Finance





S&P: Looking Toward U.S. Public Finance Ratings and Markets in 2016.

U.S. public finance (USPF) enters 2016 after year of growing credit strength and higher volume in 2015. It is likely that ratings in the sector will continue their upward movement, but volume should decline after a year of heavy refunding drove the first eight months of 2015 to a record pace that dissipated in the last third of the year. Data from Thomson-Reuters indicate that volume increased to $398 billion in 2015 from $334 billion in 2014, growing 19%. Throughout 2015, Standard & Poor’s upgraded about 1,100 ratings while downgrading approximately 570. This trend was consistent, as upgrades outpaced downgrades in each quarter of 2015. That trend should continue, although it is likely Puerto Rico will cause the number of defaults in U.S. Public Finance (USPF) to spike, perhaps to record numbers.

Continue reading.

27-Jan-2016




S&P Video: A Big Picture Look at What Lies Ahead for U.S. Public Finance.

We believe it’s likely that U.S. public finance ratings will continue their upward movement this year, but volume could well decline. Upgrades outpaced downgrades in each quarter of 2015. That trend should continue, although it is likely Puerto Rico will cause the number of defaults in the sector to spike. In this CreditMatters TV segment, Senior Director Larry Witte explains what lies ahead.

Watch Video.

Jan. 27, 2016




S&P Webcast Replay: Not-For-Profit Public and Private Colleges and Universities Criteria Release.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services held an interactive, live Webcast and Q&A on Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time for a discussion regarding our updated methodology for assigning stand-alone credit profiles (SACPs), issuer credit ratings (ICRs), and issue credit ratings to not-for-profit public and private colleges and universities globally.

Listen to the replay.

Jan. 29, 2016




Illinois 'Inland Port' Capitalizing on PAB Program.

CHICAGO – The only intermodal freight facility to ever take advantage of a special 11-year-old federal private activity bond program is back for a third round of financing.

The CenterPoint Joliet Terminal Railroad LLC in Illinois hopes to close as soon as this week on a $100 million private placement to help fund its ongoing expansion, according to Tim Lippert, CenterPoint’s vice president of finance.

Conduit issuer Illinois Finance Authority recently approved the transaction for the “inland port,” which smooths the flow of freight among trains and trucks.

The private activity bond financing is CenterPoint’s third, following its $80 million issue of surface freight facilities tax-exempt revenue bonds in 2012 and its first sale in 2010 for $150 million.

The project has an allocation under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s freight transfer facility revenue bond program established in 2005 in the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation authorization, which authorized an initial $15 billion of PABs for qualified projects.

The program seeks to promote private investment in highway, bridge and intermodal freight-transfer facility projects of regional or national importance with tax-exempt PABs. Such projects aren’t subject to state PAB volume caps.

The facility is the only intermodal facility financed to date under the U.S. Department of Transportation’s private activity bond program, IFA executive director Chris Meister said in his board message.

“All other US DOT Private Activity Bond projects issued to date have financed privately-owned toll road, toll bridge, or commuter rail projects,” he said.

CenterPoint’s developers have another facility that had qualified for the program but ended up using private financing, and other intermodal projects that also initially qualified either used private financing or have stalled.

A total of 15 projects have used nearly $5.9 billion in approved PAB financing and another six, including CenterPoint, have allocations to use another $5.7 billion, according to USDOT.

Projects also must receive Title 23 Highway Funds or Title 49 railroad grant funds. The IFA said CenterPoint has a commitment from Title 23 satisfying both US DOT requirements to qualify for the tax-exempt issuance for the project. Those funds have gone to improve local bridges and highways that benefit the project.

“The program has lowered our cost of borrowing and having the support of the Illinois Finance Authority and the federal government helps the park in its marketing and in attracting tenants,” Lippert said.

The project initially won a $1.2 billion allocation that was later scaled down because pieces of the build-out were slower to come to fruition than initially planned.

The project has a $400 million allocation remaining and can return to USDOT for more in the coming years.

“It was slow going due to the recession but has really been picking up,” Lippert said.

Proceeds will finance the acquisition of land, and construction and equipping of various capital improvements at the rail-to-truck and truck-to-rail intermodal facility.

The CenterPoint Intermodal Center is housed on a 4,000-acre Joliet site with distribution centers, container storage yards, and export facilities all in one campus.

The intermodal facility allows for the direct transfer of goods between and among trains and trucks, allowing customers to smooth the process of shipping goods from the U.S. coasts inland by rail for distribution by truck.

The overall project calls for rail improvements and the construction of between 15 million and 20 million square feet of related warehousing and distribution facilities as well as infrastructure improvements.

The conduit issuer is highlighting the thousands of temporary construction and permanent jobs created by the project and traffic relief it promises by helping to break the logjam that develops in Chicago as inland freight traffic travels across the country.

When finished, the campus will include an 835-acre Class I railroad intermodal facility, 450 acres of onsite container/equipment management and approximately 15 to 20 million square feet of industrial facilities.

“The project will provide critical transportation capacity for the region and distribution efficiencies for customers, while meeting local community, county and state interests through the creation of approximately 16,600 jobs and millions in new tax revenues,” IFA documents say.

CenterPoint plans a private placement with a syndicate of banks that currently finance line of credit and other credit facilities.

SunTrust Robinson Humphrey is placing the bond with a syndicate led by SunTrust Bank. Members of CenterPoint’s lending syndicate include Bank of America, BB&T, PNC Bank, Regions Bank, US Bank, JPMorgan Chase; and Wells Fargo Bank.

Interest rates are estimated to be in the range of 2% to 5% depending on their maturity which can go out 40 years, but the final terms are confidential on the unrated debt.

General counsel on the deal is Latham & Watkins LLP, bond counsel is Perkins Coie LLP and bank counsel is Dentons. IFA counsel is Kutak Rock LLP and IFA’s financial advisor is Acacia Financial Group Inc.

CenterPoint anticipates the total cost of the built-out facility to hit $1.26 billion with another $812 million being raised from future issuance through the IFA and the rest covered by an equity contribution.

Future issuance will be dictated by the project’s buildout needs over the next five to 10 years.

Lippert said it may return within the next 12 to 18 months for a fourth financing.

CenterPoint has 5 years to spend bond proceeds under the US DOT bond program, but it has typically privately financed its projects and then turned to the long-term tax-exempt allocation as needed to reimburse itself.

CenterPoint LLC is a real estate development company set up in 2007 to build and manage the facility. The borrower is primarily owned by CalEast Global Logistics LLC, a leading investor in logistics warehouse and related real estate; it’s a joint venture of the California Public Employees Retirement System and GI Partners.

The Chicago region is a top spot for inland port/freight transfer centers in the country due its location. All six North American Class I railroads intersect in the region: Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and the Union Pacific.

Officials say 60% of freight traveling inland from the coasts either stops in Chicago, or travels through Chicago to other markets and supporters of such inland ports have long stressed the need for relief.

“Although it takes only two days for freight to be shipped from the coasts, it can take four days for this rail traffic to move through the city of Chicago,” IFA documents said.

“Development of intermodal facilities around the outer suburbs of Chicago will help reduce rail bottlenecks, reduce truck traffic in the city of Chicago as well as create a more efficient supply chain for goods traveling inland from the coasts,” the documents said.

The project completed its first on site building for the Stepan Co. as well as a 12-acre grain facility for The De Long Co. in 2010.

Other construction on the site has included an 18-acre container storage facility for Mediterranean Shipping Co., a 36-acre container storage facility for APL, construction of Home Depot’s campus, an eight-acre container storage facility for Central States Trucking, Home Depot’s Joliet campus, and a 485,000 square foot joint-venture speculative facility that’s leased to International Transload Logistics.

Also, construction was completed on a 400,000-square-foot warehouse facility for Neovia Logistics, and construction began last year on a 1.1-millionsquare-foot building for Saddle Creek Logistics Services and a 1.4 million-square-foot-building for an undisclosed food manufacturer.

The Bond Buyer

by Yvette Shields

JAN 26, 2016 1:20pm ET




Survey Reveals Obstacles Mayors May Face to Using P3s to Maintain, Improve Infrastructure.

Public-private partnerships could make up for a lack of state and federal funding and support for cities that seek to improve aging infrastructure, but a national survey of mayors indicates city leaders may face obstacles to using this procurement method.

The types of infrastructure projects most mayors are likely to spend new sources of funding on are mass transit, roads, water, wastewater and stormwater, followed by public buildings and other facilities, reported the Initiative on Cities at Boston University. The research group based its findings on an analysis of responses provided by 89 city leaders in the research group’s second annual Menino Survey of Mayors. Almost half of those surveyed singled out infrastructure as the top priority and nearly all expressed concern over a lack of funding for maintenance and improvements for these projects.

However, most mayors indicated that they are more likely to seek to partner with the business community on economic development and education projects than on road, transit or water projects, even though many expressed dissatisfaction with the level of financial support they receive from federal and, especially, state governments.

Many of those surveyed also expressed frustration with what they view as the onerous impact of state and federal regulations on their activities, which could impede efforts they might otherwise make to explore P3s for infrastructure projects. For example, 19 mayors expressed the desire to repeal or alter laws that affect local revenue-raising options and eight other want changes to laws that affect how revenues are distributed.

Requirements that force city governments to conduct some types of partnerships with other governments rather than with private developers may limit cities’ options as well. “This may be because of funding sources, regulatory laws, or a function of overlapping jurisdictions, as with a water district,” the study says. In assessing the number and types of partnerships cities conduct “mayors revealed that their much maligned state government is actually their most frequent partner across a wide array of policy areas, from roads to the environment to economic development. …There are no areas in which state government is an infrequent partner.” the study points out.

A combination of regulatory restrictions on revenue sources and expenditures, coupled with the fact that private financing for projects is not free money but is subject to repayment may discourage city leaders from pursuing P3s for expensive infrastructure projects. The report quotes the mayor of a large city as saying “Public-private partnerships are great if you want something built with somebody else’s up-front capital. But you still have to pay the bill. … They’re not a solution to everything.”

Despite these expressed misgivings, many cities have been quite successful in overcoming perceived financial and other barriers to procuring key infrastructure projects through P3s. Examples include New York City, Gresham, Ore., San Antonio, Texas, Bayonne, N.J., Rialto, Calif., Westfield, Ind. and Allentown, Pa. And many other city-based P3a are in development or are being planned.

By NCPPP

January 28, 2016




S&P Webcast Replay: U.S. Municipal Utilities, Water & Power 2016 Outlook

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services held an interactive, live Webcast and Q&A on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time where we discussed our sector outlooks for 2016, along with hot topics such as impacts of the Clean Power Plan, the California drought and rate affordability.

Listen to the webcast.

Jan. 29, 2016




Kentucky's Cautionary Tale About Underfunding Pensions.

With the worst-funded pension system in the country, Kentucky offers a glimpse of what could be in store for other states.

Pensions will be a contentious topic again this year, with many states still struggling to find an affordable way to fund these promises to retirees. In Kentucky, which has the worst-funded state pension in the country, some officials are worried the plan has already reached the point of no return.

Kentucky’s largest retirement plan has been in slow and steady decline for years. Lately, it’s faced poor stock market returns and an increasing need to cash out investments or move money into low-risk, low-return bonds in order to make retiree payments. All that has led to an increase in the pension system’s unfunded liabilities to just over $10 billion.

The state legislature has passed several laws over the years aimed at reining in skyrocketing bills. But despite their efforts, the situation is getting worse.

The debate in Kentucky about what to do next offers a glimpse of what could be in store for other state pension systems that have a history of poor government funding.

In 2013, a new law created a hybrid cash balance plan for new employees, which is similar to a defined-benefit plan but carries less risk for the state. It also essentially eliminated retiree cost-of-living increases and required the state to make its full actuarial payments immediately — something it hadn’t done regularly since the 1990s.

But some are worried the changes came too late.

Over the past year, the plan lost nearly a third of its assets, dropping to $2.3 billion in 2015 from $3.1 billion in 2014. It now has just 19 percent of the assets it needs to meet its total pension liabilities over the next three decades.

“We understood that there was going to be several years of decline even after the latest reforms,” said Jim Carroll, cofounder of Kentucky Government Retirees, an advocacy group. “What [lawmakers] haven’t realized now is how deep and fast that trough has occurred.”

As in many states, lawmakers have tried to reverse the plan’s downward course for years. They cut retirees’ health benefits in 2004 and eliminated pension spiking, which offered higher benefits for workers whose earnings increased at the tail end of their career, in 2008. But it was only the most recent legislation in 2013 that forced the state to make its full pension payments. As a result, Kentucky’s employer contribution (which comes from money from the state’s General Fund, among other places) leapt to $521 million last year. That represents more than twice what it contributed in 2012 and one-third of the total payroll costs for state employees.

Kentucky’s not alone.

Both Illinois and New Jersey have repeatedly failed to make their full pension payments because of budget constraints. This year, at least Connecticut and Pennsylvania lawmakers are debating major overhauls of their pension systems. All of these states — plus Kentucky– have been slapped with credit rating downgrades in the last few years, either as a result of inaction on pensions or because of the financial pressures that unfunded liabilities are putting on their budgets. But none have yet reached the cash flow situation that Kentucky is facing.

Gov. Matt Bevin, just over a month into his new job, said this week in his State of the State address that he’ll order independent audits of every state pension system so he can propose “substantive structural changes” next year. He’s already called for eventually replacing the current system with a 401(k) retirement plan for new employees and letting current public employees transfer their traditional pensions to a 401(k) if they want. Until then, his latest budget would put $130.7 million from the General Fund toward the state employees’ pension, which is slightly more than what’s required.

​Carroll said his organization was still vetting the governor’s full proposal but called it “encouraging” that Bevin was making funding a priority. The 401(k) aspect of his proposal, however, has already incurred opposition from pension advocates.

The situation calls for negotiation and creativity, pension consultants say, but most of the ideas have been tried before. Some have proposed issuing bonds instead of using more General Fund money to infuse cash into the pension fund over time. But a similar bond proposal for the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System failed last year, and neither the legislature nor Bevin have shown much of an appetite for bonds.

Without decisive action, Kentucky will likely face even tougher budget choices down the line.

The struggling territory of Puerto Rico, for example, has recently started defaulting on some of its debt in order to pay its legally required obligations, including pensions. Some cities have been able to file for bankruptcy to overhaul their pensions, but territories and states can’t go that far.

“States can become structurally bankrupt where it’s very difficult — if not impossible — to make up the gap,” said Daniel Liljenquist, a former Utah lawmaker and a board member of the Retirement Security Initiative, a newly-formed group promoting sustainable retirement policies. “I think at that point you do have to go back and renegotiate with your retirees.”

That option isn’t palatable yet in Kentucky. Pension advocates are quick to point out that retirees have already given up some of their health benefits and their cost-of-living raises.

“My advice to [retirees] has been don’t spend any more money,” said Carroll. “This is a [pension] plan that will fail if nobody acts.”

*This story has been updated.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | JANUARY 27, 2016




Climate Change and Credit Ratings.

The growing intensity of natural disasters is a threat to state and local governments’ fiscal stability. How can they protect their finances and the environment?

Patricia, the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere, slammed into the town of Emiliano Zapata in southern Mexico in October. Peak winds were 165 miles per hour. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts that the 2015/2016 El Niño — a causal factor in the ferocity of Patricia — could foreshadow an indeterminate frequency, number and intensity of such storms in the Northern Hemisphere.

Wildfires in the U.S. West — California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington — were more severe and widespread this summer than in the past, burning or threatening millions of acres of land and thousands of homes. As wildfires increasingly imperil urban areas, they are putting more homes, lives and infrastructure at risk.

Whatever the debate about climate change may be in Congress or on the presidential campaign trail, it is clear that natural disasters — from hurricanes and wildfires to snowstorms and tornados — are becoming more commonplace and severe throughout the country. For state and local leaders, this intensification is not only a threat to lives and personal property but also to the fiscal stability of their communities.

