Finance





Muni-Bond Funds Burned Chasing Yield With Wood-Pellet Bankruptcy.

Wood pellets are made to be burned. It turns out a Louisiana facility that was built to make the pieces for power plants is doing the same to municipal-bond investors.

Invesco Ltd., Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. and AllianceBernstein Holding LP are among buyers left in limbo after Louisiana Pellets Inc., a subsidiary of the world’s biggest pellet maker in Germany, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last month. After selling almost $300 million in municipal debt since 2013, it defaulted on some taxable bonds on Jan. 1 because its facility in a small lumber town struggled to ramp up output to the levels projected in initial offering documents.

The project is the latest example of the risks associated with chasing yield in the portion of the $3.7 trillion municipal market that finances industrial-development projects, the segment most prone to default.

Investors have had few opportunities to buy recently and a lot of money to work with: High-yield muni funds saw inflows in 94 of the 116 weeks since the start of 2014, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

The wave of cash means “you have people jumping over themselves chasing incremental yield,” said John Bonnell, a fund manager who oversees about $10 billion of state and local-government debt at USAA Investment Management Co. in San Antonio. “There used to be a saying way back when: If something couldn’t get financed in the bank market or the corporate market or the equity market, it would get done in the muni market.”

Local authorities often issue debt for companies, hospitals and nonprofits, which back the obligations. While they often work with well-established borrowers, so-called conduits since 2014 have financed — or tried to finance — speculative projects including a sewage-to-fertilizer plant, a new home for USA Basketball and a methanol plant near Texas’s Gulf Coast that’s seeking to challenge foreign producers that dominate the business.

A Louisiana public authority issued $140 million of debt in November 2013 on behalf of the pellet company, which built a facility in Urania, a lumber town of 1,300 about 245 miles (394 kilometers) northwest of New Orleans. Investors extracted a steep price to compensate for the risk: Partially tax-exempt securities due in 2039 paid 10.5 percent interest, or 6.4 percentage points more than AAA munis, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Subsequent rounds of financing came through private placements in 2014 and 2015, the data show.

The pellets are made from wood residues like sawdust or shavings that are then dried and compacted.

Electricity producers burn the pieces, which are considered carbon-neutral, along with coal to comply with renewable-energy mandates.

Facing adverse weather and construction setbacks, the facility failed to meet production expectations. A sharp decline in the price of traditional energy sources like oil and natural gas added financial strain to the parent company, Wismar-based German Pellets, which declared insolvency overseas last month.

Bondholders’ View

Invesco is the largest holder of Louisiana Pellets debt, with about $89 million in its funds as of Dec. 31, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The next biggest owner is Waddell & Reed, with $22.5 million, then AllianceBernstein with $18.5 million, the data show.

Claudia Röhr, a German Pellets spokeswoman, didn’t respond to an e-mail seeking comment on its plans for the Louisiana facility or the options available to repay bondholders.

“The quickness of this project coming under scrutiny and into trouble is concerning to us, but it’s why you run a diverse portfolio,” said Mark Paris, who runs Invesco’s $7.7 billion high-yield muni fund from New York. “This is one of those situations where as a bondholder, we’re going to be working out the situation with the borrower. It’s probably not something we are going to try and sell out of.”

Michael Walls, who manages the $869 million Waddell & Reed Advisors Municipal High Income Fund, declined to comment, citing restrictions from being part of a group that agreed not to publicly discuss certain details of the project. The Louisiana Pellets bonds due in 2039 with a 10.5 percent interest rate are the second-largest holding in the fund.

“We believe that eventually the first phase of this plant can operate successfully — and have a new owner — but it is way too soon to know about expanding beyond that,” Dean Lewallen, a senior high-yield municipal credit analyst at AllianceBernstein, said in an e-mail. “The near-term focus is to get it operating again.”

German Pellets began financing the plant in late 2013 when oil was still selling for about $100 for a barrel, compared with $40 now. Natural gas prices have been cut in half over the period.

‘Very Vauable’

The plant was supposed to produce 500,000 metric tons of pellets annually by operating at about 87 percent of capacity, according to offering documents from the 2013 sale. Instead, in the second half of 2015, it produced just 101,000.

German Pellets also borrowed $187 million in 2012 through a development agency in Sanger, Texas, for its first U.S. location, in Woodville, Texas. Invesco is the largest holder of those securities as well, with $39.6 million, Bloomberg data show.

Unlike its Louisiana counterpart, the Texas plant is operating as expected, producing more in three months than the Urania facility did in twice the time.

“We believe there is a very strong international demand for the product, and we expect these plants to be very valuable,” said Paris, the fund manager for Invesco. “They’re the largest, they’re new, and we expect them to be very valuable assets.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

March 28, 2016 — 2:00 AM PDT Updated on March 28, 2016 — 8:05 AM PDT




Rally in Longest Muni Bonds Drives Yield Gap to Eight-Year Low.

The longest-dated municipal bonds haven’t looked this expensive since before the 2008 financial crisis. Yet investors aren’t showing any signs of slowing their purchases.

Following a rally that began in the second half of 2015, the extra yield buyers pick up for holding 30-year debt instead of two-year securities fell last week to as little as 1.96 percentage points, the lowest since February 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The difference shows investors are anticipating that bonds maturing in decades will fare best at a time when inflation is subdued and the Federal Reserve is planning to raise short-term rates.

The so-called flattening of the yield curve has made a lot of people look prescient: Investors and analysts at more than half a dozen firms including Barclays Plc, Citigroup Inc., Janney Montgomery Scott and Morgan Stanley Wealth Management all predicted the move in December. Some say long bonds could extend the rally through year-end amid signs that individual buyers are no longer waiting for yields to rise from five-decade lows.

“We’ve come a long way in a few months, but going forward, munis can hold onto this flatness or flatten even further,” said John Dillon, managing director at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management in Purchase, New York.

“Individuals have this greater comfort that long-term rates aren’t going to get away from them, and they’re getting the idea that reinvesting in two-year paper isn’t producing any kind of return.”

Even though the Fed raised its target rate in December for the first time since 2006, few expect significantly higher interest rates as other countries seek to combat a slowdown in growth. The futures market is factoring in a 6 percent chance the U.S. central bank will raise rates at its meeting in April, down from the one-fifth that was predicted a month ago.

On Monday, the Commerce Department reported that its price index for consumer purchases, a gauge closely watched by the Fed, dropped 0.1 percent in February from the month before, underscoring the lack of upward pressure on inflation.

For muni buyers in particular, the outlook is promising after weathering the usual wave of new bond offerings in March, which typically weighs on prices. States and cities issued $35.6 billion over the past month and the tax-exempt market gained 0.08 percent, according to data from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Bloomberg.

