessing the flexibility of main expenditure items.

‘Work Force Evaluation Key to Local Government Analysis’ is available for purchase here.




Fitch: Michigan's Statutory Lien Bill Would Raise Recoveries.

Fitch Ratings-New York-21 October 2015: If enacted, Michigan’s statutory lien bill will significantly improve recovery value if a municipality defaults, compared to other general creditors, including employees, Fitch Ratings says. However, it will not reduce the risk of default.

The legislation would also help improve investor views on the state’s local credits, which were damaged as a result of the losses bondholders suffered in the Detroit bankruptcy. Detroit’s unlimited tax general obligation bondholders recovered 74 cents on the dollar. Had this bill been in place, recoveries could have been higher.

The bill would place a statutory first lien on taxes that are subject to an unlimited tax pledge and require them to be held in trust for the bondholders. The state’s Senate is currently considering the legislation. Polls suggest it is favored by the legislature. However, some state officials, including Governor Rick Snyder, have voiced opposition to it.

In our view, failure to enact this law would be a credit negative for Michigan local issuers, as it indicates lawmakers desire to place bondholders on equal footing with ordinary creditors rather than providing additional security for bondholders. This would suggest that bondholders’ claims should be subject to full re-evaluation in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Similar legislation has been approved in California and New Jersey. In most cases, a statutory lien is a lien arising by force of a statute on specified circumstances or conditions. This lien is in contrast to a consensual lien, which is created by agreement, where both parties to a financing agree to a certain security structure and document that agreement in an indenture or loan document. Debt secured by special revenues is exempt from the automatic stay provisions in this code, protecting such debt from payment interruption in the event of a bankruptcy filing. This protection does not extend to bonds secured by a statutory lien, so timely payment is not guaranteed in a bankruptcy.




Moody's: PREPA's Planned Utility Charge Bonds Would Be Similar to Others in the Sector.

New York, October 22, 2015 — Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s (PREPA; Caa3 negative) anticipated issuance of new securitization bonds would carry risks that are typical of utility cost recovery charge (UCRC) bonds that we rate, such as legislative risk, servicing risk, customer payment delay and default risk as well as event risk stemming from severe weather conditions, Moody’s Investors Service says in a new report which outlines how those risks might present themselves in the specific circumstances of PREPA and Puerto Rico.

The planned issuance of the UCRC bonds via a debt exchange with PREPA’s uninsured power revenue bondholders is part of the utility’s restructuring plan, calling for these bondholders to swap their bonds for new debt at a discount, as described in PREPA’s “Ad Hoc Group Exchange Term Sheet” publicly disclosed on September 1st.

UCRC bonds are backed by surcharges on customer’s utility bills. Securitization issuance is predicated on passage of state legislation that authorizes and protects these surcharges, according to the Moody’s report, “Key Considerations of PREPA’s Planned Utility Charge Bonds Would Be Similar to Those of Other Deals in the Sector.”

“We view the risk of a legislative body changing or revoking utility charge legislation to the detriment of bondholders as remote in the outstanding UCRC securitizations that we rate, because a breach of the state non-impairment pledge would be a violation of the Contract Clause and the Takings Clause under the US Constitution and state constitutions,” says Moody’s Vice President — Senior Analyst Tracy Rice. “There is a risk in this type of deal that the authorizing legislation could be subject to a court challenge or to future political pressure for a jurisdiction to pass new laws that would rescind or revamp the charges. In assessing the credit risk of PREPA’s planned securitization, we would consider the previous positions taken by the Puerto Rican government.”

While the full details of a potential PREPA UCRC transaction are not yet available, Moody’s expects PREPA would be the servicer, responsible, among other things, for billing and collecting customer utility payments and segregating the securitization charge payments. The financial stability, ability and experience of the transaction servicer are key considerations in Moody’s credit analysis of UCRC securitizations.

“Although PREPA is the sole provider of electricity in Puerto Rico and provides an essential service, the quality of its servicing could deteriorate while the UCRC bonds are outstanding if PREPA’s financial condition does not improve or weakens, ” says Moody’s Rice. “However, we believe that a UCRC securitization would help PREPA achieve longer-term financial stability.”

By deferring and/or lowering its debt service through the securitization, the utility would be in a better position to cover its capital expenditures, which PREPA could use to help convert its largely oil-fired generation fleet of power plants to lower-cost and cleaner natural gas-fired plants, which would help PREPA save money and achieve longer-term financial stability, according to the Moody’s report.

The ability of a utility’s customers to pay the special charges, allowing for collections to be sufficient to meet the debt service requirements on the bonds, is another key consideration in UCRC securitizations. However, true-up mechanisms in UCRC transactions, which are written into the authoring legislation, adjust for all shortfalls, including those that result from customer payment delays and defaults.

“PREPA has many late-paying customers, including its largest customer, the Puerto Rican government, so this could be a concern, but one that a true up mechanism could mitigate,” says Moody’s Rice.

In Moody’s credit analysis of UCRC transactions, it also analyzes the exposure of the utility’s service area to severe weather-related events that could lead to a decline in energy usage and therefore cash flow to the deal. True-up adjustments in the transactions are designed to address any material deviations between the securitization charge collections and the required debt service amount.

Puerto Rico has significant exposure to weather-related event risk such as that stemming from a severe hurricane of the magnitude of previous storms in the region such as Hurricane Irene in 2011. “One mitigant to this risk is that PREPA has taken steps to put a significant portion of its wires underground, especially on the north side of the island,” according to Moody’s Rice.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Muni Yields Hit New Low: It Costs $100 to Borrow $1 Million.

The disappearing yields are an outgrowth of the near zero-interest rate policy that the Federal Reserve has had in place since late 2008, when credit markets seized up after the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

That crisis also explains why few local governments are raising money in the floating-rate market, despite the record-low cost: Those bonds saddled them with soaring interest bills during the 2008 turmoil. When the derivatives that were supposed to protect against that risk backfired, governments paid billions in fees to escape from the deals. Only $9 billion of the securities have been issued this year, down from $128 billion in 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Chicago and other municipal borrowers in the past decade made bets on the future direction of interest rates through agreements with banks to swap interest payments as part of variable-rate demand debt issues. As rates fell under the Federal Reserve’s attempt to stimulate the economy after the financial crisis, many issuers ended up on the wrong side of the bets. Since then issuers have paid at least $5 billion to unwind the agreements.

Chicago’s attempt to clean up its legacy of wrong-way bets on interest rates has cost the city at least $270 million since Moody’s Investors Service cut its rating to junk in May, according to city documents.

“With news like that out there, these kinds of deals are not something we are going to see again anytime soon,” said Andrew Kalotay, chief executive officer of Andrew Kalotay, a New York-based advisory firm to municipal and corporate borrowers. “People are scared of them.”

Bloomberg News

by Darrell Preston

October 21, 2015 — 2:31 PM PDT Updated on October 22, 2015 — 7:59 AM PDT




Muni Tobacco Bonds Rally Most Since January on N.Y. Settlement.

High-yield municipal tobacco bonds rallied by the most since January after New York reached a settlement with cigarette companies that freed up $550 million of funds, fueling speculation that other states will follow suit.

Junk-rated tobacco bonds returned 2.1 percent on Tuesday, boosting 2015 gains to 13.4 percent, Barclays Plc index data show. The broad municipal market is up 2 percent for the year. Some bonds from Ohio’s Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority touched the lowest yield in more than two years.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced a settlement Tuesday that releases money from an escrow account to the state, counties and New York City. The funds had been withheld since 2003 because of a dispute surrounding the 1998 settlement among states and tobacco companies. Now 90 percent of previously trapped funds will be released and the state has no risk of losing future annual payments as the result of arbitration proceedings.

That’s positive for tobacco bonds, which allowed states and cities to borrow against their settlements. The payments from cigarette companies are used to cover interest and principal bills on the securities.

“Tobacco companies are talking to New York — how could they not be talking to Ohio?” John Miller, co-head of fixed income at Nuveen Asset Management, said in an interview at Bloomberg’s New York headquarters. Ohio is the largest issuer of tobacco bonds after New York among the nine states that won decisions in 2013 over disputed payments.

“If Ohio settled, it would release a huge amount of money,” said Miller, whose company oversees about $100 billion in munis.

Buckeye tobacco bonds maturing in June 2047 traded Wednesday at an average 86 cents on the dollar to yield 6.98 percent, the lowest rate since June 2013, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The debt has ratings six steps below investment grade by Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service because sharper-than-expected declines in smoking threaten timely payments to investors.

New York tobacco bonds due in June 2021 traded the most since February on the settlement. Unlike the majority of the securities, which carry junk ratings, the Empire State’s debt has the third-highest investment grade rank.

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 21, 2015 — 8:24 AM PDT




Refinancing Wave Drives Record Muni-Bond Sales as Projects Wait.

The record pace of U.S. municipal bond sales is doing little to address the deteriorating state of the nation’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

With the Federal Reserve wavering on whether to raise interest rates for the first time in more than nine years, state and local governments are rushing to refinance debt instead as yields hold near a half-century low. They’ve sold more than $320 billion this year, the most for the period since at least 2003, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The flood will continue as governments sell about $40 billion of securities a month for the rest of the year, according to Phil Fischer, head of municipal research for Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York, the top underwriter of tax-exempt debt during the first half of 2015. Most of the sales are for refinancing as states and cities once battered by the recession remain wary of running up new debt for public works.

“This is an environment of low yields,” said Vikram Rai, head of municipal strategy in New York at Citigroup Inc. “It’s a great opportunity to actually fund this country’s infrastructure needs, and they’re missing out on that.”

The borrowing will cause the $3.7 trillion municipal market to grow for the first time since 2010, the last year of a federal program that subsidized bonds for construction projects. The dearth of new debt since and the refinancing wave has eased the fiscal pressure on state and local governments. Their annual interest payments slipped to about $188 billion by the end of June from as much as $204 billion in early 2013, according to U.S. Commerce Department figures.

Market Gains

The shift in supply hasn’t tempered the market’s gains, with tax-exempt debt returning about 2.1 percent through Oct. 19, according to Bank of America’s indexes. That’s about triple the return on corporate debt and more than the 2 percent gain for Treasuries.

Demand has been fueled by an influx of money into municipal-bond funds, which have received about $5.4 billion from investors this year, according to Lipper US Fund Flows data. Meanwhile, the refinancing has caused some debt to be paid off early.

“You’ve got really too much money chasing too few bonds,” said Robert Miller, a senior portfolio manager at Wells Fargo Asset Management, which oversees about $39 billion of munis. “There’s enough cash still on the sidelines to be invested where we can absorb additional supply.”

California is among borrowers that are refinancing. The most-populous state is selling about $961 million of general-obligation bonds Tuesday in an auction among underwriters. Last week, New York’s Long Island Power Authority raised $1 billion to pay off higher-cost debt.

It’s not a sure thing that the pace of refinancing will hold up, said Michael Johnson, managing partner at Gurtin Fixed Income Management, which oversees $9.7 billion of munis. Many borrowers probably did so earlier this year because of anticipation that the Fed would raise interest rates by September, he said.

“I would expect the pace of refundings to decline,” said Johnson, who is based in Solana Beach, California. “There was likely some front-loading of refundings due to an expected rise in interest rates.”

Building Needs

The long-brewing need to finance infrastructure projects may drive new bond sales if refinancings wane. Governments can’t keep putting off needed work on everything from mass transit lines to water and sewer systems, said Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, which oversees about $126 billion of assets. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that more than $3 trillion of such work should be done.

“It’s a lot of demand building up,” said Heckman, who is based in Kansas City, Missouri. “There’s a real good possibility that that will be the trigger that will change kind of this dynamic of new issuance.”

There’s a tendency for issuers to rush to the market at the end of the year, said Bank of America’s Fischer, who forecasts that bond sales will reach a record $450 billion in 2015. The bank estimates that only about a third of sales this year have raised new funds, instead of refinancing previously issued debt.

“I have a lot of confidence that we’ll get more infrastructure financing and the reason for it is I have chemistry on my side,” Fischer said. “Paint will not hold up the bridge.”

Bloomberg News

by Elizabeth Campbell

October 19, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on October 20, 2015 — 5:49 AM PDT




S&P: Debt Financing of Infrastructure Could Hurt States' Credit.

DALLAS — States will be hard­-pressed to maintain their credit quality if they attempt to fund infrastructure needs solely through traditional tax­-exempt debt financing, Standard & Poor’s said in a new report.

“According to our assessment, states won’t be able to solve the problem of inadequate infrastructure nationally solely through the issuance of traditional tax­-supported debt,” said credit analyst Gabriel Petek. “Putting a meaningful dent in the infrastructure deficiency will likely require a mix of traditional debt, public-­private partnerships, and additional federal engagement.”

States would have to issue an additional $1.19 trillion of debt through 2020 to fund their share of the $3 trillion of infrastructure investments regarded as necessary by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Standard & Poor’s said. That would raise state debt ratios to a 7.6% of gross domestic product, which S&P considers a high level, from the current and more moderate 2.9%.The states could contribute to reducing the national infrastructure deficit by acting individually to address more of their local needs, Petek said.

“In our view, most states have at least some capacity at current rating levels to issue additional debt,” Petek said. “However, the states as a group do not have enough capacity to finance, using traditional tax-­supported debt, their historical share of aggregate infrastructure costs without impairing their credit quality.”

State and local governments issued an average of $234 billion per year of tax-­exempt, new-money bonds from 1996 through 2010, the report said. However, in the wake of the Great Recession, new­-money bonds have averaged only $151 billion per year.

The pullback in debt issuance can be attributed at least in part to the recognition by states that the expense of operating and maintaining infrastructure can extend for decades, which adds significantly to total project costs, Petek said.

Public­-private partnerships offer a way to fold long-­term operations and maintenance costs into the overall project financing plan, he said, noting that most states already have P3 enabling legislation with more expected to follow.

“However, the P3 model can be complex and in certain cases states attempting P3 projects have encountered political opposition,” he said.

States cannot expect more financial support for highway projects from an increase in federal transportation funding in the next few years, Petek cautioned.

“Given that the federal government’s share of infrastructure project financing has been shrinking in recent years, we don’t currently anticipate a large increase in federal funding,” he said.

State and local governments could find their transportation funding further imperiled with the penchant by the millennial generation for shorter road trips in more fuel-­efficient cars, which curbs gasoline tax revenues, according to a separate new article from Beth Ann Bovino, Standard & Poor’s chief U.S. economist.

Millennials (those born between 1982 and 2000) tend to use public transit more than their elders and obtain drivers licenses at a lower rate and a later age, she said.

“This drop in funds available to construct and repair the country’s infrastructure could, in our view, weigh on growth prospects for U.S. GDP, as well as states’ economies, and, in some cases, where states and municipalities choose to replace the lost federal funds with locally derived revenues, could hurt credit quality,” Bovino said.

If the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon had been indexed to inflation when it was last raised in 1993, it now would be more than 30 cents per gallon and bring in $42 billion per year rather than the current $25 billion, she said.

THE BOND BUYER

by Jim Watts

OCT 20, 2015 2:04pm ET




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast: (Affordable Multifamily Housing and States’ Annual Debt Report).

In this week’s Extra Credit, Associate Alex North discusses the key findings from our recent articles on the affordable multifamily housing space, and Managing Director Gabe Petek reviews the State Group’s new annual debt report.

Listen to the Podcast.

Oct. 23, 2015




Fitch Tax-Supported Criteria Revision.

Tax-Supported Criteria Revision

Overview
Unprecedented challenges in US Public Finance and a divergence of opinion between major credit rating agencies led Fitch Ratings to conduct an in-depth review of factors that drive resilience—and spur divergent recoveries—in municipal credits. Leveraging qualitative judgment, fundamental data and an experienced analytical team, we are proposing revisions to our approach to state and local government ratings to more clearly articulate our assessment of credit quality to the market.

The criteria revision designates key factors that help differentiate credits in a concentrated, municipal ratings scale and shows why some credits are more resistant to risk than others. The framework also better differentiates between credits, defines triggers that change ratings, improves consistency of rating assessments, and highlights our through-the-cycle rating approach.

If you have questions or comments, please refer to the Contacts list on the right or send a note to pfcomment@fitchratings.com.

TELECONFERENCE REPLAY: Revenue Sensitivity Tool for Tax-Supported Issuers
Fitch Ratings held a teleconference on its Revenue Sensitivity Tool for Tax-Supported Issuers on Wednesday, September 30 at 2:00pm EDT. Fitch Managing Directors James Batterman and Laura Porter gave an overview of the new tool.

WEBCAST REPLAY: Tax-Supported Criteria Requests for Comments
Fitch Ratings held a webinar on the exposure draft on Wednesday, September 16 at 2:00pm ET. Managing Directors Jessalynn Moro, Amy Laskey, and Laura Porter discussed proposed revisions to the criteria and gave an overview of new analytical tools and models, followed by a Q&A with webinar participants.

The research and commentary on this page is complimentary and only requires a one-time Fitch Research registration to view.

Exposure Draft: US Tax-Supported Rating Criteria
This exposure draft details Fitch’s proposed enhancements to its US tax-supported rating criteria. In order to highlight the most significant elements, the exposure draft applies only to the general credit quality of US states and general purpose local governments.

Proposed Tax-Supported Rating Criteria: Overview & FAQ
This executive summary highlights the most important features and goals of the criteria revision and answers some frequently asked questions.




House Transportation Bill Would Help Agencies at All Levels to Pursue P3s.

A House bill to fund transportation projects over the next six years would create a bureau within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to promote and support the use of innovative financing — including public-private partnerships — at all levels of government.

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee unanimously approved the six-year $325 billion Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform (STRR) Act of 2015 on Oct. 22, which would allocate $261 billion for highways, $55 billion for transit and about $9 billion for safety programs. The bill only guarantees three years of funding, however, The Hill reported.

The legislation would allow state and local governments to spend funding provided through the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program to establish P3 design, implementation and oversight offices and to pay stipends to unsuccessful bidders for these projects to encourage competition.

The bill would also create the National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau to work with USDOT, states “and other public and private interests to develop and promote best practices for innovative financing and public-private partnerships.”

The bureau would advise state and local governments on how to access federal credit assistance programs and disseminate information such as funding case studies and best practices on P3 procurement, consideration of unsolicited bids, and tools used to determine appropriate project delivery models, such as value for money analyses.

The bureau would also be charged with reducing “uncertainty and delays with respect to environmental reviews and permitting” of transportation projects.

USDOT has already launched the Build America Transportation Investment Center to provide much of the expert assistance the bill requires the bureau to offer.

NCPPP

October 23, 2015




S&P State and Local Government Credit Conditions Forecast: Growth Rules, With Regional Variation.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s stronger-than-expected third estimate of second quarter GDP growth has led Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ economics team to edge up its forecast for U.S. economic expansion in 2015 to 2.5% from 2.3%, which was our forecast in June. An improved GDP outlook reflects that a range of important indicators point to a stronger economy throughout the remainder of 2015. Somewhat softer jobs reports in August and September, however, contradict the notion that the economy is in acceleration mode. Still, through September, year-over-year hourly wage increases of 2.2% remained similar to the 2.3% as of May — which was the strongest since 2011. Housing starts softened a bit in August but remain on track to top the 1 million mark at an annualized rate of 1.13 million. Building permits, a forward looking indicator, remain more favorable, having increased 3.5% in August to a 1.17 million annual rate, enabling our economists to maintain their expectation for about 1.5 million new housing starts by 2017.

Taken together, these key factors underlying the country’s economic performance should help state and local tax revenue trends gain some momentum. And even if the national economy is signaling a softer patch ahead, it will take time for that to flow through to state and local coffers. Either way, it’s crucial to remember that the underlying economic factors and their consequent tax revenue implications vary considerably by region. States, as well as localities more dependent on oil extraction, for example, are much less likely to lead the way in construction and housing starts. In fact, some of the housing construction now underway in some states — such as in South Dakota — could find that demand has already begun to dry up.

Overview

Continue reading.

20-Oct-2015




S&P: U.S. State Debt Levels May Be More Sustainable Than the Condition of the Nation's Infrastructure.

U.S. state tax-supported debt outstanding, in the aggregate, continues to increase but at a subdued pace. According to Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ calculations, total tax-backed state debt outstanding grew by just 1.9% in fiscal 2014. State debt balances have increased at anemic rates ever since the onset of the Great Recession (not including 2010 when there was a surge of issuance under the Build America Bond program). Given the widely acknowledged inadequacy of U.S. infrastructure, it’s tempting to summarily conclude that the slow pace of new debt issuance, which has persisted through an extended period of low interest rates, represents a missed opportunity. In our view, however, this interpretation of recent state debt trends is simplistic.

U.S. states navigated the Great Recession adroitly, for the most part, with their credit profiles intact. Policymakers have managed this difficult environment by maintaining a sustained focus on their states’ fiscal margins, which — already narrow — are likely to remain tight in the years to come. The Urban Institute reported that — as of February 2015, when states were crafting their budgets — aggregate revenue growth was expected to remain slow. The states anticipated revenue growth of just 1.7% and 1.2% for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, respectively, which would be well below the long-term growth rate of 2.5% (in real terms). (1) Likely in response to this slow revenue growth, lawmakers have recognized that the cost of new debt goes well beyond additional debt servicing costs and includes taking on new operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses.

Overview

Continue reading.

19-Oct-2015




Company That Sold a Record Muni Junk-Bond Is Back With an Even Bigger Deal.

Two years after selling what was then the biggest junk bond in the history of the U.S. municipal-securities market, a Dutch chemical company is back again with an even larger deal to build a methanol plant near Texas’s Gulf Coast.

OCI N.V.’s Natgasoline LLC plans to issue $1.4 billion of debt through Texas’s Mission Economic Development Corp. as soon as next week to finish work on the facility in Beaumont, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The company, run by Egyptian billionaire Nassef Sawiris, is no stranger to the state and local bond market: its Iowa Fertilizer Co. backed a $1.2 billion junk-bond sale in April 2013.

The deal may be the largest offering of speculative-grade municipal bonds since March 2014, when Puerto Rico sold $3.5 billion, and comes amid a rally in the securities as investors seek higher returns with yields holding near a half-century low. The plant would almost double U.S. production of methanol, a business dominated by overseas companies and dependent on a steady supply of low-cost natural gas.

“Methanol might be a little bit tougher of a market than fertilizer in the Midwest,” said John Miller, who runs Nuveen Asset Management’s $10.9 billion municipal high-yield fund, the largest of its kind. He said he may buy some of the bonds, anticipating the yields could exceed 10 percent on taxable securities. “The yield differential is going to be gigantic.”

Debt issued for companies through public agencies is among the riskiest in the municipal market because governments aren’t on the hook if the projects fail. As a result, they offer higher payouts than state or city debt.

Iowa Fertilizer bonds were sold for yields of as much as 5.3 percent, about 3 percentage points more than top-rated debt, Bloomberg data show. With the new deal, the chemical company may need to pay more than it did in Iowa because the methanol industry would be affected by a worldwide economic slowdown, said Miller, whose company owns $219 million of the fertilizer bonds.

Such returns may draw high-yield municipal money managers who have had few new deals to chose from as their funds pulled in $758 million over the past three weeks, the largest inflow since January, Lipper US Fund Flows data show. This year, just $1.7 billion of municipal debt came to market with a speculative grade from one of the three largest credit raters, a sliver of the $320 billion in sales, Bloomberg data show.

The imbalance has fueled a rally in the debt, with high-yield munis returning 4 percent since the end of June, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes. Those returns stand in contrast to the rout in corporate junk bonds, which have lost 2.2 percent during that time.

Hard Sell

The project may be a hard sell with some municipal-bond investors who have little expertise with the chemical business. Jason Diefenthaler, who manages a high-yield fund at Wasmer Schroeder & Co. in Naples, Florida, said he’s steering clear.

“This is the kind of deal we usually strike off our list — the reality is we’re more traditional municipal-bond investors and these types of deals are a bit unusual,” Diefenthaler said. “We don’t feel like we bring expertise in the methanol industry.”

Natgasoline’s 518-page offering document details 25 separate risks to bondholders, including its limited experience producing methanol, which is used in paints, plastics, furniture and car parts. The company is also counting on natural gas prices remaining below the 25-year average of $4 per million British thermal units through 2024.

The offering statement says Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings will rate $1.2 billion of the taxable debt, though the grades have yet to be assigned. They’ll probably be ranked BB-, three steps below investment grade and the same as the Iowa Fertilizer bonds, said David Ambler, who analyzes high-yield munis at AllianceBernstein Holding LP in New York.

Hans Zayed and Omar Darwazah, spokesmen for OCI, didn’t respond to e-mails or voice messages seeking comment.