It should not come as a surprise that the credit rating agencies have taken notice, adding “resiliency” to their rating criteria. In a recent statement, Standard & Poor’s noted that it regularly publishes extensive research on the implications of environmental and climate-related risks and that its evaluation of environmental, social and governance risks is a key part of its ratings methodology. “We continue to review,” S&P stated in a note, “the relevance of climate risk for creditworthiness and how we assess and present it as a risk factor in our analysis.”

When it comes to natural disasters, the task of protecting lives, property and the fiscal stability of a community falls disproportionately on states and localities — especially the latter because of the responsibilities they have, including zoning, emergency planning and the need to find the funding to undertake protective measures. In that regard, there are lessons to be learned from past events. Some regions or states that have suffered losses have taken relatively simple steps to protect against future destruction, such as changing building codes or rebuilding on higher ground.

A case in point is the Biloxi-Gulfport area in Mississippi. Ten years ago, the destructive winds of Hurricane Katrina hit the coastal region with full force, destroying everything from residential homes to the offshore gambling industry. Concerned that Biloxi’s economic lifeblood — tourists — would not return, the Mississippi legislature mandated that casinos had to build up to 800 feet inland instead of along the coast. Local communities banded together to rebuild, and today the casinos and golf courses that relocated or built inland have paved the way for a surprising and vibrant growth in the area, as well as an overall improved resilience for the economic lifeblood of the local communities.

Some unharmed communities are forward-looking, too. In Virginia’s Hampton Roads region, coastal cities are investing in research and planning ways to diminish the negative effects of rising seas. Norfolk, which is home to the world’s largest naval base, has been developing initiatives to learn about the impact of recurrent flooding in coastal cities around the globe.

On a recent visit to Norfolk, Secretary of State John Kerry noted that these initiatives were not just critical to the city’s economic and physical future but also to what he deemed “the importance of addressing resilience and national security.” Kerry announced the formation of a task force to incorporate climate change into decision-making at every level of government. That is, city leaders’ experiences in Norfolk could not only help keep its fiscal house in order but have applications for cities across America on the Gulf, Pacific and Atlantic coasts, as well as for others worldwide.

GOVERNING.COM

BY FRANK SHAFROTH | JANUARY 2016




Derivatives Mean U.S. Cities Get No Free Pass From Crisis Legacy.

When Chicago’s city council this month delayed voting on a bond sale sought by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the elected leaders questioned whether they should go deeper in debt to pay about $100 million to unwind derivative trades.

“My fear is that these products designed to offer savings are going to saddle us with two decades of payments,” said Chicago Alderman John Arena, who joined with others to hold up consideration of the deal. “Is borrowing to pay the termination payment with more debt the way to buy our way out?”

Even in Chicago, a city contending with soaring pension bills and a school system that’s veering toward insolvency, there’s little other option. States, cities and counties across the U.S. haven’t found a way to skirt the fees they still face from interest-rate swap deals that cost them billions since credit markets unraveled in 2008. Chicago alone has paid $250 million to break the contracts, which banks had the right to cancel after its credit rating was cut to junk by Moody’s Investors Service in May. That’s enough money to cover more than two months of payroll for the city’s police department.

The derivatives were intended to protect governments that sold variable-rate bonds from the risk that interest costs would rise. They agreed to pay a fixed rate to banks in return for those that fluctuated with market indexes. Those adjustable payments were supposed to cover the interest due on the debt, leaving governments effectively paying the fixed rate. It could be cheaper than borrowing by selling traditional securities.

When the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to near zero in late 2008, the trades became valuable assets to banks, and governments had to pay the market value if they wanted to break them. Some unwound them because the deals backfired, resulting in higher debt bills, while others opted out so they could refinance after borrowing costs dropped to a half-century low.

Public officials have no recourse but to honor the contracts, absent unusual legal circumstances: Detroit reduced its obligation only because of its bankruptcy, while JPMorgan Chase & Co. forgave Jefferson County, Alabama’s $647 million of fees to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges of fraud.

“They see it as a piece of paper that is a contract, they don’t think they have to negotiate,” said Robert Fuller, a principal at Capital Markets Management, a Hopewell, New Jersey-based swaps adviser.

Chicago has had some success. The city estimates that it has saved about $20 million by negotiating with banks over the market value of the derivatives contracts it has already canceled, according to Carole Brown, its chief financial officer.

Molly Poppe, a Chicago spokeswoman, said Royal Bank of Canada and Barclays Plc are counterparties on the derivatives the council considered this month. Elisa Barsotti, a spokewoman for RBC in New York, and Mark Lane, a spokesman for Barclays, declined to comment.

Officials in Harris County, Texas, and Los Angeles explored ways to reduce what they owed to banks, only to later abandon the efforts without success.

Political Push

In Chicago, labor unions facing pension-benefit cuts have pushed for officials to challenge the fees, saying the city wasn’t fully apprised of the risk.

“If you pay now the taxpayers will end up paying for them for the next 30 years,” said Saqib Bhatti, the director of ReFund America, which has been working with unions and other groups on the swaps. It’s backed in part by the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank that looks for ways to restructure government. “It doesn’t put the deal behind you, it puts it on the books so you’re paying it for the next 30 years.”

In 2014, Chicago’s lawyers looked into whether there were grounds for a legal challenge by interviewing current and former employees and pouring through thousands of pages of documents. They didn’t find any basis to sue.

“If we thought there was a valid claim that we could pursue against the swap counterparties — please be assured we would vigorously pursue it,” Jim McDonald, a city attorney, told reporters on a conference call this month. “We had a very thorough review done, and we did not find a legal basis for pursuing any such claim.”

On January 13, Chicago’s city council held off on authorizing a $200 million bond issue that would cover the derivative-cancellation fee. Brown, the CFO, will discuss the deal with city council members at a meeting again next month.

The financing would finish Emanuel’s plan to eliminate the risks tied to such deals, which have triggers that give banks the right to demand that bonds be paid off early and the derivatives canceled if the city’s ratings fall below a certain threshold.

Poppe, the city spokeswoman, referred to Brown’s previous remarks when asked to comment. In a Jan. 21 letter to aldermen, the CFO said the city continues to “aggressively negotiate the water swap termination payments to ensure the smallest payment possible.” Barclays, which took over part of a water-bond swap from UBS AG, lowered the rating threshold, which prevented Chicago from facing an immediate demand to pay it off.

Officials probably never should have entered the agreements in the first place, said Richard Ciccarone, who follows municipal finance as president of Merritt Research Services in Chicago.

“They should have turned them down because they involved betting the public’s money on interest rates,” said Ciccarone.

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston and Elizabeth Campbell

January 28, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on January 29, 2016 — 5:35 AM PST




The High-Yield Munis That Conquered 2015 Seen Overpriced in 2016.

For investors in high-yield municipal bonds, the downside of making money in 2015 while other risky-debt buyers suffered losses is they’ll be hard-pressed to do it again in 2016.

Junk-rated munis returned 1.8 percent last year, in contrast to declines of 0.8 percent, 4.5 percent and 22 percent for U.S. high-yield loans, corporate securities and floating-rate notes, respectively, Barclays Plc data show. Energy companies dragged down returns as oil prices continued to slide, raising the risk of defaults. Taxable company debt is down another 2.2 percent this month through Jan. 27, while tax-exempt bonds gained an added 0.1 percent.

The divergence can’t last, say Standish Mellon Asset Management and Wells Capital Management. State and local bonds benefit from stronger credit quality than their corporate counterparts, leaving investors more willing to lend to lower-rated borrowers to pick up extra yield with interest rates near generational lows.

Only 7.5 percent of tax-exempt debt rated junk by Moody’s Investors Service defaults within 10 years, compared with 32.4 percent of corporate securities. Yet this year may come down to what’s cheap and what’s not.

“We’re at a crossroads,” said Lyle Fitterer, head of tax-exempt debt in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, at Wells Capital, which oversees $39 billion of munis. “If you go back five years, there’s been fairly substantial underperformance of high-yield taxable versus high-yield munis. We’d argue that valuations within the high-yield taxable market look pretty attractive and you’re going to get excess performance.”

Mutual fund investors aren’t getting the message. U.S. corporate high-yield funds saw outflows of more than $4 billion in the past two weeks, Lipper US Fund Flows data show. By contrast, individuals have poured $1.5 billion into high-yield muni funds over the past five weeks, the biggest wave of cash since June 2014.

So-called crossover buyers, who don’t benefit from the tax-exempt interest on municipal bonds yet sometimes buy it anyway when it gets too cheap, are in the best position to capitalize and add high-yield corporate debt, Fitterer said.

That could come at the expense of individual investors, who hold the majority of munis through private accounts or mutual funds. They have shown signs of chasing performance by pouring money into the market when it’s rallying and yanking it during routs.

That’s particularly risky when it comes to the high-yield muni market. Apart from bonds backed by tobacco settlement money, many of the securities were issued for small, stand-alone projects. On some occasions, a few investors own the entire deal.

“We are at rich valuations in muni high-yield and we’re more likely to revert to the mean to look more like corporate high-yield, so it wouldn’t be the time in the cycle to buy,” said Christine Todd, head of tax-sensitive strategies at Standish Mellon, which oversees about $30 billion in munis. “When you own municipal high-yield, you do have a danger of finding yourself owning illiquid securities that can’t be traded.”

That risk came to fruition in 2013, during what became known as the Taper Tantrum. The $1.9 billion Market Vectors High Yield Municipal Index exchange-traded fund, used as a proxy for the market, tumbled 14.3 percent in a month from its near-record high. It still hasn’t recouped the price decline.

Other investors, including Nuveen Asset Management, aren’t as quick to call an end to the current rally.
While the bonds appear expensive relative to alternative assets, so does the municipal market as a whole: The ratio of benchmark 10-year AAA yields to U.S. Treasuries tumbled this month to the lowest since 2011, signaling that state and local debt is relatively pricey. That means high-yield securities, with larger interest payments to offset any price declines, could still fare best among tax-exempt obligations.

“The relative value versus corporate high-yield really represents the blowing out of spreads in corporate high-yield,” said John Miller, who runs Nuveen’s $11.8 billion high-yield muni fund, the largest of its kind. Riskier tax-exempt bonds are still attractive because “defaults are running below average and AAA yields are also running below average, but tax obligations for the highest income brackets are the highest since 1986.”

While the high-yield muni market is alluring for wealthy investors after adjusting for taxes, the low-hanging fruit is gone and few segments are worth the risk at current prices, Pacific Investment Management Co. portfolio managers David Hammer and Sean McCarthy wrote in a Jan. 24 report. The company’s $626 million high-yield muni fund outperformed 99 percent of peers over the past year. They’re adding debt with stronger credit ratings.

“Increased volatility can present great opportunities for investors who are well-positioned, but it also can be a land mine for those who aren’t,” Hammer and McCarthy wrote. High-yield municipal debt investors should be “equipped to play defense if conditions warrant.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

January 27, 2016 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on January 28, 2016 — 5:58 AM PST




Fitch Rating Criteria for Variable-Rate Demand Obligations and Commercial Paper Issued with External Liquidity Support.

Read the Criteria.

January 28, 2015




SIFMA U.S. Municipal VRDO Update, December 2015.

A brief historical stat sheet to the municipal ARS, FRN, and VRDO market ending December 2015. In Excel format only.

Download.

January 27, 2016




GFOA Executive Board Approves New Best Practices and Advisories.

On January 22 the GFOA’s Executive Board approved five best practices and an advisory to provide guidance to government finance officers in the areas of budgeting, accounting, retirement benefits administration and debt issuance. A summary of each is provided below.

Budget Consolidation

This new best practice was developed by the GFOA Budget Committee to help finance officers ensure that entity-wide budget totals do not contain double-counting. While accounting standards require items to be recorded in separate funds, interfund activity is eliminated from government-wide consolidated budget totals in financial statements. As budget consolidation occurs, finance officers need to safeguard against double-counting, yet there is limited guidance on how best to accomplish this. This new best practice offers specific guidance to finance officers on how to ensure that government-wide financial statements do not contain double-counting.

Incorporating the Capital Budget into the Budget Document

In developing this best practice the GFOA Budget Committee and Committee on Capital Planning and Economic Development merged and revised the two existing GFOA best practices Presenting the Capital Budget in the Operating Budget Document and Incorporating a Capital Project Budget in the Budget Process. The new document recommends that finance officers adopt a formal capital budget as part of their annual or biennial budget process and provides guidelines to finance officers on incorporating information from the capital budget within the budget document.

Sustainable Funding Practices for Defined Benefit Pensions and Other Postemployment Benefits

The GFOA Committees on Budget; Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting; and Retirement and Benefits Administration collaborated to revise this best practice, which recommends that state and local government officials ensure that the costs of defined benefit (DB) pensions and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) are appropriately measured and reported. The best practice was updated to (1) provide guidance on how to ensure sustainability of DB pension plans and OPEB, (2) outline what to include in funding policies related to DB pension plans and OPEB and (3) provide recommendations on how to reduce volatility of annual contributions to DB pension plans and OPEB.

Ensuring Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Sustainability

The GFOA Committees on Budget; Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting; and Retirement and Benefits Administration also collaborated to revise this best practice, which recommends that governments ensure OPEB sustainability by evaluating key items specifically related to OPEB, including the structure of benefits offered, the associated benefit cost-drivers, and clear communication to stakeholders. The best practice was primarily revised to focus on sustainability measures specific to OPEB, particularly as related to structure and managing costs of benefits offered.

Framework for Internal Control: The Control Environment

The GFOA Committee Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting developed this new best practice as a follow-up to the 2015 best practice Establishing a Comprehensive Framework for Internal Control, which recommends that state and local governments adopt the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations’ (COSO) Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) as their conceptual basis for designing, implementing, operating, and evaluating internal control. The Best Practice said that this would provide governments with reasonable assurance that they are achieving their operational, reporting, and compliance objectives. To support governments’ efforts in this area, the GFOA is developing Best Practices that explain how to implement each of the five components of that Framework. This Best Practice focuses on the first of those five components, the Control Environment, which the COSO has defined as a set of standards, processes, and structures, that provide the basis for carrying out internal control.

Enhancing Tax Abatement Transparency

The GFOA Committee on Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting organized this new best practice to provide recommendations to government finance officers about disclosing tax abatements to comply with GASB Statement No. 77, Tax Abatement Disclosures. The GASB statement requires the disclosure in the notes to the financial statements of only a portion of the information necessary toward understanding the complete justifications and implications of providing tax abatements. GFOA recommends that governments enhance tax abatement transparency and provide a description of the policies governing tax abatements, including what the government is hoping to achieve by utilizing them, and the methodologies used to determine the entity’s return on investment from them.

OPEB Bonds

The GFOA’s Committee on Retirement and Benefits Administration and Committee on Governmental Debt Management collaborated to revise this best practice to advise governments against issuing OPEB bonds, and provides a summary of the risks associated with issuing these products.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016




S&P: Management is Key for U.S. Water Utilities to Align Operations and Finances.

In 2002 Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services published the “Top 10 Ways To Improve Or Maintain A Municipal Credit Rating.” The article notes that “In addition to quantitative factors, qualitative information factors heavily into credit analysis.” Simply, some factors that are important to credit quality are difficult to measure. In that regard, municipal waterworks and sanitary sewer utilities are not unlike any other rated issuer: there is a strong correlation between leadership and ratings. And the decentralized and autonomous nature of U.S. local governments creates an even stronger link between management and credit quality.