“The long-end of the muni curve continues to look quite attractive, while the short-end should continue to cheapen,” said Phil Fischer, head of municipal research at Bank of America in New York. “Continued curve flattening seems like a reasonable bet.”

Individuals are speculating on the longest-dated debt outperforming. They’ve added money for 25 straight weeks to long-term muni mutual funds, which represent about two-thirds of overall tax-exempt fund inflows during the period, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

Amid the demand, the yield on an index of benchmark 30-year munis is 2.73 percent, compared with 3.18 percent when the streak of inflows began, Bloomberg data show. By contrast, benchmark two-year rates, at 0.76 percent, are up from 0.56 percent, as traders price in another quarter-point Fed increase by the end of the year.

Not every investor is going all-in on the longest-maturing securities. Bonds due in eight to 12 years offer a better value for investors because prices haven’t rallied as much, said Jamie Pagliocco, who oversees muni-bond funds at Fidelity Investments.

Yet even he sees the appeal of long-term debt for investors who are losing patience with muni-market yields that are stuck near the lowest since the 1960s.

“There can still be a fair amount of demand on the long end because of the absolute yield levels,” said Pagliocco, whose company oversees $32 billion of munis. “The longer rates sit around this level, the more comfortable people get.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

March 29, 2016 — 2:00 AM PDT Updated on March 29, 2016 — 5:51 AM PDT




Municipal Bond Sales Poised to Decelerate as Redemptions Rise.

Municipal bond sales in the U.S. are set to decrease in the next month while the amount of redemptions and maturing debt rises.

States and localities plan to issue $5.9 billion of bonds over the next 30 days, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A week ago, the calendar showed $10.8 billion planned for the coming month. Supply figures exclude derivatives and variable-rate debt. Some municipalities set their deals less than a month before borrowing.

Houston’s school district plans to sell $684 million of bonds, Hawaii has scheduled $331 million, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, will offer $285 million and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission will bring $205 million to market.

Municipalities have announced $7.6 billion of redemptions and an additional $8.4 billion of debt matures in the next 30 days, compared with the $15.3 billion total that was scheduled a week ago.

Issuers from New York have the most debt coming due with $1.18 billion, followed by California at $1.07 billion and Massachusetts with $649 million. California has the biggest amount of securities maturing, with $615 million.

Investors added $1.06 billion to mutual funds that target municipal securities in the week ended March 16, compared with an increase of $1.03 billion in the previous period, according to Investment Company Institute data compiled by Bloomberg.

Exchange-traded funds that buy municipal debt increased by $93.6 million last week, boosting the value of the ETFs 0.44 percent to $21 billion.

State and local debt maturing in 10 years now yields 96.2 percent of Treasuries, the same as the previous session and the 200-day moving average of 97.3 percent, Bloomberg data show.

Bonds of Tennessee and California had the best performance over the past year compared with the average yield of AAA rated 10-year securities, the data shows. Yields on Tennessee’s securities narrowed 1 basis point to 1.84 percent while California’s increased 1 basis point to 2.09 percent. Puerto Rico and Connecticut handed investors the worst results. The yield gap on Puerto Rico bonds widened 149 basis points to 12.25 percent and Connecticut’s rose 18 basis points to 2.46 percent.

This story was produced by the Bloomberg Automated News Generator.

Bloomberg Business

by Ken Kohn

March 28, 2016 — 3:33 AM PDT




Bloomberg Brief Weekly Video - 03/31

Taylor Riggs, a contributor to Bloomberg Briefs, talks with reporter Joe Mysak about this week’s municipal market news.

Watch the video.

March 31, 2016




Muni Funds See Most Cash Since '12 on Best Risk-Adjusted Returns.

When it comes to risk-adjusted returns, municipal bonds still can’t be beat. And individual investors are taking notice.

The $3.7 trillion municipal market earned about 0.3 percent in March, building on gains of 1.1 percent and 0.1 percent in January and February, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show. It’s just the second time since 2002 that the debt has posted three straight positive months to start the year. While the first-quarter return is merely on par with the average over the past decade, individuals are pouring money into tax-exempt bonds anyway. They’ve added to municipal bond mutual funds for 26 straight weeks dating back to October, the longest streak since 2012, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

With tax-exempt interest rates near the lowest since the 1960s, munis don’t seem alluring on their own. Rather, they offer a combination of relatively higher yields and lower volatility that’s hard to match in the global markets, explaining why individuals continue to favor them, according to investors and analysts at BlackRock Inc., Loop Capital Markets, Oppenheimer & Co. and Vanguard Group Inc. When adjusted for price swings, state and local bonds performed better than many major asset classes in the first quarter, just as they did last year.

“As long as rates stay where they are right now, and you get to earn the coupon, I think retail investors are OK with that,” said Chris Mier, chief strategist at Loop Capital Markets in Chicago. “Munis are a good place to hide.”

When accounting for risk, as measured by price volatility, the broad municipal market earned 0.95 percent in the first quarter through March 30, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That edges the 0.94 percent return on investment-grade corporate bonds. U.S. Treasuries, high-yield company debt, commodities and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of stocks gained 0.75 percent, 0.36 percent, 0.12 percent and 0.08 percent, respectively.

Last year, munis did even better, returning 2 percent on a risk-adjusted basis while other assets either eked out gains or declined.

U.S. stocks plunged briefly into a correction in August 2015, which may have steered some investors into munis, Mier said. The current streak of inflows, totaling about $22 billion, began in the first week of October.

The S&P 500 recouped most of its losses later last year, only to plunge to the lowest in nearly two years on Feb. 11. The same week the index touched the low, investors added $941 million to muni funds, the fourth-largest inflow of the current stretch.

“Oftentimes we see investors looking in the rear-view mirror — they look at what has done well and buy that,” said Chris Alwine, head of munis in Malvern, Pennsylvania, at Vanguard, which oversees $157 billion of the debt. “We’ve been a bit surprised by the level of inflow.”

April will test demand for munis — funds have seen outflows in at least one of the first two weeks of the month each year since 2010, Lipper data show. That’s because individuals tend to raise cash ahead of the U.S. tax-filing deadline in mid-April.

Investors may also react to price declines from mid-February to mid-March, which drove benchmark 10-year yields up 0.3 percentage point to 1.87 percent, said Sean Carney, head of municipal strategy at BlackRock in New York.

“Many look at fund flows in the municipal-bond market as a leading indicator, when in all actuality they’re a lagging indicator — they lag past performance,” said Carney, whose firm oversees $110 billion in munis. “It wouldn’t be surprising if we were to begin to see fund flows compress a bit. They’ve been very strong.”

Tax season also has a positive effect for munis: reminding investors how much they pay, and what they could save by earning tax-exempt interest. Including a 3.8 percent levy on the investment income of top earners resulting from the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the highest federal rate is 43.4 percent.