Challenging Importers

The company is seeking to capture a share of the 4.8 million tons of methanol that the U.S. imports annually. The Beaumont facility, expected to open in 2017, will have the capacity to produce 1.75 million tons per year, according to offering documents. That compares with 2 million tons generated in 2014 across the U.S.

“We’re seeing a sizeable increase in demand for methanol,” said Gregory Dolan, chief executive officer of the Methanol Institute in Alexandria, Virginia.

Beaumont, a city of 118,000 about 85 miles (137 kilometers) east of Houston, has one of the nation’s busiest ports. The plant will be “in the heart of the United States natural gas pipeline network,” according to offering documents.

OCI already has experience in the area. The company in 2011 acquired a methanol-production facility from Eastman Chemical Co. that’s two miles away from the new site, according to offering documents. It began producing the chemical in 2012.

OCI uses a case study of its Iowa Fertilizer plant as evidence that the bonds are a worthy investment. Of 13 nitrogen fertilizer projects that were announced across the country after 2010, only the Iowa facility received financing and is currently under construction, according to the report from Integer Research.

The bonds have also paid off: a $429 million portion of the debt maturing in 2025 last traded for an average of $1.08 on the dollar, a gain of 8.3 percent since they were first sold.

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 25, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on October 26, 2015 — 5:49 AM PDT




The District of Columbia and Georgia Join the Growing Number of States to Enact P3 Legislation: Seyfarth Shaw.

Funding the maintenance or expansion of existing infrastructure and the development of new infrastructure is one of the key bottlenecks to global infrastructure development and has resulted in governments and the private sector turning to alternative project procurement methods. One such alternative is the public-private partnership.

Public-private partnerships, or P3s, are gradually becoming a mainstream form of large project procurement in the United States.

The District of Columbia and Georgia have recently joined in the momentum of support for P3 legislation. The DC P3 Act took effect as of March 11, 2015 and the Georgia P3 Act took effect on May 5, 2015.

DC P3 Act

The DC P3 Act establishes the Office of Public-Private Partnerships (P3 Office) which will be responsible for “facilitating the development, solicitation, evaluation, award, delivery and oversight of public-private partnerships that involve a public entity in the District”. The P3 Office, which is headed up by an Executive Director, is entitled to retain consultants and enter into contracts to provide financial, legal or other technical expertise necessary to assist in such administrative role. The P3 Office will essentially be the main point of contact for parties involved, or looking to become involved, in a public-private partnership.

Public-private partnerships are defined in the DC P3 Act as “a long-term, performance-based agreement between a public entity and a private entity or entities where appropriate risks and benefits can be allocated in a cost-effective manner between the public and private entities in which (A) a private entity performs functions normally undertaken by the government, but the public entity remains ultimately accountable for the qualified project and its public function, and (B) the District of Columbia may retain ownership or control in the project asset and the private entity may be given additional decision-making rights in determining how the asset is financed, developed, constructed, operated and maintained over its life-cycle.”

Projects that qualify as a potential public-private partnership include education facilities, transportation (e.g. roads, highways, public transit systems and airports), cultural or recreational facilities (e.g. libraries, museums and athletic facilities), buildings that are of beneficial interest to the public and are developed or operated by a public entity, utilities (e.g. water treatment, telecommunications, information technology), improvements to District-owned real estate or any other facility, the construction of which would, in the P3 Office’s opinion, be beneficial to the public interest.

A public-private partnership may be procured by process of a request for proposals or as a result of an unsolicited proposal. Via the process of requested proposals, a proposal will be evaluated against, among other criteria, the proposed cost and delivery time for the project, the financial commitment required of public entities, the capabilities and related experience of the proposer, a value-for-money and public sector comparator analysis, the inclusion of novel methods, approaches or concepts in the proposal, the scientific, technical or socioeconomic merits of the proposal, how the proposal benefits the public and other factors the P3 Office deems appropriate to obtain the best value for the District.

The District may consider, evaluate and accept unsolicited proposals from a private entity if the proposal addresses a need of the District, is independently developed and drafted by the proposer without District supervision, demonstrates the benefit of the proposed project to the District, includes a financing plan to allow the proposed project to move forward pursuant to the District’s budget and finance requirements and includes sufficient detail and information to allow the P3 Office to evaluate the proposal and make a worthwhile determination.

The DC P3 Act also sets out various terms required in any public-private partnership agreement, including the legal rights of the District with respect to the takeover or termination of a public-private partnership agreement.

Georgia P3 Act

On May 5, 2015, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed into law Senate Bill 59, known as the “Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Act” (the “P3 Act”). In simplest terms, the P3 Act amends the public works bidding portion of the existing Georgia Code to allow private companies to propose projects to the local and state governments. The local governments that may participate in the P3 Act partnerships are any county, municipality, consolidated government, or board of education. The state governments that may participate in the P3 Act partnerships are any department, agency, board, bureau, commission, authority, or instrumentality of the State of Georgia, including the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

The projects proposed by the private entity must be “qualifying projects” meaning they must meet a public purpose or public need, as determined by the local or state government. The P3 Act does not apply to projects for generation of electric energy for sale, communication services, cable and video services, and water reservoir projects.

Guidelines and oversight for P3 Act projects take different approaches depending whether the partnership is with a local or state government. For partnerships with local governments, the P3 Act provides that a P3 Act Committee will be created to prepare model guidelines for local governments to use in implementing P3 Act projects. The P3 Act Committee is composed of 10 persons with varying backgrounds and qualifications as provided in the P3 Act. The appointments to the P3 Act Committee will be made by August 1, 2015, and the P3 Act Committee has until July 1, 2016, to issue model guidelines to local governments. With respect to partnerships with state governments, for qualifying projects undertaken by the State Properties Commission, the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission will be solely authorized to develop guidelines, and for qualifying projects undertaken by Board of Regents, the Board of Regents will be solely authorized to develop guidelines for those projects.

For a project to become a reality under the P3 Act, it must proceed through the following series of steps outlined in the P3 Act:

1. For a local government, it must adopt the model guidelines or create its own guidelines including the required contents outlined in the P3 Act. A state government must use the guidelines established by the State Properties Commission or the Board of Regents.

2. To participate, a local government must adopt a rule, regulation or ordinance affirming its participation in the P3 Act process.

3. A private entity may submit an unsolicited proposal for a project to the applicable local or state government for review and determination as a qualifying project in accordance with its respective guidelines and the submittal requirements outlined in the P3 Act. For state government P3 Act projects, the unsolicited proposal must be submitted between May 1, and June 30, of each year.

4. A private entity submitting an unsolicited proposal to a state government must also notify each local jurisdiction and allow 45 days for the local government to comment on whether the proposed project is compatible with local plans and budgets.

5. The local or state government approves or rejects the unsolicited proposal. A local or state government may reject any proposal at any time and is not required to give reasons for its denial. If an unsolicited proposal is accepted as a qualifying project, the local or state government must seek competing proposals by issuing a request for proposals for not less than 90 days.

6. The local or state government will rank the proposals received by utilizing a variety of factors outlined in the P3 Act, such as cost, reputation and experience of the private entity, and the private entity’s plan to employ local contractors and residents. 7. The local or state government will negotiate with the first-ranked private entity and will continue to negotiate with subsequent-ranked private entities until an agreement is reached. Prior to entering into an agreement, the local or state government may cancel the requests for proposals or reject all proposals for any reason whatsoever.

8. The local or state government and the private entity enter into a comprehensive agreement. The terms of the comprehensive agreement include, but are not limited to, description of duties, timeline for completion, financing, and plans and specifications and the project begins.

Conclusion

By allowing partnerships between the private and public sector, P3 Acts create opportunities for governments to engage in new projects that would previously have been cost prohibitive. Under this new law, the private entities can take on design and construction costs previously borne by the government. Beyond that, P3 Acts will encourage investment in infrastructure and aid urban renewal.

Article by Alison Ashford, Eric F. Barton and Stephanie A. Stewart

October 12 2015

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.




Peering Under the Coupon.

Pimco veteran Joe Deane focuses on the reality of what’s backing up muni bonds. On the Municipal Bond fund, he teams up with David Hammer.

Early in Joe Deane’s career—back in the mid-1970s, when New York City was on the verge of bankruptcy—he learned a valuable lesson about municipal finance.

“What you have on a piece of paper is not going to matter nearly as much as what’s going on in the real world,” says Deane, now the head of municipal-bond management at Pimco. In other words, the realities of keeping a city afloat can trump paying municipal-bond holders.

New York City averted bankruptcy in 1975, but Deane’s fascination with municipal bonds was established. Forty years later, that era still resonates with Deane, who oversees $14 billion of municipal-bond assets at Pimco in separate accounts and 19 mutual funds.

Since the mid-1970s, numerous fiscal disasters have played out, most recently in Detroit and Puerto Rico. Deane, however, steered Pimco away from those troubled securities. “In 2012, when I was considering coming to Pimco, I saw they had a tiny exposure to Puerto Rico in their portfolios that shortly thereafter went to zero,” says David Hammer, 37, Dean’s right-hand man, whose duties include co-managing the $555 million Pimco Municipal Bond fund (ticker: PMLAX). “I looked at Joe’s position versus many in the industry, and thought it was a really smart position.”

Hammer, who began his career at Morgan Stanley, worked at Pimco in 2012 and 2013. He returned to Morgan Stanley briefly and then came back to Pimco in May, recruited by Deane and the allure of co-managing many of the firm’s municipal funds.

Neither Hammer nor Deane has an office, instead sitting next to each other on a trading desk in a midtown Manhattan skyscraper, an arrangement that allows them to communicate directly throughout the day. “I’m a little more big picture, and Dave is a little bit more about getting every trade done,” says Deane.

Deane, 68, adds that he will keep managing money for “as long as it is fascinating for me.” Outside the office, he is especially keen on downhill skiing and golf. “You never conquer golf,” he says. “You may conquer it for a day, a week, or a year, but it’s always changing. The same thing is true of the markets.”

Deane worked at the same firm from 1972 until 2011, although it went through multiple iterations. He began at E.F. Hutton, which became part of Smith Barney. That company was acquired by Citigroup, which swapped its asset-management business for Legg Mason’s brokerage business in 2005. Legg Mason owns Western Asset Management, a bond shop that is one of Pimco’s biggest competitors. Deane ran what is now the Western Asset Managed Municipals fund (SHMMX) from 1988 to 2011, during which the portfolio had an annual return of 6.5%, tops in its category, according to Morningstar.

Western is based just north of Los Angeles and Pimco, just south, but Deane, who grew up in Staten Island, has been steadfast about not relocating to Southern California.

Deane joined Pimco in July 2011, well into his 60s, in large part because he wanted to work with Bill Gross, Pimco’s co-founder, whose investing prowess Deane admires. Gross abruptly left Pimco three years later and last week sued his former firm, claiming that “a cabal of Pimco managing directors plotted to drive” him out of the company. Deane says he’s not concerned about the recent turmoil. “I viewed Pimco as the No. 1 bond firm in the world with Bill, and it’s still the No. 1 bond firm today,” he asserts.

Upon arriving four years ago, Deane immediately sold the fund’s stake in Detroit general-obligation bonds, and, by early 2013, had sold all of its Puerto Rico holdings, too. “There were so many deals that were done where all of the revenue just went to pay the debt service of other bonds that had been previously issued,” he recalls.

The fund now has a solid three-year annual return of 2.9%, besting 61% of its peers.

Clearly, for Deane, sound fixed-income investing comes down to zeroing in on “what’s backing this bond up.” That has been particularly true since the financial crisis, as the municipal-bond market has changed considerably. Many of the insurers that backed municipal bonds lost their AAA ratings or, in certain cases, went out of business. The upshot is that most municipal bonds coming to market today aren’t backed by insurance. “It reminds me very much of the market I grew up in—in the ’70s and ’80s—where credit quality was every bit as important as duration,” says Deane.

Many managers favor general-obligation bonds, since they’re backed by taxes that can be raised, if necessary, to pay back bondholders. But they can be subject to political pressure, Deane says, and a big worry has been increasing unfunded pension obligations, with the states of New Jersey and Illinois having especially bad problems. After Deane scaled back on GO bonds earlier in the year, he and Hammer changed course over the summer and snapped up some Chicago GOs. The city’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, “has flat out stated that he is going to get a significant property-tax increase through,” says Deane.

DEANE TYPICALLY PREFERS revenue bonds, which are backed by the money generated by a specific entity—a water authority, for example. In Detroit, “revenue-bond holders were generally protected and unimpaired through the bankruptcy,” says Hammer.

Owing to a recent change in the flagship fund’s prospectus, the managers can hold as much as 20% of the portfolio in high-yield munis, up from 10%. They like tobacco master settlement agreement bonds, which grew out of a 1998 settlement between the major tobacco companies and most state attorneys general. As cigarette consumption has declined, the revenue backing these bonds has dropped, as well, increasing the likelihood that they might default at some point. However, even in default they will continue to pay out the funds they have, until all interest and principal is paid—an attribute that’s undervalued by investors.

It has been a tough year for municipal bonds, with increased issuance and concerns about when the Federal Reserve finally will raise interest rates. The fund is up a mere 1.1%, year to date. Still, Deane says he’s not worried. The portfolio is a bit more defensive today, with the coupons of many holdings at about 5%, with a tilt to shorter-term securities to offset duration risk.

“There are a lot of guys out there buying” bonds with lower coupons, he observes, “but that’s not where we want to go.” The 5% coupons tend to be less affected by rate hikes and offer more income to reinvest at the higher rates, says Deane.

BARRON’S

By LAWRENCE C. STRAUSS

Updated Oct. 17, 2015 12:21 a.m. ET




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (Rating Transitions in the Housing Sector).

In this week’s Extra Credit, Senior Director Larry Witte discusses the factors driving rating transitions in the public housing sector, and Senior Director Lisa Schroeer reviews the key rating actions we took on various entities across the country over the past week.

Listen to the Podcast.

Oct. 16, 2015




Fighting Wildfire With Finance.

The western United States is fighting an increasingly high-stakes battle with wildfire. At this very moment, 10 wildfires are raging throughout the state of California. Ten firefighters have already died this year protecting our forests and thousands more are at risk every day as wildfire season becomes longer and more intense each year. Unfortunately, these severe wildfire seasons are not an anomaly, but rather a taste of the new normal. At the same time, 92 percent of California is experiencing “severe drought” conditions, with research suggesting that this is likely the worst drought in 1,200 years. As climate change continues to create a hotter and drier environment this challenge too is expected to continue. Perhaps no one is affected by the drought more than California farmers, who last year received only 15 percent of water requested from the state. As a result, many are losing not only their crops but their livelihoods as well.

As the wildfires and drought persist, there is no denying that the well-being of our communities is inextricably linked to the health of our forests. As humans settled and built communities in and around forests, fires that would naturally burn and maintain healthy forest ecosystems have been suppressed, leading to severely overgrown forests with up to 10 times more trees per acre than nature intended. This incredible density creates the opportunity for a small burn to turn into a catastrophic mega-fire. Compounding this problem, high tree density reduces the amount of water available to local utilities due to increased precipitation evaporation and excess vegetation soaking up precipitation before it reaches our reservoirs.

While the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) recognizes the tremendous economic and environmental benefits to be gained from forest restoration — a significant reduction in wildfire severity, as well as up to 16 percent higher water volumes to local utilities — the government agency simply doesn’t have the financial means to undertake the project. The costs of fighting increasingly intense forest fires has severely limited the resources available for prevention activities. Annual fire suppression costs in the U.S. have ballooned from $450 million just 20 years ago to $1.6 billion (and growing) today. With a budget designed for a reality that no longer exists, USFS is trapped in a vicious cycle of paying for today’s fires by borrowing funds intended to prevent tomorrow’s. As droughts get longer and fires larger, this funding deficit for prevention-oriented activities will only widen.

It is clear that we need cost-effective, innovative solutions to build the resilience of the communities in dealing with both mega-fires and the drought. Recognizing that it costs up to 40 times more to put out a fire than prevent it, the private finance community has seen an opportunity to shape a solution that raises the capital needed to fund prevention efforts — not by donating, but by investing through a Forest Resilience Impact Bond. Spearheaded by Blue Forest Conservation, Private Capital for Public Good, and Encourage Capital, the Forest Resilience Impact Bond is a proposed new form of pay-for-success funding that seeks to leverage financial innovation to fund environmental conservation. The effort is funded by The Rockefeller Foundation’s Zero Gap portfolio, which focuses on shaping and supporting the next generation of innovative financing solutions through a venture philanthropy model that leans heavily on collaboration with both private and public sector partners. The inaugural Forest Resilience Impact Bond is being intended to raise capital from private investors to fund forest restoration designed to decrease burn severity and increase water availability for local utilities. Preliminary research suggests that investors are expected to earn market returns as real economic results — USFS cost savings from reduction in number and severity of fires, and increased revenue for water utilities as a result of increased water flow — are achieved.

As the USFS faces the impossible task of responding to more and more frequent mega-fires with a budget that cannot conceivably keep pace, financing mechanisms such as the proposed Forest Resilience Impact Bond can offer a solution that brings new capital and new thinking to the market. We need to focus our efforts on more than just fighting the wildfires and drought — we need to keep looking for creative financing solutions to tackle complex problems and build the resilience of our communities.

THE HUFFINGTON POST

Saadia Madsbjerg
Managing Director, the Rockefeller Foundation

Adam Connaker
Program Associate at the Rockefeller Foundation for Innovative Finance and Impact Investing

Posted: 10/12/2015 1:55 pm EDT Updated: 10/12/2015 1:59 pm EDT




Goldman Sachs Social Impact Bond Pays Off in Utah.

DALLAS – After three years of working with social impact bonds, Goldman Sachs achieved a milestone this month with a Utah preschool program that became the first to pay investors for the program’s success.

“Obviously, we find this success very encouraging, so we will continue looking at other opportunities,” said Andrea Phillips, vice president of Goldman’s Urban Investment Group. “But we will look at each program on its own merits and do our due diligence.”

Social impact bonds are a relatively new type of finance devised to deal with intractable social problems, such as prison recidivism, health programs or other issues that cost society or government in the long run.

The Utah program, established in 2013 by the United Way of Salt Lake City, sought to reduce demand for costly special education in the Granite School District by providing high-quality pre-kindergarten for children aged 3 and 4 years.

The preschool program was based on research conducted by Voices for Utah Children, an advocacy group for disadvantaged children.

While research showed that early childhood education could reduce costs throughout the child’s education, the majority of Utah 3 and 4-year-olds were not enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Utah was one of only 10 states that provided no state funding for high-quality preschool.

To help fund a high-quality pre-K, Janis Dubno, then director of early education policy for Voices for Utah Children, designed a “sustainable financing model” to illustrate that early childhood education investments could ultimately save money for Utah taxpayers.

Dubno’s model evolved into a results-based financing system that allowed private investors to cover the up-front cost of pre-K programming for at-risk 3- and 4-year olds, with the state reimbursing investors for each child who was considered at risk for later special education intervention upon preschool entry.

The “bond” was more of a bet that the program would work. Investors, who provided $4.6 million of upfront loans, would be paid back by the state if the program worked. A successful preschool program would save public funds by avoiding the high cost of special education services.

Thus, the program served a secondary purpose of demonstrating to legislators and other policy makers the cost effectiveness of early childhood education.

United Way of Salt Lake convened partners and investors to launch the first year and earmarked $1 million to serve as the repayment fund for the transaction’s first cohort of children. Salt Lake County added to the repayment fund and became the first government in Utah to embrace the pay-for-success model.

The Utah State Legislature in 2014 passed House Bill 96, the Utah School Readiness Initiative sponsored by House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper. The legislation established the School Readiness Board, made up of appointees from the State Department of Workforce Services, Utah State Office of Education, Utah State Charter School Board, business leaders, and other individuals committed to advancing early childhood education in Utah.

The School Readiness Board is responsible for entering into pay-for-success financing contracts with private investors on behalf of the state.

In 2014, Utah signed a contract with United Way of Salt Lake, Goldman Sachs, and the Chicago-based J.B. Pritzker Foundation to fund the project for the preschool children.

Of the 595 low-income children who attended high-quality preschool financed by the SIB in the 2013-14 school year, 110 of the four-year-olds were identified as likely to use special education in grade school. Results showed that of those 110 students identified as at-risk, only one used special education services in kindergarten. The 110 students will continue to be monitored through sixth grade, generating further success payments based on the number who avoid use of special education in each year.

The successful results led to the first investor payment for any pay-for-success financing mechanism in the U.S. market.

“These results show that the pay-for-success model creates an opportunity to put taxpayer dollars towards what actually works, rather than following an outdated recipe that we once thought or hoped would work,” said Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams.

Total savings calculated in Year 1 for Cohort 1 are $281,550, based on a state resource special education add-on of $2,607 per child. Investors received a payment equal to 95% of these savings.

“Goldman Sachs is paid first,” Phillips said. “We expect to be repaid over seven years.” With a target base interest rate of 5%, the implied maximum return is about $5.5 million, according to a fact sheet about the program.

The initial investment of $1 million was considered proof of concept that represented the first phase of a $20 million commitment by J.B. Pritzker, Goldman Sachs and other private investors for the Early Childhood Innovation Accelerator, a fund designed to increase the availability of high-quality early childhood education while building a strong evidence-base of success.

While the Utah program was the first to pay off, Phillips said her group is anticipating similar results in a Goldman Sachs-funded program in Chicago.

Established in 2001, the Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group has committed more than $4.5 billion for various projects.

Phillips, who earned her graduate degree at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, worked in nonprofit finance before joining Goldman in May 2010. She has guided the social impact bond initiative since Goldman issued the nation’s first one in 2012.

Goldman’s first social impact bond ended in August without the desired outcome. The program at Rikers Island in New York was designed to reduce recidivism among inmates. But results audited by an independent board showed no improvement, meaning the state would not pay off.

“While we certainly hoped for greater impact, we learned a great deal along the way and remain committed to investing in projects that support important public initiatives,” Phillips said.

Now that a SIB has shown success, Phillips said new research is needed to anticipate odds of success. Unlike traditional municipal bonds, social impact bonds have no credit ratings that could tell investors the degree of risk they are facing.

“As social impact bonds become more common, there will be a need for more metrics to determine a program’s chances of success,” she said.

THE BOND BUYER

by Richard Williamson

OCT 9, 2015 1:25pm ET




Miami-Dade Tries to Break P3 Mold.

BRADENTON, Fla. – Miami-Dade County plans to break the traditional P3 mold with what its leader calls an innovative capital program that could surpass $7.85 billion.

With 2.6 million residents, and more on the way, county Mayor Carlos Gimenez told a private industry forum last month that it is critical to find new ways to maintain and enhance the county’s infrastructure.

“As part of my goal to lead a more efficient government, one that stretches its dollars to the maximum extent, we need to look for creative solutions,” Gimenez said. “That is where opportunities lie for public-private partnerships.”

The county’s plan could entice investors to step out of their comfort zones because most P3s currently involve large stand-alone projects such as major toll roads, according to a global infrastructure financing expert.

Although Miami-Dade is still in the early planning stages of its program, Gimenez said the nation’s seventh most-populous county has already compiled more than 50 potential capital projects that will be studied to determine whether they will benefit from the public-private financing structure.

The projects run the gamut of those local governments have traditionally financed with general obligation and revenue bonds, including public works, cultural facilities, water and sewer, detention facilities, transit, parks, public housing, roads, aviation, and ports.

Project cost estimates run from under a million dollars to convert a toll plaza office into a restaurant to more than $2 billion for a federal consent decree-driven water and sewer improvement program.

Whether Miami-Dade is successful developing the capital plan depends on its structure along with the expectations of county officials and market participants, said Michael Likosky, who leads the infrastructure practice at New York-based 32 Advisors.

“Miami-Dade is seeking to develop an innovative approach to the market that very few entities have tried to do on an ambitious level in the United States,” said Likosky, whose credentials include working with local and state governments, the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Clinton Global Initiative.

“It’s a tall order,” he said. “For me there is a clear path to success but it’s not particularly easy.” In the U.S., the P3 market has been the most receptive to working with single, large stand-alone projects, according to Likosky.

With little experience structuring comprehensive municipal capital plans with public-private partnerships, the development of such a program must be realistic and contain prioritized projects because the finance and construction side of the P3 market is inclined to be inflexible, he said.

“There tends to be a cookie-cutter approach now that will fund certain projects of priority but will not fund the rest,” Likosky said. “The job of a public entity is to determine how to leverage the bankable stuff in order to finance the non-bankable stuff.” Miami-Dade County is not alone in seeking alternatives to debt to finance a wide array of projects.

Rating agency analysts believe that growing unfunded infrastructure needs and budget concerns will help drive further use of P3 contracting into sectors other than transportation. The contracts between the public and private sectors will allow state and local governments to design, build, finance, operate and maintain government-related infrastructure for a fixed period of time, Moody’s Investors Service said in a September report.