In 2007, the American Water Works Assn. (AWWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and others in the sector identified attributes of effective utility management. In addition, we observe that highly rated utilities generally — but not always — have an alignment among operational, financial, and strategic goals that recognize that the organization has not only external, but also internal, stakeholders. Strong management alone can lend itself to operational and fiscal continuity and can serve as a stabilizing factor for more than just the rating. Strong management combined with favorable assessments in other rating factors can even be buoy credit quality. For example, liquidity and reserves provide working capital, fund unexpected operational problems, and enhance general budgetary flexibility. If management acts to make liquidity likely to be consistently robust, then, if contingent liabilities become actual liabilities, liquidity and management strength can together moderate or even free a utility from distress. Conversely, the absence of liquidity and management strength together creates a limiting factor and often leads to rapid credit deterioration.

Overview

Continue reading.

19-Jan-2016




S&P: Affordability as a Component of U.S. Water and Sewer Utility Ratings.

Despite its capital intensity, the U.S. water utility sector is generally an efficient one, in Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ view. We have seen utilities and their representatives employ public education campaigns to help gain buy-in of critical proposed rate adjustments by noting that a typical household water and sewer bill is still less expensive in absolute dollars than a mobile phone or cable or satellite television bill even after a much larger rate change for the water and sewer bill (see chart). In the U.S., for every gallon of gasoline, a residential customer could receive between 500 to 1,000 gallons of drinking water, depending on current gasoline prices.

Overview

Continue reading.

19-Jan-2016




An Overview of Standard & Poor's Updated Methodology for Rating U.S. Public Finance Waterworks, Sanitary Sewer, and Drainage Utility Systems.

On Jan. 19, 2016, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services published its updated criteria for rating waterworks, sanitary sewer, and drainage utility systems in the U.S. The update is part of our regular criteria review process, and its goal is to provide additional transparency and comparability to help market participants better understand our approach in assigning ratings to U.S. public finance waterworks, sanitary sewer, and drainage utility systems, to enhance the forward-looking nature of these ratings, and to enhance the global comparability of our ratings through a clear, comprehensive, and globally consistent criteria framework.

Continue reading.

19-Jan-2016




S&P RFC Process Summary: Rating Methodology and Assumptions for U.S. Municipal Waterworks and Sanitary Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds.

On Dec. 10, 2014, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services published a request for comment (RFC) on its proposed approach to analyzing bonds supported by municipally-owned water and sewer utilities in the U.S. Following feedback from the market, we finalized and today published our criteria “U.S. Public Finance Waterworks, Sanitary Sewer, And Drainage Utility Systems: Rating Methodology And Assumptions”.

Standard & Poor’s received comments from participants representing the utility, banking and underwriting, municipal financial advisory, and academic communities. Based on feedback, we have revised certain factors for the purposes of further clarity and transparency.

This RFC process summary provides an overview of the substantive changes between the RFC and the final criteria. We considered all comments, made many changes in response, but did not make all changes suggested. Since the original RFC, we also made some stylistic and wording changes to ensure consistency among other criteria published by Standard & Poor’s. We have added references to related criteria already published by Standard & Poor’s with details on how these criteria apply to municipally-owned water and sewer utilities. We also corrected a few very minor technical errors in the publication. The changes outlined below summarize the material changes made based on market feedback and further refinements of the methodology based on extensive testing of its application to municipally-owned water and sewer utilities. All paragraph citations are in reference to the final criteria unless otherwise noted.

Continue reading.

19-Jan-2016




S&P Credit Rating Model: Water/Sewer Credit Scoring.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services uses the results of its Water/Sewer Credit Scoring Model to perform standardized credit analysis for assigning water and sewer ratings based on its criteria methodology.

Purpose Of The Model

Standard & Poor’s criteria, ” U.S. Public Finance Waterworks, Sanitary Sewer, And Drainage Utility Systems: Rating Methodology And Assumptions”, published Jan. 19, 2016, explains our methodology for assigning issue credit ratings, issuer credit ratings (ICRs), and ratings derived from stand-alone credit profiles (SACPs), based on waterworks, sanitary sewer, and drainage utility revenue pledges of local and regional governments (LRG) in the U.S. The Water/Sewer Credit Scoring Model applies the criteria methodology. By standardizing the calculations and inputs used in our analysis, the model provides for the consistent application of the referenced criteria.

The model is used to perform credit analysis for new issuance and surveillance of ratings assigned to waterworks, sanitary sewer, and drainage utility systems of a U.S. municipality or comparable political subdivision, and whose debt is secured by revenues derived chiefly from user charges for the ongoing operations of drinking and/or raw-water sales, sanitary sewer collection, and/or treatment, and/or storm drainage systems, or some combination thereof, directly to the end (retail) customer.

Use of the model is intended to enhance comparability across sectors and improve transparency and consistency in deriving ratings. The model is also used whenever analysis is needed to derive credit assessments or credit estimates.

Continue reading.

19-Jan-2016




S&P Credit FAQ: All-In Coverage, Transfer Payments, and Credit Quality.

U.S. local and regional governments commonly have some kind of financial interplay between the general government and other affiliated enterprises, such as municipally owned utilities. In fact, it is uncommon for there not to be some kind of transfer payment. As Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services noted in “Methodology: Definitions And Related Analytic Practices for Covenant And Payment Provisions In U.S. Public Finance Revenue Obligations,” published Nov. 29, 2011, transfers are based on an open flow of funds, meaning that after all operating expenses have been paid and other covenanted funds are filled, surplus net revenues can be used for any lawful purpose, including movement to another governmental fund, department, or component unit.

Just as there are many different labels for these transfer payments — payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), franchise fees, and the like — so are there many perfectly reasonable justifications for these payments to take place. Most often, the general government considers its capital and credit quality to be at risk based on its ownership and operation of an enterprise, such as a utility, and the general government deems the transfer payment as a return on the investment for taking that risk. Other very common reasons for transfer payments from the utility to the general government include:

To provide additional transparency and clarity about Standard & Poor’s view of transfer payments, we have provided answers to questions that we commonly are asked.

Frequently Asked Questions

To what extent do transfers from the utility fund to the general fund affect credit quality?
The mere existence of transfers is so commonplace that the analyst will look to what logic, if any, is behind the transfer. Some transfers are driven by a formula, such as a percentage of gross operating revenues, the net depreciable value of the utility system’s assets, or the number of units sold of a utility’s services. Predictability and discipline lend themselves to being credit-neutral. Open-ended transfer payments are usually a credit negative.

What are open-ended transfers?
Open-ended transfers occur when a general government can take as much of the utility’s surplus cash as it deems necessary. We would usually view this as a credit negative to both the general and utility funds. Open-ended transfers imply that the general fund is structurally imbalanced, is being subsidized (probably materially) by ongoing utility operations, and is vulnerable to fluctuations and negative budget variances in the utility fund. It is also harmful to the utility because it is an impediment to the utility accumulating and maintaining cash reserves that might otherwise be available for ongoing utility needs, unbudgeted emergencies, or debt-free system reinvestments.

How does Standard & Poor’s determine if, in its opinion, there is an over-reliance on utility transfers?
Standard & Poor’s core coverage metric is all-in coverage, also known as fixed-charge coverage, which we view as the best way to track the use of every dollar of utility operating revenues. This metric is our adjusted debt service coverage metric that treats certain debt-like obligations as if they were the actual debt of the utility, even if legally they are treated as an operating expense, such as contractual take-or-pay minimums or capacity charges. This metric also treats transfer payments as an operating expense. While we understand that under most bond indentures transfers are considered a use of surplus net revenues, we view them as recurring obligations of utility operating revenues and, therefore, include them. Weak all-in coverage, usually near or even below 1.0x, could indicate that transfer payments are relatively large, among other risks.

What is the formula for all-in coverage?
[(Revenues – Expenses – Total Net Transfers Out) + Fixed Costs] /(All Revenue Bond Debt Service + Fixed Costs + Self Supporting Debt Service)

Total net transfers out are defined as transfers from the utility fund minus transfers into the utility fund, including but not limited to:

We deem net transfers out that legally or by practice support debt service of another governmental fund as part of the denominator’s self-supporting debt. Cash that does not truly leave the utility, such as a set-aside into a rate stabilization reserve or pay-as-you-go fund are not included as transfers out. Similarly, the application of a rate stabilization fund (RSF) or other cash on hand as a transfer in would not be included in the all-in coverage calculation

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.

19-Jan-2016

Primary Credit Analyst: Theodore A Chapman, Dallas (1) 214-871-1401;
theodore.chapman@standardandpoors.com

Secondary Contact: David N Bodek, New York (1) 212-438-7969;
david.bodek@standardandpoors.com




S&P: U.S. Higher Education Was Stable Overall in 2015, Despite Rating Changes Reaching an All-Time High.

The U.S. higher education sector’s credit quality remained predominantly stable in 2015 despite a record number of rating changes. Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services took 51 rating actions last year, 41 downgrades and 10 upgrades, and affirmed the approximately 80% of remaining ratings.

Continue reading.

Jan. 19, 2016




S&P: Collapsing Oil Prices Seep Into State Credit Profiles.

In its recent state sector outlook, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services identified 11 states as coming under negative fiscal pressure at the start of 2016. Low and declining oil prices explain much of the pressure in at least five of these states. Not all states with significant oil producing sectors are faced with fiscal pressure to the same degree, however. There are several variables that explain why some oil producing states are more immediately affected in their budgets by falling oil prices than others. These include:

In short, the more aggressive a state was with regard to its assumptions and use of oil-related revenues during the oil boom, the more acute its fiscal pressure now, in the oil price bust. For states with greater budgetary reliance on oil-related revenue, the unrelenting decline in prices places a larger burden on state lawmakers to identify and enact corrective fiscal measures. Short of something not easily forecasted, such as a supply shock stemming from turmoil in the Middle East, it’s unlikely that state policymakers will be bailed out by a sharp rebound in oil prices. On the contrary, as of early 2016, and with sanctions on Iran being lifted, oil prices have continued to fall and are now well below what the states had forecasted. At this point, all of the states in our survey still have a higher price forecast for 2016 than does Standard & Poor’s ($40 per barrel). For fiscal 2017, only one state (North Dakota) forecasts a price range in line with our forecast price ($45 per barrel); the other states still have a more bullish outlook. This suggests that as they head into budget season, fiscal pressures in these states could be more intense than what their official forecasts currently anticipate. (See “S&P Lowers Its Hydrocarbon Price Deck Assumptions On Market Oversupply; Recovery Price Deck Assumptions Also Lowered,” published Jan. 12, 2016 on RatingsDirect.)

Some oil producing states have partially mitigated the effect of commodity market volatility on their budgets by segregating the oil-related revenue, putting most of it in reserves or special funds. But with producers reining in their operations, economic losses are not confined to just the energy sectors in these states. Overall job growth from among the oil producing states in our survey is now materially lower than for the nation as a whole. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whereas total nonfarm payroll jobs increased 1.9% during the 12-month period through November 2015, the eight states in our survey saw job growth of just 0.9%. Not surprisingly, lower than expected job and economic growth is showing up in the recent revenue data reported by Texas, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, where collections have fallen short of the budget forecast. There are also signs of expenditure side pressure where job losses translate to higher demand for social services. For example, public assistance expenditures in Texas are running ahead of budget in fiscal 2016 while tax collections are lagging fiscal 2015 receipts through the same date. This environment contributes to our belief there is potential for an uptick in rating volatility in the state sector during 2016.

Continue reading.

21-Jan-2016




Chicago School Bond Sale May Attract Unusual Investors.

Chicago’s struggling public school district could lure hedge funds and other investors with an unusual opportunity to buy high-yield municipal assets while pivoting attention away from Puerto Rico’s distressed debts.

The Chicago Board of Education’s $875 million bond issue next week comes as the nation’s third-largest public school system struggles with a structural budget deficit of at least $1 billion.

Rated below investment-grade, the Chicago Board of Education is likely to attract a new class of investors not typical to the municipal bond market. The new deal may see interest from hedge funds and private equity funds, taxable investors who do not necessarily benefit from tax-exempt paper, said Michael Comes, portfolio manager and vice president research at Cumberland Advisors.

“This is similar to what happened in Puerto Rico, where it shut itself out of the muni market,” said Comes. “I think we’re at the cusp of that with the Chicago Board of Education deal.”

This week, Republican legislators pushed the idea of a state takeover and potential bankruptcy plan, a proposal favored by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner but quickly shot down by Democrats who control the legislature.

Such distress signs also caught the attention of municipal bond insurers such as Assured Guaranty, MBIA, and Ambac Financial Group, which have until now been focusing intently on developments in Puerto Rico. But news from Illinois served “as a reminder that there are multiple drivers of the insurers’ share prices,” BTIG Research Group said on Friday.

The district’s so-called credit spread widened over Municipal Market Data’s benchmark triple-A scale in secondary market trading on Thursday to 464 basis points for bonds due in 19 years from 412 basis points two weeks ago. That signals investors will demand hefty yields for the junk-rated general obligation bonds. Financially stressed Illinois and the city of Chicago were able to sell bonds this month at spreads much narrower than the school district’s.

Still, demand for muni bonds is high among investors, as cash saturates the market and supply remains low. Recent trouble in the equity market has intensified investors’ interest, as the idea of municipal bonds as a safe haven asset takes hold.

“There is a lot of interest in muni high yield, and there’s not much out there,” said Alan Schankel, municipal strategist at Janney Fixed Income Strategy. “Munis outperformed other fixed income asset classes last year, and I think they are likely to do the same thing this year.”

Chicago Board of Education’s issue includes a refunding and restructuring of outstanding debt to convert variable-rate bonds to fixed rate and to push out maturities on other bonds to free up money for the school system’s sagging budget. The issue will also raise money to cover fees to terminate interest rate swaps related to the variable-rate debt.

Tax-exempt bonds totaling $795.5 million will be offered in term maturities in 2035, 2040, and 2044, according to the preliminary official statement. Another $79.5 million of taxable bonds are due in 2033.

Reuters

Jan 22, 2016

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco and Karen Pierog in Chicago; Editing by Tom Brown)




Illinois Budget Crisis: Big Banks Aren’t Sharing State Debt Woes.

The state of Illinois has been without an official budget since July, and service providers that rely on state funding have felt the squeeze. Programs that deliver hot food to seniors in southwestern Illinois and outside of Chicago, for example, are preparing to halt operations, and low-income college students have seen promised tuition subsidies vanish.

The western Illinois Child Abuse Council has responded to the frozen state budget by reducing therapy services staffing by 20 percent and home visits by 40 percent. The nonprofit’s counseling program, which serves children under 5 years old who have suffered trauma and abuse, has begun turning away families as the waitlist stretches to record length.

“We’re the only ones providing these services in the community,” said Angie Kendall, the organization’s director of development. “We don’t have an alternative at this point.”

Even as crucial social service programs face deep reductions, one set of institutions has enjoyed an uninterrupted flow of funds from Springfield: banks. Financial service providers continue to pull in nearly $70 million a year in payments on complicated public debt deals from the early 2000s.

With the state’s financial woes deepening, banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup — stand to take in as much as $1.45 billion on interest rate swap payments by 2033. That’s the conclusion of a new report from the ReFund America Project, which tabulated the costs stemming from the swaps weighing on the state’s books.

“These toxic swaps have been an unmitigated disaster for the state, failing in almost every way,” said Saqib Bhatti, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and one of the report’s co-authors, in a statement Tuesday. “If state officials knew then what we know now, it would have been financially irresponsible for them to have signed these deals.”

Illinois is just one of many states and municipalities bitten by interest rate swaps gone awry. The list includes the city of Chicago, which has sought to pay around $300 million in penalties to exit its own bad bets after doling out record debt fees in 2015.

“Hindsight is easy,” said Richard Ciccarone, president of Merritt Research Services, which specializes in municipal bonds. “But in this case it just looks like it’s a bad deal. The markets did not work out in their favor.”