That means the 1.75 percent yield on benchmark 10-year munis is equivalent to 3.1 percent on a taxable basis for top earners. That compares with 1.77 percent on U.S. Treasuries and exceeds the rate on 10-year bonds from Australia, Canada, China, almost all European countries, New Zealand, South Korea and Thailand, Bloomberg data show.

“People are looking at this external volatility and they want to put their money into something that’s more stable and consistent,” said Jeffrey Lipton, head of municipal research at Oppenheimer in New York. “If you’re within the upper income-tax brackets, and if diversification and preservation of capital is an important investment objective, why wouldn’t you put money into munis?”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

April 1, 2016 — 2:42 AM PDT Updated on April 1, 2016 — 7:12 AM PDT




GASB Issues Enhanced Guidance on Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements.

Norwalk, CT, March 29, 2016 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today issued recognition and measurement guidance for governments that benefit from irrevocable split-interest agreements.

Under a typical irrevocable split-interest agreement, a donor transfers assets for the shared benefit of at least two beneficiaries: a government (often a public college, university, or hospital) and another donor-designated beneficiary. The donor transfers the related assets to either the government or to a separate third party, such as a bank.

GASB Statement No. 81, Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements, addresses when these types of arrangements constitute an asset for accounting and financial reporting purposes when the resources are administered by a third party. The Statement also provides expanded guidance for circumstances in which the government holds the assets.

“The types of agreements addressed by Statement 81 can represent significant resources for certain public colleges, universities, and hospitals,” said GASB Chair David A. Vaudt. “This guidance will lead to more consistent accounting for these agreements, which will allow users access to more comparable information about them.”

The requirements of GASB Statement 81 are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. The full text of the Statement is available at www.gasb.org.




States Slap Cities With Fiscal Handcuffs.

Is anyone trying to balance the fiscal inequities states impose on their localities?

In our current federal system, states are endowed with the right to chart their fiscal destinies. Each state can choose which kinds of taxes it wishes to impose — and what rates and rules will apply.

Not so with municipalities. States can, and do, impose fiscal straitjackets on local governments, defining their authority or lack thereof to levy certain kinds of taxes, or even how such taxes may be assessed, applied or collected. At the same time, they require local governments to balance their budgets, keep their debt under control, and promise more to retirees than can be paid.

While there seems little disposition for federal, state and local governments to sit down together and consider this unbalanced fiscal dilemma, there might be a sign of recognition of the quandary by the Oregon Legislature. For starters, it directed the Legislative Research Office to prepare an analysis of options for restructuring Oregon’s state and local revenue system, a report that was recently completed.

The situation in Oregon is complicated by initiatives statewide voters imposed. A property tax revolt, which began in 1990 with Measure 5, limited property taxes to 1.5 percent of a home value, thus disassociating local revenues from local expenses. Notwithstanding Measure 5’s artificial limit, rapidly rising home prices meant that local property taxes continued to escalate — as did tempers. So six years later Oregonians adopted Measure 47, which rolled back property tax assessments to the prior year’s levels — minus an additional 10 percent — and imposed a 3 percent a year cap on annual increases. The following year, voters adopted Measure 50, which imposed changes that clarify how the system would work. In effect, the measures permanently disconnect property tax levies from present-day property values.

As housing prices continue to rise, the initiative helps ensure that Oregonians can afford to stay in their homes. But it also severs the umbilical cord that enables local elected leaders to balance citizens’ needs with the ability of the government to pay for them.

The series of tax limitations made Oregon the only state in which assessed values do not reset to market value each time a property is sold — creating a different kind of governance challenge. Tax-relief benefits have been concentrating in gentrifying neighborhoods that have experienced rapidly rising home values. This is leading to inequities in property tax bills for homes of equivalent values. In effect, it has made tax policy a tool for inequity, even as it has imbalanced cities’ abilities to govern.

These state-imposed rules and limitations have created a perverse system in which every April, local governments confront a huge challenge: How to guesstimate the revenues that their levies will generate. Of the four variables that go into the calculation, only one (the tax rate) is known in April, but even that will end up caught in the buffeting winds of the state’s property tax system. Ergo, the daunting challenge of estimating tax revenues for local budgets has become more one of throwing darts than precision math. It is not, after all, until the assessor releases the tax data early in November (some seven months later) that the municipal budget architects can truly assess how accurate their guesstimates were. It is akin to blindfolding governance.

There would be singular benefits to reconnecting property taxes to real market values and creating uniformity of taxation for properties having the same market value. The Oregon League of Cities has long been working on possible solutions. The state could intervene and replace the lost revenue — although this comes with a risk for local governments. Should the state opt to address the current inequities through the provision of some kind of property tax credit to homeowners, the replacement of lost revenue by the state would need to be constitutionally mandated to protect cities from subsequent legislative actions. State largess is not as sure as the proverbial death and taxes.

GOVERNING.COM

BY FRANK SHAFROTH | MARCH 2016




A New Twist on ‘Pay for Success’ Programs.

A variation on the existing model would provide a money back guarantee should a project fail.

This year has already seen a flurry of activity when it comes to governments and the private sector partnering on social programs. Fewer than three months into 2016 and three governments have announced so-called pay for success or social impact bond projects, boosting the total number of such programs to 11 across the country.

Now, there may be a new option for governments interested in the model, but wary of its complicated nature. Under a pay for success or social impact bond program, private funders finance a preventive social or health program and only get paid back if the project meets its goals over the course of a predetermined set of years. The new model, announced by Third Sector Capital Partners on Thursday, offers a money back guarantee.

With a “social impact guarantee” or SIG project, governments front the money (instead of a private investor) and get paid back if the project doesn’t meet its goals. Specifics are sparse, but Third Sector co-founder George Overholser says he’s currently working with two states on creating the country’s first SIG projects and hopes to announce them by the end of this year.

The main objective of the new tool, which is the brainchild of Overholser, is to give governments a simpler alternative to the existing structure. Third Sector helps governments develop social impact bond projects and Overholser says two main complications tend to arise under the current model.

For one, private investors like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are wary of financing these projects over the long-term without a guarantee from the government that it will pay them back if the project meets its outcomes. Governments have taken to creating escrow accounts to assure investors. “It’s tying up capital that could be used in different ways,” Overholser says. If governments are setting aside money each year anyway, he asks, wouldn’t it be simpler just to pay for the social program directly?

The second complication is that governments have to pass new laws or regulations — which can take years — to even begin creating a social impact bond program. That’s because governments generally aren’t allowed to contract for longer than they can appropriate funds. That means they’re limited to one- or two-year contracts. But outcomes-based programs can take several years before they start showing real results, so social impact bond projects tend to contract for between five and seven years.

Overholser says SIGs avoid these complications because governments would simply continue to contract with social services providers just like they already do. The difference is the deal would include clawback provisions for governments to recover their money if program goals aren’t met.