P3 contracts will allow governments to bring private capital to new sectors such as housing, higher education, and water and sewer, according to Moody’s senior analyst John Medina. As an example, Moody’s cited the Next Generation Kentucky Information Highway System, a first-of-its kind P3 to bring high-speed Internet to a state where the service has lagged the rest of the country.

Kentucky issued $230.05 million of 30-year tax exempt bonds for the project in August to finance a 30-year concession agreement with a consortium whose main investors are Macquarie NG-KIH Holdings Inc., Ledcor US Ventures, and First Solutions LLC.

Standard & Poor’s analyst John Sugden said P3s offer an alternative way of delivering large projects, though acceptance of the mechanism has been slow for some areas.

“We expect that the states with established P3 programs will continue to use P3 financing,” Sugden said in a special report last month.

However, the size, complexity and lack of uniformity in concession agreements have created high start-up costs for some governments and created a barrier to greater adoption of the model, he added.

Some P3 obligations are considered debt, depending on the structure, and can be factored into credit ratings, the S&P report noted.

P3 programs don’t come without risks, said Municipal Market Analytics partner Matt Fabian. “Like swaps, P3s can be highly complex, long-term arrangements that are difficult to restructure if needed,” Fabian said Tuesday.

P3s, like swaps, can also create an accelerant to unexpected credit troubles, he added. “To the extent issuers are using P3s to avoid the characterization of their obligation as debt, it raises serious concerns about the issuer’s disclosure practices and willingness to pay,” Fabian said.

In July, he warned municipal investors to be wary of local issuers engaging in P3 transactions, particularly in states that are actively encouraging the financing technique.

The complex relationships and unique risk allocation in each P3 transaction imply a need for financial and legal sophistication and revenue raising flexibility that cannot be counted on among all local governments, he said.

A case in point, Fabian said, is the Virginia Route 460 project. The P3 was cancelled in part because the state failed to obtain final permits, leaving Virginia on the hook for about $300 million for a road that will not be built.

Fabian said Virginia is well-known for being ahead of the curve in terms of its P3 strategy and use, though at the time the Route 460 project was approved political pressure influenced the decision to move forward with the higher-risk project without adequate transparency and oversight.

As a result, Virginia enacted legislative changes to the process for approving P3s that includes the formation of an advisory committee to determine if potential projects are in the public’s interest.

In Miami-Dade, county commissioners are proceeding cautiously to develop the capital program they hope will serve both the public and private sector. The entire P3 program has been in development for several years.

Last week, commissioners appointed the final two members of a 15-member task force that will make recommendations on how the county advances the use of P3s.

The task force members include those involved in P3 projects, attorneys specializing in infrastructure finance, and experts in planning, construction, engineering, architecture, and banking.

Miami-Dade is also hiring P3 legal and financial advisors, including a pool of consultants for the county’s massive sewer improvement program.

Sikorsky said the county needs a clear strategy to develop the final comprehensive capital plan. “We know in the muni context that it’s pretty clear there’s a strategy for doing that with a GO or revenue bond, but in a P3 that doesn’t exist,” he said. “There’s no off-the-shelf solution.” Banks and investors will only pay for certain types of projects, such as those with a revenue stream, so the capital plan should use P3s for large, stand-alone projects and include other financing mechanisms.

“If you associate all of the projects with P3s, then all this isn’t going to get done,” Sikorsky said. “I think they should be after a public-private plan, and P3s are one type of [financing] deal.” While the task will not be easy or straightforward, he said Miami-Dade is attempting to create an ambitious program that could shift P3 market dynamics.

“I think the unique aspect to it is that people typically think about bringing a P3 project in stand-alone way to market,” Sikorsky said. “So it’s very unique in the U.S., and innovative, to think about an entire capital plan, and I have to give credit to them for doing so.”

THE BOND BUYER

by Shelly Sigo

OCT 14, 2015 12:16pm ET




As Retirees Outnumber Employees, Pensions Seek Saviors.

Desperate for more money, public pension systems have been making high-risk investments hoping for a higher profit. But they may ultimately cost taxpayers more.

The $300 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System began showing its age this year: It started paying out more money to retirees than it gained in contributions and investments. In roughly 20 years, CalPERS’ retirees will outnumber active workers by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1 in some of its plans.

In fact, a lot of state and local pension systems are already showing their age. Back in the 1970s, the typical pension fund had four to five times more active employees than it had retirees. Today, that ratio has slipped to 1.5-to-1 and is falling.

In the investment world, financial planners advise older individuals to steer their retirement accounts toward more conservative, fixed-income investments, such as bonds. The idea is to reduce the risk that an investment could turn south just when it’s time to start withdrawing funds.

But most pension plans have been doing the exact opposite. In search of high returns, they have been turning to alternative investments. The focus has mainly been on hedge funds and private equities. Hedge funds are investment pools in high-risk assets that are aggressively managed for big or so-called absolute returns. Private equity funds pool money to buy companies with the goal of selling them or taking them public for a profit. Both funds’ managers typically charge 2 percent of the total investment value as a fee (roughly twice the rate of more traditional fund managers), and managers take a 20 percent cut of the profits. They are by their very nature opaque, built on secret investment formulas that make tracking money in the funds next to impossible. The investments have been sold to institutional investors as a way to diversify and lower a plan’s dependence on the swings of the stock market. But many are now questioning whether, for public pension plans — especially maturing plans that are paying out more than is coming in — these high-risk, high-fee investments are worth it.

CalPERS has decided that hedge funds aren’t. Last year, the system announced it was divesting the $4 billion it had in those funds as part of the system’s “flexible de-risking” strategy, investor-speak for making the pension system more conservative as it enters its golden years. The pension board is also evaluating ways to step down its assumed rate of return, a move that would reduce the pressure to take investment risks.

CalPERS is among a few pension systems that are dialing back enthusiasm for alternative investments. But concerns have been mounting for years. The lack of transparency and high fees paid out in these types of investments have contributed to pay-to-play scandals in at least three states. An investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into 400 hedge funds found that half charged bogus fees and expenses. This summer, 13 state treasurers penned a letter to the SEC calling for regulations requiring that private equity firms more clearly outline the types of fees they charge.

Still, becoming a more conservative investor — even to reduce risk — is politically difficult. When pension funds reduce the expectations of what they will earn per year on their investments, governments may have to increase the amount of money they — or their employees — pay into the fund. So in the current investment market where low-risk bonds offer minimal returns, some pension systems continue to shift their money into high-risk assets. But these attempts to beat the market come at the expense of transparency, and they may ultimately cost taxpayers more.

Most pension portfolios have a long-term investment return target between 7 and 8 percent a year. Historically, plans achieved that with relative ease. But a lot has changed in the past 20 years. In 1992, the median pension fund’s assumed rate of return was 8 percent, and U.S. Treasury securities paid out 7.67 percent, according to an analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Arnold Foundation. That means a pension portfolio’s overall investments only had to perform slightly better than the bond market — not a very big gamble. By 2012, pension plans had lowered their return assumptions to a median 7.75 percent, but the 30-year Treasury bond returns had plummeted to just under 3 percent. The pressure on pensions to boost investment returns intensified tenfold.

Other factors have made things worse. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, many governments took funding holidays. Thanks to robust returns on stock market investments, half of all state pension plans were fully funded, according to Pew research. Meanwhile, state legislators increased benefits for retirees without increasing funding — adding to the long-term liabilities of their pension plans. The 2008 recession soured the investment picture, but pension funding ratios were already on the decline. State plans were funded on average at 85 percent of liabilities in 2006, according to Pew. By 2014, it was 74 percent, a Governing analysis found.

With strained budgets, most governments have not rushed to put extra money into their retirement systems. That puts pressure on pension plans to make up the difference. “This whole system works as long as governments are willing to make their payments no matter what,” says Donald Boyd, director of fiscal studies at the Rockefeller Institute of Government. “So now pensions are relying more on investments than ever before. It makes you feel as if they’re trying to fix a problem that wasn’t their making.”

According to data from the Boston College Center for Retirement Research (CRR), the typical pension fund a decade ago had about 1 percent of its assets sitting in alternative investments. By 2013, that had ballooned to 14 percent — a value of nearly $1 trillion. Some plans invest far more. Pennsylvania’s teachers and state employees plans — which both face benefits cuts as the state struggles to fund them — have more than 40 percent of their money in alternative assets, according to the CRR.

The appeal is in the returns the funds produce. In fiscal 2015, the pensions’ public equity portfolios (a.k.a. stocks) did not perform well. Private equity portfolios, however, came in with returns that were near or at double digits. Hedge fund returns were far lower, and most pension plans have reported their overall fiscal 2015 returns were less than 5 percent for the year.

One reason hedge funds may not be helping the bottom line could be their fees. Pension officials have maintained that the high fees associated with alternative investments are worth the above-average returns. But studies show that low-cost indexed funds (low-fee portfolios that replicate the movements of a specific financial market) can outperform hedge funds for a fraction of the cost. Recently The Economist compared the return from an S&P-indexed portfolio and the average return from hedge funds. The analysis found that the indexed portfolio easily outperformed the hedge funds. In other words, as The Economist put it, “hedge funds are a very expensive way of buying widely available assets.” In keeping with that logic, Nevada Chief Investment Officer Steve Edmundson last year began moving the state pension funds’ stock and bond investments into securities that track market indexes.

For CalPERS, which has been invested in hedge funds for more than a decade, it was time to call it quits. The hedge fund program “wasn’t having a significant material impact,” says Cal-PERS spokesman Joe DeAnda. “At the same time it’s very complicated, very complex, and the fee structure is higher.” In order for the absolute returns to potentially have a larger impact, CalPERS would have to invest a lot more than $4 billion out of its $300 billion portfolio. “There wasn’t a strong desire to go that route,” DeAnda says.

Of even greater concern for some is the lack of transparency in how these funds operate and in how they are charging fees. “With alternative investments, all I have is a contract. I can’t see the assets,” says Chris Tobe, a former Kentucky Retirement Systems trustee and author of Kentucky Fried Pensions, a book alleging a culture of corruption surrounding the fees the system paid to managers. “The numbers on it are the numbers [the managers] decide to give to me,” he adds. “I’m not allowed to look under the hood.”

Hank Kim, the executive director of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, admits “it’s entirely appropriate” to ask whether a public plan should be investing in a very opaque arena. But he likens the situation to a Coca-Cola shareholder asking the soft drink company to reveal its secret recipe. “The question is what is proprietary for a business,” he says. “For private equities and hedge funds, their business model is the secret sauce.”

The lack of transparency leads to a lot of confusion about where pension plans’ money is going. Fees to asset managers are inconsistently reported, which makes it impossible to reasonably compare pension plans. For example, South Carolina’s retirement system in 2013 paid $500 million in fees to asset managers — the same amount that New York City paid in fees for a portfolio more than five times bigger. A follow-up report released earlier this year by the fund analysis firm CEM Benchmarking — and commissioned by the South Carolina Retirement System — found that the state discloses more fees than is typical. In fact, the report estimated, pension funds are disclosing less than half of the private equity costs they actually incur.

In worst-case scenarios, the secretive environment can lead to scandal. In the late 2000s, the SEC investigated funds in California and New York, alleging that investment firms made improper payments to politically connected middlemen in exchange for investments from the pension funds. In New Mexico, the state’s investment account and teacher pension fund lost an estimated $150 million as a result of politically driven investment decisions that underperformed. The scandal drew multiple lawsuits and a guilty plea to tax evasion by a former broker.

As alternative asset managers openly target institutional investors, there may be an opening for public pensions to demand more transparency from them. While state treasurers have called on the SEC to apply pressure, some pension systems are already demanding better transparency. CalPERS, frustrated with the lack of uniformity in the data it receives from its private equity managers, developed its own reporting template. DeAnda says the system soon plans to use that data to publicly report its private equity cash flow.

Pension systems can also do a better job of disclosing all the fees they pay. Rhode Island’s treasurer recently pushed through a new investment policy requiring transparency from investment managers to disclose all fees, expenses and fund-level performance. It’s a turnaround from the previous treasurer, now-Gov. Gina Raimondo, who drew criticism by refusing to disclose information related to fees and performance while shifting more state investments into alternatives.

But pension systems cannot truly act independently of lawmakers. For instance, many need approval from lawmakers to lower their long-term investment return assumptions. While CalPERS does not have that restriction, politics is still at play in determining how quickly the system can implement some of its decisions. Its plan to lower its return assumption, for example, would take place over a decade. “If [pension plans] were really independent, they wouldn’t care what lawmakers thought,” Boyd says of the overall dilemma state and local pension plans face. “They’d lower their assumptions, become a lot more conservative and ask the governments to pony up now. It’s a very, very difficult situation to be in.”

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | OCTOBER 2015




How Blacksburg, Va., Got So Many People to Go Solar.

Dozens of U.S. communities have launched similar programs, but Blacksburg, Va.’s is different.

Solar is cheaper than it’s ever been before. The cost of installing solar panels on the average home has plummeted 70 percent since 1998. Nevertheless, the upfront costs of installing panels still require a decent chunk of change. That’s where a program like Solarize Blacksburg comes into play.

Blacksburg, Va., a city of about 50,000, launched the program — the first of its kind in Virginia — early last year in an effort to get more city residents to go solar. Working with installers, the city, along with community partners, negotiated a substantial discount for homeowners, lowering costs by 16 percent to an average savings of $3,256 per installed solar array. Today, it costs about $26,000 to install 5 kilowatts on an average home, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Solarize Blacksburg is not unique. Rather, it’s one of many “solarize” campaigns. The model started in 2009 as a grassroots effort to help residents of Portland, Ore., overcome the financial and logistical barriers to installing solar power. Since then, dozens of communities across the U.S. have launched their own versions of a neighborhood collective purchasing program.

Blacksburg’s version differs from past programs in that it “puts demand last,” says Chase Counts, energy efficiency program manager for the nonprofit Community Housing Partners, which helps run Solarize Blacksburg. Other solarize models typically start when a neighborhood or team of neighbors get together, form a co-op, and then vet and choose a contractor that will perform all of the solar installations. “We chose a different kind of model where we actually find the contractors upfront,” says Counts. “We get them to agree to specific pricing options, different technical specifications and then we drive the demand from there.”

And drive demand it did. Solarize Blacksburg saw residential solar quadruple in the six months after its launch. The results surprised program officials because they weren’t sure whether solar would catch on in the state at all. One reason for the skepticism is that Blacksburg is a college town, home to Virginia Tech, and therefore the housing is 70 percent renter-occupied. Another reason is that Virginia’s energy policies aren’t especially favorable for solar. “The solarize model has spread largely in states that had very friendly solar energy policies,” says Carol Davis, Blacksburg’s sustainability manager. Given the state’s regulatory framework, she says, “Solarize Blacksburg was a gamble.”

But Solarize Blacksburg and a follow-up program to it, Solarize Montgomery, were both enormously successful. More than 800 people combined signed up, largely because there was “so much pent-up demand for residential solar that hadn’t been tapped in the state,” says Davis.

Both Solarize Blacksburg and Solarize Montgomery, which is the county in which Blacksburg is located, were one-time programs. “We didn’t want to create the community impression that these solarize programs will be ongoing,” says Counts. “That might result in potential participants thinking, ‘Well, I won’t sign up this year because they are going to run it next year, so I will just wait again.’”

So Solarize Blacksburg and Solarize Montgomery were never meant to be ongoing. As city officials started planning the program, they looked at what had happened with other solarize programs. “While we were really excited about the prospect of this huge bump in residential solar when the program was live,” says Davis, “what we saw that came next was actually the most encouraging. After a program closes out, it seems to jump-start the adoption of solar in the community.”

In fact, a study by Yale and New York universities found that residents are more likely to install solar if other systems have already been installed in the community. Ten additional installations in a given ZIP code, the study found, increased the probability of adoption by 7.8 percent. “That’s why we’re not doing another program,” says Davis. “We gave solar a push. Now we want it to move on its own, and we’re seeing evidence that it is.”

In Montgomery County alone, solar use grew by 273 percent from December 2012 to July 2015. “Since we launched the Solarize campaign — we won’t take 100 percent of the credit, but we’ll take a good bit of the credit — residential solar has more than doubled across the whole state,” says Davis. Indeed, Solarize Blacksburg has had quite a ripple effect: To date, at least 25 other Virginia communities have followed Blacksburg’s lead and created solarize programs. Since 2012, residential solar has grown by 122 percent across the state.

GOVERNING.COM

BY ELIZABETH DAIGNEAU | OCTOBER 2015




What a Little Dose of Privatization Could Do.

When an agency fails as spectacularly as the Boston region’s transit system has, it’s time for some competition.

Many conservatives hail privatization as the magic bullet to fix bloated government bureaucracies. Many liberals reflexively dismiss it as putting profits before people. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle. And sometimes it takes a crisis to show exactly where privatization could work for taxpayers.

One of those places is the Greater Boston’s region’s transit agency. There can be little doubt that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), is in crisis. Last year’s record snow and cold, along with the damage inflicted by a $7.3 billion maintenance backlog and huge payments to service the nearly $9 billion it owes in debt and interest, finally brought the system to its knees.

Since that time, MBTA’s leadership has been replaced, a winter resiliency program has been implemented, and the authority has won a three-year reprieve from Massachusetts anti-privatization law.

Government panels and think tanks are among the organizations that have focused on the MBTA in the wake of last winter’s meltdown, and the data they have developed should guide MBTA policymakers as they try to emerge from what would be called bankruptcy in the private sector.

One idea that should be pursued is opening MBTA bus-maintenance services to private competition. A study by former Massachusetts Inspector General Greg Sullivan for the Pioneer Institute (I am affiliated with Pioneer as a senior fellow but was not involved in the preparation of the report) estimates that competitive procurement would save the MBTA about $50 million annually.

Sullivan found that in 2013 the MBTA had the highest maintenance costs per hour of bus operations of any of the nation’s 425 bus transit agencies. The costs are largely attributable to high staffing levels and labor hours per vehicle mile.

Sullivan’s numbers mirrored federal data. According to the Federal Transit Administration-sponsored Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System, MBTA’s total bus-maintenance costs were not only higher than any of its peers (Atlanta, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.), but its maintenance cost per vehicle revenue mile was a stunning 92.2 percent higher than the average of the five agencies. Clearly, bus maintenance is a service that could benefit from competitive procurement.

Other privatization opportunities have also emerged. Last year, the MBTA reinstituted late-night service on weekends, running until 2:30 a.m. instead of 1 a.m. Businesses pledged to help support the service, which had been tried before and shut down in 2005 due to lack of riders, but their contributions have fallen short of promises. Like any transit agency, the MBTA also has a number of regular bus lines with lower ridership.

Rather than discontinuing low-ridership lines and late-night service, the authority could reduce its losses by using smaller buses to provide both. But the MBTA has only full-size buses, making these services two more candidates for competitive procurement.

When he won a three-year reprieve from Massachusetts’ anti-privatization law, Gov. Charlie Baker said he had no interest in large-scale MBTA privatization, which could quickly turn into a political and substantive quagmire. But experience has taught us that less-ambitious forms of privatization, such as the targeted use of competitive procurement, can pay dividends that make it worth wading into the ideological waters.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHARLES CHIEPPO | OCTOBER 16, 2015




Instead of Fighting, Some Cities Team Up With Airbnb and Uber.

State and local governments have had a tumultuous relationship with Uber, Airbnb and other online companies that let people book rides, rooms, and goods and services from people rather than big businesses. Observers have focused a lot of attention on government attempts to control peer-to-peer services, yet some state and local governments are trying to use the sharing economy to their own benefit.

So far, the efforts have been limited. Most recently, Uber announced a partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 180 cities to send Amber Alerts to their drivers. But interesting models have emerged in a couple of other areas.

Emergency Preparedness

Several companies use technology to let people book stays at other people’s houses instead of hotels. The biggest is Airbnb, which is expected to generate more than $850 million in revenue this year and by some estimates is worth more than the Marriott hotel chain. In 2012, when Hurricane Sandy hit the Northeast, some 1,400 Airbnb hosts — people who rent their rooms to others — listed their lodgings at no cost for people displaced by the storm. Since then, Airbnb hosts in other cities around the world — including Toronto, San Diego and Atlanta — have offered free rentals to displaced people during local emergencies.

In 2014, Portland, Ore., struck up an agreement with Airbnb to help streamline disaster response in an emergency (the city passed legislation allowing short-term rentals). Airbnb now identifies hosts who are willing to help and shares that information with the city. In return, Airbnb waives its service fee to hosts who offer free lodging. The company also trains hosts to prepare for emergencies and uses its app to notify users about possible crises. San Francisco’s Department of Emergency Management has a similar partnership with Airbnb.

Typically during an emergency, the Red Cross provides food and shelter to displaced people and families, and “people will also find shelter on their own, usually at local hotels and motels,” said Dan Douthit, the public information officer for Portland’s Bureau of Emergency Management. But available rooms can fill up quickly. “This agreement adds capacity; it isn’t meant to replace what the hospitality business provides,” he said. The hotel industry also lacks Airbnb’s database of hosts, which gives the city a real-time list of the number of lodgings available and where they’re located.

No emergency has happened in the Portland area that’s called for Airbnb hosts to help out so far. Douthit believes an earthquake would be a likely scenario, but a flood or major fire could put the agreement into action.

Transportation

Uber, the ride-booking service, has become popular in most major cities, and at least one local government sees an opportunity to work directly with the company.

Macomb County, Mich., located north of Detroit, has turned to Uber to provide door-to-door transportation for people who receive a summons for jury duty. The pilot project, launched in July, gives each juror an Uber code that covers a $20 ride to the courthouse (which Uber offers the county for free) on the morning of jury duty. County Clerk Carmella Sabaugh said the service gives jurors a safe ride to the courthouse and helps them avoid the hassles of limited parking in the area.

Local taxicab companies expressed concern about competition from Uber, but none were willing to offer free rides. Uber, which already offers a free ride to first-time customers, agreed to extend the offer to jurors for a trial period when approached by the county. Since 2004, the county has offered jurors free bus rides to the courthouse, but public transportation is limited, making Uber a convenient way for jurors to travel.

Macomb County’s pilot is believed to be the first of its kind in the country. Depending on its success, the program could be continued beyond the trial period in Macomb County and expand into other counties in Michigan, Michael White, the general manager for Uber Michigan, told the Detroit Free Press.

Ride-booking services are also helping local governments transport disabled travelers.

In July, Uber launched UberACCESS, a pilot program that adds wheelchair-accessible vehicles to its services in Austin, Texas. Similar programs already operate in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Portland and San Diego.

Meanwhile, Seattle passed an ordinance creating a 10-cent surcharge on every ride originating in the city with the several ride booking firms that operate there. The money will be used to help drivers defray the cost of owning and operating a wheelchair-accessible taxi, according to the Shared Use Mobility Center.

It’s too early to tell how successful these arrangements will be for governments. But technology has allowed a market for a need — in these cases, rooms and rides — to emerge by using information in an efficient and user-friendly way. And the sharing economy isn’t limited to lodgings and rides. It makes what is surplus available to those who need it more efficiently than do many markets that government regulates.

GOVERNING.COM

BY TOD NEWCOMBE | OCTOBER 14, 2015




State Pension Funding Levels in U.S. Improve for a Second Year.

The finances of more than two-thirds of U.S. state pension plans improved in fiscal year 2014, as a soaring stock market boosted returns and many states stopped incorporating losses from the recession into their pension calculations.

The median state pension last year had 70 percent of the assets needed to meet promised benefits, up from 69.2 percent in 2013, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It was the second straight increase in pension funding. Public pensions had median investment gains of 16.9 percent for the 12 months ended June 30, 2014 according to Wilshire Associates.

“It’s generally agreed that 2014 was mostly a year of improvement for public pension funds,” said Josh Gonze, who co-manages $10.5 billion of municipal bonds at Thornburg Investment Management in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Thornburg’s $7.3 billion Limited Term fund is the 13th largest open-end tax-exempt mutual fund, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping short-term interest rates near zero and an improving economy boosted the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index of U.S. stocks by 24.6 percent in the 12 months through June 30, 2014 including dividends, helping to ease the strain on public pensions.

Broad numbers mask big difference in the health of public pensions between states. Eight of 13 states whose funding level declined were states with below average funding levels.

“We have states that seem to be in genuine trouble,” Gonze said, listing Illinois, Kentucky, Alaska and New Jersey. “And clearly states that are not in any trouble at all.”

Illinois, with a pension shortfall of more than $100 billion, remains the state with worst-funded retirement system, with a ratio of assets to liabilities of 39.3 percent, followed by Kentucky at 45 percent and Connecticut at 50.4 percent.