Labor leaders, who fear the state’s fiscal difficulties will imperil their members’ pension payouts, have pressed Illinois to make banks share in the fiscal pain, asking Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner to “aggressively pursue” means of recovering swaps fees, arguing that banks made misrepresentations when they sold the swaps.

Gov. Rauner, whose contested budget plan calls for limits to collective bargaining, rejected provisions related to the swaps in contract negotiations. “The union is concerned that the Rauner administration is putting big banks first,” said James Muhammad, a spokesman for Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois.

In a statement to the International Business Times, however, the administration did not rule out seeking a way to limit the damage from the swaps. “The Governor’s Office of Management and Budget is doing an in-depth analysis of these swaps in order to reduce the state’s payments and minimize its financial exposure,” said Catherine Kelly, Rauner’s press secretary.

An interest rate swap is type of financial derivative that allows a bond issuer — like the State of Illinois — to limit or manage exposure to fluctuations in interest rates. The issuer pays a fixed interest rate on a floating-rate bond. The bank on the other side of the swap pays the variable rate and pockets the difference between the fixed and floating rates.

When Illinois first entered into the now-costly swap deals in the early 2000s, the intention was to hedge risks and save money on the billions of dollars in variable-interest bonds that state agencies had issued. These bonds, issued under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, are pegged to fluctuations in the broader interest rate environment.

But in order to lock in what state financiers saw as bargain interest rates, the governor’s office entered into swap agreements with 10 major Wall Street banks. Under the deals — which are commonplace in the corporate world — the state would pay the banks a fixed interest rate, while the banks paid bondholders the variable rate. In theory, the maneuver would protect the state from sharp interest rate moves.

The arrangement didn’t work that way in practice. When the global financial crisis struck in 2008, the Federal Reserve slashed benchmark interest rates virtually to zero. Unlike mortgage holders other debtors, Illinois wasn’t able to refinance at the lower rates. The swaps kept the state locked into rates nearly 4 percent higher than what its bank partners were paying bondholders.

The state has paid $618 million in swap fees since 2003, according to the ReFund America report, with another $832 million yet to come. While Ciccarone noted that those totals include the interest Illinois would have otherwise paid on the variable-interest bonds, they also include tens of millions of dollars in additional costs related to the complex requirements that swaps entail.

Those fees might not be all. Today, with interest rates still scraping historic lows, termination fees totaling $286 million prevent the state from exiting its swap agreements.

The ongoing budget crisis threatens to force a raft of penalties even sooner. Ratings agencies Moody’s and Fitch both downgraded Illinois state debt in October. If those ratings drop to junk status — as Chicago’s debt did last year — Illinois could suffer automatic terminations written into the agreements. These clauses levy a penalty for exiting the deal early that is based on the present value of future payments on the swaps.

“They’d have to come up with that amount of money right away,” said Ciccarone. “It wouldn’t be an easy thing to do while they’re already so hard-pressed for cash.” For their part, the banks would have the option to forgo termination fees in lieu of renegotiating the agreements.

Labor leaders, however, are hoping for a different type of negotiation, one that might recoup past fees from Wall Street. The campaign comes a month after the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund sued dozens of banks over the doomed interest rate swaps that have added to the city’s soaring debts.

Bhatti of the Roosevelt Institute said the lawsuit has a chance, noting that while corporate bond issuers generally take out swaps for a relatively safe period of five to seven years, the state agreements last three decades or more. “We believe the banks that pitched these deals to the state misrepresented the risks,” Bhatti said.

Ciccarone was skeptical that Illinois could prevail in court, given the apparent financial sophistication of state finance officers. As for the banks that profited off of the state’s bad fortune, he said it was luck as much as anything that accounted for the windfalls.

“They made more money than they ever expected,” Ciccarone said. “They were on the right side of the trade.”

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES

BY OWEN DAVIS

01/19/16 AT 3:38 PM




U.Municipal Water Utilities: No News is (Probably) Good News; The Outlook is Stable

As we noted in our recently released criteria, we view the municipal waterworks and sanitary sewer sector as one with very low risk. The sector:

It remains a very highly rated sector, and upgrades continue to outnumber downgrades. But that does not mean the sector itself is without risk.

Utilities by nature are extraordinarily capital-intensive, and that capital is generally raised by borrowing; there is no such thing as a municipal initial public offering or equity cushion. Furthermore, the inherent stability does not completely insulate particular issuers from their own unique challenges. We have observed that most of our downgrades in 2015 were associated with weakened finances, not economic deterioration, and we believe that will continue to be the case. Utility managers and elected officials continue to have to manage the “triple bottom line,” balancing a utility’s revenue requirements and financial commitments versus social policies versus the utility’s role as an environmental steward. If at one end of the scale drinking water is viewed by users as a human right that should be free of price, versus being viewed as a commodity, the United States is somewhere in between. We believe that in the U.S. we are moving in the direction of commodity pricing as Americans slowly gain appreciation for the true value of water, usually only if there is temporary scarcity such as a drought. We also view 2016 as a turning point that will potentially mark the beginning of the first wave of new regulations in a number of years.

Overview

Continue reading.

20-Jan-2016




Cities’ Pension Liabilities Are About to Look a Lot Worse.

A new GASB rule affecting cities that are part of state cost-sharing retirement plans will be painful, but it’s a step forward.

A new rule from the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requiring municipalities that participate in plans in which they share pension costs with states to allocate and disclose their share of unfunded pension liabilities provides states with some much-needed good news when it comes to pension finances, but it comes at the cost of cities’ balance sheets. Hopefully the enhanced transparency will prompt cities to take measures to address their long-term liabilities.

The cost-sharing plans affected by the new GASB rule are those in which pension obligations and assets are pooled and the assets can be used to pay benefits for any participating government employer. A new issue brief from the Center for State and Local Government Excellence samples 173 municipalities and finds that 92 of them are affected by the new rule because they either participate exclusively in a state retirement system or both administer their own plan and pay into a state system.

Most of the largest cities administer their own plans exclusively and are therefore unaffected by the rule. But the impact is significant for cities that are subject to it. On average, their unfunded pension liability as a percentage of own-source revenues rose from 37 percent to 70 percent (the brief is largely based on 2012 reports).

There is a great variation in how much individual cities are affected. As a result of the new rule, unfunded pension liability as a percentage of overall revenue rises by less than 20 percentage points in 37 of the 92 cities, but it increases by over 60 points in 25 of them.

For example, Newark, N.J., doesn’t administer its own pension plan and has therefore never been included in studies of local systems. But when its portion of unfunded state pension liability is allocated, the amount is a breathtaking 284 percent of city revenues. Cincinnati, Las Vegas and Portland, Ore., are among other cities in which unfunded liabilities are more than 200 percent of revenues.

Why is the new GASB rule good news for states? While it doesn’t change overall liabilities, its requirement that they be allocated and reported results in state liabilities falling by the same amount that municipal liabilities rise.

Nobody likes getting bad news, but it still beats ignorance. For that reason, the new rule is a step forward. Almost a decade ago, when new GASB rules required municipalities to disclose their liability for non-pension post-retirement benefits such as health care, the often-huge numbers caused many municipalities to implement mechanisms to pay down that liability over time. If this newest rule has the same impact, that’ll be good news for retirees and taxpayers alike.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHARLES CHIEPPO | JANUARY 22, 2016




Oil's Collapse Hurting States That Were Counting on $50-a-Barrel.

When Louisiana, one of the nation’s biggest energy-producing states, decided how much tax money the government would have to spend this year, it forecast that the price of oil would be almost $50 a barrel. It’s since tumbled to below $32, casting economic ripples that helped create a $750 million budget shortfall.

The price of crude, which is recovering from a 12-year low, has emerged as a major source of fiscal strain on the nation’s oil-patch states, none of which predicted how swift or deep the drop would be. That’s prompted a reversal-of-fortune in capitals that once reaped revenue windfalls from America’s energy-industry renaissance and are now racing to adjust.

“They’re playing catch-up in getting their estimates in line with what’s happening with spot prices,” said Gabriel Petek, a municipal-bond analyst in San Francisco for Standard & Poor’s who’s been tracking the fiscal impacts, speaking of energy states revising price forecasts. “It doesn’t look like prices are coming up soon, so if the prices stay low it could pressure their budget positions.”

A report released Thursday by S&P said the energy rout is a main culprit in at least five of the 11 states that are facing financial pressure this year as jobs and counted-on tax collections disappear. The price of oil, which traded for more than $100 less than two years ago, has been cut in half since June amid concerns about the slowing pace of overseas economies, even with a rally Friday that pushed it up more than 7 percent.

Besides Louisiana, it’s being felt largely in Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, the credit-rating company said. But it’s also cropping up elsewhere: In Texas, the largest producer, the impact has crimped sales-tax collections and increased the cost of public-assistance programs for those out of work. In states with the big energy industries, payrolls expanded by 0.9 percent in the year through November, less than half the rate for the U.S., according to S&P.

Sales-Tax Increase

For Louisiana, the lower prices — along with rising health-care costs — are a driver of the projected $1.9 billion deficit for the year that begins in July. With its finances squeezed, investors have demanded higher yields to own some of the state’s debt. Fuel-tax backed bonds maturing in 2041 traded Friday for a yield of 3.17 percent, or 1.48 percentage point more than top-rated securities. That gap is up from 0.78 percentage point in May.

To help close the gap, Governor John Bel Edwards, a Democrat in his second week in office, proposed raising the sales tax by 1 percentage point to 5 percent. That would give the Gulf Coast state the highest average state and local sales-tax rate in the country, according to the Tax Foundation in Washington.

Edwards has also proposed tapping reserves, cutting spending by about 10 percent and drawing on compensation Louisiana received for the BP Plc oil spill.

“The decline in oil prices certainly isn’t helping us,” said Julie Payer, the governor’s deputy chief of staff. “It’s a factor in layoffs that are affecting industries in the state.”

Louisiana may reduce the $48 barrel oil price it used in budget projections in November when it puts out new estimates next month. “It hasn’t been getting any better,” Payer said.

 

Oklahoma expects tax collections to fall short of its initial estimates by 7.7 percent in the current budget year and by 13 percent in the next, which led Governor Mary Fallin to implement across-the-board spending cuts, according to S&P. Similar reductions are likely in North Dakota.

Alaska, with 79 percent of its operating revenue drawn from oil, lost its AAA rating from S&P this month after its deficit widened. The state assumed prices of more than $67 a barrel when it passed its budget last year, only to cut it later to about $50. The rating outlook remains negative, indicating another downgrade could come if the state fails to curb its deficit during this year’s legislative session. Governor Bill Walker said in a statement this month that the cut “further solidifies the need to address our state’s fiscal challenges.”

“Alaska stands out as the most exposed,” said Petek, the S&P analyst.

Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar revised his revenue estimate for fiscal 2016 and 2017 down in October to $110.4 billion from $113 billion. Even so, the state’s vast and diversified economy has left it better buffered than other states: The revised figure still exceeds the $106 billion in the current two-year budget, said Chris Bryan, spokesman for Hegar.

The drop in Texas’s collections of energy-severance taxes will cut contributions to the government’s funds that are used to build highways and mitigate the impact of economic slowdowns on the budget. Estimates for contributions to those funds have been cut by half for fiscal 2017. The state’s reserves are still expected to be about $10.5 billion in 2017.

“We’re still way ahead of where we would have to be for energy prices to have an impact on the state budget,” said Bryan.

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

January 21, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on January 22, 2016 — 7:26 AM PST




Washington State Refinancing Adds to $1 Billion Budget Relief.

State and local governments that routinely borrow by negotiating with investment banks to sell bonds often cite their ability to control the timing of a bond sale as justification. Officials in the state of Washington don’t buy that.

The state sold $673 million of bonds Wednesday through competitive bidding with barely a month to prepare for the sale after the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in December for the first time since 2006. The AA+ state borrowed at 2.02 percent in the 10-year maturity, beating 2.13 percent yield for top-rated debt, according to Municipal Market Analytics Inc. data. JPMorgan Chase & Co. won the bidding.

The state uses competitive bidding for almost all its debt sales except some bonds that rely on unique revenue sources such as so-called Build America Bonds, taxable debt that came with a federal subsidy for two years starting in 2009 to stimulate the economy.

“Washington is a long a way from Wall Street and we want to do everything as transparently as possible, and there’s no better way to demonstrate you got the lowest cost of funds than to put it out for bid,” said Ellen Evans, deputy state treasurer for debt management, in an interview before the bids were awarded. “We get a fantastic cost of funds.”

Historic Lows

Washington state is unique in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market, where more than three-fourths of all borrowers that sold fixed-rate, long-term debt do so by negotiating with banks. But since 2009 the state has refinanced about $9 billion of debt in more than two dozens sales, cutting annual interest payments by more than $1 billion a year, according to state Treasurer James McIntire.

The state is still benefiting from municipal borrowing costs that remain near historic lows, even after the Fed raised rates. Yields on benchmark 10-year Treasury notes dropped on Wednesday to the lowest level since October as investors sought the safety of sovereign debt as the collapse of oil prices sparked anxiety in markets from stocks to inflation derivatives.

Last year refinancing of outstanding debt accounted for 63 percent of all municipal bonds sold, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Bank America projected about 60 percent of $450 billion of issuance in 2016 would be to refinance debt to cut borrowing costs.

Escrowed Funds

Washington was planning to sell $530 million of new-money bonds next month after the Fed increased its target rate by 0.25 percentage points Dec. 14. Soon after Evans and her staff realized that while muni rates remained low, the increase in U.S. Treasury rates moved short-term taxable rates high enough the state could fund the escrow needed to advance refund the debt.

In an advance refunding the state borrows to replace existing debt once it is callable by putting the proceeds in escrowed U.S. Treasuries that are redeemed as refinanced debt matures. The escrowed funds must be invested at just the right rate to repay the debt without generating any surplus under U.S. tax law.

“As December started we had no idea we would be in the money to do this at all,” said Evans.

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

January 20, 2016 — 1:29 PM PST




The Case for Allowing U.S. States to Declare Bankruptcy.

States can’t seek legal protection from their debts, but there’s a move on to change that.

Puerto Rico is trapped in a financial crisis so deep that President Obama says the only way out for the territory is to make it eligible for a bankruptcy-like process to shed some of its debts. None of the 50 states is nearly as bad off as Puerto Rico. But some influential people are arguing that if a state does get into deep financial trouble, some kind of bankruptcy would be the best option—certainly better than a taxpayer bailout.

States, unlike cities and counties, currently can’t declare bankruptcy. The case for allowing it is that a well-run proceeding apportions losses fairly and fast. Lenders and bondholders absorb some of the pain, but so do government workers and retirees. Taxes go up and government services are cut back, but ideally not as severely as in an uncontrolled default. The result is a government that’s streamlined, not gutted.

“Bankruptcy lets you get ahead of the problem,” says David Skeel Jr., a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School and a leading advocate of giving federal bankruptcy protection to states. Without that option, he says, “what inevitably happens when you’re in deep financial distress is that you have to cannibalize other stuff. You cut police, schools, other services. You reinforce the downward spiral.”

In another scenario, a state that goes broke and has no recourse to bankruptcy may end up seeking help from the federal government. “We want to cut off the politicians from assuming that at the end of their wild overspending they can just dump the responsibilities on other taxpayers,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich and Jeb Bush co-wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times supporting state bankruptcy in 2011, the last time it was seriously debated. At the time, states were reeling from the aftereffects of the financial crisis. During a congressional hearing that year, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) raised the issue with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. (Bernanke responded that states “have the tools to deal with their fiscal problems and debt.”)