Although its objective is to be more simple, SIGs are still tricky. Part of what motivates financiers to back a pay for success project now is that if the program exceeds its goals, financiers not only get their initial investment back but they get a bigger interest payment as well.

To keep that financial sweetener in place, Third Sector has structured SIGs so that a private financier basically plays the role of an insurer. In the new scenario, a service provider contracting with the government would be on the hook for paying back the money if the goals aren’t met. So the service provider turns to a private financier to provide insurance on the agreement. The service provider pays the financier premium payments, much as we do with car insurance. The premium payments would likely be baked into the provider’s costs and passed on down to the government. If the project fails, the service provider refunds the government and collects those losses from the financier. But the far more likely outcome, says Overholser, is the financier simply pockets the premiums.

Still, some question whether the new proposal would offer enough incentives for nonprofits to opt for a SIG over a social impact bond. If the contracting structure is more like what governments already do with nonprofits, says Lili Elkins, then what is the motivation for a nonprofit to take the extra step of going with a SIG and finding insurance to offer a money back guarantee? Elkins’ nonprofit Roca provides counseling, job training and other services for a social impact bond project in Massachusetts aimed at reducing recidivism and increasing employment among high-risk young men. (Third Sector helped put the project together.) Elkins says a SIG project would have to offer something more than the status quo, whether it’s funding stability or something else.

Financial stability in particular is a big draw for nonprofits when it comes to pay for success projects. For Roca, rather than scraping together funding every year, the opportunity to be guaranteed funding for 900 young men over multiple years was a big incentive to be part of the Massachusetts project.

“The tricky thing now,” Elkins says, “is getting people into that model. The reason we jumped into pay for success is there was an incentive for us to jump.”

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | MARCH 24, 2016




Muni-Bond Funds Burned Chasing Yield With Wood-Pellet Bankruptcy.

Wood pellets are made to be burned. It turns out a Louisiana facility that was built to make the pieces for power plants is doing the same to municipal-bond investors.

Invesco Ltd., Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. and AllianceBernstein Holding LP are among buyers left in limbo after Louisiana Pellets Inc., a subsidiary of the world’s biggest pellet maker in Germany, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last month. After selling almost $300 million in municipal debt since 2013, it defaulted on some taxable bonds on Jan. 1 because its facility in a small lumber town struggled to ramp up output to the levels projected in initial offering documents.

The project is the latest example of the risks associated with chasing yield in the portion of the $3.7 trillion municipal market that finances industrial-development projects, the segment most prone to default.

Investors have had few opportunities to buy recently and a lot of money to work with: High-yield muni funds saw inflows in 94 of the 116 weeks since the start of 2014, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

The wave of cash means “you have people jumping over themselves chasing incremental yield,” said John Bonnell, a fund manager who oversees about $10 billion of state and local-government debt at USAA Investment Management Co. in San Antonio. “There used to be a saying way back when: If something couldn’t get financed in the bank market or the corporate market or the equity market, it would get done in the muni market.”

Local authorities often issue debt for companies, hospitals and nonprofits, which back the obligations.

While they often work with well-established borrowers, so-called conduits since 2014 have financed — or tried to finance — speculative projects including a sewage-to-fertilizer plant, a new home for USA Basketball and a methanol plant near Texas’s Gulf Coast that’s seeking to challenge foreign producers that dominate the business.

A Louisiana public authority issued $140 million of debt in November 2013 on behalf of the pellet company, which built a facility in Urania, a lumber town of 1,300 about 245 miles (394 kilometers) northwest of New Orleans. Investors extracted a steep price to compensate for the risk: Partially tax-exempt securities due in 2039 paid 10.5 percent interest, or 6.4 percentage points more than AAA munis, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Subsequent rounds of financing came through private placements in 2014 and 2015, the data show.

The pellets are made from wood residues like sawdust or shavings that are then dried and compacted. Electricity producers burn the pieces, which are considered carbon-neutral, along with coal to comply with renewable-energy mandates.

Facing adverse weather and construction setbacks, the facility failed to meet production expectations. A sharp decline in the price of traditional energy sources like oil and natural gas added financial strain to the parent company, Wismar-based German Pellets, which declared insolvency overseas last month.

Bondholders’ View

Invesco is the largest holder of Louisiana Pellets debt, with about $89 million in its funds as of Dec. 31, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The next biggest owner is Waddell & Reed, with $22.5 million, then AllianceBernstein with $18.5 million, the data show.

Claudia Röhr, a German Pellets spokeswoman, didn’t respond to an e-mail seeking comment on its plans for the Louisiana facility or the options available to repay bondholders.

“The quickness of this project coming under scrutiny and into trouble is concerning to us, but it’s why you run a diverse portfolio,” said Mark Paris, who runs Invesco’s $7.7 billion high-yield muni fund from New York. “This is one of those situations where as a bondholder, we’re going to be working out the situation with the borrower. It’s probably not something we are going to try and sell out of.”

Michael Walls, who manages the $869 million Waddell & Reed Advisors Municipal High Income Fund, declined to comment, citing restrictions from being part of a group that agreed not to publicly discuss certain details of the project. The Louisiana Pellets bonds due in 2039 with a 10.5 percent interest rate are the second-largest holding in the fund.

“We believe that eventually the first phase of this plant can operate successfully — and have a new owner — but it is way too soon to know about expanding beyond that,” Dean Lewallen, a senior high-yield municipal credit analyst at AllianceBernstein, said in an e-mail. “The near-term focus is to get it operating again.”

German Pellets began financing the plant in late 2013 when oil was still selling for about $100 for a barrel, compared with $40 now. Natural gas prices have been cut in half over the period.

‘Very Vauable’

The plant was supposed to produce 500,000 metric tons of pellets annually by operating at about 87 percent of capacity, according to offering documents from the 2013 sale. Instead, in the second half of 2015, it produced just 101,000.

German Pellets also borrowed $187 million in 2012 through a development agency in Sanger, Texas, for its first U.S. location, in Woodville, Texas. Invesco is the largest holder of those securities as well, with $39.6 million, Bloomberg data show.

Unlike its Louisiana counterpart, the Texas plant is operating as expected, producing more in three months than the Urania facility did in twice the time.

“We believe there is a very strong international demand for the product, and we expect these plants to be very valuable,” said Paris, the fund manager for Invesco. “They’re the largest, they’re new, and we expect them to be very valuable assets.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

March 28, 2016 — 2:00 AM PDT Updated on March 28, 2016 — 8:05 AM PDT




Public Finance Authority Responds to Critics.

PHOENIX – Leaders of the Public Finance Authority take issue with criticisms that the Wisconsin-based national conduit issuer only exists to usurp local control from taxpayers and other bond-issuing authorities.