In May, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a 2013 pension overhaul saying it violated the state constitution’s ban on reducing worker retirement benefits. The ruling highlighted the lack of legal flexibility some states have in addressing their pension funding deficits.

Accounting Change

New Jersey’s pensions are projected to run out of assets to pay liabilities between 2021 and 2032, depending on the retirement system, under new accounting rules that most states began implementing in 2014, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

New Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules require public pensions to use a lower discount rate to value liabilities for plans with projected asset depletion dates and market value rather than the actuarial value of assets among other things.

Puerto Rico, Illinois and New Jersey are the three issuers whose pension funding deficits are serious enough that Thornburg is avoiding their securities, Gonze said. Thornburg’s limited term fund focuses on debt maturing in 10 years or less.

More Retirees

Loop Capital Markets, in a report last month, said it expects “continued bifurcation” among governments in terms of the fiscal health of their pensions.

“A combination of strong pension protections, coupled with low funded levels, should be especially noted as they indicate escalating budgetary pressure,” Loop’s report said. “For those perennially struggling with funding pension payments and low funded levels, these pressures are not expected to abate without significant change in plan fundamentals.”

State that had the biggest improvement in funding include Idaho, whose, pension funding ratio rose 7.6 percentage points to 93.1 percent and Oklahoma, whose actuarial value of assets divided by actuarial accrued liabilities gained 6.5 percentage points to 73 percent.

In the last six years Idaho’s pension funding has improved by 19.2 percentage points, the most of any state, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Michigan’s pension funding ratio has declined the most during that period to 59.9 percent from 83.6 percent. Michigan is one of three states, including Alaska and Ohio that have more retired public employees than active members, according to Loop.

Bloomberg News

by Martin Z Braun

October 12, 2015 — 9:00 PM PDT Updated on October 13, 2015 — 5:01 AM PDT




Chicagoans' Cost to Exit Swap Agreements Approaches $300 Million.

Chicago’s attempt to clean up a legacy of wrong-way bets on interest rates is costing taxpayers at least $270 million since Moody’s Investors Service cut its rating to junk in May, city documents show.

The payouts to Wall Street banks, which come as the Windy City considers a record tax increase to cover pension costs, are more than the city spends a year to collect garbage at 613,000 homes, and could cover the cost of hiring more than 2,000 police officers. The pain isn’t over yet as officials plan another round of debt restructuring that could cost $110 million to unwind derivatives on its water debt early next year.

“I don’t think the public should be gambling with its funds,” said Richard Ciccarone, Chicago-based chief executive officer of Merritt Research Services, who has been analyzing municipal finance since the 1970s. “Save the speculation for people who risk their own money, not for taxpayers.”

The city was forced to restructure obligations after decades of failing to address its rising pensions and borrowing to cover debt service, a legacy that began under former Mayor Richard M. Daley and continued until this year under Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Moody’s downgrade of Chicago’s general-obligation debt in May forced the city to begin a debt restructuring the mayor was already planning.

Chicago and other municipal borrowers in the past decade made bets on the future direction of interest rates through agreements with banks to swap interest payments. But when rates fell under the Federal Reserve’s attempt to stimulate the economy after the financial crisis, many issuers ended up on the wrong side of the bets. Since then issuers have paid at least $5 billion to unwind the agreements.

Sewer Debt

The city sold about $419 million of bonds Wednesday, part of which will cover $70.2 million to end an interest-rate swaps tied to variable-rate debt for the city’s sewer system. That’s on top of $185 million paid to unwind swaps on general-obligation and sales tax debt since May. The estimated $270 million total also includes the cost to banks and other professionals to restructure, according to data Bloomberg compiled from city documents. Chicago owed as much as $396 million to banks in March, before the city started terminating the swap agreements, according to market values at the time. Chicago paid less than mark-to-market valuations, said Molly Poppe, a city spokeswoman.

While the city’s refinancing and tax hike increase the burden on residents at a time when the city’s finances are already squeezed, investors and credit raters have praised the move. One month after cutting Chicago’s rating to speculative grade, Moody’s called the refinancing a “credit positive.” Now there’s more certainty about how much the city may have to pay out, Matt Butler, a Moody’s analyst in Chicago, said in a June 11 report.

Yields Decline

Chicago’s bonds has rallied since Emanuel pitched his plan to raise property levies by $588 million over four years. Federally tax-exempt bonds maturing in 2038 traded last week for an average of $1.04, up from $1.01 five weeks earlier, before the tax hike was announced. That trimmed the yield to 4.5 percent from 5 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“It felt like the market was not comfortable with the amount of risk that we were taking,” Carole Brown, Chicago’s chief financial officer, said in an interview Monday. The restructuring “demonstrates kind of a conservative and responsible financial practice to eliminate that risk by eliminating those swaps.”

Wednesday’s deal will take care of the wastewater swaps, and the city will likely end the water-swap agreements in early 2016, according to Brown. Chicago will have to pay about $110 million to terminate the latter, according to the city.

About $332 million of the sewer issue is federally tax-exempt and was re-offered as fixed-rate obligations, and an additional $87 million of taxable debt will help cover the cost to terminate the agreements, according to bond documents.

A portion of federally tax-exempt securities due in January 2039 sold at a top yield of 4.4 percent, according to preliminary data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s about 1.5 percentage point more than 23-year benchmark municipal bonds. The taxable securities sold for as much as 6 percent yield, preliminary data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Borrowing Costs

The second-lien wastewater bonds, which are repaid from sewer-system revenue, won a higher rating from Standard & Poor’s this week, which raised its rating by one step to A, five levels above junk, and applauded the elimination of the liquidity risk. S&P has a stable outlook on the debt.

The wastewater credit faces “elevated volatility” because of its ties to the city, said Robert Amodeo, head of municipals for Western Asset Management Co., which has $452.5 billion under management, including some Chicago debt. He said he is considering buying the wastewater bonds given the strength of the underlying credit.

“There are some ongoing challenges there,” Amodeo said in a telephone interview from New York. “You can’t completely separate it from the city.”

The city’s ratings and borrowing costs are tied to its progress in getting the refinancing done, according to Brown. The hope is that credit companies will respond positively to the Emanuel administration’s steps to secure revenue for pensions, and eliminate the liquidity risk, leading to a higher rating and better borrowing costs, she said.

In the meantime, taxpayers in the city of 2.7 million are on the hook for the higher tab tied to deals made decades ago.

“We’re paying these fees at the same time the city is looking at the biggest tax increase in its history,” said Saqib Bhatti, a Chicago-based fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, which has been recommending that governments with swaps should push to cut the fees rather than pay Wall Street banks. “Working residents of the city are going to have to sacrifice for the city to pay these fees to the banks.”

Bloomberg News

by Elizabeth Campbell and Darrell Preston

October 13, 2015 — 9:00 PM PDT Updated on October 14, 2015 — 2:28 PM PDT




Muni-Bond Buying Falls to Decade Low as Investors Balk at Yields.

The buy-and-hold strategy that dominates the municipal-bond market is lacking the buying side of that equation.

Securities dealers’ customers, including individuals and mutual funds, purchased less than $20 billion of state and local government debt in each of the last 27 trading days, according to a rolling five-day average compiled by research firm Municipal Market Analytics. That’s the lowest level of trading in at least a decade, a sign that individuals are hesitant to buy more municipal debt with benchmark interest rates close to a five-month low.

“Yields are extremely low and so people who own bonds have reinvestment risk,” said Matt Fabian, a partner at Concord, Massachusetts-based MMA. “You could trade it away, but what do you trade into? Spreads are so tight that you don’t get much of a pickup in trading by extending maturity or buying lower-grade credits.”

The $3.7 trillion municipal market has rallied since the Federal Reserve last month kept borrowing costs close to zero. That pushed the yield on AAA 10-year munis down to 2.07 percent from as much as 2.4 percent in July, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

It’s not easy to find securities with yields that are much higher. Investors get an extra 1.04 percentage points of yield to buy 30-year debt instead of bonds due in a decade, a less attractive proposition than the 1.24-percentage-point average pickup over the past five years, Bloomberg data show. BBB rated 10-year bonds have interest rates 1.13 percentage point higher than top-rated munis, below the average spread of 1.33 percentage point since the start of 2013.

It doesn’t help trading volume that the way individuals buy and sell munis is shifting, Fabian said. Fewer investors have brokers who are paid a commission for each trade, instead of a money-management fee, which is curbing the financial incentive for brokers to buy and sell bonds at a time of depressed yields, he said.

“There needs to be more opportunity in trading — we need at least more volatile spreads,” Fabian said. “Higher yields would definitely help.”

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 14, 2015 — 8:43 AM PDT




Muni Market Proving Haven for Buyers of Junk Issuers Amid Rout.

The corporate junk-bond rout loses its force when it comes to the U.S. municipal-debt market, where investors are snapping up securities backed by financially struggling businesses.

Consider the steel industry. Local-government bonds sold on behalf of U.S. Steel Corp., the nation’s second-largest producer, trade for more than 100 cents on the dollar, even after its corporate debt tumbled 17 percent since mid-July to 83 cents, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Rival AK Steel Corp.’s munis trade almost 40 cents higher than its other securities.

The diverging prices highlight a disconnect in the high-yield market: While the corporate bonds had their biggest loss since 2011 during the third quarter, the tax-free debt rallied. That’s because money has been flowing into muni funds over the past two months as yields slid to the lowest since April, igniting demand for the riskiest securities.

“People can argue it’s way out of alignment in terms of the absolute levels on corporates these days,” said Jim Colby, who runs the $1.6 billion Market Vectors High Yield Municipal Index exchange-traded fund at Van Eck Global. He attributed the gap to the lack of munis available. “If you want these bonds, you have to pay the price.”

The corporate securities are a niche of the $3.7 trillion muni market, where state and local governments can sell bonds to subsidize airline terminals, pollution-controls for factories and other projects that are seen as having a public benefit. The companies repay the debt, which isn’t guaranteed by the governments. About $25 billion of fixed-rate, federally tax-exempt economic and industrial-development bonds have been issued, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

There has been a dearth of them lately. Only $299 million of the industrial-development securities were sold this year. By contrast, businesses have issued $1.7 trillion of new speculative-grade corporate bonds in the past five years, a binge that’s fueled speculation that more borrowers will default if the U.S. economy slows.

U.S. Steel’s munis, issued through agencies including Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County Industrial Development Authority, have been largely sheltered from the losses felt by corporate-bond holders as the company faces pressure from declining prices and competitors abroad.

Prices Diverge

Among transactions over $1 million, securities due in 2024 traded Thursday at 103 cents on the dollar to yield 6 percent — equivalent to 10.6 percent on a taxable bond for the highest earners. The debt fell from 107 cents in previous exchanges at the end of September.

While the current price is down 8 percent from July, the company’s corporate debt fell even more: Bonds due in 2022 last changed hands at 83 cents, down from par three months ago. That pushed the yield up to 11.4 percent.

AK Steel munis also due in 2024 last traded at 89 cents on the dollar. While that’s down from about 100 cents in July, the company’s taxable debt maturing in 2022 changed hands at 52 cents.

“We’re seeing the spreads on those types of corporate names in our market widen out,” said Steve Czepiel, who runs a $997 million high-yield muni fund for Delaware Investments in Philadelphia. “There may be a buying opportunity where they’re just being yanked around by their corporate counterparts.”

Moody’s Investors Service rates AK Steel’s senior unsecured debt, including the munis, Caa1, the fifth-lowest grade, signaling a high risk of default, and put it on review for downgrade on Oct. 8. Similar securities from U.S. Steel are ranked B1, four levels below investment grade. Shares of both companies have fallen this year to their lowest levels since 2003.

Such muni bonds aren’t exempt from the risks faced by other investors. When American Airlines parent AMR Corp. declared bankruptcy in 2011, the tax-exempt securities it backed dropped as much as 68 percent. Two years later, the bonds rallied to above 100 cents from as low as 18.9 cents as American merged with US Airways Group Inc.

Other companies that have borrowed through the muni market include Alcoa Inc., Marathon Oil Corp., NRG Energy Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and Westlake Chemical Corp., Bloomberg data show. All of their debt is either speculative grade or in the lowest investment-grade tier.

Louisiana Oil

Marathon tax-exempt bonds due in 2037 from Louisiana’s Parish of St. John the Baptist traded this week at an average 102.4 cents on the dollar, down about 2 cents from July, Bloomberg data show. By contrast, corporate debt with a similar coupon that matures in 2045 changed hands at 88.5 cents, compared with an average of 96 cents three months ago. Moody’s rates Marathon three steps above speculative grade. Its stock has dropped 33 percent this year.

Tax-exempt investors are willing to take the risk as the Federal Reserve keeps its benchmark lending rate near zero. Almost half of the Barclays Plc high-yield muni index is made up of Puerto Rico and tobacco securities, both of which are at risk of default. That’s leaving bonds tied to some of the largest U.S. corporations as an alluring alternative.

“The most important thing to the muni-bond buyer is the after-tax return,” said Ken Naehu, a managing director at Banyan Tree Asset Management in Los Angeles. “The taxable guys are looking more at dollar price and recovery risk.”

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 14, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on October 15, 2015 — 8:37 AM PDT




California Tech Boom Lures Muni-Bond Buyers as Deficit Era Ends.

Bond investors are betting that a resurgent tech-fueled boom in the Golden State isn’t just California dreaming.

The state, which faced ballooning budget shortfalls after the housing crash, is selling about $961 million in general-obligation bonds next week, its last sale of the securities this year. California debt is outperforming amid a rally in the municipal market as the state’s finances benefit from the fast-growing economy.

“If you invest in California, you’re betting that their economic improvement is likely to continue,” said Paul Mansour, head of municipal research at Hartford, Connecticut-based Conning, which holds California bonds among its $11 billion of tax-exempt debt. “I’m reasonably optimistic that we’ve got another few years to go of growing tax revenues and building up reserves.”

Fueled by Silicon Valley’s technology industry and a real-estate market revival, California’s economy has outpaced the nation’s since 2012. Along with tax increases backed by Governor Jerry Brown, that has halted the chronic shortfalls that once plagued the state, allowing it to pay off debt and add to its savings ahead of the next slowdown.

Wall Street has rewarded the turnaround. In July, Standard & Poor’s lifted the state’s grade to AA-, the highest California has had in 14 years. Bonds from the state have returned 2.47 percent this year, about half a percentage point more than the overall muni market, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.

California has benefited from “increased revenues and some controls on spending in a time when they really needed it,” said Regina Shafer, senior portfolio manager of tax-exempt investments at USAA Investment Management, which holds $9.9 billion in munis, including California debt. “That bodes very well for the state and for the future.”

California’s economy should continue to expand faster than the country’s over the next couple of years because of the technology industry and growth in residential and commercial construction, economists at Wells Fargo Securities said in a report this month.

The home to companies including Alphabet Inc., Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc. has also been benefiting from stock-price gains pocketed by its wealthiest residents: In May, Brown’s administration forecast that its residents will reap $109 billion in capital gains next year, up from $79 billion in 2013. Such income has driven a jump in the state’s revenue.

The new bonds, some of which will refinance higher-cost debt, will be sold in an auction among underwriters Tuesday. All but $106 million of them are exempt from state and federal income taxes.

The demand for such securities has been heightened by a ballot measure passed in 2012, which boosted income taxes on the highest-earning households through 2018. Labor unions are among those pushing to make the increase permanent.

“With their state personal-income tax at higher levels, it certainly makes a California bond more compelling,” said USAA’s Shafer.

The difference between the yield on California bonds and top-rated securities has widened since the beginning of the year, when it dropped to the lowest since at least 2013, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. California 10-year bonds yield 2.36 percent, about 0.3 percentage point more than AAA rated securities. That gap was as little as 0.17 percentage point in January, one-fourth of what it was at the June 2013 peak.

Even with the increase, California’s yields are still lower than some comparable states — making the securities expensive in comparison. Ten-year securities issued by Pennsylvania, which has the same investment-grade ratings from S&P and Moody’s Investors Service, yield 0.54 percentage point more than top-rated debt. For Connecticut, whose S&P rating is one step higher, that gap is 0.46 percentage point.
Mansour at Conning, which might purchase the new bonds, said

California’s growing reserves and lower debt load may lead to another credit-rating increase.
“There is room for credit improvement in the coming year,” Mansour said.

An upgrade isn’t being signaled by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch, which have stable outlooks, indicating no changes are imminent.

Moody’s said in a report this month that the state has “significantly less flexibility” than others in budgeting and raising funds. Its revenue is volatile because it draws a large share of taxes from wealthy residents whose incomes are tied closely to the stock market, which has slipped from record highs.
Investors should weigh whether California’s economic pace will continue and if Brown, a Democrat, can resist pressure to spend the windfall, said Rob Amodeo, head of municipals for Western Asset Management Co., which has $25 billion of munis under management and may buy some of the new debt.

“The governor has done a good job in not permitting austerity fatigue to settle into their budget,” he said.

Bloomberg News

by Romy Varghese

October 15, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on October 16, 2015 — 5:41 AM PDT




Fitch: Funded Ratios Stabilize, Demographic Strains Grow for U.S. State Pensions.

Fitch Ratings-New York-15 October 2015:  As funded ratios continue to stabilize, a combination of more people retiring and fewer state and local government employees being hired highlight the continued pressure on U.S. state pensions, according to Fitch Ratings in a new report.

The median funded ratio for major state pension systems was almost unchanged for the second straight year in 2014 at 71.5%. Several years of strong market gains have offset steadily rising liabilities. However, the recovery of systems’ investment portfolios has not necessarily meant a recovery in their funded ratios, according to Senior Director Douglas Offerman. ‘Unlike asset portfolios that are prone to year-to-year cyclicality, pension liabilities have risen steadily for all but a handful of closed systems because active employees continue to accrue benefits as they work,’ said Offerman. ‘Additionally, few pension systems have implemented benefit reforms that immediately reduce liabilities.’ As a result, funded ratios have not returned to their pre-recession peaks.

States’ median debt burdens total 2.4% of personal income in 2014 while the median pension burden is 3.7% of personal income. The debt burden in 2014 is a slightly lower percentage than Fitch’s update from last year while the unfunded pension burden is slightly higher. Additionally, contribution practices are improving. Actual pension contributions relative to governments’ actuarially-calculated levels are at their highest point since fiscal 2009. However, in nearly half of systems reviewed by Fitch, the contribution is inadequate relative to the levels calculated by actuaries. In fiscal 2014, 53% of major statewide systems received at least 100% of the actuarially-calculated contribution, up from 42% in fiscal 2011.

Eroding demographics are also increasingly weighing on state pension liabilities. The median major pension system’s ratio of active employees to retirees and beneficiaries fell to 1.4 last year, a rather stark contrast to 1.9 in 2008, which according to Offerman is indicative of longer retirements and consequent higher benefit payment obligations. Moreover, ‘headcount for numerous state and local governments has been stagnant while weakening demographics is shifting more of the contribution burden onto government employers,’ said Offerman.

Fitch’s ‘2015 State Pension Update’ is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.




GASB Proposes Changes to Pension Standards for Certain Governments.

Norwalk, CT, October 14, 2015 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today proposed new guidance intended to assist governments that participate in certain multiple-employer pension plans to meet the reporting requirements of GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions.

GASB Chairman David A. Vaudt said, “The GASB acted quickly in issuing this proposed guidance in response to stakeholder concerns regarding a situation that could make it difficult–or impossible–for some governments, through no fault of their own, to comply with the new pension standards.”

The proposed guidance would apply to governments that participate in certain private or federally-sponsored, multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans, such as Taft-Hartley plans or plans with similar characteristics.

During the implementation of GASB Statement 68, stakeholders raised concerns regarding the inability of governments whose employees are provided pension benefits through such multiple-employer pension plans to obtain information related to pensions required under Statement 68. Specifically, stakeholder concerns focused on the inability of those governments to obtain measurements and other relevant data points needed to comply with the requirements of the Statement.

To respond to these concerns, the GASB has issued an Exposure Draft, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions Provided through Certain Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans, which proposes to assist these governments by focusing employer accounting and financial reporting requirements for those pension plans on obtainable information.

In lieu of the existing requirements under Statement 68, the proposed Statement would establish separate standards for employers that participate in pension plans that meet criteria set forth in the proposal. The guidance would establish separate standards for note disclosures of descriptive information about the plan, benefit terms, contribution terms, and required supplementary information presenting required contribution amounts for the past 10 fiscal years.

The full text of the Exposure Draft is available on the GASB website, www.gasb.org. Stakeholders are encouraged to review the proposal and provide comments by November 16, 2015.




S&P: Bank Loans Pose Potential Credit Risks, But For Now Issuers' Liquidity Positions Help Support Most Ratings.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services continues to scrutinize the credit impact of bank loans assumed by issuers and their potential effects on Standard & Poor’s rated debt. This commentary updates our Jan. 28, 2015. report on bank loans (see “Standard & Poor’s Maintains Its Focus On Direct Loans After Evaluating $15.8 Billion In 2014”) to include our 2015 year-to-date experience. Through Sept. 25, 2015, and including all prior years, we have reviewed 513 bank loans totaling approximately $20 billion in par by applying the methodology detailed in our 2012 contingent risk criteria.

The overwhelming majority of these bank loans we have evaluated have not, for the most part, negatively affected the credit quality of the obligors’ debt rated by Standard & Poor’s. This is because in our view (1) the parties to the transactions negotiated terms that we consider to be consistent with existing credit quality and current liquidity positions vis-à-vis the direct purchase terms under which acceleration could occur, (2) the financing structures do not present material contingent liquidity risks, and (3) the loans do not explicitly or implicitly subordinate other liens but the loan documents often provide preferential rights to the bank, in the event of a covenant default, which may result in a credit concern if liquidity is insufficient.

Overview

Often, the bank loan financing documents contained provisions that introduced additional risks that the obligors’ current liquidity position may or may not fully have mitigated. If liquidity were to erode in our view, credit quality and ratings could be negatively affected and the magnitude of the rating decline could be greater than it would be absent these loans.

Looking at 2015 exclusively, Standard & Poor’s evaluated the impact of 109 bank loans with a par amount totaling $4.22 billion on the obligors’ public debt ratings. The loans ranged from less than $287,000 to $300 million. To date, the ratings or outlooks of six obligors have been negatively affected by bank loans. The 109 loans evaluated thus far in 2015 include:

Measuring the U.S. public finance bank loan market remains a challenge for various reasons, most notably because bank loans are not explicitly required to be disclosed as they are not deemed to meet the legal definition of securities. Nevertheless, Standard & Poor’s observes that issuers across the municipal finance market continue to meaningfully use bank loans as an alternative financing product to manage their debt profiles for various reasons, including cost of capital, ease of issuance, and often to avoid the put features of various bonds.

Although the instances where we have adjusted ratings as a result of issuers’ use of bank loans have been limited, Standard & Poor’s continues to emphasize that disclosure of the loans and their terms is critical to identifying those cases where the loans do affect credit quality. Moreover, loan disclosure promotes transparency for all market participants, including the retail and institutional investors that use Standard & Poor’s ratings. In our view, reviewing the loans is critical because each transaction is separately negotiated, the terms are not uniform, disclosure of the loans can be inconsistent, and the potential for contingent liquidity exposures or altering the relative priority of creditors’ claims can be significant even for fixed-rate instruments. Consequently, we continue to underscore with issuers that carry Standard & Poor’s ratings the importance of providing us with bank loan documents, irrespective of whether we assign ratings to the issuers’ loans. Our view is that bank loans lacking the protections outlined in our criteria have the potential to meaningfully affect the credit quality of rated capital market instruments largely because of covenants that can trigger acceleration even in fixed-rate instruments.

06-Oct-2015




GFOA Hosts Meeting to Discuss Implementing School Budgeting Best Practices.

Alliance for Excellence in School Budgeting members met last week at GFOA’s office in Chicago to develop a set of guiding principles for the budget process, based on GFOA’s new best practices. These guidelines center on aligning district resources with the areas that will have greatest impact on student achievement. The Alliance members are from 35 school districts across the country, from the largest to some of the smallest, and from urban, suburban, and rural areas. They worked on developing communication ideas and analyzing goals and priorities (see below for more information about their process).

Alliance members will be implementing GFOA’s new Best Practices in School Budgeting over the next year. GFOA will support their efforts in several ways through online training courses and eLearning sessions. In addition, resources available on GFOA’s website – based on the best practices – help academic and finance staff align resources with student outcomes by incorporating research-proven practices into a cohesive budget process.

Working on Implementation

At the meeting, Alliance members – superintendents, chief finance officers, chief academic officers, budget directors, and more – worked on implementing best practices that GFOA staff has developed in conjunction with school district staff and other education finance experts. Specifically, they developed communication ideas and analyzed goals and priorities.