Public employee unions and their supporters trashed the bankruptcy option last time around, afraid that it would give states an easy way to slash their pension obligations. State governments said they didn’t want to be eligible for bankruptcy, fearing that the very possibility would spook investors in municipal bonds and drive up their borrowing costs. And some analysts worried that it would reduce the pressure for budget action. “If you had this out, it would make it a little bit more difficult to persuade people that they need to raise taxes or cut programs,” says Elizabeth McNichol, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew is seeking to wall off federal relief for Puerto Rico from the explosive question of state bankruptcy. In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan on Jan. 15, he pointedly didn’t ask Congress to make Puerto Rico eligible for protection under the federal bankruptcy code. Instead, he said Puerto Rico needs “an orderly process to restructure its debts,” coupled with “strong, independent fiscal oversight.” Something like that could be done through the federal law governing Puerto Rico and the other territories, sidestepping the bankruptcy code. Ryan has given lawmakers until March 31 to act.

There are some tricky constitutional issues with state bankruptcy. Juliet Moringiello, a professor at Widener University Commonwealth Law School in Pennsylvania, says it could violate the contracts clause, which prohibits states from interfering with contracts, and the 10th Amendment, which says states are sovereign. (Bankruptcy would put states under the authority of a federal judge.) Penn’s Skeel thinks these objections could be surmounted—for one thing, it would be voluntary for states. But he’s not sure how current Supreme Court justices would rule.

Legalities aside, the strongest argument for state bankruptcy is that it clearly signals to bondholders that they could lose money if a state behaves badly. Knowing that, investors will demand higher yields from states with bad budget problems, thus encouraging the states to get their financial houses in order. With the notion of state bankruptcy in the air again, “municipal investors should no longer assume that state governments themselves will never have access to protection” from creditors in bankruptcy court, Matt Fabian, a partner in the research firm Municipal Market Analytics, wrote to clients in December.

The principle that states are responsible for their own debts goes back to the 1840s, when Congress refused to assume the debts of states that had overborrowed to finance a canal- and railroad-building craze. Chastened by the episode, many states passed balanced-budget amendments and took other steps to keep their debt under strict control. It was “a pivotal moment in the history of U.S. federalism,” Jonathan Rodden, a political scientist at Stanford and the Hoover Institution, wrote in a 2012 paper.

The effects have lasted into the present. A state hasn’t defaulted since Arkansas, in the throes of the Great Depression, in 1933. When states behave badly, their borrowing costs rise. The cost of protection against default by the financially troubled state of Illinois is now three times as high as that of California.

Market discipline may be weakening, however. The federal government relies on the states to carry out some programs, such as Medicaid. Investors and state governments could start to conclude that Washington has an implicit duty to come to their rescue if they get in trouble. If so, states would be tempted to overspend and bond investors to overlend. If Washington were on the hook for the states’ problems, it would naturally want control over their finances—but under the Constitution, it can’t have that.

Making bankruptcy a last-ditch option, writes Stanford’s Rodden, would reinforce the U.S. tradition of market discipline. “It is not too late,” he wrote in a chapter for a 2014 book, The Global Debt Crisis: Haunting U.S. and European Federalism. “In fact, the timing might be quite good to clarify once and for all that states can and will default if they do not achieve fiscal sustainability.”

Bloomberg Businessweek

by Peter Coy

January 21, 2016 — 1:44 PM PST




Moody's: Adjusted Net Pension Liabilities Decline for Most U.S. States in FY 2014.

New York, January 15, 2016 — The majority of US states experienced declines in their adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPL) in fiscal 2014, Moody’s Investors Service says. Moody’s ANPL decreased for 27 states, of which, nine saw a decline for a second year in a row. However, the aggregate 50-state ANPL increased marginally to $1.3 trillion due to rising liabilities in some states.

Strong investment returns drove an average pension liability decline of 15.3%, with median returns for larger plans at 16.1%, Moody’s says in “Fiscal 2014 Pension Medians – US States: Robust 2014 Investment Returns Provide Pause in Growth of Adjusted Net Pension Liabilities.”

“Double-digit investment returns contributed to reducing pension liabilities. More timely plan disclosures under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 67 improve comparison between states,” says John Lombardi, a Moody’s Associate Analyst.

Also in fiscal 2014, most states made budgetary contributions at or close to their actuarially determined contribution (ADC) levels. Thirty-six states contributed greater than 90% of ADC, with 12 contributing between 60% to 90% and only two funding below 60% of their pension costs.

“The two states most significantly underfunding their pension payments are New Jersey (A2 negative) and California (Aa3 stable) at 18.6% and 48.2%,respectively,” Lombardi says.

The median three-year average ANPL as a percentage of governmental revenue remained flat at 53% in fiscal 2014.

However, several states remained outliers with three-year average ANPL beyond 100% of their revenues. The five states with the largest unfunded pension liabilities by this measure were Illinois (Baa1 negative) at 278%, Connecticut (Aa3 stable) at 225%, Kentucky (Aa2 stable) at 182%, Louisiana (Aa2 negative) at 163%, and Hawaii (Aa2 stable) at 149%.

The five states with the lowest three-year average ANPL compared to revenues were Nebraska (Aa2 stable) at 11%, Wisconsin (Aa2 positive) at 14%, New York (Aa1 stable) at 23%, Tennessee (Aaa stable) at 23%, and Iowa (Aaa stable) at 26%.

Moody’s anticipates growth of pension liabilities to resume fiscal 2015, as investment performance was much weaker than the prior two years.. Additionally, several states coping with pension underfunding and outsized liabilities will continue to face significant credit challenges.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




The Detroit Bondholders Did Not Get ‘Stiffed.’

The settlement votes affirm that the bondholders in the Detroit case felt fairly treated.

In “Fixing Puerto Rico’s Debt Mess” (Jan. 6), Prof. David Skeel discusses the Detroit bankruptcy case. He states, “Holders of the city’s general-obligation bonds, which had the same priority as pensions, got stiffed, receiving roughly 41% of what they were owed. Pensioners got at least 60%.”

This is wrong. The bondholders in the Detroit case did not get “stiffed.” Prof. Skeel omits the fact that a much larger class of bondholders, the unlimited tax general-obligation bonds (UTGO) bondholders, received 74%.

Prof. Skeel also ignores that the recoveries in the Detroit case for the bondholder classes and the pensioner classes were the outcome of intense, monthslong negotiations in which all parties were well-represented by expert professionals. As a result of these successful negotiations, the UTGO class voted to accept the plan by 97% and the limited tax general obligation class (the class that did receive 41%) voted to accept the plan by 83%.

These votes affirm that the bondholders in the Detroit case felt fairly treated. After their settlements, they supported Detroit’s plan of adjustment. They did not get “stiffed.”

Detroit’s insolvency required its creditors to accept the shared sacrifice that was necessary for the city to revitalize its services and its economy, and to pay its creditors what it could. Thankfully, after negotiations, its creditors did so. As a result, Detroit is now on the road to a proud and secure future.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Jan. 20, 2016 3:34 p.m. ET

by Steven Rhodes

Ann Arbor, Mich.

Mr. Rhodes, a retired U.S. bankruptcy judge, handled the Detroit bankruptcy case.




Assured, Orrick Lead the Charge In Banner Year for Bond Insurers, Counsel.

The municipal bond insurance industry took another step forward in their comeback, wrapping almost 36% more in par value in 2015 and increasing market share to the highest in five years.

Assured Guaranty led the charge again, as the par value of bonds wrapped and number of deals insured surged. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe maintained its position atop the bond counsel rankings.

Municipal bond insurers guaranteed $25.21 billion of bonds in 1,880 transactions, up from $18.54 billion in 1,403 transactions in 2014, according to data from Thomson Reuters.

The insurance penetration rate increased to 6.36% from 5.56% in 2014. This is the highest the rate has been since 2009 when it was 8.64%.

Assured improved on the par amount of deals wrapped, number of deals and market share, finishing the year with $15.14 billion in 1,009 transactions and 60.2% market share. In 2014, Assured has $10.74 billion, 697 transactions and 57.9%. The data includes Assured’s subsidiary Municipal Assurance Corp.

“Demand for bond insurance grew in 2015, with primary-market par insured increasing 36%, far outpacing market growth of 20%,” said Robert Tucker, managing director communications and investor relations at Assured. “We continue to see increased demand for our insurance in 2015. We led the market in terms of both par and the number of transactions insured during the year, capturing 60% of all insured new-issue par and 54% of the insured transactions. ”

Tucker said Assured increased primary market transaction by 41% over 2014 and improved liquidity in its insured paper with the average trading volume exceeding $500 million per day.

“In 2015, we were the insurer of choice for smaller bond issues, bonds in amounts of $10 million or less, leading the industry with 662 transactions totaling $3.4 billion in par insured. Counting secondary market activity, our total 2015 US public finance par insured reached $16.1 billion,” Tucker said.

Tucker also said for the fourth quarter of 2015, Assured Guaranty insured 203 new issues to produce an industry-leading par of over $3.2 billion.

“In the secondary market, we increased par insured by 16% and doubled the number of transactions we insured compared to the fourth quarter of 2014. Assured Guaranty’s total par insured across both the primary and secondary municipal markets was $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2015,” Tucker said.

Build America Mutual insured $9.57 billion in 849 transactions, up from $7.47 billion in 705 transactions, though its market share dropped to 38% from 40.3% the previous year.

“We were pleased to see a strong increase in the use of insurance across the industry, and BAM’s growth played an important role in driving that,” said Bob Cochran, BAM’s chairman. “Our gross par insured reached $23.5 billion by the close of 2015, up more than 80% over the year, and the number of municipal issuer members increased to more than 1,700. Importantly, those consistent results in the market allowed BAM to increase our claims-paying resources in every quarter of 2015.”

Cochran said that BAM has now published 2,500 Obligor Disclosure Briefs on the insurer’s website, and the number of downloads more than doubled in 2015.

“These credit summaries of every bond issue insured by BAM provide an important and easily accessible source of information for investors and other market participants who want to learn more about the small- and medium-sized issuers that make up BAM’s core market,” Cochran said.

National Public Finance Guarantee, the municipal arm of MBIA Inc., wrapped $496 million over 22 deals, up from $332 million in three deals during 2014. NPFG started writing new business in the third quarter of 2014. NPFG’s market share stayed steady at 1.8% from last year.

“For our growth, we are also diversifying our base. In addition to new deals, there have also been a number of secondary market transactions that we have done,” said Tom Weyl, managing director, head of new business development at National. “We are expanding that area, as well. We also did some competitive deals recently. There have been 2 or 3 transactions that were awarded to us, that had little to no spread compared to our competitors. We are positioning ourselves for growth, we are building a base. It’s been slow-going, but we’ll be well-positioned when interest rates become more favorable.”

Weyl said National expects refunding activity to continue even as short term rates go up, as the volume of 2006 and 2007 muni debt with 10-year call dates is significant. He said the company’s new business production depends more on longer term rates, which rely on factors beyond Fed rate hikes.

“We ended 2015 with the same basic story. We are building our new business team and expanding our market knowledge. As interest rates raise and we get into a more normal interest rate environment, then bond insurance will have a better chance to compete. In the meanwhile, we have been staffing up and we are now seeing and winning more transactions,” Weyl said.

Orrick Again Tops Bond Counsel Rankings

Law firms benefited from last year’s growth in the municipal bond industry, as all top 15 firms posted improved par amounts from the prior year. The top firms posted a par amount of $374.53 billion in 12,009 transactions in 2015, compared to $314.22 billion in 10,115 transactions in 2014.

Orrick had a par amount of $37.55 billion in 391 deals, which accounts for 10% of market share. This is an improvement upon the firm’s 2014 numbers of $30.38 billion in 321 deals and 9.7% market share.

“We are, of course, pleased to be ranked number one as bond counsel and number one as disclosure counsel, as we have each year for well over a decade,” said Roger Davis, chair of Orrick’s public finance department. “We attribute our consistent standing at the top of the league tables to the quality of our bond and tax lawyers, the supportive and creative services they provide to our clients, which has led many of those clients to turn to us, repeatedly, for their public finance needs, which is more important to us than the rankings.”

Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP remained in second place from a year ago with $23.08 billion in par amount in 396 issues and 6.2% market share, up from $16.45 billion in 321 issues and 5.2% market share.

“We once again had the most bond volume of any law firm as underwriters’ counsel,” said Howard Zucker, managing partner at Hawkins. “We are fortunate to have many very loyal clients across the nation; but by ‘fortunate’, I do not mean ‘lucky.’ We know that we cannot rest on our laurels; we understand that we have to come to work each and every day to earn and deserve the trust and confidence of our clients. ”

Hawkins was the top underwriters’ counsel with $17.37 billion in 147 deals, according to Thomson Reuters.

Zucker also mentioned that the trend for many years has been for greater specialization in the bond legal practice. This is a reflection of the increased complexity of municipal bond issues, the highly extensive regime of federal tax regulations, as well as the heightened disclosure expectations of the market and of the SEC.

“Today law firms that want to be active in this field have to be truly dedicated, and have to commit significant resources to have the depth and breadth of expertise in order to be able to advise issuers and others in the navigation of the matrix of issues across the full range of sectors of public finance,” Zucker said.

Zucker said Hawkins is now in its 162nd year and has over 135 years acting as bond counsel.

“Three months ago we opened an office in Michigan, our ninth office, and as of Jan. 1, we added three new partners to our ranks. We look forward with excitement and great expectations to 2016 and beyond,” he said.

McCall Parkhurst & Horton LLP came in third place with $14.50 billion in 436 deals or 3.9% to remain in third place.

Norton Rose Fulbright jumped to fourth place from seventh, finishing the year with $13.40 billion or 3.6% market share, improving upon 2014’s numbers of $8.14 billion and 2.6% market share.

Bob Dransfield, Norton’s U.S. head of finance said that he attributes the firms good year to its commitment to client service as well as the favorable interest rate environment that was present in 2015, which enabled Norton to assist its’ clients in achieving substantial savings through refundings and restructurings, as well as raising capital for new projects at attractive interest rates.

“We listen to the needs and goals of our clients and work collaboratively with them to help them reach those goals,” said Dransfield. “We work hard to understand the business of our clients which enables us to help them evaluate their options in light of their business goals and we work to make sure they understand the alternatives that may be available with any particular financing structure so that their business decisions are based on a complete understanding of the issues.”

Kutak Rock LLP rounds out the top five, with $13.33 billion, also a 3.6% market share.

Gilmore & Bell PC, Ballard Spahr LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Chapman and Cutler LLP, Squire Patton Boggs, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC and Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC round out the top 15.

Davis said that Orrick expects 2016 to be somewhat more challenging, as market activity has been slowing for several months, refundings are becoming fewer, rates are rising, municipal revenues are improving, but slowly and offset by rising pension and OPEB liabilities. He also said that regulation and enforcement are rapidly increasing and changing a market that until recently has been characterized by being largely unregulated and lightly enforced, and this election year, which is always distracting.

“On the other hand, we see activity increasing in specific sectors, like multifamily housing, student housing, health care, charter schools, cultural facilities, public private partnerships, PACE and other alternative energy programs,” Davis said. “We are starting 2016 busy and expect that to continue.”

THE BOND BUYER

BY AARON WEITZMAN

JAN 13, 2016 3:22pm ET




Paying for Protection: The Return of Bond Insurers.

Some municipal bond investors have had it pretty hard of late. For the holders of the debt of Puerto Rico, Detroit, Stockton, CA, Ferguson, MO, and Jefferson County, AL it’s been a parade of deteriorating financial performance, defaults and bankruptcies. In Detroit’s final bankruptcy agreement, for example, bondholders of the unlimited tax general obligation debt received a haircut down to 74% of their principal.

Yet some other Detroit bondholders got 100% of their principal, never missed an interest payment and generally saw better valuation on their bonds throughout the bankruptcy proceedings. So how did those bondholders walk away with full wallets while others lost $260 on every $1,000 invested? They had bought bonds wrapped with a bond insurance policy–a policy that unconditionally guarantees payment of principal and interest on the debt.