The PFA, created by the state legislature as a political subdivision of Wisconsin in 2010, has issued nearly $4 billion of bonds for more than 150 projects in 40 states.

But the issuer, which was created with the support of the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the Wisconsin Counties Association and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, has taken fire from local politicians and finance authorities who don’t like the PFA doing financings far from its own home base.

Mike LaPierre, the program manager at the PFA, said the criticisms are the result either of local politics or complaints from state agencies that have never been forced to compete with another conduit issuer. When the University of Kansas issued more than $325 million of lease revenue bonds through the PFA earlier this year, for example, the result was controversy.

KU bypassed its usual issuer, the Kansas Development Finance Authority, because the bonds would have required legislative approval. Lawmakers questioned the wisdom of the project, which was to finance a classroom and housing.

The bonds received investment-grade ratings but negative outlooks from Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s. Ray Merrick, a Republican and speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives, was especially critical, charging that issuing the bonds through the PFA was an attempt to escape state oversight and hide the financial risks of the project from Kansas taxpayers.

But the PFA’s leaders insist that the agency exists merely to fill a void for issuers who might not otherwise have a way to get a financing done. They say the PFA takes no part in local politics.

The KU deal, said PFA program manager Phil Letendre, was essentially a case where some individuals did not want the university doing any new construction at all. That debate had nothing to do with the PFA, he said. KU insisted throughout the process that it had every legal authority to issue the bonds through the PFA.

Nor does the PFA have a problem with an issuer that ultimately chooses to issue bonds through a regular state agency, Letendre said.

“If the state can do it better, more efficiently, great,” he said.

Illinois and Washington have each passed laws seemingly designed to hamper activity from issuers like the PFA, by giving relevant in-state authorities time to review the potential financing and choose to do it themselves if they see fit. The PFA has done deals in those states, but its officials acknowledge that the laws make it more difficult because issuers typically do not want to be in legal limbo for months while their project is reviewed.

The PFA also has been criticized for the fact that 44% of the debt it has issued is unrated and privately placed. Only about 35% of PFA’s bonds have been rated triple-B minus or higher and publicly offered, with the balance directly purchased by banks. The PFA contends that it only sells unrated debt to qualified institutional buyers, and that its projects have historically performed well.

“We’ve not had a default,” Letendre said.

Wisconsin benefits from the PFA as well, authority officials contend, even though its activities do not create many jobs. The PFA is managed by LaPierre’s firm, GPM Municipal Advisors, which is based in Walnut Creek, Calif. But an economic impact study commissioned by the PFA estimated that the authority’s financings have created some 8,462 permanent jobs and generated about $61.4 million in tax revenues from all its deals across the states.

One of its earliest of the PFA’s deals was for a rural electric cooperative in Wisconsin that created about 68 permanent jobs and almost half a million in tax benefits to the state, according to the report.

PFA bonds are only federally tax exempt, so states still collect taxes on the interest earned on those bonds.

The Bond Buyer

By Kyle Glazier

March 24, 2016




Planning the Future of the Community Development Financial Institutions.

At the 2016 CDFI Institute, attendees discussed where the industry started, its current state and plans for the future of CDFIs

WASHINGTON, March 17, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Last week, the 22nd Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Institute was held in our nation’s capital. The event, hosted by the CDFI Coalition, drew over 150 community development stakeholders from around the nation. Prominent Members of Congress, Senior Treasury Department staff and panels of CDFI experts participated in the Institute.

A highlight of the two-day event included a panel on the future of the CDFI Industry. The panel took place during lunch on the first day of the Institute, and featured a presentation on the industry trends. Attendees were invited to weigh in on where they see the industry presently and where they predict it will head in the next few years. Paul Anderson of Rapoza Associates presented on CDFI Fund data trends the firm analyzed on behalf of the Coalition. Panelists, including Calvin Holmes of Chicago Community Loan Fund and Tanya Fiddler of the Native CDFI Network, as well as the moderator, Lori Canady of Alaska Benteh Capital, commented on their perspectives from within the industry.

Rapoza Associates will be using the data and comments resulting from the conversations at the Institute to prepare a comprehensive report on the future of CDFIs that is expected to be released in late summer. During the presentation, Anderson noted that in the wake of the Great Recession, CDFIs are increasingly targeting loans and investments to America’s highest poverty communities. The share of CDFI loans and investments going to America’s most severely distressed communities increased from 27.3 percent in 2004 to 43.8 percent in 2013.

“There are many economically distressed communities still working to jumpstart their local economies and grow business opportunities and jobs, but access to capital often impedes progress,” said James R. Klein, CEO Emeritus of Finance Fund, a longtime member of the CDFI Coalition, who was elected Board Chair on March 10. “That’s where CDFIs come in—we are helping revitalize local economies by providing access to capital that traditional financial institutions cannot, with the goal of bringing these communities and their businesses into the economic mainstream.”

On the second day, attendees heard from senior leaders of the CDFI Industry who recently retired or are preparing to retire. The panelists included Bob Davenport, president of the National Development Council; Julie Gould, the former president of Mercy Loan Fund; Ron Phillips, the president and founder of Coastal Enterprises, Inc.; Cliff Rosenthal, the former CEO of the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions; and Michael Rubinger, the president and CEO of Local Initiatives Support Corporation. The panel was moderated by Donna Gambrell, the former CDFI Fund Director from 2007-2013, and the longest serving and first African American woman to be appointed to the position. The panel discussed the origins of the CDFI movement, citing many CDFIs came from the civil rights movement.

The event also included keynotes from CDFI Fund Director Annie Donovan and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ranking Member on the on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Finance Committee. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), respectively, Chair and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, also spoke at the CDFI Coalition’s Capitol Hill Reception, which was held on March 9.

There are currently more than 954 certified CDFIs, including 71 Native CDFIs, working in communities across the United States. These institutions include 510 loan funds, 251 credit unions, 170 bank depository institution holding companies, banks or thrifts, and 14 venture capital funds. In 2015 CDFI Fund grantees made over 41,000 loans or investments totaling more than $3 billion. This capital financed over 25,000 units of affordable housing, and 12,000 businesses. For more information on the Coalition and CDFIs, visit our website at www.cdfi.org.

Mar 17, 2016, 16:00 ET from CDFI Coalition

Contact: Ayrianne Parks
Email: Ayrianne@rapoza.org
Phone: 202.579.7445




Do Bonds and EB-5 Investment Go Together?

EB-5 is a growing and acceptable financing methodology as part of the capital stack in many U.S. projects, with real estate assets remaining the primary focus for investment of such capital. As other projects seek to take advantage of this opportunity to attract capital, the question arises as to whether government bond financed projects are suitable investments for EB-5 capital. In a typical structure, the EB-5 investor invests in a specially formed entity that, in turn, buys the governmental entity’s bonds; the bonds finance an eligible project and the investor’s money is traced to project costs. Of course, the risk of loss as a result of a default on the bonds also flows through to the EB-5 investor.