Communication. The components of a communication strategy start with an overview of the organizations’ processes, which allows them to find ways of engaging stakeholders and explaining how and why decisions are made. Next, districts must identify who will deliver the message, and to whom. Messages should then be tailored to that target audience, but it’s not that easy. Districts must also determine which communication channels will be most effective. And once the message is delivered, it’s time to gather feedback and adjust the message accordingly.

Goals. Districts also need to develop goals. One way to approach this step is by using the SMARTER framework. Goals should be specific – that is, they specify a precise outcome or result. They should also be measureable (verifiable and, ideally, quantifiable); achievable (grounded in reality); relevant (focused on student achievement); time-bound (laying out both short- and long-term objectives); exciting (reaching for ambitious improvement); and resourced (aligning finances with goals).

To define goals for academic achievement and make those goals understood by the schools, districts need to assess their strategic environment; set SMARTER goals for multi-year, district-wide improvement; understand baseline performance at the school level; and set goals for each school. To take that first step, start with goals that include specific outcomes, and aim for outcomes that are significant but manageable. Establish what data will the district will use to show whether progress is being made on a goal, and begin collecting evidence. Next, identify the root causes of gaps between the district’s goals and its reality.

Best Practices. Alliance members will be implementing GFOA’s new Best Practices in School Budgeting, which was recently passed by GFOA’s executive board, over the next year. The best practices center on aligning resources with areas of greatest impact on student achievement. GFOA will support these efforts with collaborative meetings, newly developed eLearning modules, and other resources. GFOA will begin recruiting members for the next phase of the Alliance in early 2016.

GFOA’s best practices for school include steps that are organized in five major phases: plan and prepare, set instructional priorities, pay for priorities, implement a plan, and ensure sustainability. The best practices include specific examples and guidance on implementing the process. Alliance members have benefitted from adopting the process, and GFOA will document and share their successes over the course of the project.

Training. GFOA is developing eLearning courses to help districts with these steps. The courses are self-paced and take approximately 30 minutes and 1 hour to complete.

Budget Award. GFOA’s Award for Best Practices in School Budgeting and Award for Best Practices in Community College programs are based on the best practices in school budgeting. GFOA is finalizing the award criteria, which will allow school districts and community colleges to demonstrate process excellence and receive deserved recognition. Applications will be available for budgets with fiscal years beginning in calendar year 2017.

Contact GFOA for More Information

To find out more about the alliance, the best practices, or any other information regarding the project, please contact Mike Mucha, director of GFOA’s Research and Consulting Center. More information on the project is also available on GFOA’s website.

Thursday, October 8, 2015




S&P’s Big Picture Look at U.S. Local Government Distressed Ratings, Bankruptcies, and Rating Correlations.

In this CreditMatters TV segment, credit analysts Lisa Schroeer and Jane Ridley discuss how we analyze U.S. local government distressed ratings, bankruptcies, and the correlation between rating pledges.

Watch the video.

Oct. 7, 2015




Standard & Poor’s Proposed Criteria For Rating Jointly Supported Financial Obligations.

In this CreditMatters TV segment, Senior Director Ekaterina Curry and Criteria Officer Liz Sweeney discuss our recent request for comment regarding proposed methodology revisions to our joint support criteria, including the implications for ratings and obligors.

Watch the video.

Oct. 6, 2015




Ratings Agencies Diverge on Post-Default Approaches.

Kroll Bond Rating Agency last week weighed in on post-default ratings, a subject of increasing interest in the municipal industry.

Four of the five biggest municipal bankruptcies in United States history have taken place in the last four years. And the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority will almost certainly create the greatest municipal default in U.S. history within the next few months.

Kroll noted the “changing landscape” in its Oct. 2 report, “Shouldn’t Defaulting on Debt Have Rating Consequences.”

While predicting defaults will remain low, the rating service said, “we do expect there will be a higher default rate going forward with substantially lower recoveries than has been experienced historically.”

When an issuer defaults the agencies lower its rating, though not necessarily to the lowest grade. Kroll, like Moody’s Investors Service would take into account recovery prospects. So even if the issuer has already defaulted, they may give the issuer something better than their lowest ratings based on prospects for a strong recovery on the debt.

Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s do not take into account recovery expectations in determining their lowest ratings.

The ratings agencies also vary in how they treat defaulted issuers in the years following defaults. Moody’s and Fitch are flexible. S&P and Kroll take more systematic approaches.

Moody’s doesn’t have a general policy on how it deals with issuers in the years after default because the situation of credits vary so greatly, said Moody’s spokesman David Jacobson.

At Fitch, “We consider the credit fundamentals of the issuer as it emerges, the restructured financial profile and the degree to which the forces triggering bankruptcy have been addressed,” said Jessalynn Moro, head of U.S. local government ratings. “If the credit fundamentals leading to an issuer’s default are unchanged post-default, the rating will remain low, in non-investment grade territory,” she said in an email. “Conversely, if an issuer is able to restructure its revenue, expenditure and/or debt profile in a way that makes default less likely in the future, Fitch’s rating will reflect those new fundamentals.”

Kroll said it “will generally view a decision by a municipal issuer to default on its debt as the basis for assignment of a non-investment grade rating for an extended period of time. KBRA will take this rating approach both for general obligation and non-general obligations debt which has been placed into default.” Adoption of a plan to repay bondholders in full may mitigate Kroll ‘s position. “KBRA will not take this long term position of assigning a non-investment grade rating in a situation where a municipality has been through a Chapter 9 bankruptcy but has not defaulted on its debt, although KBRA may assign a non-investment grade rating during the bankruptcy process,” the report added.

“It is KBRA’s view that the decision to default on a municipal debt payment reflects an essential unwillingness to pay its obligations on the part of the municipal issuer,” Kroll said. “In KBRA’s view, the decision to upgrade a credit to investment grade post-default would be based on successful implementation of a long term plan to maintain fiscally balanced operations and pay its obligations as well as fund the ongoing operations of the local government.”

Before considering an upgrade, KBRA would need to see evidence of “significant progress towards these goals over an extended period of time.”

S&P explained its position on defaulted issuers in a September 2013 report on U.S. local government general obligation ratings:

“While the issuer credit rating of a local government would fall to ‘D’ or ‘SD’ following a default on an actual debt obligation, the payment prospects for other GO debt may remain stronger (such as when the default results from insufficient funds for limited-tax GO debt and other GO debt enjoys an unlimited-tax pledge),” wrote S&P analyst Jeffrey Previdi and eight others. “Consistent with our criteria for appropriation-backed obligations, a failure to pay a capital lease obligation also caps the GO rating.”

S&P didn’t immediately respond to a request for details on how it treats ratings of defaulted obligations in the years that follow a default.

THE BOND BUYER

BY ROBERT SLAVIN

OCT 6, 2015 11:02am ET




Florida Supreme Court Decision Allows Municipalities to Issue Bonds Funding Green Energy for Commercial Properties.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Oct. 6, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — An important ruling by the Florida Supreme Court last week will allow Florida municipalities to issue bonds to fund “property assessed clean energy” (PACE) programs, which provide up-front financing to commercial property owners who want to use green energy in their buildings.

Representing the winning side of the case were Leon County Attorney Herbert W.A. Thiele; Elizabeth “Ellie” Neiberger, Susan H. Churuti, and JoLinda L. Herring of Bryant Miller Olive PA; Jon C. Moyle, Jr. and Karen Putnal of Moyle Law Firm; and Assistant State Attorney Georgia Anne Cappleman.

“The ruling is a big win for commercial property owners in Florida and a major victory for the state’s environment,” said Ellie Neiberger of Bryant Miller Olive. “The ruling gives local municipalities bonding authority that can make clean-energy projects more financially viable for commercial properties around the state.”

Giving local municipalities the bonding authority to pay for PACE programs is expected to help expand the use of the program in Florida, where it has only been used on a limited basis for commercial properties.

The PACE program is entirely voluntary. Commercial property owners who choose to participate enter financing agreements with a local municipality, agreeing to repay the improvement costs over the long-term through special assessments added to their property tax bills. The bonds are repaid with the assessment revenues, and there is no personal liability for the property owner.

Commercial property owners could tap into this financing source for green energy-related improvements such as doing energy-efficiency retrofits to buildings or adding solar structures.

The programs have gained traction around the country over the past four years and are proving to be popular in a number of other states, such as California, Connecticut and Ohio, said David Gabrielson, Executive Director of PACENow, a Pleasantville, N.Y.-based foundation-funded nonprofit that serves as an advocate and information provider for PACE financing.

The decision, announced Oct. 1, was the outcome of an appeal of a bond validation judgment in the Leon County Energy Improvement District’s favor. The District has been seeking the authority to issue $200 million in bonds to fund a PACE program, and appeals of validation hearing judgments go directly to the Florida Supreme Court.

Dean Minardi, CFO of Bing Energy International, LLC in Tallahassee, was hoping to use PACE financing last year for a green energy project he was working on personally on Gaines Street in Tallahassee. He applied for $200,000 in PACE financing with the Leon County Energy Improvement District, but had to finish the project without it as the case wound through the courts. But now, he sees opportunities around Leon County for similar projects.

“There will be significant demand for this financing, with the need to make older buildings more energy efficient,” Minardi said. “Because the return on investment on green energy is longer-term, many traditional lenders don’t want to finance such projects. Having access to this fund is a game changer.”

Around the state, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision is an important step in achieving the state’s energy conservation objectives, as outlined in Florida Statute, said Leon County Attorney Herb Thiele. “By enabling Leon County with this type of bonding authority, we can now help developments and buildings become more energy efficient,” he said. “This is good for business, good for government, and good for the environment.”

The case was Reynolds v. Leon County Energy Improvement District et al., case number SC14-710, in the Supreme Court of Florida.

About Bryant Miller Olive

With a distinguished 45-year history of serving its clients’ needs, Bryant Miller Olive represents governments, businesses and agencies in legal matters relating to public finance, state and local government law, complex transactions, project finance, and litigation. The firm has served as Bond Counsel on more deals than any other firm in the Southeast over the past five years, and more than any other firm in Florida over the past decade. Members of the firm are often called upon to handle some of the most complex legal issues in the boardroom and in the courtroom. The firm has offices in Tallahassee, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Atlanta and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit http://www.bmolaw.com.




Florida High Court Makes It Harder to Challenge Bond Validations.

BRADENTON, Fla. — In validating $700 million of clean energy bonds, the Florida Supreme Court overturned 60 years of case law and made it harder to challenge future bond validations.

The Florida justices overturned a 1955 precedent set in the case Meyers v. City of St. Cloud. The Meyers case held that a party that does not appear in a bond validation proceeding in circuit court, where the cases are initiated, still had the right to appeal from the trial court’s decision directly to the state Supreme Court.

From now on, litigants must appear in the initial circuit court validation case to preserve their right to appeal, the justices said in an Oct. 1 ruling.

The decision benefits issuers and bond attorneys because it can speed up the validation of bonds in Florida, a legal process that insulates the debt from future legal challenges, experts said. Bob Jarvis, a professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad College of Law, said justices got it wrong in 1955.

“If you want to challenge a case at the Florida Supreme Court, you’d better get involved at the trial court level and make sure you have standing,” he said.

The new ruling is a major change in state law that has benefitted litigants who disagreed with an issuer’s decision to issue debt or who simply used the fast-­tracked appeal process to point out a procedural or constitutional deficiency, said a Florida attorney who asked not to be identified. “It’s not good public policy,” the attorney said. “If someone broke the law, you should be able to simply take the record and appeal.”

The court ruled last week on two bond validation cases, affirming them both but remanding both for some changes. They were brought under a Florida bill passed in 2010 establishing a property assessed clean energy program.

Under the PACE law, local governments can issue revenue bonds to provide financing for residents and businesses that voluntarily agree to make energy conservation, renewable energy, and wind resistance improvements, and have non-­ad valorem assessments placed on their property tax bills to repay the debt.

In the case that overturned the 1955 precedent, the justices confirmed the circuit court’s validation of up to $200 million of commercial PACE revenue bonds for the Leon County Energy Improvement District in north Florida.

In a second ruling, the court validated up to $500 million of bonds for the Clean Energy Coastal Corridor, a PACE program established by the village of Biscayne Park and the towns of Bay Harbor Islands and Surfside in Miami­-Dade County.

In Florida, bond validation appeals go directly to the state Supreme Court “so as to provide assurance of the marketability of the bonds,” according to the ruling.

Litigants appealing both validation cases argued that the financing agreements for the PACE programs included the unlawful use of judicial foreclosure if the assessments could not be collected.

The Supreme Court agreed, and ordered the judicial foreclosure language struck from the financing agreements.

The appellant in the Leon County case failed to appear in the circuit court validation case, and lacked standing to appeal, the justices wrote.

Their ruling backtracked from six decades of Florida case law established in the Meyers case and three other bond validation cases since then based on Meyers.

“Under the plain terms of the statute, any person wishing to participate in bond validation proceedings must appear in the circuit court,” the justices wrote.

The ruling provides clarity to the bond validation process going forward, Jarvis said.

“You have to be personally affected by the court’s decision and therefore you have skin in the game,” Jarvis said, explaining why it is appropriate for parties to appear in the lower court case.

Jarvis also said the new ruling could potentially increase costs for litigants, if they choose to hire attorneys when the validation case begins before the circuit court.

If an issuer makes a mistake preparing bond documents, a citizen is now precluded from taking the record from the circuit court validation proceeding and pursuing an appeal, said the attorney who asked to remain anonymous.

The attorney said he would want appeal options open to ensure that bond validations are complete, and that bond documents are prepared properly.

Since a Florida validation case also involves the local state attorney as a participant, Holland & Knight partner and bond attorney Michael Wiener said his firm typically waits to close on a bond issue until after the 30­-day appeal period ends.

The new Supreme Court ruling limits the universe of potential appellants, Weiner said. “You would have some certainty that during the 30­day period no other parties could appear to appeal the decision,” he said.

The decision to validate Leon County’s bonds and overturn the standing law was hailed by Elizabeth Neiberger, an appellate attorney with Bryant Miller Olive PA who represented the county.

“I think the court did reach the correct decision on both points,” she said. The ruling is a big win for commercial property owners in Florida and a major victory for the state’s environment, she added.

“In Leon County where I live there is a lot of redevelopment and a lot people are interested in taking advantage of this [PACE] program,” Neiberger said.

While the justices ordered Leon County to remove judicial foreclosure from bond documents, Neiberger said the court’s order clears up any ambiguity in the paperwork even though the county did not intend to use foreclosure unless it was allowed by law.

“We got the remedy we asked for,” she said. “This doesn’t have to go back to another bond validation hearing.”

Neiberger also said the court’s prior determination about standing ran counter to Florida law, basic principles of litigation, and appellate review.

“It’s incredible as an appellate attorney to see a case where somebody doesn’t have to show up at the trial court and can tie things up in an appeal, especially one that goes directly to the Supreme Court,” she said.

Several attorneys, including Neiberger, said the Supreme Court’s decision last week to validate the clean energy bond issues tends to support Florida’s 2010 PACE law – though the law itself was not at issue in either case.

The constitutionality of the 2010 PACE law, however, is pending before the Florida Supreme Court in a separate case.

The Florida Bankers Association has appealed the validation of $2 billion of PACE bonds sought by the Florida Development Finance Corp.

The FBA has argued that the PACE law is unconstitutional because it gives the special assessment on a tax bill a lien that supersedes the payment of a mortgage on the property. Oral arguments in the FDFC case were heard in May.

PACE – ­related bonds have already been validated in Florida, including a $2 billion court-approved authorization for the Florida PACE Funding Agency in 2011 that is believed to be the first of its kind for the Sunshine state.

The ruling in the Leon County case overturning the Meyers precedent came on a 6 ­to ­1 vote, with Charles Canady, who agreed with the majority’s reasoning on Meyers, dissenting only because he believed the entire case should have been dismissed. The justices ruled unanimously in upholding the Clean Energy Coastal Corridor validation.

THE BOND BUYER

SHELLY SIGO

OCT 7, 2015 3:15pm ET




Muni Managers Get Busy After Fed Stands Pat.

Asset managers are keeping active in the municipal market as they prepare their portfolios for a prolonged period of uncertainty over interest rates. Some are adding risk to boost their fourth-quarter yields following the Federal Reserve Board’s decision on Sept. 17 to keep rates unchanged, while other are playing a more defensive game.

Sean Carney, head of municipal strategy at BlackRock Inc. said year-end posturing includes looking more favorably at duration in the near-term and focusing on the trajectory and destination of future rate hikes, as well as the potential impact on the municipal market.

“Where appropriate, we will look to add marginal duration and/or credit so to be able to harvest greater returns as seasonals turn more positive,” he said.

For some managers, that means exploring the high-yield sector. Carney, however, favors the A-rated space at a time when many managers are clinging to higher quality.

“When you look at returns in the market over time, it becomes evident that one must add some credit to their portfolio” to boost returns, he said.

The A-rated portion of the market “has grown from less than 10% to 30% of the overall outstanding universe, and since 2009, has outperformed the broad market by 10% when measuring total return,” Carney said.

Others, however, believe the risks outweigh the benefits in lower-rated sectors, and as a result are being highly defensive and choosing securities from tax and revenue-backed governments and entities that are less susceptible to credit issues.

“We are concerned about risks, such as underfunded pensions, Chapter 9 bankruptcy, and shake-outs in certain non-essential service enterprise sectors,” said David Litvack, managing director and head of tax-exempt research at U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management.

Some of those concerns dominated the headlines in 2015 and speculative issuers gave investors and money managers reason for great concern – especially cash-strapped municipalities like Puerto Rico, Detroit, Illinois, and New Jersey.

As a result of the highly visible, yet isolated, credit situations, Litvack said he prefers tax-backed bonds of governments with stable economies, solid finances, and manageable debt and pension liabilities, as well as revenue bonds of utilities and transportation authorities.

“We are selective in higher risk sectors, such as higher education and health care,” he said. U.S. Trust manages more than $380 billion in total client assets.

Others who are concerned about the future of interest rates are still seeking high-quality investments as the year comes to a close.

Mark Tenenhaus said his low expectations for Fed movement in 2015 means no major changes in the municipal strategy through year end at RSW Investments, where he is the director of municipal research.

“We have positioned our holdings well in advance as we did not and do not foresee the Fed taking any action during the course of the year,” he said. The Summit, N.J.-based asset management firm oversees $2 billion of separately-managed municipal bond client accounts.

“The Fed’s lack of action, to us, highlights the inherent weakness in both the domestic and global economies, supporting our emphasis on highest credit quality investments,” Tenenhaus said.

Janney Montgomery Scott Inc. is also maintaining its strategic approach when it comes to municipal investments, according to Alan Schankel, municipal bond strategist at the Philadelphia-based firm.

“We do not expect [the rate hike] to translate into significantly higher long term interest rates,” Schankel said. That’s led the firm to advise municipal investors to focus on the six- to 14-year range of the tax-free yield curve, with 5% range coupons, as well as higher quality paper in the double-A and higher spectrum.

Schankel said he recommends larger, non-profit healthcare issuers as the growth in the insured population increases demand, as well as the toll road and airport sectors because they benefit from the lower energy prices and improving economic conditions.

Stephen Winterstein, managing director of research and chief strategist at Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Inc., said that rather than making interest rate bets, his firm is focused on maintaining adequate exposure in the municipal portfolios to mid-grade and high-grade securities that are extremely liquid, frequent-to-market, and actively traded.

All the volatility and uncertainty over the Fed tightening put the market in a tailspin – with the latest expectations for a potential rate hike in March 2016.

“The market’s antics over the past several months only provide support for our agnostic view of interest rates,” Winterstein said.

Wilmington manages $4 billion in tax-exempt municipal assets consisting of separate accounts for ultra-high net worth individuals.

“The sensible way to manage the unknown is to prepare for adverse volatility in the event that we do experience a material increase in tax-exempt yields,” he said.

The firm continues to give clients full exposure to the term structure of their respective benchmark indices notwithstanding an interest rate forecast.

“We do not express a view in our portfolios of the future shift in, or shape of the curve,” Winterstein said.

Like his peers, he is steering clear of riskier sectors for now, but won’t rule them out entirely, as he said relative value is a key component to his overall strategy.

He is currently avoiding “precarious” sectors, such as resource recovery, tobacco settlement, life care, and nursing homes until spreads widen out. “We may be interested in certain names in the BBB category at some point, but with 10-year spreads at about 114 basis points, lower investment-grade yields still have quite a distance to cover to even get to the 152 basis point spread where they were in the beginning of 2014.”

“While we do not wilt from risk, we travel into the BBB arena, not in search of a higher yield, but for opportunities where credits may be improving,” Winterstein added. “As a total return manager, we are focused as much on price performance as yield, and so any potential upgrade or other progress in a credit may be the catalyst to spark our curiosity.”

Overall, the managers said they are well prepared for the remainder of 2015 — and optimistic about the arrival of 2016, even with interest rate volatility.

“We do not fear the Fed in the sense that we believe the muni market holds up rather well in most scenarios,” Carney of BlackRock said.

“Our conviction around a September lift-off was low, and in many cases below market expectations,” he added. Following what he referred to as the Fed’s “dovish” comments in September — and subsequent data indicating lower-than-projected growth outlooks – Carney expects a “lower for longer” interest rate environment to continue going forward.

“Even if the Fed does go, their accommodative stance coupled with low inflation expectations should keep the long-end of the curve well bid,” Carney said.

THE BOND BUYER

BY CHRISTINE ALBANO

OCT 8, 2015 10:07am ET




Social Impact Bonds: Cha-Ching! Success!

Nothing talks like money does and this week, the financiers of a Utah preschool program became the first Social Impact Bond (SIB) investors to see a return on their investment. The United Way of Salt Lake announced it had cut a check for $267,000 to investment bankers who funded public-preschool expansion in Utah. The early payment came because initial results showed the program is working already at reducing the number of kids who need special education in grade school.

Of the 595 low-income three- and four-year-olds who attended preschool financed by the SIB in the 2013-14 school year, 110 of the four-year-olds were identified as likely to use special education in grade school. Results showed that of those 110 students identified as at-risk, only one used special education services in kindergarten. That equals a $281,000 cost savings for the school district, the state and Salt Lake County. The so-called success payment is 95 percent of that cost savings.

Goldman Sachs and J.B. Pritzker committed $7 million to the pay-for-success program, which will fund expanded preschool services for five years. Researchers will continue to monitor the 110 students through sixth grade. Investors will get more success payments based on the number who avoid use of special education in each year.

The news comes two months after the first-ever social impact bond program in the United States shut down early. An evaluation nearly three years in on a program aimed at reducing recidivism at Rikers Island Prison in New York City found the project had no impact on the number of repeat offenders.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | OCTOBER 9, 2015




How to Save Billions on Public Construction.

The ways we calculate pay scales for labor on government projects dramatically inflate the costs.

A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed column called for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which sets a floor for wages on federally funded construction projects. Thirty-two states have their own prevailing-wage laws, and while the goal of making sure that those working on public construction projects are fairly compensated is too important for the laws to be repealed, some simple reforms for how prevailing wages are calculated could save state and local taxpayers billions of dollars.

According to a 2008 study by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, state and local governments spend about $300 billion annually on public construction. Labor accounts for about half the cost of those projects. How each of the states with prevailing-wage laws calculates the wage, which various by region within states, is determined by state law.

Some, such as Texas and Connecticut, simply use the amounts determined by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) that are used on federal projects. Five states — Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Ohio — calculate wages based on the amounts negotiated in local collective-bargaining agreements. The problem is that both approaches dramatically inflate prevailing wages.

WHD determines prevailing wages by surveying construction unions and large employers. But the surveys are so complex and time-consuming that most contractors — especially small ones — don’t complete them.

Unions and union contractors, on the other hand, are far more likely to fill out the surveys. Union wages tend to be above market, and these entities want to see the prevailing wage set as high as possible to minimize their competitive disadvantage (disclosure: an association of open-shop construction contractors is among my clients). As a result, the Beacon Hill Institute study found that the WHD approach inflates wages by an average of about 22 percent, which adds about 10 percent to overall project costs.

The cost problem is even worse in the five states that base prevailing wage on collective-bargaining agreements. In recent years, New York State has debated whether to extend the prevailing wage to cover Industrial Development Agencies, the state’s public economic-development authorities. A Center for Governmental Research report estimated that doing so would increase the cost of the agencies’ construction projects by 36 percent.

Using collective-bargaining agreements to determine prevailing wage is also unfair because such a small portion of construction workers belong to unions. According to Unionstats.com, membership ranges from 2 percent in Alabama to about 38 percent in Hawaii, and the number is in single digits in about half the states.