The days of bond insurance were assumed long gone after the collapse of nearly all of those businesses during the financial crisis of 2008. As of August 2015, there were $18.1 billion of insured bonds, up from a low of $11.4 billion in 2013, but still a far cry from the $191.3 billion of bonds insured in 2006. In fact, just two public companies survived that tumultuous period—Assured Guaranty (NR/AA) and National Public Finance (the restructured company of the insurer formerly known as MBIA) (A3/AA-).

But in a sign of renewed life, a new mutual insurance company was recently formed, Build America Mutual (NR/AA), which is owned by the municipalities it insures. Under revised rating agency guidelines, no financial guarantor can receive the formerly vaunted “AAA” rating. However, each bond insurer enjoys a “AA” level rating by Standard & Poor’s and each is focused on municipal bond insurance as a core business. In fact, Assured Guaranty established a separate insurance subsidiary, MAC, which will only insure municipal bonds.

Benefits of Insurance

Given that municipal bond defaults are still rare (less than 0.05% according to a Moody’s study of ten-year cumulative default rates), investors might reasonably ask why they should bother purchasing insured bonds. After all, like any insurance, bond insurance costs money. For investors that extra cost is in the form of lower yields for insurance bonds than for similar uninsured bonds.

It’s a fair question, but there are several reasons to consider insured bonds. First, keep in mind that the municipal bond market is extremely diverse. There are more than 50,000 borrowers across more than 15 sectors, from local governments to industrial development bonds. Even the most diligent individual investor probably doesn’t have the technical expertise to analyze the creditworthiness of a borrower and value its bonds appropriately.

Another consideration is that when municipal bonds do default—however infrequently—it’s a real mess. Not only are numerous stakeholders and creditors fighting vociferously for a very small pie, any resolution is tempered by the fact that the municipal entity must emerge from the negotiations strong enough to continue serving the public. In almost any scenario, an investor will get a haircut on principal and, as the resolution process drags on, face the added uncertainty of when you are going to get paid either principal or interest again.

Bond insurance eliminates all of this. In the event of a default, the bondholder never misses a payment of either principal or interest. But insurance is not only useful in the event of default, it also cushions against a ratings downgrade—which have become more frequent.

Consider the City of Chicago. When the general obligation debt of the city was downgraded in May 2015 to Ba1 by Moody’s (its highest junk bond rating), the value of the uninsured ten-year maturity bonds dropped nearly $80 per $1,000 bond, or 8%, by the end of the week. However, investors holding these insured Chicago bonds remained valued slightly above $1,000 during that period.

Another benefit of insurance is liquidity. Tens of millions of dollars of bonds backed by bond insurers are traded daily. Meanwhile, buyers of distressed bonds often demand substantial discounts—when they can be found.

Strength of Insurers

In light of recent history, some investors have voiced concern about whether insurers could maintain their ratings and fulfill their obligations in the event of a big municipal default. For example, both Assured Guaranty and National Public Finance insure the bonds of one or more of Puerto Rico’s troubled municipal borrowers.

But even with Puerto Rico’s default on some of its bonds, it’s critical to remember that a default on an insured bond does not mean the entire outstanding par amount of those bonds become immediately due and payable. The bond insurer simply continues to pay principal and interest on the originally mandated dates.

In the event of a default and subsequent claim, the bond insurers have strong covenants and legal provisions protecting them. These will be vigorously enforced and litigated, if history is any guide. The insurer will have to pay something, but the recovery on the bonds is often far greater than zero.

Moreover, bonds coming out of default are often restructured and refunded. This is an important consideration. As soon as any refunding occurs, the existing holders of the insured debt are made whole, the bond insurer’s commitment ceases, any reserved capital is freed up and any unearned premiums become earned immediately. There are tremendous incentives to resolve a bankruptcy expeditiously by refunding the outstanding defaulted debt.

Lastly, these companies are very well capitalized, with capital positions that are arguably better, and books of business that are certainly stronger, than prior to the credit crisis. In the event of a claim, the bond insurer continues on with business as usual. New policies are written, older policies roll off as bonds mature and the portfolio capital continues to earn money which can (and is) applied to paying on outstanding claims.

For all of that, bond insurance is not an investment panacea. It does not guarantee a risk-free investment; instead, investors take on the risk—however slight—of the bond insurer itself. In other words, bond insurance is transferred and diminished risk, not the elimination of risk. You still have to do your homework.

FORBES

BARNETT SHERMAN, CONTRIBUTOR

JAN 14, 2016 @ 04:08 PM

Barnet Sherman is a director and the portfolio manager of the TIAA-CREF Tax-Exempt Bond strategy at TIAA-CREF, a national financial services organization.




Janney Municipal Bond Market Monthly

Municipal Bond Market Monthly – Outlook 2016 and Puerto Rico Update

Janney Fixed Income Strategy




S&P 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




Moody's Requests Comment on Proposed Approach and Methodology for Assessing Green Bonds.

New York, January 14, 2016 — Moody’s Investors Service is requesting market participants to comment on its proposed approach and methodology for evaluating an issuer’s management, administration and reporting on environmental projects financed through green bonds.

The Green Bonds Assessment (GBA) described in Moody’s proposed approach and methodology will apply to fixed-income securities — both taxable and tax-exempt — that raise capital for use in projects or activities with specific climate or environmental sustainability purposes.

These include debt obligations with direct recourse to issuers, project finance or revenue bonds — with and without recourse to issuers — and securitizations that collateralize projects or assets whose cash flows provide the first source of repayment.

A reported $36.6 billion of green bonds were issued during 2014 and an additional estimated $42.0 billion came to market during 2015.

Moody’s proposed assessment of green bonds will focus on five primary factors: (1) organization structure and decision making, (2) use of proceeds, (3) disclosure on the use of proceeds, (4) management of proceeds, and (5) ongoing reporting and disclosure.

As part of the proposed approach and methodology, Moody’s is introducing a scorecard that will assign weights to each of the aforementioned factors, which Moody’s considers most important in assessing the framework adopted by green bond issuers.

GBAs are not credit ratings; rather, they are forward-looking opinions of the relative effectiveness of the issuer’s approach for managing, administering, allocating proceeds to and reporting on environmental projects financed by green bonds.

As such, GBAs assess the relative likelihood that bond proceeds will be invested to support environmentally beneficial projects as designated by the issuer.

Moody’s is seeking market feedback on its proposed methodology by February 12, 2016 and will adopt and publish its GBA following appropriate consideration of any comments it receives. Market participants should submit their comments on the Request for Comment page on www.moodys.com.

For more information, including the full text of the RFC, please access this link. (Subscription required.)

Recent Moody’s publications on the credit implications of these developing environmental trends are available here.

This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.

Henry Shilling
Senior Vice President
Project & Infrastructure Finance
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Richard Cantor
Chief Credit Officer
Credit Policy
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Releasing Office:
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653




Fitch: Tax-Supported Criteria Revision to be Published by End of 1Q16.

We are in the process of making modifications to address broad-based, constructive market feedback on our US state and local government rating criteria. We expect the final criteria to be published by end of 1Q16.

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.

The comment period for the proposed changes has closed. We will be assessing all comments provided and will be finalizing the criteria by the end of 1Q16.




Fitch Updates Criteria for Rating Public-Sector Counterparty Obligations in PPP Transactions.

Fitch Ratings-New York-15 January 2016: Fitch Ratings has published an update of its ‘Rating Public-Sector Counterparty Obligations in PPP Transactions’. The updated report replaces the existing criteria (published July 23, 2015) without modifying Fitch’s analytical approach. There will be no rating changes as a result of the updated criteria.

The criteria establish a globally consistent framework to determine if the public private partnership (PPP) framework agreement qualifies for assignment of a counterparty rating. It then defines the extent of notching from the general credit quality of the public sector counterparty applied to reflect any perceived higher risk of default under a framework agreement. It also provides guidance on how to consider the PPP obligation in the public sector counterparty’s general credit rating as well as how late payment or rejection of an obligation under the framework agreement would be reflected in the counterparty’s Issuer Default Rating (IDR).

The updated report notes that where the debt of a project company is to be rated either publicly or privately on a monitored basis, the public grantor’s IDR and counterparty obligation ratings will also be subject to monitoring, but not necessarily on the same basis (public or private). There are no other changes to the criteria.

Contact:

Thomas J. McCormick
Group Credit Officer, Global Public Finance
+1-212-908-0235
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
33 Whitehall Street
New York, NY, 10004

Laura Porter
Managing Director
+1-212-908-0575

Media Relations: Elizabeth Fogerty, New York, Tel: +1 (212) 908 0526, Email: elizabeth.fogerty@fitchratings.com.

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




Nossaman: Top Public Finance Attorneys Urge Regulatory Changes To Foster More P3's.

We all know how hard it is to change federal statutes these days—you need an Act of Congress and the President to sign the bill. Last week, a group of the top public finance lawyers in the US offered an approach relating to the use of tax exempt bonds that wouldn’t require a change in tax statutes but instead could be accomplished through a change in the regulations relating to the so-called “private use” test. As the group pointed out in its letter to high ranking US Treasury officials, Congress itself has made it clear that Treasury had the authority to adopt other, more flexible rules.

The US is unique in the world in its use of tax exempt financing to finance a variety of infrastructure. To benefit from this source of debt capital, a project must not have private use nor can debt service be repaid from private business revenues. The issue for P3’s arises because of the long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities that are a feature of many P3 contracts. Current IRS rules limit the length and method of compensation payable to a private party in a way that makes it almost impossible to effectively transfer long-term life cycle risk to the private sector. There are notable exceptions to these rules for specific types of infrastructure, such as qualified transportation facilities, airports and ports and water/wastewater facilities but in many cases there are so many requirements applicable to issuing these “private activity bonds” tax exempt financing is not available.

The question for P3’s is when do long-term operation and management services and payment for these services create “private use” for purposes of the tax exempt bond rules? In the past the IRS has published somewhat prescriptive revenue procedures that describe “safe harbor” provisions for management contracts relating to the term of the contract and the manner of compensation. The problem is these “safe harbor” provisions predate the development and growth of the P3 delivery model. Over the last several years, through published notices and private letter rulings, the IRS has indicated that strict adherence to the “safe harbor” provisions may not preclude the use of tax exempt financing. Furthermore, the IRS recently published regulations relating to the allocation and accounting of revenues from a bond financed facility that recognize merely sharing these revenues with a private entity will not adversely impact the tax exempt financing for the project. And recent private letter rulings for water/wastewater facilities, solid waste disposal facilities and electrical transmission and distribution systems recognize the need for flexibility in this area. The Treasury Department released a 2014 white paper on “Expanding our Nation’s Infrastructure through Innovating Financing” describing in detail the use of an availability payment contract where the public owner makes service fee payments to a private manager subject to compliance with specific performance standards and provided the facility is available for general public use.

In addition to several specific “fixes” to the “safe harbor” provisions on the term of the contract and how compensation is paid, the attorney group is proposing a general framework that focuses on the primary purpose of the project—is the arrangement designed to transfer the benefit of the lower cost of tax exempt financing to a private party or are there sufficient controls on the activities of the private party exercised by the public owner to achieve the primarily public purpose of the project.

This simple fix to the current “safe harbor” rules relating to private management contracts could go a long way to increasing the use of the P3 delivery approach for much needed public infrastructure.

Last Updated: January 12 2016

Article by Barney A. Allison

Nossaman 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.




U.S. Local Government: Growing Tax Bases and Good Management Underpin Stable Outlook, Despite Some Pension and OPEB Stress.

The local government sector has historically been characterized by solid credit quality and stable rating performance. Following this trend, Standard & Poor’s Rating Services expects this sector to demonstrate another year of stable credit quality in 2016. Despite a small handful of struggling issuers (including Chicago, Detroit, and Atlantic City), we believe that the overall stability and growth of local economies, generally strong-to-very strong institutional framework (IF) scores, managements’ ability to direct revenue and spending, and reliability and resilience of local revenue sources such as the property tax (even through the Great Recession) continue to support the stable credit quality outlook. This outlook is Standard & Poor’s view of possible rating performance within the sector or specific geographic region in the medium term as gauged in part by the ratio of upgrades versus downgrades, a trend of positive versus negative outlooks, and broader key trends and issuer-level credit drivers.

The macroeconomic conditions and general financing conditions in North America, as well as those risks identified by Standard & Poor’s Credit Conditions Committees, provide the foundation for our U.S. Public Finance sector outlooks (see “Volatility Risk Lingers As North America Readies Itself For Less Accommodative Credit Conditions,” published Dec. 4, 2015, on RatingsDirect). Our rating outlooks are informed by our macroeconomic forecast of the U.S. down to the regional and sector level, if applicable (see “U.S. Public Finance 2016 Credit Conditions Outlook: Expect Growth But Hold The Cheer,” published Jan. 11, 2016). Our focus in this article is on those broader industry trends that can have a large impact across our rated universe as well as developments we are seeing at the issuer-level that could drive credit quality.

Overview

13-Jan-2016




S&P: U.S. Higher Education – Amidst Continuing Pressures, the Ratings Outlook is Bifurcated.

For 2016, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ outlook on the U.S. higher education sector is bifurcated. Higher education in the U.S. has always been a relatively stable sector, and we’ve generally affirmed most of our ratings in any given year. During the past few years, of the rating changes we have seen, downgrades have outnumbered upgrades by a significant and increasing ratio. Although we expect downgrades to outpace upgrades again this year, we anticipate fewer downgrades than in previous years. In addition, while the sector continues to face longer-term challenges and opportunities, we believe most institutions have adapted to the “new normal” of more competition for students and limited tuition flexibility and are taking advantage of their individual strategic positions to continue operating successfully. However, these factors are not affecting all institutions equally. Schools with national or international reputations and growing resources will likely be able to capitalize on opportunities to further strengthen their positions, while smaller, regional schools will continue to struggle to differentiate their brands, which will require additional investment and resources that could weaken their credit profiles in 2016.

This outlook is our view of possible rating performance within the sector over the intermediate term, as gauged in part by the ratio of upgrades to downgrades, the trend in positive versus negative outlooks, broader key trends, and issuer-level credit drivers. The macroeconomic conditions and general financing conditions in North America, as well as those risks Standard & Poor’s Credit Conditions Committees have identified, provide the foundation for our U.S. public finance sector outlooks. (See “Volatility Risk Lingers As North America Readies Itself For Less Accommodative Credit Conditions” dated Dec 4, 2015). Our macroeconomic forecasts for the U.S., down to the regional and sector level, if applicable, also inform our outlooks. (See “U.S. Public Finance 2016 Credit Conditions Outlook: Expect Growth But Hold The Cheer” dated Jan. 11, 2016.)

We recently published revised criteria for rating not-for-profit colleges and universities. This outlook and the following discussion of overall trends in the sector reflects our view of the possible effects such trends could have on the credit of a college of university, without regards to changes in our rating methodology. For additional information on our revised criteria, please see “Methodology: Not-For-Profit Public and Private Colleges and Universities” published Jan. 6, 2016, on RatingsDirect.

Overview

Continue reading.

14-Jan-2016




Mediation Ends Longstanding Firefighter Pension Dispute in New Orleans.

In several cities where pension reform has failed, this type of problem-solving has proved beneficial.

Earlier this month, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu stood with Nick Felton, president of the firefighters union, at a press conference calling for voters to approve a small property tax increase. The symbolism was significant. Felton and Landrieu had been on opposite sides in a bitter battle over firefighter pension funding and backpay for the past half-decade. The tax increase they’re asking for would help the city meet its part of a deal that would put an end to the longstanding dispute.

What finally got both sides to budge in a fight that predates Landrieu’s administration was going through a roughly 14-month mediation. The process involved a pension task force made up of business and community members who worked with consultants to find a unanimous plan for saving the failing pension.