EB-5 investment in bonds related to government infrastructure projects can be a suitable investment; however, as with any investment, proper due diligence is a necessity. While the risks and benefits of an investment in a bond financed project must be evaluated on a project by project basis, there are some general principles of due diligence that apply to analysis of these investments.

The time period over which the EB-5 investor to receive the full return of his/her EB-5 investment should be a critical part of any evaluation, as bond related investments tend to be long-term, and the risk profile of a long-term obligation is different from a 5 year investment that is typical investment time frame for an EB-5 investment.

Generally speaking, the higher the quality of the bond investment, the lower the yield offered to investors. Inversely, a low quality bond product must offer a higher rate of return to an investor as an incentive to attract such investor. If there’s any doubt about the ability of the bond issuer to pay off an investor on time, a high yield offering could be a poor choice as the risk of getting repaid on your investment is greater. Investors with a low risk tolerance should stick with high quality bonds even though the lower yield may be less attractive to an individual investor.

How do we tell if a bond is a high quality bond? One tool for evaluation of quality is a credit rating provided by independent institutions, or “rating agencies,” such as Moody’s, Fitch and Standard & Poor’s. A triple A (AAA) bond is the highest rating. BBB/Baa is the lowest rating that qualifies for commercial bank investments and this rating on a bond makes it a borderline group for which, in Standard & Poor’s words, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity to repay the investor. Dipping below BBB/Baa ratings takes you into speculative territory. Because of their higher risk of default, such bonds must pay higher yields to attract an investor BUT “high yield” is the marketing name for what most people call junk bonds.

The fact that the bond is issued by a government entity, in and of itself, is not determinative in the analysis whether a bond investment is a suitable investment for an EB-5 investor. Foreign investors should not fool themselves into believing that an investment in a government intrinsically safer and less risky than an investment in a privately sponsored vehicle just because of the involvement of a government entity. Rather, an investor should investigate how the government is involved in the project. Is the governmental entity merely a conduit issuer of a privately owned and operated facility? Or are they providing actual financial support, either directly in the form of a payment guaranty or pledge of tax or other revenues, or indirectly through tax abatements or other subsidies?

In summary, here are a few factors an EB-5 investor should look at when evaluating the risk of any government bond investment:

  1. Financial condition of the issuer of the bonds. The financial statements of the bond issuer should be evaluated carefully, in much the same way as one would review those of a private entity. Financial reporting rules and accounting principles differ for governmental entities, so particular care should be taken in the evaluation of these materials by someone who knows the rules for government accounting in the United States. The stronger the balance sheet, the greater the likelihood that the investor will receive the benefit of what is being bargained for.
  2. Credit rating of the Bond. This is how the rating agency rates the strength and risk level of the investment. A triple A bond (AAA) designates a strong likelihood of repayment. Anything below that has a higher degree of risk, often offset by enticing the investor with a higher coupon rate. A bond rating of A- or lower should cause concern and the lower the rating, the higher the risk.
  3. Historical track record of repayment of prior bonds.
  4. Level and nature of governmental issuer involvement and financial support or subsidization of the project.
  5. Length of investment. A typical bond term may be 20 years or longer. A typical EB-5 investment is approximately 5 years. Does it make sense to have principal tied up for that many years or is the investor better off getting its principal back sooner to reinvest how the investor thinks best? This is a question that can only be answered by the risk tolerance of the investor but suffice it to say, a long term investment of capital is not optimal for every investor.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Bruce C. Rosetto
Shareholder

Monday, March 21, 2016

Bruce C. Rosetto represents private and public companies, private equity funds, investment banks and banks. His practice focuses on entrepreneurs and small to middle market public companies throughout the United States in a variety of industries, including life sciences, bio-tech, banking, environmental, manufacturers, technology, entertainment and many others.

He also advises clients in connection with raising capital for and establishing regional centers to administer, projects qualifying for investment under the EB-5 Entrepreneur Investment…

rosettob@gtlaw.com
561-955-7625
www.gtlaw.com

©2016 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.




Developers Use Innovative Strategies to Deliver Affordable Housing.

As Seattle and the region search for ways to produce and retain affordable housing, these four developments backed by private capital are examples of different strategies that have worked.

James Lacey and Emily Perchlik kept coming up short in their hunt for a modern Seattle apartment they could afford.

Finally, three months before their daughter Willow was born, the couple in May landed one of the 36 below-market apartments at Anthem on 12th, one of three new projects on Yesler Terraceby Seattle-based Spectrum Development Solutions.

The couple pays about $1,545 a month for their 847-square-foot, two-bedroom unit, about $750 less than a similar market-rate unit at Anthem.

“It allows us to save up for a down payment,” Lacey said.

While the Seattle area is witnessing a historic boom in the construction of expensive, luxury apartments, four local projects show private developers are using innovative strategies to deliver housing that’s affordable to low-income or middle-class households.

Last year, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray set a goal of 20,000 new affordable units over the next decade, with the private sector tasked with producing much of it.

Hal Ferris, who founded Spectrum in 2008 and is a national affordable-housing leader, is realistic about what his eight-person firm can achieve.

“I don’t think we alone are going to be able to solve the problem,” said Ferris, 59. “What Spectrum can do is show others how to do it.”

Other local projects like Imagine Housing’s Velocity show how low-income housing can be integrated with market-rate apartments and mass transit. Smaller-scale projects such as Green Canopy’s Triplets in the Delridge area and Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing point to ways in which housing for the middle class might be preserved or created in Seattle.

What unites them is the developers’ success in scoring cheap capital, whether from competitive tax-credit awards, foreign investors or friends and family, to achieve their vision.

Housing shortage

Like other metros nationwide, Seattle is suffering from a shortage of affordable housing. Not just the poor, but those on higher incomes like teachers, medical assistants and food-service workers are challenged to find housing that’s affordable.

According to Harvard University’s Joint Center on Housing Studies, nearly two-thirds of Seattle-area renters earning between $30,000 and $45,000 in 2014 spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, a threshold that’s widely considered the point at which housing becomes unaffordable. The same was true for almost one in six earning $45,000 or more.

From early 2014 to the end of last year, the average per-square-foot rent in King and Snohomish counties has climbed nearly 20 percent, according to data from Apartment Insights Washington, a market-research firm. To be sure, that figure is skewed by new properties like downtown Seattle high-rises like Cirrus, which charges about $3,000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, but even older properties have raised their rents in the face of insatiable demand for urban digs.

All developers of affordable housing face some common hurdles. Among them: high land and construction costs, rigid lenders and a long trek through different bureaucracies, not to mention neighborhoods that may be resistant to denser development and housing associated with the poor.