A far better approach would be to simply base prevailing wage on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. BLS, which like WHD is within the U.S. Department of Labor, is the gold standard for employment data. BLS calculates wage data by industry (including construction) in 80 metropolitan and 170 non-metropolitan areas. It is far more transparent about its methodology than WHD and most states are. In addition, its methodology is more sophisticated and its conclusions are based on much larger samples.

And the wage differences are significant. A 2012 Columbia University study found that current New York state prevailing wages ranged from 10 percent to more than 70 percent higher than BLS rates.

Like so much of government, prevailing-wage laws are a balancing act. Done right, they ensure that those who work on public construction projects receive a reasonable wage, and they also are fair to the taxpayers who fund those projects. Using Bureau of Labor Statistics data to determine prevailing wages is the best way to strike that delicate balance.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHARLES CHIEPPO | OCTOBER 7, 2015




The Top 10 Counties Where People Are Moving.

Migration rates are near historic lows, but some places are still attracting large numbers of new residents. View data for every county.

More people moved to Travis County, Texas, home to Austin, than anywhere else in the United States.

With migration rates near historic lows, not many Americans have been changing addresses in recent years. A few larger jurisdictions, however, are welcoming large numbers of new residents from all across the country.

Last week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published updated migration data based on income tax returns, showing where taxpayers are moving to and from at the county level. We’ve compiled the data, shown in the interactive, and have highlighted the areas experiencing the highest population gains from migration.

Numbers of exemptions claimed on tax returns are commonly used to approximate population totals. Using this metric, only about 15 million Americans relocated to a new county between 2013 and 2014. For most counties, net migration gains or losses are fairly small — typically less than 1,000 tax returns — in a given year.

Several of the nation’s largest counties do, though, experience significant shifts from year to year. As one would expect, it’s the larger counties in the Sun Belt that generally register the highest migration gains. The following counties saw the top 10 migration increases, as measured by net changes of numbers of exemptions, between 2013 and 2014:

1) Travis County, Texas, had nearly 123,802 new residents move in — by far the most of any county nationally. To put that in perspective, it’s more than three times the tally of the next highest county. The region, home to Austin, has seen significant population and economic growth in recent years. Data suggests people are moving from long distances into the area (those migrating from out of state account for nearly all of the net increase).

2) Jefferson County, Colo., gained 34,205 new residents (compared to less than 4,000 over the previous two years), with nearly all movers coming from neighboring Broomfield County. We’ve reached out to the county for an explanation and will update when we hear back. (It’s possible that the IRS data contains an error.)

3) Maricopa, County, Ariz., recorded a net migration increase of 17,827. The county, which includes Phoenix and its surrounding suburbs, has long benefited from retirees moving in.

4) Fort Bend County, Texas, welcomed a net total of 17,462 residents — a figure that’s increased over the previous two years. Unlike Travis and Maricopa counties, migration coming from within the state accounted for the majority of its increase.

5) Clark County, Nevada, recorded a net gain of 14,292 residents for the year. The vast majority of its new residents migrated from out of state, particularly from neighboring California. The county has also seen net migration jump quite a bit in recent years, up from 8,613 for 2011-2012.

6) Collin County, Texas, which comprises the northern part of the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metro area, added a net total of 13,428 residents. The county’s newcomers also tend to be relatively wealthy, with their adjusted gross incomes averaging $73,930 per tax return.

7) Denton County, Texas, which borders Collin County, experienced a similar net gain of 12,461 residents. Migration from within Texas and outside the state accounted for roughly equal portions of the county’s net migration gain.

8) Montgomery County, Texas, saw a net increase 11,652 for the year, with about half of its new residents moving from neighboring Harris County. Households migrating into the county reported average gross incomes of $82,316.

9) Palm Beach County, Fla., is known as a top destination for wealthy retirees, a fact reflected in the county’s migration data. Many of its new residents, who made up a net gain of 11,303, moved in from other parts of Florida or the New York Metro area. Gross incomes for new Palm Beach County residents averaged $95,030 per tax return, one of the highest amounts nationally.

10) Lee County, Fla., another hot area for retirees, welcomed a net total of 10,609 residents. Its new households also tend to be wealthy, (but not quite as wealthy as Palm Beach County) with incomes averaging $82,884.

Counties recording the largest net migration losses were Los Angeles County, Calif., (-53,670); Cook County, Ill., (-49,142); Manhattan, N.Y., (-28,123); and Brooklyn, N.Y., (-27,416). Population losses for these counties are largely offset by international migration, most of which is not reflected in the IRS data.

GOVERNING.COM

BY MIKE MACIAG | OCTOBER 7, 2015




Swift Descent to Junk Shows Buried Risk as Municipal Loans Surge.

In a routine review of Lawrence, Wisconsin’s credit rating last month, Standard & Poor’s analysts discovered something troubling.

The 4,600-person town eight miles (13 kilometers) south of Green Bay had borrowed $4.6 million, about three times its annual revenue, from local banks, and tucked into the agreements was a potentially costly clause: The banks could demand immediate repayment if they decide the town has turned into a mounting financial risk. The finding triggered an eight-level downgrade to Lawrence’s rating, which went from the third-highest grade to junk.

“Anyone could have these deals,” said Geoffrey Buswick, a managing director at S&P in Boston. “Until it’s disclosed or someone reads the documents and considers the credit risk, you don’t know if you’re holding double A paper or double B plus paper.”

How many Lawrence’s are there in the $3.7 trillion U.S. municipal-bond market? It’s impossible to know.
The proliferation of such loans since the credit-market crisis seven years ago has added fresh uncertainty to the state and local-government debt market, where the financial disclosure rules are already more lax that those that apply to businesses. Because the loans aren’t securities, states and cities aren’t immediately required to disclose them — despite the risks they may pose to bondholders if a government is pushed toward default.

“Nobody knows how many loans there are, nobody knows the total volumes of those loans, nobody knows the terms of those loans,” said Lynnette Kelly, executive director of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the industry’s regulator. “I’m frustrated by it.”

The loan terms can favor banks over bondholders and add to a city’s financial risk, credit-rating companies said. For example, banks can demand accelerated principal and interest if a payment is skipped or a government’s cash falls below a specific target, which could push the borrower into a liquidity crisis if it can’t cover the bills.

“Most local government bond investors don’t have the right to be paid back upon default,” said Tom Jacobs, a senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service. “A private financing can jump to the head of the queue when it matters.”

Financial Wreckage

The municipal bank-loan business rose from the wreckage of the financial crisis, when cities and states used them to escape from floating-rate bond deals that turned costly when credit markets seized up. The business has continued to grow because hospitals, universities and others can borrow at rates comparable to those in the bond market, without the fees tied to a public-debt offering.

The push has made U.S. banks a growing presence in local-government finance. They held about $477 billion, or 13 percent, of the municipal debt outstanding by the end of June, twice what they had five years earlier, according to Federal Reserve data.

S&P estimates that loans account for as much as one-fifth of municipal borrowing. In 2014, S&P evaluated 404 direct loans of about $16 billion. Of those, 13 credit ratings were affected by them.

Lawrence, Wisconsin, followed on Sept. 17, when S&P cut its rating from AA to BB+.

Jennifer Messerschmidt, the town’s finance director, criticized the decision. She said one of its banks said it rarely, if ever, has invoked the ability to demand repayment by deeming itself “insecure,” a clause that protects a lender if a borrower’s finances deteriorate. She said the town is working with its banks to remove the provision in an effort to have its previous rating restored.

“S&P wouldn’t even give me a day to talk to the bank,”’ she said.

While states, cities and non-profits disclose the amount of bank loans in their annual financial statements, those reports often aren’t released until months after the year’s end and don’t reveal key terms.

Even though municipal issuers are required under federal securities rules to disclose all material information when they sell bonds, it’s up to them to decide whether the loans fit that bill, said Kelly, the MSRB director. The regulator has encouraged issuers to voluntarily disclose key details about the loans on its online repository, where bond documents for investors are now posted.

Full Picture

Lawrence hasn’t publicly sold debt since 2012. Instead, it borrowed $4.6 million from local lenders The Business Bank and Greenleaf Wayside Bank. The loans account for more than 60 percent of the town’s debt.

“If there was an acceleration how would they be actually be able to cover that?” said S&P’s Jane Ridley, a senior director. “Without a requirement to disclose, we can’t get a full picture of what the rating looks like.”

Messerschmidt, the Lawrence finance director, said the size and interest rates on the loans are disclosed in its annual financial reports. She said Lawrence is in a better financial position than when it last issued debt in 2012, when many cities’ tax collections were still being squeezed by the effects of the housing-market collapse and the recession that followed.

“I don’t think it was handled properly,” she said of the downgrade.

Caroline West, an S&P analyst, said the company can’t give a city such as Lawrence advice or help it structure documents or deals.

“We have to proceed with evaluating the information we have at hand,” she said. “That’s what we did.”

Bloomberg News

by Martin Z Braun

October 4, 2015




Americans Are Smoking Again, a Boon for Municipal Tobacco Bonds.

Americans are boosting spending on cigarettes for the first time in almost a decade. While that may raise health concerns in a nation that’s worked for decades to cut smoking, it’s fueling a rally in one of the riskiest corners of the municipal-bond market.

High-yield tobacco bonds, which are repaid from legal-settlement money that state and local governments receive from cigarette companies, returned 9.4 percent this year through Monday, almost five times the broader municipal market, Barclays Plc data show. That adds to a 19 percent gain last year, when investors plowed into the high-interest-rate securities that have been imperiled for years by the decline in smoking.

U.S. cigarette shipments that back the debt are now on track for the first annual increase since 2006, spurred in part by a gas-price drop that’s given consumers more to spend. Deliveries rose 2.8 percent through June from the same period a year earlier, according to data from the U.S. Treasury Department. That’s altering return expectations among investors and pushing some bonds to their highest prices in two years.

“Smoking shipments on the year have marginally increased — that’s obviously a big change from historical trends,” said David Hammer, manager of the high-yield municipal-bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. The firm, which oversees $40 billion of state and local debt, eased the constraints on its investment-grade funds last month so they could hold more of the tobacco bonds, he said.

The debt allowed governments to borrow against the money they will receive under the 1998 settlement with Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc. The securities are among the riskiest in the $3.7 trillion municipal market because smoking has declined more rapidly than expected since they were issued, cutting into the payouts used for interest and principal bills.

The debt isn’t guaranteed by the governments that sold them, and much of the $91 billion of bonds are rated below investment grade. Moody’s Investors Service projects that a 4 percent annual decline in cigarette shipments would cause 80 percent of them to default. The deliveries have dropped by an average of 4.7 percent a year since 2007.

Waiting Game

Investors could be forced to wait for years after the scheduled maturity to recoup all that they’re owed if sales fall short of initial forecasts. Because the tobacco settlement continues in perpetuity, bondholders will eventually be repaid.

“Positive shipments of even 1 or 2 percent — that’s significant,” said Steve Czepiel, who runs a $992 million high-yield municipal mutual fund for Delaware Investments in Philadelphia. He said he’s keeping his holdings of tobacco bonds steady.

“If you sold them last year because you thought they had an overly aggressive run, you’ve missed out,” he said. “We still think they provide pretty good value versus other types of high-yield municipal credits.”

The tobacco bonds have outperformed the high-yield municipal market, which has been little changed this year. Securities issued by California’s Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp. are among those that have rallied.

The debt, which matures in June 2047 and carries a 5.75 percent coupon, traded last week for as much as 89.4 cents on the dollar, the highest for trades of at least $1 million since June 2013 and up from about 83 cents at the start of 2015, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That size is common among institutional investors and is considered the most accurate reflection of a bond’s market value. The securities are rated six steps below investment grade by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.

Pimco is the second-largest holder of those bonds, with about $141 million, while Delaware is seventh with $27.3 million, according to the latest company filings compiled by Bloomberg. The funds have bested 92 percent and 68 percent of their peers this year, respectively, Bloomberg data show.

Some investors have doubts that the rally is justified. This year’s increase in shipments is probably an anomaly and unlikely to persist, said Timothy Milway, an analyst at New York-based BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money manger. He speculates that the rise may have been caused by the decline of fuel prices, which has left consumers with extra cash.

Negative Outlook

“In the very short term, the number looks pretty good,” he said at a Smith’s Research & Gradings conference on Oct. 2. “Looking out longer-term, we’re still negative and we think the declines are going to be above trend.”

Other factors may continue driving demand for the debt even if shipments start falling again, said Bill Black, who runs Invesco Ltd.’s $7.4 billion high-yield municipal fund.

Fewer localities are issuing the bonds, driving down supply at a time when investors are searching for higher yields, Black said. They’re also among the most frequently traded municipal securities, which reduces the premium investors demand to hold debt that’s difficult to sell, he said.

The liquidity benefits were part of the reason why Pimco altered its prospectuses, effective last month, to allow for lower-rated bonds than before, Hammer said. They can now own bonds rated as low as Caa by Moody’s, eight steps below investment grade, according to an August supplement.

“Tobacco has been a strong conviction trade we’re looking to incorporate in other portfolios,” Hammer said. “We expect some maturity and principal return extension, but you’re being well-compensated even if consumption declines are worse than they have been in the last 10 years.”

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 5, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on October 6, 2015 — 7:20 AM PDT




61,064 Failing Bridges Must Wait as Cities Borrow at Decade Low.

States and cities rely on the $3.7 trillion U.S. municipal-bond market to pay for roads, commuter trains and water works. Yet even with a growing backlog of projects, 61,064 deficient bridges and interest rates near a half-century low, such borrowing has dropped to the slowest pace in at least a decade.

About $14.8 billion of municipal debt has been sold this year for highway, airport and mass-transit projects, on pace for the smallest amount since at least 2005, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The population has grown by 7.5 percent since then, placing an increasing demand on America’s infrastructure: The Federal Highway Administration estimates that when it comes to bridges alone, one in 10 is structurally deficient. The American Society of Civil Engineers reckons that more than $3 trillion of work should be done.

“It’s a pretty deteriorated backbone,” Marc Lipschultz, head of energy and infrastructure at KKR & Co., said in an interview at Bloomberg Markets Most Influential Summit 2015 in New York on Tuesday.

“There’s not enough capital in the public domain,” he said. “It’s trillions of dollars of capital that has to be invested.”

One reason for the lack of borrowing: officials at local governments that were stung by budget shortfalls after the recession have been leery of taking on new debt. Instead, they’ve been seizing on low interest rates to refinance higher-cost bonds. About two-thirds of the $312.5 billion issued through Sept. 30 has been for that purpose, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show.

Federal subsidies briefly spurred work on infrastructure, though the program has since lapsed. Borrowing for new highway, airport and mass transit projects reached a record $65 billion in 2010, the last year of the federal Build America Bonds program, Bloomberg data show. The initiative paid a share of the interest bills on taxable debt sold for public works, which prodded governments to borrow.

Private investment should be encouraged as a way to find new sources of funds, Lipschultz said. KKR struck a 40-year deal in 2012 with Bayonne, New Jersey, in conjunction with the United Water unit of Suez Environnement to operate the city’s water system. He said such deals, however, haven’t been widely embraced.
“It’s slow in the making,” he said.

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 6, 2015 — 10:48 AM PDT




Moody's: U.S. Academic Medical Hospitals 2014 Medians Show Stability and Solid Balance Sheets.

The 2014 fiscal year medians show US academic medical center hospitals (AMCs) benefit from operational stability, high revenue and expense growth as well as increases in cash and investments. The not-for-profit AMCs also benefitted from important strategic and financial relationships with top-tier medical schools and highly-rated universities, which bolstered joint fundraising an investment management…

The full report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Moody's: U.S. Municipal Water and Sewer Medians Demonstrate Stable and Positive Trends.

The full year 2013 US water and sewer utility medians show larger utilities enjoy greater financial resources and flexibility, while service area wealth correlates to stronger operating performance. Across the sector, debt service remains consistent and liquidity has modestly improved. Leverage is down for higher-rated utilities, but grew for lower-rated utilities…

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Problems Mount for the ‘Other’ College Debt.

The bond markets are giving a new grade to America’s small colleges: A gentleman’s C.

Spooked by bad news out of the higher-education sector in recent months, including unexpected campus closures, potential mergers and poor enrollment projections, some prospective buyers are steering clear of bonds being sold by small, private colleges that don’t have national reputations, schools that rely heavily on tuition revenue, and those in regions facing population declines.

Moody’s Investors Service Inc. in September warned investors to expect closures at public and not-for-profit colleges to triple by 2017 from an average of five a year over the past decade, concentrated among the smallest schools. Some small schools have experienced several years of shrinking class sizes, which leaves fewer students paying for their relatively high fixed costs, and have lost market share to larger universities, Moody’s said.

Concerns about market forces were at play at Roseman University of Health Sciences in Henderson, Nev., when the school of about 1,500 students sought $67.5 million worth of bonds to pay for a new office and research building last spring. The process took two to three times longer than usual, said Ken Wilkins, the school’s vice president for business and finance. Standard & Poor’s had downgraded the 16-year-old school’s debt in February, and investors were asking about everything from the market viability of the school’s academic programs to its possible responses to increasingly far-fetched disaster scenarios.

“It felt excessive at times, especially those questions which we affectionately began to call the ‘asteroid questions,’” he said.

Roseman ultimately sold the bonds at an average yield of 5.68% in April, about three percentage points more than highly rated municipal bonds, according to Thomson Reuters Municipal Market Data.

Roseman joined colleges and universities that are selling more bonds than ever. Schools including highly rated Stanford, Northwestern and the California State University System have sold a record $32.7 billion worth of debt through September, almost twice as much as in the same period of 2014, according to data from Thomson Reuters. This “other” college debt still is small compared with the market for student-lending debt, which is $1.2 trillion.

Yet as many colleges and universities are eager to tap the bond market to take advantage of low interest rates, bond investors have grown wary of their debt.

Yields on the S&P Municipal Bond Higher Education Index this week reached 2.55%, up from a low of 2.12% in February, and ahead of the broader market’s 2.38%. Yields rise as prices fall. Investors often find some extra yield in the higher education sector, which contains many high-quality bonds but has grown increasingly risky when compared with debt backed by essential services such as power or water, said Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management.

“You can’t just buy bonds from your alma mater anymore, because you might end up getting the short end of the stick,” said Hugh McGuirk, head of the municipal bond team at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. He said his firm is generally avoiding small liberal-arts colleges and is sticking with schools that have national brands and strong student demand, either public or private.

Colleges and universities are selling more bonds, but investors have grown wary of those from smaller, private colleges. In contrast, Stanford University has a AAA debt rating. ENLARGE
Colleges and universities are selling more bonds, but investors have grown wary of those from smaller, private colleges. In contrast, Stanford University has a AAA debt rating. PHOTO: PAUL SAKUMA/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Concerned about volatility in the public markets, some low-rated colleges and universities have been pursuing alternatives to bond issuance, such as placing debt privately or borrowing directly from banks, says Lorrie DuPont, head of the higher education finance group at RBC Capital Markets.

Hawaii Pacific University, a private school with campuses in Honolulu and Kaneohe, Hawaii, opted in January for short-term bonds to finance the renovation of a waterfront property, hoping that it can refinance the debt once its credit rating—currently BB-plus by Standard & Poor’s—improves. The school expects that the renovation will yield new retail and housing revenue.

The school borrowed $32.5 million in a five-year deal at a 4.48% yield. Bruce Edwards, vice president and chief financial officer, estimates that had the institution opted for a more traditional 30-year bond, it would have paid “a little bit north of 6%.”

All the school’s new debt was bought by Nuveen, which had acquired a chunk of the school’s $42 million issuance in 2013. While other investors expressed interest, “they were going to need to do some lengthy due diligence” and the school was looking for a fast close since construction was already under way, Mr. Edwards said, and construction deadlines outweighed questions over potential improvement in market conditions later in the year.

For schools without strong financial footing—or those in categories perceived to be susceptible to financial pressure—the timing is far from ideal. Many such institutions have put off facility upgrades since the financial crisis and now face massive deferred maintenance backlogs, or need cash to pay for capital projects that could make them more attractive to potential students.

Moody’s has been seeing undiminished demand to initiate ratings on smaller colleges this year, the firm says, as schools fret about higher interest rates on the horizon and look to access money through one outlet or another.

McDaniel College in Westminster, Md., is planning a private placement this fall to cover about $3 million in new energy-saving and infrastructure upgrades. That school last issued a bond in the public markets in 2006 and has funded renovations and a new stadium with donations and cash on hand.

W. Thomas Phizacklea, vice president for administration and finance, said a private placement was more attractive because it allows the school to avoid the upfront costs of issuing a bond in the public markets—including fees for lawyers, accountants and ratings companies—and provide more freedom when structuring debt-service payments. Mr. Phizacklea said the school is near a 10-year bank deal and has begun its cost-saving projects using available cash.

“I don’t think we’ll get a better rate” with a private placement, he said, “but I do think we’ll get more flexibility.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By MELISSA KORN and AARON KURILOFF

Updated Oct. 8, 2015 5:45 p.m. ET

Write to Melissa Korn at melissa.korn@wsj.com and Aaron Kuriloff at aaron.kuriloff@wsj.com




GASB: Understanding Costs and Benefits - Other Postemployment Benefits.

Read the GASB report.




CUSIP Request Volume Shows Fifth Consecutive Monthly Decline Among Corporate and Municipal Bond Issuers.

“The phrase ‘don’t fight the Fed’ has become something of a mantra on Wall Street over the last several years and corporate and municipal debt issuers are clearly heading that advice right now,” said Richard Peterson, Senior Director of Global Markets Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ. “While CUSIP request volume has made it clear that there will be declines in new debt issuance in the coming weeks and months, we’re anxious to see whether that trend will continue once the first rate hike takes place.”

Read the Press Release.

October 7, 2015




MarketAxess Looks to Crack Muni-Bond Code.

The firm at the front of the pack in electronic corporate bond trading is trying to crack the code on an even more antiquated corner of the fixed-income market: municipal bonds.

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. is laying the groundwork to connect municipal bond dealers and investors electronically early next year, according to people familiar with the matter. The firm’s executives have met with clients and municipal bond dealers in recent months to gauge interest in electronic municipal bond trading including so-called “all to all” trading, which means different types of buyers and sellers trade with each other.

If successful, the New York-based firm would join a small group of existing municipal bond trading platforms and could benefit from its heft in investment grade and high-yield bond trading.

It is the latest attempt to speed trading and transparency in the $3.7 trillion market for debt sold by U.S. state and local governments, which the SEC described in a 2012 report as “illiquid and opaque.”

The market poses challenges for electronic trading because it has a larger number of securities and a greater number of dealers than the corporate bond market.

MarketAxess’s talks come as regulators have increased efforts to disclose prices, transaction costs and dealer markups to the retail investors who own about 70% of municipal bonds, either individually or through mutual funds, and who typically buy the bonds seeking tax-exempt income, often to fund their retirements.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board last week proposed new rules that would require municipal bond dealers to disclose the mark-ups they charge retail investors on trades. Comments on those proposals are due Nov. 20.

For MarketAxess, the work resurrects pre-crisis efforts to build an electronic municipal bond trading system. Success in the municipal bond market would help diversify its product mix and it is aiming to attract institutional dealers and investors, the people said.

Analysts at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods wrote in a note this month that the potential for MarketAxess to expand into municipal bonds or structured products would require minimal investment because the firm could use existing trading technology. The firm currently has a market capitalization of about $3.5 billion.

“This makes sense to us strategically given that these are also illiquid markets – similar to that of corporate bonds where [MarketAxess] has already had success,” the KBW analysts wrote of potential expansion.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By SARAH KROUSE and AARON KURILOFF

Sep 29, 2015




Munis Cheapest in 5 Weeks to Treasuries as Payrolls Fall Short.

Prices in the $3.6 trillion municipal-bond market are the cheapest in five weeks relative to Treasuries after U.S. payrolls rose less than projected in September, spurring a rally in federal government debt on signs the global slowdown is affecting the world’s largest economy.

Benchmark 10-year munis yield 2.09 percent, compared with 1.92 percent on similar-maturity Treasuries, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The ratio is a measure of relative value between the asset classes. It reached 109 percent Friday, the highest since August, signaling that tax-free bonds are cheap relative to their federal counterparts.

Ten-year Treasury yields plunged 0.11 percentage point after a Labor Department report showed the U.S. added 142,000 jobs, lower than the median forecast of 201,000 from a Bloomberg survey of 96 economists. Weakening foreign markets, a stronger dollar and lower oil prices raise the risk that employers will hold off on adding workers.

Munis rallied to a smaller degree. As prices rose, the yields on both 10-year and 30-year AAA bonds fell 0.02 percentage point to the lowest since April, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The 10-year muni-Treasury ratio was as low as 94 percent in July. Over the past decade, the figure has averaged 97 percent.