New Orleans is now the third city to turn to this type of help for pension reform, and the process is so far proving successful in places where tensions are running high and strong-arming — by both sides — has failed. New Orleans has been the toughest test yet, said consultant Vijay Kapoor, who has been a mediator for pension task forces in Chattanooga, Tenn., and Lexington, Ky. “The first time we brought everyone together, it lasted 20 minutes before [each side] was shouting,” Kapoor said. “We decided to meet separately after that.”

The issues and resentments on both sides were deep. Despite several court rulings, the city still had not paid firefighters the $75 million it owed them in backpay. The dispute had been going on so long — the original lawsuit dates back to the mid-1990s — that dozens of firefighters have died without getting what they were owed. At one point in 2014, Landrieu had agreed to pay the settlement, but then balked, saying the city first had to get relief from its mounting pension bill.

That pension, which Kapoor said was in the “worst shape I’d ever seen for a public fund of its size,” was nearing insolvency and putting unprecedented pressure on the city’s budget. In 2016, the city’s actuarially required contribution was set for $60 million — more than five times its entire parks department budget. The high bill is because the pension has about one-fifth of the money it needs to meet its liabilities.

From the city’s viewpoint, the pension’s leaders were mainly to blame. In the 2000s, the pension board sucked millions out of the fund via botched investments and now-defaulted loans to the entertainment industry. When Landrieu took office in 2011, he cited the city’s fiscal crisis as his reason for continuing the previous administration’s underfunding of the pension. Still, not putting more money into the system at a time when the stock market has gained two-thirds in value only worsened the pension’s financial state.

Kapoor, who was hired in 2014 as a consultant by the New Orleans Business Council, said it took months for the two sides to even agree on the numbers — this, despite the help of an actuarial firm. Six months into negotiating a funding plan, it became clear that the firefighters union wouldn’t agree to anything until the city paid what it owed in backpay. Without a unanimous agreement, the outside task force dissolved. Still, the parties kept working at a solution.

Late last year, the long process paid off. The two sides struck a deal that puts in place a 12-year payment plan for the $75 million in backpay, including $21 million upfront; triples the city’s contribution to the pension plan to about $32 million this year and guarantees that payments will stabilize going forward; eliminates retirees’ cost-of-living increases until the pension is nearly fully funded; and gives the city oversight of the fund’s investments and governance.

Kapoor believes New Orleans’ complicated story shows how this type of problem-solving could be beneficial for other cities facing sticky pension issues, but others note that mediation should be a last resort. “If we thought we could have gotten the city council to pay out [the backpay] more quickly,” said Pension Board Treasurer Thomas Meagher III, “then we would have proposed legislation and gone that route.”

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | JANUARY 14, 2016




One of the Biggest Bond Market Players Has No Employees.

One of the most prolific issuers in the $3.7 trillion municipal market is a Wisconsin agency with no employees, coveted tax-exempt bond status and a nationwide client list.

The Public Finance Authority last year issued bonds for more than 30 charter schools, senior living facilities, universities and real estate developers in 15 states. None were from Wisconsin. The University of Kansas sold $327 million of tax-exempt bonds last week through the authority for the first time so it didn’t have to wait on the legislature’s approval to raise money for a new 285,000 square-foot science building, a student union and housing.

“We’re expecting a larger class in 2017,” said Theresa Gordzica, the university’s chief business and financial planning officer. “We needed to keep the project moving so we can get the residence hall done.”

The deal highlights an obscure corner of the state and local-government debt market where pass-through agencies rent out their ability to sell tax-exempt bonds to out-of-state companies and non-profits in exchange for a fee. The practice has drawn criticism from some public officials, who say it can allow debt issuers to skirt their oversight by financing projects through authorities beyond their jurisdiction.

“The university is owned by the state, both the facilities as well as the good faith and credit,” said Representative Mark Hutton, a Wichita Republican, who called the university’s decision a “dangerous” precedent. “The reality is that they answer to the taxpayers of the state of Kansas, and we’re that voice.”

Such agencies sell securities and immediately lend the proceeds to borrowers, whose projects qualify for the tax exemption the federal government awards to debt for public works. The authorities aren’t on the hook if the money isn’t repaid. That makes the bonds among the riskiest in the municipal market: They make up as much as 30 percent of outstanding debt but account for almost 60 percent of defaults, according to Matt Fabian, a partner at Concord, Massachusetts-based Municipal Market Analytics.

State Competition

Wisconsin is one of seven states, including Florida and Arizona, that allow so-called conduit authorities to issue debt for projects beyond their borders, according to the Columbus, Ohio-based Council of Development Finance Agencies.

Wisconsin lawmakers approved legislation in early 2010 that allowed for the creation of the Madison-based PFA, which has since sold $3.4 billion of bonds. Started by the Wisconsin Counties Association, working with the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities, its goal is to provide governments and eligible private entities with access to low-cost financing for projects that contribute to social and economic growth. Last year, the PFA was the most active conduit issuer, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Mike LaPierre, president of Walnut Creek, California-based GPM Municipal Advisors, which manages the day-to-day operations of the PFA, said all of its bond sales are first approved by local governing bodies such as city councils. The university’s board of regents authorized last week’s sale.

“We’re going to the elected body most impacted by the projects,” said LaPierre, whose firm was paid $1.5 million by the authority in 2014. “We’re not doing anything unless that local agency has vetted it before a public hearing.”

“As local public officials ourselves, we want to to ensure that those most impacted by the project have a chance to weigh in,” said William Kacvinsky, the former Bayfield County supervisor who chairs the PFA.

Most of the authority’s bond sales have been for out-of-state issuers. About $150 million of the money it has raised was for nine standalone Wisconsin projects and four multi-state deals for work based in the state, according to LaPierre.

Last year, 17 of its bond issues, or more than half, didn’t have credit ratings, a step frequently used by borrowers that are unlikely to receive an investment grade, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Only qualified institutional buyers or accredited investors can buy those securities, and those rated below BBB-, LaPierre said.

No Defaults

No PFA debt has had a payment default. But one charter school in Palm Beach County, Florida, that borrowed through the agency has had to draw on its reserves to pay bondholders, a sign of distress.

“The investors are big boys, they’re doing their due diligence,” LaPierre said. “We don’t want unrated debt being held in the hands of mom and pop.”

The PFA shares a mailing address with the Wisconsin Counties Association in a building across the street from the state capitol. Its seven-member board includes four directors nominated by the counties group, and one director each from the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. The groups receive fees for endorsing the PFA. Last year, the National Association of Counties received about $130,000, said spokesman Brian Namey.

The University of Kansas, with 25,000 students at its main campus in Lawrence, sold debt to finance projects include a $138 million science building. It was the first time the university used an out-of-state conduit, said Rebecca Floyd, the general counsel of the Kansas Development Finance Authority, which handles bond deals for local borrowers.

“I think it was one of those circumstances that the legislature didn’t foresee,” she said.

Some charter schools in North Carolina have turned to the PFA rather than issue debt through North Carolina’s Capital Facilities Finance Agency. Pamela Blizzard, the managing director of the Research Triangle High School near Durham, said the North Carolina authority’s conditions were more restrictive and would have delayed the sale by months.

Other conduits have also been competing for business. In Connecticut, a retirement community last March used the PFA to issue $34.5 million of bonds rated BB, two steps into junk. After the deal, Connecticut’s Health and Educational Facilities Authority dropped its policy of only issuing investment grade bonds. It will now allow for public offerings of bonds rated BB and BB+ and sold to qualified institutional buyers or accredited investors, said Executive Director Jeanette Weldon.

“We wanted to make sure we’re giving these borrowers the access to capital that they need,” Weldon said.

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

January 12, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on January 13, 2016 — 6:28 AM PST




The Hidden - and Outrageously High - Fees Investors Pay for Bonds.

If you are a retail investor who purchases or sells corporate or municipal bonds, do you know the costs you are paying to transact in those securities? Chances are you don’t. Because of a regulatory loophole, broker-dealers are currently allowed to withhold essential pricing information from retail investors in fixed-income transactions.

When a retail investor purchases stocks, the broker-dealer is required to disclose the transaction costs the investor paid in the form of a commission on the customer’s confirmation statement. However, when a retail investor purchases bonds, the broker-dealer is not required to provide comparable disclosures of the transaction costs the investor paid in the form of a markup or markdown.

Because broker-dealers are not required to provide transaction cost information to retail customers in fixed-income transactions, and because retail investors don’t see any transaction costs on their confirmation statements, retail investors may mistakenly believe that they aren’t paying any trading costs at all. This opacity allows broker-dealers to charge higher transaction costs than they otherwise would if they were required to disclose.

As a result, retail investors pay substantially more to trade in corporate and municipal bonds than they pay to trade in stocks, where disclosure is required. And, they pay substantially more to trade in corporate- and municipal-bond transactions than sophisticated traders, who are better informed than retail investors and know where to access and how to interpret this information.

Research on retail investors’ trading costs for municipal bonds has found that the average cost of a $20,000 municipal-bond trade to be almost 2%. That cost arguably would be quite high even in the context of a normal interest-rate environment. However, in today’s low-interest-rate environment, that cost would be even more pronounced–equivalent to almost eight months of the total annual return for a bond with a 3% yield to maturity. Retail investors simply can’t afford to pay these sorts of high transaction costs on a low-yield investment.

Relevant cost information is available on FINRA’s Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) (for corporate bonds) and MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) (for municipal bonds) websites, and some astute investors may know how to find and interpret that data. However, most retail investors likely are not in a position to use those websites with any reasonable degree of expertise. Doing so would require the investor to know not only that those websites exist, but also how to find the precise information one is looking for and, most critically, how to understand and make use of that information to determine the costs one is paying and whether those costs are fair.

The only way to ensure that retail investors receive critical cost information is to provide it directly to them. Such cost information would put them in a better position to assess whether they are paying fair prices and allow retail investors to make more informed investment decisions. That would have the added benefit of fostering increased price competition in fixed-income markets, which would ultimately lower investors’ transaction costs.

Even within the highly fractured Securities and Exchange Commission, there seems to be unanimous support among the commissioners to require broker-dealers to disclose transaction costs directly to their retail customers. Commissioner Mike Piwowar has gone so far as to characterize this issue as “low-hanging fruit.”

But while there seems to be bipartisan support for forceful action, the two self-regulatory organizations tasked with addressing the issue, FINRA and the MSRB, have offered differing proposals. In my view, FINRA’s proposal is stronger and less susceptible to evasion by broker-dealers than the MSRB’s proposal and, therefore, any final coordinated approach should follow FINRA’s proposal.

Meanwhile, as the respective regulatory agencies debate the technical details of the various proposals, which is likely to complicate and lengthen the process, retail investors remain in the dark.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

BY MICAH HAUPTMAN

Jan 13, 2016

Micah Hauptman (@MicahHauptman) is the financial services counsel for the Consumer Federation of America.




Kramer Levin: Sorting Through the Options as Green Bonds Gain Popularity.

Global green bond issuance approached $40 billion in November, the busiest month for the environmentally minded fixed-income products to that point in 2015. This increase in activity pushed green bonds past the total amount from 2014, when issuers produced $36.59 billion worth of green bonds – the proceeds of which are used by public and private entities alike to fund investments with environmental benefits, such as to reduce carbon emissions or the construction of renewable energy infrastructure.

Although final figures for 2015 are not yet available, global rating agency Moody’s expects the surge to continue through the end of the year, particularly following the United Nations Framework on Climate Change Conference that was held in Paris in December. Banks, companies and organizations as diverse as The World Bank, HSBC Holdings, GDF Suez and Southern Power have all completed green bond offerings, illustrating the bonds’ popularity with a diverse set of issuers.

The bonds have also proved popular with investors, who continue to search out green assets for their portfolios. The New York Common Retirement Fund and Goldman Sachs recently formed a $2 billion fund to invest in low carbon emitters, part of an overall $3.4 trillion divestment from fossil fuels. In addition, Microsoft founder Bill Gates is leading an investor group – including Soros Fund Management chairman George Soros, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson – forming a $2 billion fund focused on clean energy investments. The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment identified $6.6 trillion worth of AUM invested in sustainable projects in the U.S. in 2014, a 76% increase from 2012.

However, as a growing number of funds and other investors seek to add these bonds to their portfolios, a key question remains largely unanswered: What specifically qualifies as a green bond? Significant ambiguity exists as the category remains vaguely defined and without a universally recognized standard. As a result, some issuances may not necessarily be as “green” as others.

One benchmark that has emerged as a recognized measure of a green bond’s level of authenticity is the International Capital Market Association’s (“ICMA”) Green Bond Principles. Created in 2014 and updated in 2015 in response to the rapidly developing market, the set of guidelines was developed in consultation with both investors and issuers. They have since gained the support of 55 of the world’s biggest investors, bond issuers and intermediaries, including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citibank, Credit Agricole, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and HSBC.

The principles include four primary components:

Through these guidelines, ICMA is not attempting to act as a regulator or enforcement agent. Rather, the principles are intended to encourage transparency and disclosure and “promote integrity in the development of the green bond market” and increase environmental benefits “without any single authority or gate keeper.”

The not-for-profit Climate Bonds Initiative also manages a certification scheme that assesses, prior to a bond issuance, whether a bond meets certain standards, as determined by an appointed third-party verifier. The group’s standards board then confirms the certification once the bond has been issued and the proceeds have been allocated to recognized projects and assets.

Green bond principles align well with the increased origination of property assessed clean energy (“PACE”) assessments and PACE bonds in the U.S. All proceeds of PACE assessments are allocated to the construction of renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements to real property. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, residential and commercial buildings accounted for 41% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2014, demonstrating the tremendous potential that exists for such energy efficiency programs to reduce demand. Since 2011, Renovate America’s HERO program, in conjunction with several California municipal entities, has financed more than $1 billion worth of environmentally friendly home improvements, resulting in five PACE bond securitizations. The most recent HERO Funding Trust PACE bond securitization indicated that it satisfied the ICMA Green Bond Principles, establishing a significant precedent for energy efficiency projects.

Gaining designation as a green bond is highly valuable for the issuer, as it opens the door for funds and others with assets to invest in environmentally friendly products. It also benefits green-specific fund managers, as it demonstrates to investors that they’re fulfilling their objective of investing in sustainable projects. With an estimated gap of $650 billion to $860 billion of investment required to combat climate change every single year between now and 2030, the prominence of green bonds – and the importance of properly identifying them – is likely to continue.

Article by Laurence Pettit

Last Updated: January 5 2016

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 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.




CDFI Fund Opens Application Period for FY 2016 CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.

Up to $750 Million in Bond Guarantee Authority Available

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) today opened the fiscal year (FY) 2016 application period for the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. Application materials are available on the CDFI Fund’s website in anticipation of the publication of the Notice of Guarantee Authority (NOGA) in the Federal Register later this week. The NOGA makes up to $750 million in bond guarantee authority available to eligible Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) in FY 2016.

Through the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, selected certified CDFIs or their designees will issue bonds that are guaranteed by the Federal government and use the bond proceeds to extend capital for community development financing and for long-term community investments. Authorized uses of the loans financed through bond proceeds may include a variety of financial activities, such as supporting commercial facilities that promote revitalization, community stability, and job creation/retention; housing that is principally affordable to low-income people; businesses that provide jobs for low-income people or are owned by low-income people; and community or economic development in low-income and underserved rural areas.

In FY 2016, the Secretary of the Treasury may guarantee bond issues having a minimum size of $100 million each, up to an aggregate total of $750 million. Multiple CDFIs may pool together in a single $100 million bond issuance provided that each eligible CDFI participates at a minimum of $10 million.

Deadlines

Please reference the NOGA and application instructions for detailed information regarding the following application deadlines for consideration for FY 2016 bond guarantee authority.

CDFI Certification Applications must be submitted through AMIS by 11:59 p.m. EDT on February 12, 2016.