The conventional wisdom is that because of those high costs, “You can’t build a property for a middle-class renter,” said Jay Parsons, director of analytics for Texas-based MPF Research. “Any new apartment is a luxury property — it’s just a question of how luxurious it’s going to be.”

But some developers are doing what they can to defy that thinking.

A trifecta on Yesler Terrace

Spectrum opened Anthem, the first of three apartment projects on First Hill within walking distance of each other, last May. The 120-unit Anthem, at 103 12th Avenue, was the first private development in the Seattle Housing Authority’s revamp of Yesler Terrace.

Anthem has a bike-share station and is located on the new streetcar line, giving residents a convenient ride into downtown.

“It’s great for me to see her in the middle of the day and not have an hour of transit time,” said Perchlik, who works at an architecture firm. Lacey, a stay-at-home dad, said the couple wanted to avoid paying for child care.

Spectrum expects to complete the 75-unit Decibel in June and an 85-unit project, Reverb, in September. Renters in the three projects will share amenities, such as Anthem’s bike-share stations, Reverb’s rooftop clubhouse and Decibel’s open-space community hall — a split-site design that means each project can offer more affordable apartments.

Tax breaks for projects

Seventy of the 280 new units are reserved for households earning between 65 percent and 85 percent of area median income (which was $62,800 for a single person and $89,600 for a family of four in Seattle last year).

That’s because all three projects will receive a tax break under the city’s multifamily tax-exemption program, which the City Council recently approved expanding to all multifamily zones.

Anthem itself is expected to remain affordable for longer than the 12-year tax break: Under its deal with the Housing Authority, Spectrum committed to keeping 25 percent of Anthem’s units affordable for 20 years.

But for the capital to build the project, the developer relied on private equity investors — though these can be hard to find for such projects — and not public money. The main investor in Anthem, Decibel and Reverb is Canada’s Gracorp Capital in Calgary.

Gabriel Grant, one of Spectrum’s three principals, says he gives investors a strong business rationale for building projects that aren’t aimed solely at the high-end tenant: Apartments with a wider spectrum of renter incomes tend to have more stable cash flow and will do well when the economy slides into the next recession.

While Spectrum uses the tax-exemption program like other developers, “we’re exploring new tools and new ways that allow us to increase the level of affordability in our projects and scale it in a way that’s going to be successful in the long term,” says Jake McKinstry, another Spectrum principal.

For instance, Spectrum is tapping historic-preservation tax credits to support 125 affordable units opening later this year at the Publix Hotel redevelopment in the International District.

And in the near future, Spectrum plans to use low-income housing tax credits to support a project that can accommodate those making up to 40 percent of median income — and for inspiration, the firm points to Velocity, a Kirkland project.

Kirkland’s Velocity

In the summer of 2014, Imagine Housing opened Velocity, a 58-unit apartment building at the South Kirkland Park-and-Ride and a short walk from Lake Washington Boulevard. The units are restricted to households making no more than 60 percent of area median income — currently $37,680 for a single person or $53,760 for a family of four.

The award-winning housing project has an exercise room, wireless Internet access in common areas and a rooftop garden and community room. Imagine has 400 families on the waitlist to move in.

“If I could, I would do this over and over,” said Sibyl Glasby, director of housing development at Imagine Housing. “It’s a great way to bring private investment into affordable housing.”

The project got its start after for-profit developer Polygon Northwest won a competition held by King County and the city of Kirkland to develop next to the park-and-ride lot. As part of its Kirkland Crossing transit-oriented development, Polygon was required to work with a nonprofit partner to build affordable housing units on the site.

The deal produced more affordable housing units than typically required: Out of 243 units in two separate apartment buildings, 61 are income-restricted, or one-quarter of the total units, Glasby said.

The nonprofit was able to combine $11 million in low-income housing tax credits, the chief source of equity for affordable housing nationwide, with $4 million in public funds.

It’s hard to build an equal number of income-restricted and market-rate housing units in one development because financing sources for each have different requirements.

Velocity’s secret: While it shares the parking-garage podium with Polygon’s apartments, it’s a separate legal entity as a commercial condominium, Glasby said.

All of the units in Imagine’s apartment building are income-restricted and will remain that way for at least 50 years, according to Imagine.

Another aspect of affordability at Velocity: Having frequent bus service next to the apartments means residents don’t need cars, Glasby said. Of the 44 parking spaces at Velocity, only 35 are used.

“Transportation costs are the second highest expense after housing,” she said. “You have more money to spend if you can get rid of your car.”

Renovation project

Rehabilitating old homes can create more affordable housing too.

Green Canopy, a for-profit builder on a mission “to inspire resource efficiency in residential markets,” saved two out of three Southwest Seattle houses built in the 1920s from being torn down. (The foundation on the third was cracked, so a new home was built in its likeness.)

Known as The Triplets, they are three-bedroom, two-bath houses ranging from 1,300 to 1,600 square feet on large lots.

The company bought the houses in 2012, remodeled them and sold each for less than $400,000 in the summer of 2013, when the median price of homes in the city was about $460,000. Green Canopy dubbed the houses Clara, Zelda and Louise after three women who helped define the 1920s flapper era.

The homes, located along 24th Avenue Southwest, have retained their original exterior charm. At the rear of the each home, Green Canopy added a “great room” with 11-foot ceilings that connects living, dining and kitchen space with the backyard.

The homes are expected to use up to 50 percent less energy than before.

“Sustainability and affordable homeownership go hand in hand,” said Aaron Fairchild, Green Canopy’s chief executive. “It’s not just, ‘Can you make the monthly payment?’ ”

To finance the purchase and remodel, Green Canopy received a low-interest rate loan from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, which administers a sustainable energy trust fund.

Also through the low-interest program, Green Canopy recently built a cluster of six energy-efficient single-family homes also in Seattle’s Delridge neighborhood.

Without the commission’s energy program, Fairchild said, “there’s just no way we could bring homes to market that are as affordable as they are.”

Danish model

Later this month, nine families will move into a new five-story apartment building that promises long-term affordability in one of Seattle’s priciest neighborhoods, Capitol Hill. The concept, patterned after a Danish housing model, is for households to own shares in a community and rent units to themselves.

The group never expected it would take six years to realize its vision for a multigenerational community, said Grace Kim, one of the project’s founders, who happens to chair the Seattle Planning Commission. The group had to overcome legal and financial hurdles to create something new.

“We didn’t set out to be a pioneer in this way, but we are doing something very unconventional,” she said.

Cohousing plan

In 2008, Kim and two others paid $975,000 for a 4,520-square-foot lot at 1720 12th Ave., a block from Cal Anderson Park and short walk from the light-rail station. Kim and her husband, Michael Mariano, began holding open houses to see if anyone else might be interested in pooling funds to launch a cohousing project.