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

October 2, 2015 — 6:49 AM PDT




Junk or AAA? Rating Split Plagues Chicago as It Borrows Billions.

What’s Chicago’s risk to municipal-bond investors? It depends on which credit-rating company you ask.

In the eyes of Moody’s Investors Service, most of the $20 billion of bonds tied to Chicago are junk, as speculative as a charter school or regional hospital that could shut down. To Standard & Poor’s, the city’s park district is as credit-worthy as the U.S. government, and its sales-tax-backed debt is even safer. Only Kroll Bond Rating Agency deems the public schools worthy of an investment grade.

No U.S. city has caused a larger difference of opinion in the municipal-bond market than Chicago, which is being squeezed by soaring bills to its underfunded retirement system. The city’s sales-tax, motor-fuel-tax, water, sewer and park bonds all have at least a six-level gap between the lowest and highest ratings, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The discrepancy has led investors to err on the side of caution by demanding higher yields, threatening to saddle Chicago with added costs as it prepares to issue about $3 billion of debt.

“The dispersion in ratings just doesn’t make sense,” said Mikhail Foux, head of municipal research at Barclays Plc in New York. “Moody’s is too conservative and S&P is too relaxed about this. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.”

Chicago illustrates a rift in the approaches that rating companies use to assess municipalities, whose securities are backed by varying revenue sources and legal safeguards. Those can leave some bondholders sheltered if a city faces a budget shortfall or collapses into bankruptcy, as Detroit did two years ago.
The views on Chicago have become more divergent since May, when Moody’s lowered its general obligations to Ba1, one step below investment grade. While S&P and Fitch Ratings followed with their own downgrades to those securities, the companies have been at odds over how to gauge the rest of the city’s bonds.

Moody’s was the only one to downgrade all of Chicago’s other major securities: It reduced the park, sales-tax and motor-fuel-tax debt to the same level as the city, while the water and sewer bonds were cut to the lowest investment-grade tier. S&P and Fitch left some of those ratings unchanged, despite their more dour assessment of the city’s finances.

Buying Opportunity

The inconsistency has created pockets of value, Foux said. In particular, water and sewer bonds are trading at higher yields than they should, he said. The city plans to sell $439 million of the securities this month, the latest in a wave of offerings from Chicago.

“The market really does trade a lot of times to the worse-case scenario,” said Dan Solender, who oversees $17 billion, including Chicago debt, as head of munis at Lord Abbett & Co. in Jersey City, New Jersey. “Most of the market isn’t really looking at the higher rating anymore.”

Moody’s analyst Rachel Cortez said its Chicago ratings are so closely aligned because the securities draw from the same tax base or aren’t separated sufficiently from the city’s grasp to warrant a higher grade.
S&P said in a Sept. 24 report that a Chicago agency won’t be penalized just because of the pressure on the budget, given that some bonds are sheltered from those strains. Jane Ridley, the analyst who wrote the report, said sales-tax bonds have the first claim on that money, which gives them less risk that general obligations.

Karen Daly, a senior managing director at Kroll, said the rating differences can be explained by the separate security pledges backing Chicago’s bonds.

The analysis has been complicated by the risk of bankruptcy, a tool that Republican Governor Bruce Rauner has so far unsuccessfully sought to extend to Illinois municipalities. Were Chicago able to write down its debts in court, water and sewer bondholders wouldn’t stand to lose as much as owners of other securities, Fitch analyst Amy Laskey wrote in a Sept. 22 report. Hence the higher rating.

“All the different operating entities have differing bankruptcy risks,” Laskey said in an interview. Though Illinois currently doesn’t allow it, she said, “we always believe that if there were an entity that was in need of filing, that the state would find a way to allow them to.”

Market’s View

Trading in Chicago bonds shows the market is siding with Moody’s, which assigned the lowest ratings, said Justin Land, who oversees $4 billion of munis as director of tax-exempt management at Wasmer Schroeder & Co. in Naples, Florida.

The most-traded Chicago sales-tax bonds changed hands Thursday at an average yield of 4.6 percent, compared with 3 percent for munis with a similar 23-year maturity and the same top grade from S&P, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Park district debt due in 2024 traded last week at an average 3.86 percent, compared with about 2.1 percent for AAA munis, Bloomberg data show. Sewer bonds due in 2021 changed hands last week at a yield of 3.2 percent, or 1.58 percentage points above the benchmark, while water bonds maturing in 2032 traded at 4.5 percent, a difference of 1.75 percentage points.

“Typically we’ll be on the side of caution and kind of lean our viewpoint toward the weaker credit rating,” said Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist in Kansas City, Missouri, at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, which oversees about $127 billion. “People are very well aware of the issues, and they want to have substantial compensation.”

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta and Elizabeth Campbell

September 30, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on October 1, 2015 — 12:08 PM PDT




Muni Junk Bonds Are Outperforming Other High-Yield Options.

Investors are finding an unlikely haven amid the rout in corporate junk bonds: their tax-exempt counterparts sold by municipalities.

The riskiest local-government bonds returned 2.9 percent through Sept. 29, heading for their best month since August 2014, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show. That’s more than four times the gain in the broader municipal market and stands in contrast to the shift away from debt sold by struggling businesses. High-yield corporate securities have lost 2.7 percent this month.

“People are looking for income streams, and at the same time they want some level of safety,” said Dan Heckman, senior fixed-income strategist in Kansas City, Missouri, at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, which oversees about $127 billion of assets, including high-yield municipal bonds. “They view the high-yield muni as a little safer place out of other risk areas that contain higher yields.”

After the Federal Reserve decided not to raise interest rates at its Sept. 17 meeting, money flooded into mutual funds focused on high-yield municipals. The funds pulled in $178 million in the week ended Sept. 23, the first in a month, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

The municipal bonds, which are sold for specific projects or by strained governments such as Puerto Rico and Chicago, have skirted the turmoil in other financial markets over the past two months, when stocks tumbled amid speculation that the world’s economy will slow.

Their relative security has been a draw to investors seeking to ride out the volatility, said Heckman. High-yield munis had a default rate of 7.5 percent over the last decade, compared with 32 percent for comparable corporate debt, according to a July 24 report from Moody’s Investors Service.

The recent gains stem the losses that came this year as Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis escalated. The commonwealth defaulted on some securities for the first time in August and plans to ask investors to restructure debt that Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla says the government can no longer afford.

The default didn’t trigger an exodus from the municipal-bond market because the long-brewing crisis is seen as limited to the island. After initially pulling money from high-yield funds amid speculation about the potential ripple effects, investors have been adding money back, seeking higher yields as interest rates hold near generational lows.

With “the low-rate environment, there’s demand for incremental yield,” said Dan Solender, who helps manage $17 billion as head of state and local debt at Lord Abbett & Co. in Jersey City, New Jersey. “The credits have been holding in well. There’s not been significant issues so the credits are performing well.’

Chicago bonds, which were cut to junk by Moody’s in May, have pared their losses as Mayor Rahm Emanuel proposed a record property-tax increase to help cover the city’s rising pension-fund bills. Federally taxable Chicago bonds maturing in 2042 traded Wednesday for an average of $1.02 on the dollar, up from 96.7 cents on Aug. 31.

Puerto Rico securities have also rebounded since June. Garcia Padilla’s administration plans to ask investors to voluntarily exchange their securities for new ones with lower interest rates or longer maturities, a process that could shelter some bondholders from losses. Puerto Rico debt maturing in 2035 traded for an average of 74 cents on the dollar Wednesday, up from as little as 64 cents on June 30. That pushed the yield down to 11.2 percent from 13.1 percent.

“The Puerto Rico influence in the high yield indexes could be as much as 20 percent,” said Jim Colby, who manages about $1.6 billion of high-yield municipals at Van Eck Global in New York. “So that I think it is a very significant element of why we’ve had such good performance.”

Bloomberg News

by Elizabeth Campbell

September 29, 2015 — 9:00 PM PDT Updated on September 30, 2015 — 9:49 AM PDT




Connecticut Tax Bonds Draw Buyers Losing Faith in State Pledges.

Connecticut bond investors have more faith in the tax man than in the full faith and credit pledge of the state.

Though the extra yield investors demand to own the state’s general obligations instead of top-rated debt is almost the highest on record, its $840 million bond sale this week is drawing interest from Conning, Eaton Vance Management and Nuveen Asset Management. That’s because the debt, which will pay for transportation projects, is backed by dedicated taxes on motor fuels, oil companies and retail sales — none of which can be touched by lawmakers until bondholders are paid.

“If you’re going to make an investment in Connecticut, this is a credit that should be strongly considered,” said Paul Mansour, head of municipal research at Conning, which oversees $11 billion of the debt, including some state bonds. “There’s no appropriation required. So if there’s ever a budget stalemate, there’s less risk of a delay in getting paid.”

Connecticut reflects a shift in the $3.6 trillion municipal market, where investors have given greater scrutiny to securities backed only by a government’s promise since Detroit foisted losses on bondholders following its 2013 bankruptcy. This year, debt funded by legislative appropriations was tarnished when Puerto Rico chose to default and Illinois’s budget stalemate caused the credit rating of Chicago’s convention center agency to be cut from AAA to near junk.

Malloy’s Maneuver

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a law that boosted the share of the sales tax for transportation-project bonds this year and walls it off from the money spent by the legislature, an effort to spur spending on public works. As a result, oil company and sales taxes are being sent to a special fund, providing added security to investors.

Connecticut, the wealthiest U.S. state, has an Aa3 credit rating from Moody’s Investors Service. Only Illinois and New Jersey are ranked lower. That’s because the state’s economy has rebounded slowly from the recession, its pension system is the third-most underfunded nationwide and it has the most debt per resident.

The extra yield investors demand to buy 10-year Connecticut general obligations rather than benchmark municipals has climbed to 0.47 percentage point from as little as 0.27 percent in January, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That spread is near the widest since at least January 2013, when the data begin, signaling that the debt is viewed as relatively riskier.

The transportation bonds have retained their value. Debt issued a year ago that’s due in September 2026 traded last week at a spread of 0.49 percentage point, unchanged from the average over the past five months, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“We do prefer this type of revenue stream versus the state of Connecticut G.O. pledge,” said Michael Hamilton, who runs a $284 million Connecticut open-end mutual fund at Nuveen Asset Management. He owns some of the transportation debt. “I have some room to buy if the deal comes a little wider, given the state has widened out as well.”

Malloy made improving Connecticut’s infrastructure a focus of his budget, which also cut spending and raised taxes on corporations and the highest earners. To fund his initiative, 0.3 percent of the 6.35 percent sales tax will be funneled toward the revenue bonds this year. The share will ramp up to 0.5 percent by the 2018 fiscal year, according to bond documents.

Railway, Roads

Proceeds from the new bonds, which are set to be sold Thursday, will fund improvements to the New Haven Rail Line, the I-84 expressway and the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge.

Fitch Ratings last week ranked the bonds AA, the same as Connecticut’s general obligations. The credit rater in July raised the state’s outlook to stable from negative, pulling it back from the brink of a downgrade, citing a budget for the next two fiscal years that appears balanced.

Carl Thompson, an analyst at Eaton Vance, said he agrees with Fitch’s more optimistic assessment. Mansour, the analyst at Conning, said his outlook for the state is still negative: His company’s May ranking of the fiscal health of states put Connecticut sixth-to-last.

Yet both agree the transportation bonds are a potential buying opportunity.

“Despite similar ratings as the state, I think that Connecticut’s special tax bonds are a much stronger credit,” Mansour said. “The state has accelerating debt service and pension obligations. With these bonds, you have much more predictable and stable expenses.”

Bloomberg News

by Brian Chappatta

September 27, 2015 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on September 28, 2015 — 6:13 AM PDT




Government’s Continuing Budget-Buster: Paid Sick Leave.

While paid sick leave is critical to economic security and health for employees and their families, its impact is even more far-reaching — even contagious: When ill employees go to work, co-workers, clients and employers can get sick as well. But there is another health factor associated with paid sick leave: employers’ fiscal health.

For governments and the private sector alike, overly generous sick-leave policies can lead to unexpected back-end costs and potentially significant unfunded liabilities. In terms of employer costs, paid sick leave ranks only behind medical and retirement benefits. This issue is particularly acute for governments: While in the private sector almost 40 percent of employers do not offer paid sick leave, nearly all full-time public-sector employees receive some form of coverage.

So how are local governments managing their paid-sick-leave programs? And are cities and counties making the types of post-recession reforms that we have seen in other benefit areas such as pensions and retiree health care?

The answer is that paid sick leave (PSL) appears to still be quite generous, with few local governments seeking to reform longtime practices. In a national survey of human-services professionals for large cities and counties, Michael Thom of the University of Southern California and I found that only 14 percent of local governments had sought to reduce their cost exposure by enacting post-recession PSL reforms.

Most local governments have continued to offer generous sick-leave policies, including allowing employees to accrue more than 120 hours of PSL annually (53 percent) and having no limit on the number of PSL hours that can be rolled over from year to year (77 percent). Further, over 50 percent allowed employees to cash out unused paid sick leave upon leaving their jobs, while 40 percent allowed unused PSL to be used in calculating retiring employees’ service credits for pension purposes — one form of “pension spiking.”

Allowing paid sick leave for family members was widespread (89 percent), but other practices, such as sharing programs (allowing employees to donate unused sick leave to needier co-workers) and converting unused sick leave to vacation time, were not as prevalent (42 percent and 13 percent, respectively). While the percentage of local governments requiring a doctor’s note for prolonged sickness was quite high (over 70 percent), the number that perform sick-leave audits and have incentive programs to avoid unnecessary use of sick leave were quite low (both less than 25 percent).

Collective-bargaining status and employee classification — such as public safety vs. general staff — were both significant factors in determining certain practices. In local governments with collective bargaining, the practice of allowing employees to include unused PSL in pension calculations was more likely. Further, public-safety employees were less likely to be affected by budget-savings reforms after the recession, less likely to be required to have a doctor’s note for prolonged absences, and more likely to have sharing programs.

When governments elect to allow PSL to be accrued and rolled over from year to year with no limit, and either be cashed out when employees leave or used in pension calculations, the costs and impact can be substantial. That’s because much of the paid sick leave may have been earned during years in which an employee had a lower salary, while payouts at termination and for pension determinations are calculated at the highest salary levels. Also, many local governments treat PSL costs as a pay-as-you-go item, which means these expenses are seldom included as fixed items in their budgets.

As local governments recover from the recent recession and continue to grapple with unfunded pension and retiree health-care costs, their focus undoubtedly will turn to other cost drivers such as paid sick leave. Serious consideration for cost-containment measures should include ending the practice of applying unused PSL hours in pension-benefit calculations; limiting the amount of hours that can be accrued and rolled over from year to year; and limiting unused-PSL payouts to a nominal or fixed amount paid annually instead of allowing it to accumulate until retirement.

With such fundamental change on the horizon, local governments should work with their employees to adopt more sustainable, fair and innovative paid-sick-leave practices that also will provide employees with incentives to avoid unnecessary absenteeism.

GOVERNING.COM

BY THOM REILLY | OCTOBER 1, 2015

Thom.Reilly@asu.edu




Expert Urges Expanded Use of P3s to Protect Water Resources.

More than 2,000 U.S communities are using public-private partnerships to meet pressing water-related infrastructure needs and many more localities should pursue them, argues the head of a water company trade association.

Municipalities can negotiate P3s to gain access to capital and technical, management and process-improvement expertise. These partnerships also will help them to apply new technologies that they could not take advantage of without such support, wrote Michael Deane, executive director of the National Association of Water Companies, in a Sept. 30 American City and County magazine column.

P3s can step in to offer fund system repairs and upgrades that the budget-strapped federal government cannot, he argues, citing the Environmental Protection Agency’s findings that more than 240,000 water main breaks occur each year. To make matters worse, the agency says it lacks the $384 billion needed to maintain drinking water systems through 2020.

On the other hand, the federal government is committed to fostering infrastructure P3s, Deane wrote, offering as examples, President Obama’s Build America Investment initiative and the EPA’s recently launched Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center. The center “will help ensure that communities have the information and tools to explore all opportunities for innovation in project finance, delivery and operations,” Deane wrote.

He singled out several examples of successful water-related P3s: A 40-year concession agreement through which United Water and investment firm KKR are investing in and operating Bayonne, N.J.’s water and wastewater systems and a similar 30-year deal Rialto, Calif., negotiated with Veolia North America. Meanwhile, CH2M and Spacient Technologies are improving communication between the city’s water distribution and wastewater collection personnel to improve operations, services and customer support.

Other success stories include a P3 through which United Water is, for 20 years, operating, managing and maintaining Nassau County’s wastewater plants that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy and Prince George’s County, Md.’s collaboration with Corvias Solutions to install infrastructure that will capture stormwater runoff and prevent it from polluting the Chesapeake Bay.

The Prince George’s stormwater P3 and others will be discussed during the CBP3 Sustainable Stormwater Infrastructure Summit to be held Dec. 7 in Philadelphia. For more information, visit the event website.

NCPPP

By Editor

October 1, 2015




High Coverage and Strong Legal Provisions Contribute to Strong U.S. Lottery Revenue Bond Ratings in 2015, Report Says.

NEW YORK (Standard & Poor’s) Sept. 30, 2015–Even in a period of expansion in casino gambling, national lottery sales continue to grow and to remain stable said a report published today by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services.

“We attribute this to the monopolies states enjoy on lottery sales, relatively modest prices, and consumers’ ability to purchase a product instantly at diverse retail establishments,” said Standard & Poor’s credit analyst David Hitchcock. “We also don’t see a lottery ticket bought at a retail checkout counter as necessarily representing direct competition to or from a casino visit,” Mr. Hitchcock added.

Standard & Poor’s maintains ratings on lottery bonds issued by four states– Arizona, Florida, Oregon, and West Virginia–under its lottery revenue bond criteria (see “Lottery Revenue Bonds,” published June 13, 2007, on RatingsDirect). In our sector review, entitled “Why The Odds Favor Continued Strong Credit Quality For U.S. Lottery Revenue Bonds,” we discuss the reasons why we rate these bonds ‘AA’ or higher.

Under Standard & Poor’s policies, only a Rating Committee can determine a Credit Rating Action (including a Credit Rating change, affirmation or withdrawal, Rating Outlook change, or CreditWatch action). This commentary and its subject matter have not been the subject of Rating Committee action and should not be interpreted as a change to, or affirmation of, a Credit Rating or Rating Outlook.

The report is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.globalcreditportal.com and at www.spcapitaliq.com. If you are not a RatingsDirect subscriber, you may purchase a copy of the report by calling (1) 212-438-7280 or sending an e-mail to research_request@standardandpoors.com.

Ratings information can also be found on Standard & Poor’s public Web site by using the Ratings search box located in the left column at www.standardandpoors.com. Members of the media may request a copy of this report by contacting the media representative provided.

Primary Credit Analyst: David G Hitchcock, New York (1) 212-438-2022;
david.hitchcock@standardandpoors.com

Media Contact: April T Kabahar, New York (1) 212-438-7530;
april.kabahar@standardandpoors.com




Ballard Spahr: Proposed Legislation Provides Further Support for P3 Transportation Infrastructure Projects.

Legislation recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives calls for the senior procurement executive of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to enhance the services of the Office of Contract and Procurement by working with agencies, states, and other grant recipients on implementing public private partnership (P3) procurement best practices.

The legislation, H.R. 3465, was sponsored by Representative Sean M. Maloney of New York, who sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He served on a special committee panel that issued a report in September 2014 finding that P3s can be better utilized to enhance the delivery and management of transportation infrastructure projects across the country. The legislation calls for the senior procurement executive at DOT to develop suggested best practices to encourage standardizing state P3 authorities, including consistent, fair and balanced assumptions made in the calculations of unsolicited bids, noncompete clauses and other major P3 agreement elements.

A report by the Congressional Budget Office issued earlier this year found that P3 expenditures for the 36 highway and bridge P3s that have occurred in the United States over the last 25 years have totaled nearly $32 billion, which is less than 1 percent of the approximately $4 trillion spent on similar projects by all levels of government over that same period. While P3s cannot provide the sole solution to the nation’s infrastructure needs, H.R. 3465 intends to further encourage the use of P3s in financing transportation infrastructure needs. The legislation is among a series of recent steps taken to encourage the use of P3s.

A list of recent Ballard Spahr alerts on this topic are below:

Bill Would Create New Category of Tax-Exempt Bonds, Tax Credits for P3 Projects

Obama’s Proposed 2016 Budget Seeks To Address Infrastructure Needs

New P3 Legislation To Take Effect in Washington, D.C.

President Announces New Build America Initiatives; Introduces New Type of Municipal Bond

The full text of H.R. 3465 can be found here.

September 24, 2015

by the P3/Infrastructure Group

Attorneys in Ballard Spahr’s P3/Infrastructure Group routinely monitor and report on new developments in federal and state infrastructure programs related to transportation and other types of projects. For more information, please contact P3/Infrastructure Practice Leader Brian Walsh, William C. Rhodes, Steve T. Park, Christopher R. Sullivan, or the member of the Group with whom you work.

Copyright © 2015 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com




GFOA Executive Board Approves New Best Practices.

On September 25, 2015, GFOA’s Executive Board approved five new best practices and seven revised best practices, providing recommendations to government finance officers in the areas of accounting, budget, retirement benefits administration, capital planning, and debt issuance.

Understanding Your Continuing Disclosure Responsibilities.  The Committee on Governmental Debt Management updated this best practice to alert issuers to the increasing attention of federal policy makers and investor advocacy organizations on improving disclosure for government bond issuers. The updated best practice emphasizes specific areas for issuers to make improvements in based on the SEC’s 2014 Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative (MCDC), as well as separate SEC enforcement cases, such as the 2013 case against the City of Harrisburg, PA and the 2014 Allen Park, MI case. The GFOA is firmly committed to helping issuers understand and meet their federal continuing disclosure obligations, and have updated this best practice to further that effort.

Using Technology for Disclosure.  Beyond updating this best practice to increase issuer awareness of federal regulatory efforts to improve issuer disclosure, the Debt Committee also wanted to alert issuers to improved uses of not only issuer websites but new features on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (MSRB) Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) system, which enable issuers to improve the flow of disclosure information to investors. Updates were also made to this best practice to advise issuers on concerns about using other digital communication platforms (such as social media) to transmit disclosure information to investors.

Using Credit Rating Agencies.  The Debt Committee developed this new best practice to provide guidance to governments about how to select and manage credit rating agencies. The best practice was organized to help finance officers navigate the ever changing landscape of credit rating methodologies, and alert governments to the key factors they should consider in hiring one or multiple rating agencies, the types of debt issues that may benefit from obtaining a credit rating, what an issuer should be prepared to do to maintain a credit rating, and guidance on terminating a relationship with a rating agency.

Defined Contribution Plan Fiduciary Responsibility.  Recognizing many governments offer defined contribution retirement plans as a supplement to a defined benefit plan, or in some cases, as the sole employee retirement plan, this new best practice developed by the Committee on Retirement and Benefits Administration (CORBA) provides thorough guidance on a clear and well-documented governance structure to guide plan administrators, sponsoring entities, and governing bodies as they provide sound fiduciary guidance of the defined contribution retirement plan.

Informing and Educating Employees about Retirement Benefit Adequacy.  CORBA built this new best practice to provide guidance to public-sector employers and plan administrators who have a responsibility to inform and educate employees about future retirement income in the context of the many variables that may compromise retirement benefit adequacy.

Adopting Financial Policies.  The Committee on Governmental Budgeting and Fiscal Policy (Budget Committee) rewrote this best practice, which was last updated in 2001. The document recommends that governments formally adopt financial policies, and provides steps to consider when making effective financial policies include scope, development, design, presentation and review.

Determining the Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund.  This best practice is the result of the Budget Committee’s efforts to combine the existing Determining the Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund and Replenishing General Fund Balance best practices. In the new version of the document the GFOA recommends that governments establish a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance that should be maintained in the general fund for GAAP and budgetary purposes. The Budget Committee recommends that such a guideline should be set by the appropriate policy body and articulate a framework and process for how the government would increase or decrease the level of unrestricted fund balance over a specific time period.

The Impact of Capital Projects on the Operating Budget.  The Budget Committee prepared this new best practice following committee discussion about the analysis of operating impacts from capital, and the consensus opinion that such analysis is often deficient in practice. This is an indicator that practitioners are failing to understand the need, not effectively making the argument within their jurisdictions to include it, or lacking the tools and methodologies for calculating or showing the costs. To assist practitioners, this best practice recommends that governments discuss and quantify the operating impact of capital projects in their budget documents, and ensure that the impacts are identified on an individual project basis.