Qualified Issuer Applications must be submitted through AMIS by 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 4, 2016.

Guarantee Applications must be submitted through AMIS by 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 18, 2016.

The last day the CDFI Fund will accept questions regarding the FY 2016 application period for the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program is March 9, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. All questions must be submitted electronically to the program office: bgp@cdfi.treas.gov.

Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications received in FY 2015 that were neither withdrawn nor declined in FY 2015 will be considered under the FY 2016 round.

Application Materials

In addition to being available through AMIS, the FY 2016 NOGA and application materials are available via the CDFI Fund’s website, www.cdfifund.gov/bond.

Application Workshop

The CDFI Fund will conduct a two-day application workshop for potential applicants regarding the FY 2016 Qualified Issuer and Guarantee Application requirements. Specifically, the workshop will include an in-depth discussion of the financial structure of the program, including:

Attendees will have the opportunity to ask CDFI Fund staff questions and receive clarification about the topics discussed during each module.

The two-day application workshop will be held in February 2016 in Washington, DC, at the CDFI Fund’s office at 1801 L Street NW.

As the workshop is held in a secure federal building, registration is required. There is no registration fee; however, due to limited space, registration will be honored on a first come, first served basis. Up to 100 potential applicants may attend. The CDFI Fund will release information on how to register for the workshop soon.

For interested parties unable to attend the in-person application workshop, the presentation materials will be posted to the CDFI Fund’s website, www.cdfifund.gov/bond.

Questions

Inquiries regarding legal documents related to the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program should be directed to the CDFI Fund’s Office of Legal Counsel via email at legal@cdfi.treas.gov.

For more information about the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, please visit www.cdfifund.gov/bond, or email the CDFI Fund’s Help Desk at bgp@cdfi.treas.gov.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016




Beware Of Pension Obligation Bonds.

These three little letters—POB—can be a pox on your portfolio if you own them or were pressured into buying them. Pension Obligation Bonds do not belong in your portfolio. The reasons are simple. These taxable municipal bonds are issued by state or local governments for payment of obligation to their employee pension fund. Issuing such bonds allow the state or local government that cannot make its payments to the pension fund to borrow the money, then invest it in the stock, bond, private equity or real estate markets. A gamble if there ever was one.

What happens when, like in 2015, stocks and U.S. Treasurys have flat returns? Or, also as happened last year, when investment grade and high yield corporate bonds returned little or (gasp) suffered losses? It’s a disaster. Sometimes returns from the POB issuance are below the interest rate the issuer paid to borrow the money. Then, the pension shortfall is actually increased. POBs are a gambler’s substitute for not making the required pension contribution with current tax revenues. Sure, the returns can be smoothed out over time. But the biggest offenders have the largest unfunded liabilities.

Some of the most chronically underfunded state pensions are: Illinois, Connecticut, Kentucky, Kansas, Alaska, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Louisiana, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

Then there are city offenders like Chicago, whose pension liabilities are stacking up rapidly causing the city’s tax-free municipal bond rating to fall into the junk pile. Any way you look at unfunded pensions and their Pension Obligation Bonds, it’s a toxic situation.

If you are seeking taxable income and want to stay away from corporate bonds, here are two taxable munis with good credit metrics, no unfunded pension problems and decent liquidity.

Dignity Health is a health care provider in California. Its services include urgent care, surgery, home health, lab and wound healing care. Dignity Health is a well run not-for-profit corporation whose revenues have exceeded expenses in this most challenging ObamaCare environment. The 3.125% coupon bonds maturing November 1, 2022 at par yield 3.125% to maturity. Bonds are non-callable and rated A3 by Moody’s. Its CUSIP is 254010AA9 and bonds should be carefully shopped for.

Another taxable municipal that won’t cause pension angst is Virginia Housing Development Authority Rental Housing Bonds. The title is a mouthful but in short: The VHDA’s mission is to finance affordable housing for Virginia residents. Rated AA+ by Standard & Poor’s, this experienced management team has overseen $8 billion in assets, increased net income in 2014 by 48% from 2013 according to S&P, increased their return on assets and continues to be profitable.

As with all taxable municipal bonds, investors are not exposed to dollar gyrations, China’s on again, off again economy, or geopolitical events.

Buy Virginia State Housing Development Authority Taxable Rental Housing Series C, 3% coupon maturing August 1, 2024 at roughly 99.75 for 3.03% yield to worst call and maturity. The CUSIP is 92812Q229. Do not pay much of a premium due to prepayments and the Authority’s special redemption rights.

With corporate downgrades and defaults expected to increase in 2016, taxable municipal bonds are a good substitute as long as they are not Pension Obligation bonds.

Forbes

Marilyn Cohen, Contributor

Jan 5, 2016

Marilyn Cohen is president of Envision Capital Management, Inc., a Los Angeles fixed-income money manager.




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (Our Updated Criteria For Rating Not-For-Profit Public And Private Colleges And Universities).

This week’s segment of Extra Credit features Director Carolyn McLean, who explains the key revisions to our methodology for rating not-for-profit public and private colleges and universities. In addition, we highlight last week’s rating actions and discuss the key factors behind our rating on Illinois.

Listen to the podcast.

Jan. 8, 2016




S&P Methodology Update: Not-for-Profit Public and Private Colleges and Universities.

1. Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services is updating its methodology for assigning stand-alone credit profiles (SACPs), issuer credit ratings (ICRs), and issue credit ratings to not-for-profit public and private colleges and universities globally.

2. The update provides additional transparency to help market participants better understand our approach in assigning ratings to not-for-profit public and private colleges and universities globally, to enhance the forward-looking nature of these ratings, and to enable better comparison between these ratings and ratings in other sectors and asset classes.

3. These criteria supersede “Approaches To Rating U.K. Universities Amid Growing Credit Diversity”, published March 28, 2003. These criteria also partially supersede the “Higher Education” criteria, published June 19, 2007. Specifically, the sections “Private College and University Credit Ratings”, “Management and Governance”, “Debt”, and “Rating Public Colleges and Universities” are superseded by these criteria. This methodology is related to our criteria article: “Principles Of Credit Ratings”, published on Feb. 16, 2011.

4. All terms followed by an asterisk (*) are defined in the glossary in Appendix.

Continue reading.




Moody’s Launches New Issuer Comment Report For Local Government Issuers.

Moody’s has launched a new research publication, the Issuer Comment Report. The Issuer Comment Report provides an assessment of the most recent credit information for most US local government issuers with outstanding Moody’s general obligation and related ratings. The reports present a summary of key economic, demographic, financial and operating information within the context of Moody’s ratings methodology and do not announce rating actions.

The Issuer Comment Reports will provide the bond market with updated credit information for US cities (including other municipalities such as towns and villages), counties and school districts, including for many issuers with no current or recently-published Moody’s research. Many of these are small and infrequent debt issuers, but have ratings that Moody’s reviews annually.

The new reports will also benefit issuers because they provide them with a single reference source for their Moody’s general obligation (and related) ratings, annually updated research on their credit, and updated economic and demographic data used in Moody’s local government general obligation methodology.

If you have any questions regarding this new research report, please contact either Chandra Ghosal at 212.553.1095 and chandra.ghosal@moodys.com or Brien Wigand at 212.553.0299 and brien.wigand@moodys.com.




All But Two States and Puerto Rico Can Issue More PABs in 2016.

WASHINGTON – All but two U.S. states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be able to issue more private-activity bonds in 2016, based on government data.

The states — Illinois and Connecticut — and Puerto Rico had population losses and lower PAB volume caps for this year, based on recent data published by the U.S. Census Bureau the Internal Revenue Service’s formula for PABs. California is, by far, the state with the largest PAB volume cap for 2016, followed by Texas and Florida.

But Colorado had the highest percentage increase in its cap for the year. The Rocky Mountain State, Texas and Florida were among nine states with PAB caps that rose more than 1%.

Private-activity bonds generally are issued by state and local governments or authorities to provide low-cost financing for the projects of nonprofit organizations or companies that serve a public purpose.

Most PABs must be issued under state volume caps, which are based on a formula established annually by the IRS. These include exempt facility qualified PABs bonds such as those issued to finance mass commuting facilities, water and sewer projects, and single-family and multifamily housing projects. They also include qualified small issue industrial development, student loan, and redevelopment bonds. States can carry over any unused cap for up to three years.

Some PABs are not subject to volume caps. These include qualified PABs for docks and wharves, environmental enhancements of hydro-electric generating facilities, and governmentally-owned solid waste facilities. Also included in this category are qualified 501(c)(3) bonds and veterans’ mortgage revenue bonds.

The formula for the PAB cap for 2016, published by the IRS in October, is $100 per capita or $302.88 million, whichever is higher. While the per capita amount did not change this year from last, the minimum increased to $302.88 million from $301.52 million for states with lower population figures.

The total PAB volume cap for the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico this year is nearly $32.49 billion, $245.07 million or 0.76% higher than the cap for last year.

The increase is due to population gains, as well as a higher minimum amount of cap allowed by the Internal Revenue Service.

But Illinois, Connecticut and Puerto Rico lost population in 2015, according to the latest figures published by the Census Bureau late last month. The population estimates have a reference date of July 1.

Puerto Rico had the biggest population and PAB cap drop. Its population fell by 60,706 to 3.47 million in 2015 from 3.53 million the year before. Its PAB cap fell 1.72% to $347.42 million for 2016 from $353.49 million for last year. Illinois’ population slipped 22,194 to 12.86 million in 2015 from 12.88 million the previous year. As a result, its cap fell 0.17% to $1.286 billion this year from $1.288 billion in 2015.

Connecticut’s population edged down by 3,876 to 3.591 million from 3.595 million. Its PAB cap fell 0.11% to $359.09 million this year from $359.48 million.

California has the largest PAB volume cap, at $3.91 billion, after a 0.91% increase in its $3.88 billion cap for 2015.

Colorado had the highest gain in its cap — a 1.89% increase to $545.66 million for this year from $535.56 for 2015. The increase was due to a population gain of 100,986 to 5.46 million.

The eight other states with increases in PAB volume caps above 1% are: Florida, up 1.84% to $2.03 billion; Texas, up 1.82% to $2.75 billion; Washington State, up 1.52% to $717.04 million; Arizona, up 1.48% to $682.81 million; Oregon, up 1.45% to $402.90 million; South Carolina, up 1.39% to $489.61 million; Georgia, up 1.17% to $1.02 billion; and North Carolina, up 1.03% to $1.00 billion.

Twenty-one states have the minimum cap of $302.88 million for 2016.

The PAB volume cap figures do not include American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands because they were not included in the recently released population estimates from the Census Bureau.

THE BOND BUYER

by Lynn Hume

JAN 5, 2016 10:22am ET

© 2016 SourceMedia. All rights reserved.




Fitch Webcast Replay: Request for Comment - U.S. Public Finance Waterworks, Sanitary Sewer, and Drainage Utility Systems.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services held a live Webcast and Q&A on Thursday, January 8, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the recently issued Request for Comment regarding proposed criteria for waterworks, sanitary sewer, and drainage utility revenue pledges of local and regional governments (LRG) issue credit ratings, issuer credit ratings (ICR) and stand-alone credit profiles (SACPs) in the U.S.

Listen to the replay.

Jan. 8, 2015




Fitch 2016 US Public Finance Outlooks.

Read the report.

Fitch Ratings | Jan. 8




Where to Find the $64 Billion of Distress in Muni-Market's Calm.

General-obligation bonds, long seen as one of the safest niches of the U.S. municipal market, are starting to look like one of the riskiest and it’s all because of Puerto Rico.

There was $64.2 billion of distressed state and local debt outstanding as of Jan. 4, or about 1.7 percent of the total, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. General-obligations, which are backed by a promise to repay instead of earmarked revenue or taxes, accounted for $12.9 billion, or 20 percent, the second-largest category after securities backed by legal-settlement money from tobacco companies. The financially drowning island was almost exclusively to blame: All but $400 million of it was issued by Puerto Rico.

The U.S. territory of 3.5 million hasn’t skipped any payments on its general-obligation bonds, which have the highest priority under its constitution. It opted to default on other debt this month instead. The securities are classified as distressed because in August the government decided to stop putting money into the account that’s used make interest and principal payments, a step it took to conserve cash.

Bloomberg’s tally is a broader category than outright defaults because it includes cases where borrowers draw down reserves below specified levels or violate other terms of the loan agreements.

The figures mask an otherwise positive turn in the municipal market, where borrowers’ finances have been given a lift by rising real estate prices and the economy’s more than six-year expansion. Last year, just 55 issuers missed bond payments for the first time, the fewest since at least 2010 and down from 62 in 2014, according to Municipal Market Analytics Inc. The amount of debt involved totaled $3.85 billion, down from $9.4 billion a year earlier.

A cumulative picture emerges from the the Bloomberg data, which include bonds that have been distressed for years. Among them are $200 million of still outstanding debt from Detroit and $100 million from Jefferson County, Alabama, both of which filed for bankruptcy after the recession. While such filings remain a rarity, the decisions rattled some investors’ confidence in struggling municipalities general-obligation bonds, which have traditionally been seen as secure because governments can raise taxes to pay them.

“Some of the actions taken in the high profile bankruptcy cases, to hit bonds hard and challenge all legal structures, are evidence of increased risk for GO bonds and all bonds when distress hits,” said Peter Bianchini, managing director with Mesirow Financial Inc. in San Francisco.

Smoking’s Risk

The single most-distressed category, accounting for $17.6 billion of the debt, is tobacco bonds, which state and local governments sold to get an advance on the money they’re due to receive from the 1998 legal settlement with cigarette companies. Those payments are tied to cigarette shipments, which have declined more than anticipated since the securities were first sold. As a result, many may not be repaid on schedule.

Ohio’s Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority disclosed last month, for example, that it had to draw in $35.85 million of reserves to pay part of the interest due Dec. 15.

Further down the distressed list are public power systems ($8.1 billion), economic and industrial development projects ($3.9 billion) and securities backed by specific taxes ($2.8 billion), according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The scale of the figures in some cases represent the length of time it takes to resolve a default.

“The numbers have been creeping up,” said Matt Fabian, an analyst with Municipal Market Analytics.  “Situations are lingering and lingering. Builds up to a large pile of problems after a few years.”

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

January 6, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on January 7, 2016 — 4:55 AM PST




Muni Market Still ‘Constructive’ Despite A More Hawkish Fed: MMA

Short-term Treasuries hit a new five-year high earlier today, but Municipal Market Analytics’ Matt Fabian and Lisa Washburn turn their attention to municipal bonds Monday, writing that despite the Federal Reserve’s rate hike, the muni market still looks constructive.

They write that it’s “hard to expect much dynamism in the next few days” in this short holiday trading week. Aside from lower volumes they write that bond levels and valuations are “rich across the curve” with tight spreads that are not likely to entice buyers to jump in at the moment, nor is the steady influx of fresh capital to municipal mutual funds helping.

In this environment, Fabian and Washburn write that it’s no surprise that both fixed and floating tax‐exempt yields have outperformed their peers, a situation they expect to continue near-term, especially as the U.S. Treasury curve flattening may be losing steam. “This is more a signal for unchanged taxable term spreads than a shift to bear steepening.

However, they note that at some point in the future, this outperformance for munis will being to limit additional relative value gains, as well as tie their prices even more directly to Treasuries.

Their advice:

Municipal bond valuations are indicating that bonds are somewhat to largely over‐ bought at the 5yr mark and longer. Buyers who need to spend cash before year end should strongly consider the front of the curve where ambivalence over future rate hikes should work to their advantage. Sellers can be less choosy as current spreads reward taking gains.

Barron’s

By Teresa Rivas

December 28, 2015, 2:58 P.M. ET




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






Copyright © 2025 Bond Case Briefs | bondcasebriefs.com