Assessing Risk and Uncertainty in Economic Development Projects.  GFOA’s Committee on Economic Development and Capital Planning (CEDCP) updated this best practice to better enumerate the steps in the risk assessment. The best practice recommends that governments recognize and evaluate risks related to participation in an economic development project before authorizing participation, and recommends that a project should not be undertaken if risks are determined to not be acceptable, and cannot be mitigated.

Monitoring Economic Development Performance.  CEDCP updated this best practice to bring greater emphasis to comparing the results of the project to the goals in order to provide more insight on the quality of the decision to authorize the project and to enable organizational learning from the decision. The best practice recommends that recommends that governments monitor economic development projects and program performance to ensure objectives established in an economic development policy are accomplished, and ensure that the finance officer plays a central, functional role in these efforts.

Establishing a Comprehensive Framework for Internal Control.  The Committee on Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting (CAAFR) updated this best practice to reflect changes made to the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations’ (COSO) Internal Control—Integrated Framework from 1992. The COSO document, the most widely recognized source of guidance on internal control, was updated and expanded in 2013, and the GFOA recommends that state and local governments adopt the COSO’s Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) as the conceptual basis for designing, implementing, operating, and evaluating internal control. CAAFR also updated its Framework for Entity-wide Grants Internal Control best practice to be consistent with the expanded COSO publication.

Thursday, October 1, 2015




CUSIP: Muni Volume Hits 11 Month Low in August.

CUSIP Global Services (CGS) today announced the release of its CUSIP Issuance Trends Report for August 2015. The report, which tracks the issuance of new security identifiers as an early indicator of debt and capital markets activity, suggests a possible slow-down in new corporate and municipal bond issuance over the next several weeks.

Read the report.




GASB Invites Governments to Participate in Survey of Financial Report Preparers.

The purpose of this survey is to gather information regarding the activities that governments engage in when preparing and publishing their audited annual financial reports in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), when those activities take place, and the number of technical staff hours involved. To assist you in completing the survey, the GASB staff will be available to answer questions throughout the survey period.

The staff also will be conducting two telephone conferences to provide an overview of the survey and answer your questions—on Wednesday, September 30, at 10:00 am EDT and Thursday, October 8, at 4:00 pm EDT.

Download the survey.

Register for the September 30 teleconference.

Register for the October 8 teleconference.

The completed survey should be emailed to dmmead@gasb.org no later than December 15, 2015.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact:

Pam Dolan (pdolan@gasb.org)

Amy Shreck (ashreck@gasb.org)

THANK YOU




Cities Bear Rising Cost of Keeping Water Safe to Drink.

TOLEDO, Ohio — Standing at the edge of the Great Lakes, the world’s largest surface source of fresh water, this city of 280,000 seems immune from the water-supply problems that bedevil other parts of the country. But even here, the promise of an endless tap can be a mirage.

Algae blooms in Lake Erie, fed by agriculture runoff and overflowing sewers, have become so toxic that they shut down Toledo’s water system in 2014 for two days. The city is considering spending millions of dollars to avoid a repeat.

Similar concerns about water quality are playing out elsewhere. Farm fertilizers, discarded pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals and even saltwater from rising oceans are seeping into many of the aquifers, reservoirs and rivers that supply Americans with drinking water.

Combating these growing threats means cities and towns must tap new water sources, upgrade aging treatment plants and install miles of pipeline, at tremendous cost.

Consider tiny Pretty Prairie, Kansas, less than an hour’s drive west of Wichita, where the water tower and cast-iron pipes need to be replaced and state regulators are calling for a new treatment plant to remove nitrates from farm fertilizers. The fixes could cost the town’s 310 water customers $15,000 each.

Emily Webb never gave a second thought to the town’s water until she became pregnant almost two years ago. That’s when she learned through a notice in the mail that the water could cause what’s known as “blue baby” syndrome, which interferes with the blood’s ability to carry oxygen.

“It just kind of scared me,” she said. “Now we don’t drink it at all.”

Instead, she and her husband stock up on well water from her parents’ home and buy bottled water even though health officials say the risk is limited to infants. When it comes time to buy their first home, she said, they will look somewhere else.

Pretty Prairie’s leaders hope to find a less expensive solution. They say the cost of a new treatment plant would drive people away and threaten the farm town’s survival.

Across the country, small towns and big cities alike are debating how much they can afford to spend to make contaminated water fit for drinking.

Cash-strapped cities worry that an unfair share of the costs are being pushed onto poor residents. Rural water systems say they can’t expect the few people they serve to pay for multimillion-dollar projects.

The U.S Conference of Mayors, in a report released this summer, found spending by local governments on all water-supply projects nearly doubled to $19 billion between 2000 and 2012. Despite a slowdown in recent years, it remained at an all-time high, the report said.

“We have a real dilemma on our hands,” said Richard Anderson, author of the report. “We know we need to increase spending on water, but many houses can’t afford it, and Congress won’t increase funding.”

In California’s Central Valley, low-income farming communities have gone without clean water for years because they don’t have money to build plants to remove uranium, arsenic and nitrates. Drinking fountains at schools have been put off limits, and families spend a large share of their income on bottled water.

A study released in June by the U.S. Geological Survey found nearly one-fifth of the groundwater used for public drinking systems in California contained excessive levels of potentially toxic contaminants.

Compounding the problem is the drought. Because farmers are using more groundwater for irrigation, contaminants are becoming more concentrated in the aquifers and seeping into new wells.

The drought has pushed Los Angeles to plan for the nation’s largest groundwater cleanup project, a $600 million plan to filter groundwater contaminated with toxic chemicals left over from the aerospace and defense industry. Some of the water will be drawn from polluted wells abandoned 30 years ago.

In the Midwest, where shortages typically have not been a concern, more attention is being paid to farming’s effect on drinking water supplies.

Minnesota’s governor this year ordered farmers to plant vegetation instead of crops along rivers, streams and ditches to filter runoff. The water utility in Des Moines, Iowa’s largest city, is suing three rural counties to force tighter regulations on farm discharges.

And in the wake of Toledo’s water crisis, Ohio has put limits on when and where farmers can spread fertilizer and manure on fields.

“But no one really knows how well that works,” said Chuck Campbell, the city’s water treatment supervisor.

Given that, the city has spent $5 million in the past year to bolster its ability to cleanse water drawn from Lake Erie. It is planning a renovation that could approach $350 million and include a system that uses ozone gas to destroy toxins produced by the algae. A 56 percent water rate increase is footing most of the bill.

In many coastal areas, rising seas mean saltwater can intrude into underground aquifers and in some cases ruin existing municipal wells. It’s especially problematic in the Southeast, from Hilton Head Island in South Carolina to Florida’s seaside towns near Miami.

“Nature’s calling the shots and we’re reacting,” said Keith London, a city commissioner in Hallandale Beach, Florida, where six of eight freshwater wells are no longer usable.

The city is considering relocating wells, upgrading its treatment plant or buying water from a neighboring town.

The water that comes out of the tap in the oceanside town of Edisto Beach, South Carolina, is so salty that it corrodes dishwashers and washing machines within just a few years, resident Tommy Mann said.

While technically safe to drink, it tastes so bad that the town gives away up to five gallons of purified water a day to residents and vacationers.

Voters narrowly rejected a proposal two years ago that would have doubled water rates to pay for an $8.5 million reverse-osmosis filtering system.

Said Mann: “We’re living in a beautiful little town with Third World water.”

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEPT. 25, 2015, 10:03 A.M. E.D.T.




High-Yield Muni Fund Plays the Edges.

As investors fled Chicago’s debt this year when its ratings were cut to junk, Nuveen Asset Management LLC fund manager John Miller gathered his team of analysts and asked if it was finally time to buy.

It was a typical move by Mr. Miller, who digs around in the corners of the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market for big bets that might pay off for his High Yield Municipal Bond Fund.

The approach once counted as fringe behavior in a market typically described as dull and safe. But business is booming as the long stretch of interest rates near zero pushes investors into riskier holdings and redefines what it means to be a buyer of bonds.

Investors poured about $9 billion into high-yield municipal-bond funds last year, according to Lipper. Nuveen’s High Yield fund has been a big beneficiary, swelling to about $10.6 billion of assets from a peak of around $6 billion before the financial crisis. It is now the sixth-largest municipal-bond fund in the U.S., according to Morningstar Inc.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that interest rates have been low for so long,” said Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management. “In their search for yield, investors are more willing to buy high-yield paper.”

Mr. Miller’s willingness to look for winners among bonds most prone to distress and default has produced market-leading returns in two of the past three years. But it is also a strategy that can lead to hefty volatility in times of market stress and outsize losses when investors want their money back.

In 2008, when municipal bonds fell about 2.5%, the High Yield fund dropped 40%. Then the market’s risks increased as bond insurance all but vanished, Detroit declared bankruptcy and Puerto Rico began slipping into financial crisis.

“We want to manage risk, but not shy away from risk altogether,” said Mr. Miller, who heads a team that manages more than $100 billion.

The municipal-bond market used to be all about shying away from risk. Investors prized protecting wealth over increasing it and bought the debt seeking tax-free income to fund their retirements. Mr. Miller’s introduction to it came in 1993, when he worked as a credit analyst at a Chicago firm managing highly rated bonds for wealthy individuals.

In 1996, he joined Nuveen as an analyst and soon was running a new $20 million high yield municipal-bond fund.

One of his big bets was on the Pocahontas Parkway, a nine-mile stretch of highway southeast of Richmond, Va. In 2003 and 2004, he said, he bought parkway bonds that were backed by tolls and had a face value of about $100 million for 80 cents on the dollar. The bonds were under stress, because some drivers were choosing free alternative roads and because the road had a reputation for being haunted.

It was the fund’s largest holding when an Australian company bought the parkway and backed the debt with Treasurys. The bonds went to about 110 cents on the dollar.

Mr. Miller has also poured money into charter schools, which can lose state funding if students leave. Today, his funds own about $1.4 billion in charter-school debt, a big chunk of the roughly $10 billion that has ever been sold in the U.S.

In 2008, Lehman Brothers failed, and clients pulled out hundreds of millions of dollars. Selling the bonds needed to meet those redemptions wasn’t easy. About half of the High Yield fund involved bonds with no ratings at all that wouldn’t mature for years. Mr. Miller had tried to hedge his funds against higher interest rates by betting against Treasurys. But interest rates fell and the price of U.S. government debt rose, amplifying the losses.

“I went out on the road, and it was difficult to be out there, because people were upset about the performance of the High Yield fund,” Mr. Miller said.

That year left the High Yield fund with about $2.8 billion in assets. It has since bounced back. Over five years, its total return of 7.71% was almost double the market’s, counting interest payments and price appreciation, according to Morningstar. Even so, an investor would have made more money over the past decade in an investment-grade municipal-bond fund from Vanguard—and would have paid lower fees and had less anxiety, several financial advisers said.

Mr. Miller says he adjusted the portfolio structure to prevent that kind of volatility from hitting the fund again. He also says he doesn’t court risk for risk’s sake. Unlike other operators of high-yield funds, Mr. Miller was wary early on about junk-rated Puerto Rico, which is in talks to restructure its $72 billion in debt.

But he did take a big swing on American Airlines. In 2012, when the airline went through bankruptcy, he went shopping for the riskiest debt available: $100 million in unsecured bonds issued by cities to build its facilities and paid by fees from the airline. Those bonds, worth pennies on the dollar, surged more than 60% in value two years later when American merged with US Airways. The new company converted the debt to equity, and the fund now holds about $145 million in American Airlines stock, one of its largest holdings.

Chicago, meanwhile, has underfunded its pensions for a generation and sold billions in debt, but Mr. Miller sees no sign of future financial distress. It has a strong business and financial community, many universities and few fiscal problems that couldn’t be solved by raising its relatively low taxes, according to Nuveen research.

The week after the downgrade, Chicago sold about $674 million in bonds at yields approaching 6%—more than 2 percentage points higher than comparably rated bonds.

As the sale opened, Mr. Miller sat in the tip of a triangular room full of traders manning their terminals and started buying.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By AARON KURILOFF

Sept. 22, 2015 8:54 p.m. ET

Write to Aaron Kuriloff at AARON.KURILOFF@wsj.com




Fitch: U.S. Municipal Ratings Higher than GO Ratings Not Usually Warranted.

Fitch Ratings-New York-22 September 2015:  Market participants have expressed concern over a perceived increase in the incidence of widely divergent U.S. municipal ratings. One area in which Fitch Ratings’ opinion differs from some other rating agencies’ is the conditions under which dedicated tax backed (DT) debt may be rated higher than the general credit quality (GO debt) of the issuing municipality.

A notable example is the divergent ratings on the City of Chicago, IL sales tax bonds, which carry ratings ranging from ‘AAA’ to below investment grade. Bondholders should insist on a reasonable legal basis to separate ratings of DT bonds such as the Chicago sales tax bonds from the city’s GO rating. Fitch notes that there is none in this case.

Fitch rates the bonds ‘BBB+’ with a Negative Outlook, on par with the city’s GO debt rating. Certain other agency ratings (Kroll and S&P) are not capped by the city’s general credit quality which Fitch believes may lead bondholders to mistakenly conclude that these DT bonds backed by general sales tax revenues are legally inoculated from the bankruptcy risk of the city. In Fitch’s view, if the legal protections do not insulate revenues supporting the rated DT bonds from the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code in a bankruptcy proceeding, the rating must be capped at the city GO. Although the risk of bankruptcy remains remote at ‘BBB+’, the city’s GO rating is the clearest, most direct expression of both the risk of bankruptcy and the linkage its DT bond has to that risk. Rating above the city GO can only be supported by one of three legal structures, none of which apply to Chicago’s DT bonds backed by general sales tax revenues.

SPECIAL REVENUE DESIGNATION ONE OF THREE LEGAL FRAMEWORKS SUPPORTING RATINGS DISTINCT FROM GENERAL CREDIT

One legal framework that permits Fitch to rate debt based on specific revenues free of the risk that a related municipality’s bankruptcy proceeding would interrupt payments is created under the federal bankruptcy code in the provisions that define ‘special revenues”. Fitch could rate debt backed by a strong revenue source multiple categories above the general credit of the municipality if Fitch believes the case for special revenue status is very clear.

The concept of “special revenues” is unique to Chapter 9 and the municipal bankruptcy process. Special revenue bonds are insulated from the municipality’s bankruptcy in two powerful ways. First, the lien interest in the special revenues continues even if it is a mere consensual lien. If the revenues are not special revenues, then the lien is lost as applied to revenues collected post-bankruptcy. Second, the application of special revenues and actions to apply them to debt payment is exempt from the automatic stay provision of the bankruptcy code. This exemption means that the trustee can continue to apply the pledged special revenues to pay debt service on qualified DT bonds. The power of these protections was evident in both the Stockton bankruptcy and the Detroit bankruptcy where water system bondholders were continuously paid debt service. Additionally, Fitch rates the Chicago water and sewer senior and junior debt as special revenue obligations at ‘AA+’ and ‘AA, respectively, notably higher than the city’s GO.

In Fitch’s opinion, there is no plausible basis to claim that the pledged sales taxes are “special revenues”. The Chicago sales taxes supporting the DT bonds are unmistakably general revenue for general governmental purposes and as such, are excluded from the definition of ‘special revenues’ in section 902 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Fitch expects the sales tax revenues would be subject to the automatic stay and default of the DT bonds would be likely in the case of a city bankruptcy. Therefore, an accurate and fair signal of the likelihood of in-full and on-time payment of the sales tax bonds must incorporate the city’s GO credit quality and ratings which ignore it understate bondholder risks.

SECURITIZATION AND SEPARATE REVENUE OWNERSHIP ALSO SUPPORT DISTINCT RATINGS

A second legal framework is a securitization authorized by state law where a municipality is empowered to “sell” its future revenues and these revenues are in turn used to support an asset backed security. This legal framework is the technique used by the New York City Transitional Finance Authority whose debt Fitch rates ‘AAA’. A third legal framework supporting higher ratings is a state intercept program where the state creates a flow of revenues and establishes a legal framework that directs those flows into a trust account solely for benefit of bondholders in which the municipality has no property rights except to flows released from the trust. In both of these frameworks, the basic idea is that the flows into the account are not property of the municipality. The municipality’s interest is only in residuals as they emerge, so the flows available to the debt are not interrupted when a municipality files a bankruptcy proceeding. The Chicago sales tax bonds fall into neither of these two categories.

RECOVERY PROSPECTS AND RECOVERY NOTCHING

Fitch’s ratings of municipal debt obligations are default risk ratings and are not “notched up” from default risk to incorporate an assessment of recovery. However, even if some form of notching methodology was applied, it is unlikely to benefit the rating of the Chicago sales tax bonds and certainly not by full rating categories. As the sales tax bonds are clearly not special revenue obligations, the consensual lien on revenues granted by the city would not continue following a bankruptcy filing. Bondholders would be competing with pension claims and GO debt holders for recovery. Of course a statutory lien could improve prospects for bondholders compared to general obligation debt and pension claims as a statutory lien continues post-bankruptcy. But there is no statutory lien benefiting the Chicago sales tax bonds. Even if there were one it would not in Fitch’s view support a multiple category separation.

LACK OF CHAPTER 9 OPTION IN ILLINOIS NOT A CREDIT FACTOR

Fitch does not make rating distinctions between municipalities in states where bankruptcy is an option and those where it is not. If bankruptcy is not currently authorized, Fitch believes it likely that the state could authorize it if necessary, or absent that, the municipality in severe fiscal distress would default on its obligations and take its chances in state court lien enforcement proceedings. Recent proposals and discussion in Illinois to allow municipal bankruptcy as an option for financially stressed issuers illustrates the basis for this approach.

Kroll acknowledges the risk when it writes in its Local Special Revenue Report on Chicago sales tax debt that a key rating concern on its AA+ rating of the sales tax debt is “the uncertainty of the lien on pledged revenues that would result if the city were granted the ability to seek relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy code and in addition if such relief was sought.” Fitch’s view is that this risk needs to be reflected in the rating up front. Failing to signal this connection in the ratings sets up a scenario in which bond pricing and yield can change radically when DT bond ratings inevitably begin aligning to the GO rating if distress increases and the GO rating declines.

For more information see ‘Statutory Liens Do Not Boost Debt Ratings’, dated July 21 of this year and available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’ or by clicking on the link at the end of the press release.

Contact:

Amy Laskey
Managing Director
+1-212-908-0568
Fitch Ratings, Inc., 33 Whitehall Street, New York, NY, 10004

Jessalynn Moro
Managing Director
+1-212-908-0608

Tom McCormick
Managing Director
+1-212-908-0235

Media Relations: Sandro Scenga, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0278, Email: sandro.scenga@fitchratings.com.

Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com’.




Muni Distressed Debt Firm Rosemawr Sues Over Revel Energy Bonds.

An investment firm focusing on high-yield and distressed municipal bonds sued the developer of a power plant that serves Atlantic City’s shuttered Revel Casino for securities fraud.

Rosemawr Management LLC, a $1 billion fund started by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s former head of municipal-derivatives trading, alleged that ACR Energy Partners LLC concealed defaults and used almost all its assets to make improper dividend payments to its parent company. In March 2014, New York-based Rosemawr bought $35 million of bonds that financed the power plant at 92.25 cents on the dollar. The securities have since lost 70 percent of their value.

“Although it was public knowledge that the Revel facility was not performing as well as Revel had intended, there was no reason to believe that Revel was defaulting on its payment to ACR,” Rosemawr said in the Sept. 16 suit, filed in federal court in Camden, New Jersey. “As a direct result of the fraudulent concealment of material information, plaintiffs purchased the bonds at artificially inflated prices.”

Distressed Municipalities

Rosemawr was formed in 2008 by Greg Shlionsky, a former Lehman Brothers managing director. The firm, which bought bonds backed by revenue from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s parking garages and has lent money to an assisted living facility in Georgia and a storm drain project in the Detroit area, also includes former Lehman municipal derivatives trader James Lister.

Greg Usry, Citigroup Inc.’s former co-head of municipal credit and financial products and Julie Morrone, who formerly managed Morgan Stanley’s high yield muni funds, also work at Rosemawr, according to the firm’s website.

Revel, which opened at a cost of $2.4 billion in 2012, was an attempt to bring a bit of Las Vegas to the east coast by offering more shows, restaurants and shopping. The property suffered from poor design and competition from new casinos in other states. It went bankrupt twice before closing in September 2014.
New Jersey’s Economic Development Authority issued about $119 million of unrated tax-exempt and taxable municipal bonds in 2011 on behalf of ACR, which used the money to build a heating, cooling and electric plant for the Revel resort and casino.

Bond Covenants

Revel had a 20-year contract to buy power and other utility services from ACR, a joint venture between South Jersey Industries Inc. and DCO Energy LLC. Dan Lockwood, a spokesman for South Jersey Industries, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment. Frank DiCola, chairman of Mays Landing, New Jersey-based DCO also didn’t return a message.

Two Rosemawr funds bought $35 million of the power plant bonds at 92.25 cents per $100 face amount in March 2014. ACR and its owners “flatly lied” about defaults under the bond covenants which, if disclosed, would have lowered the price of the securities, Rosemawr said.

ACR hid Revel’s failure to make required monthly payments under the energy service agreement and entered into a “special arrangement” with the casino to extend payment terms without bondholder permission, Rosemawr said. ACR also didn’t notify bondholders it failed to fully fund a required reserve account.

The account “provided crucial protection of bondholders’ interests, because it provided a source of payments to bondholders until Revel became consistently profitable.”

Dividend Payments

Finally, ACR made $11 million in improper and fraudulent divided payments to its sole controlling member, an entity set up by South Jersey Industries and DCO, according to the suit. Under the bond documents, dividends were restricted if there was an event of default, Rosemawr said.

The $11 million payments “represented substantially” all of ACR’s liquid assets. ACR missed its June 15, 2014, debt service payment.

The offering statement for ACR’s bonds warned investors that the shuttering of the Revel resort or an ownership transfer meant bondholders couldn’t be assured energy produced by the plant was necessary or that new owners might get energy elsewhere.

Rosemawr said it believed financing wouldn’t be jeopardized because Revel would need power, regardless of who purchased the building or its long-term use.

“Had the plaintiffs known the information that was fraudulently concealed by the defendants prior to the purchase of the bonds, the plaintiffs would either have not purchased the bonds altogether, avoiding any losses, or would have purchased the bonds only at a dramatically lower price, thereby significantly reducing their losses,” Rosemawr’s complaint said.

Bloomberg News

by Martin Z Braun

September 21, 2015 — 11:22 AM PDT




Moody's: Entrance of U.S. Not-for-Profit Hospitals into Health Insurance Will Continue to Rise.

New York, September 25, 2015 — More US not-for-profit hospitals are likely to venture into the commercial health insurance business in the next few years either to gain market share or reduce costs through improved healthcare management, Moody’s Investors Service says. However, starting a new plan or acquiring an existing business carries significant credit risks as managerial skills shift, competition intensifies, and start-up costs rise.

“Different management expertise is needed to operate a commercial health insurance business versus an acute care hospital. Health plans require actuarial skills for pricing models and specific marketing and service acumen, for example,” says Moody’s Vice President — Senior Analyst Mark Pascaris.

Despite substantial risks to cash flow margins, the trend is expected to persist, especially among larger systems which can absorb the costs. Drivers include the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which encourages care coordination and population health management; continued focus on cost reductions, synergies through greater economies of scale, and creating new revenue streams, Moody’s says in “Hospitals Entering Insurance Business Gamble on Long-Term Payoff.”

“Not-for-profit hospitals with a health insurance business (often known as an integrated delivery system, or IDS) tend to operate at noticeably lower operating cash flow margins than similar health systems without insurance,” Pascaris says. “Entering the insurance business inevitably suppresses hospital system margins from the beginning.”

Moody’s says this is due to the inevitable mismatch between expense ramp-up and premium reserves essential to meet cash reserve requirements to execute the plan. The effect on credit will largely be driven by the pace and magnitude of the strategy and management’s ability for rapid adjustment, if needed.

Aside from new managerial skills, competition from other national and regional health plans is intense. Moreover, this is compounded by recent merger and acquisition activity among Anthem Inc. (Baa2, under review possible downgrade) reached an agreement to acquire Cigna Corp . (Baa1, possible downgrade), following Aetna Inc.’s (Baa1, possible downgrade) deal to buy Humana Inc. (Baa3, possible upgrade) which has skewed negotiating leverage between commercial payors and hospitals decidedly toward the insurance companies.

There are some hospitals with long-standing health insurance plans that have developed an expertise in managing both the underwriting and delivery sides of the business. These health systems have ample cash reserves to weather insurance cycles and regulatory changes that come with the line of business.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.






Copyright © 2025 Bond Case Briefs | bondcasebriefs.com