“We’re collectively making the decision to live together in a very collaborative way so our children have the chance to live in a multigenerational community in the heart of the city with a pretty good quality of life, and that’s not something any other multifamily project is striving for,” Kim said.

Members deposited about $30,000 each to a partnership to reserve a unit. If and when they decide to leave the cohousing project, they won’t be able to reap huge equity gains from selling their partnership stake: They will only receive their initial membership deposit plus a small amount of interest.

“The intention is for there to be income and social diversity,” Kim said.

Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing, as it’s called, cost a total of $5.5 million to develop.

“We will start out at market-rate rents,” Kim said, “but we’re hoping over 10, 20, 30 years that will become a pretty moderate living expense.”

The Seattle Times

By Sanjay Bhatt

Seattle Times business reporter

Originally published March 12, 2016 at 8:00 am Updated March 14, 2016 at 6:59 am

Sanjay Bhatt: 206-464-3103 or sbhatt@seattletimes.com On Twitter @sbhatt




California Wants to Know: What’s Next for Green Bonds?

What’s the best way to be green? California’s treasurer, John Chiang, is trying to find out.

Mr. Chiang is meeting with bond investors this week in New York and Boston in what he calls a “listening tour” to discuss green bonds, which finance projects aimed at mitigating climate change or that have other environmental benefits. The market expanded quickly in recent years as concerns about climate change intensified, but the growth in green-bond sales slowed last year amid questions over how to define green.

Some projects, like a parking garage on a college campus in Massachusetts financed with green bonds, have come under scrutiny. Critics point out that it is largely up to an issuer, and the banks selling the bonds, to determine whether to market them as green. There are also questions over whether the development of green bonds has allowed new projects to move forward, or whether those projects would have been financed regardless through regular bond sales.

Mr. Chiang, who points out that rising sea levels in the coming decades could inundate California’s valuable coastline, said the Golden State could become a major green-bond issuer. It already sold $300 million in green bonds in 2014, much of which has gone to efforts to reduce air pollution. The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank is planning to sell green bonds in April.

“When you just think about the needs, the numbers would be large,” said Mr. Chiang, who previously met with investors on the West Coast. He is considering a more regular green-bond sales program, but said, “We don’t have anything immediately in place, because we want to do this correctly.”

Some $42 billion in green bonds were sold globally in 2015, according to the Climate Bonds Initiative, a nonprofit group in London that tracks the market, a figure that was shy of the group’s $100 billion goal. It was a 13% increase from the $37 billion that were sold in 2014, but a slower increase than the roughly 220% growth seen from 2013, when $11.5 billion were sold, to 2014.

So far in 2016, some $14 billion have been sold, according to the Climate Bonds Initiative. Earlier this year, Apple sold green bonds as part of a larger corporate-bond sale. Whether the issuer is a corporation or a municipality, the bonds are paid back in the same way as regular debt.

Efforts are already underway to better define the market. The International Capital Market Association manages a set of voluntary guidelines called the green-bond principles that is overseen by an executive committee of investors, issuers and underwriters. The guidelines do recommend that issuers obtain “external assurance,” such as an opinion from a third-party that certifies the environmental benefits of the project being financed.

Earlier this year, credit-rating firm Moody’s Investors Service said it would look into providing opinions — separate from traditional credit ratings — on green bonds. The firm said the opinions would “assess the relative likelihood that bond proceeds will be invested to support environmentally beneficial projects as designated by the issuer.”

Speaking from the New York office of law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, which has served as bond counsel for California, Mr. Chiang and other top officials in his office outlined other challenges tied to green bonds that they planned to explore.

Periodic reporting that details how bond proceeds have been spent are an added cost. There’s still little evidence that issuers get lower interest rates on a green bond versus a regular bond, and rates on California’s green bonds were comparable to other bond sales, officials said.

Climate change is a hot-button topic for younger Americans, but they generally haven’t yet accumulated enough wealth to start investing in bonds, they said. And the green-bond market in other places like Europe is considered more robust than in the U.S.

A main question is “how do we accelerate the maturation of our market so that we can gain a new financing tool,” said Collin Wong-Martinusen, Mr. Chiang’s chief of staff.

The treasurer’s office, which not only oversees bond sales but also invests public funds, has also purchased green bonds in the past from entities like the World Bank. Mr. Chiang, elected treasurer in 2014, appeared hopeful that California’s green-bond efforts could help jump-start green-bond sales in other states as well.

“The states are very different,” he said. “You will have progressive treasurers who are very excited about the prospects. Obviously they may have to do the political calculations within their state. But if California’s successful, they will be very closely behind us.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By MIKE CHERNEY

Mar 21, 2016 1:29 pm ET




Grants To Go To Programs That Generate User Fees for Transportation.

DALLAS — States have been invited to experiment with user-based transportation funding mechanisms that go beyond the traditional gasoline tax under a new competitive federal grant program outlined Tuesday by the Federal Highway Administration.

The Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program, which was authorized by the recently enacted five-year Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, provides $15 million in fiscal 2016 for the pilot program to determine how to charge road users. Allocations in the FAST Act for the user-fee grants include $20 million in each of the next four years.

Revenues from the federal fuels taxes of 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel are insufficient to meet the nation’s need for transportation infrastructure investment, said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

“What is clear is that more investment in transportation is necessary to prepare for an increasing strain on the system in the upcoming decades,” Foxx said. “A reliable funding source is at the heart of a robust surface transportation system so commuters can get to their jobs, businesses can run their operations and freight shippers can move their goods.”

Congress mandated that the grants go toward implementation of at least two alternative revenue collection mechanisms.

The grants are available only to state transportation departments or groups of states.

Projects must demonstrate a user fee-based structure with an ability to maintain the long-term financial health of the Highway Trust Fund, the FHWA said. The federal share of a pilot program cannot exceed 50%.

States can use the competitive grants to refine existing pilot projects or help launch new ones. A proposed user-based revenue mechanism, which cannot be a toll, must consider personal privacy and the use of private vendors to collect the fees, FHWA said.

“The mechanism would ultimately need to demonstrate that it could effectively collect federal user fee revenue and be scalable nationally, but it could also be used to collect state user fee revenue,” FHWA spokeswoman Nancy Singer said.

Federal user fee revenue will not actually be collected during the initial phase, she said.

“The pilot approach would demonstrate how it could be collected,” Singer said.

Oregon in mid-2015 implemented a limited road funding program based on vehicle miles traveled. The initial VMT program is limited to 5,000 cars and light commercial vehicles, with motorists paying 1.5 cents per mile rather than the state gasoline tax of 30 cents per gallon.

Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., asked Foxx in early January to quickly implement the user-based revenue grant program. DeFazio is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and Norton is the ranking member on the committee’s highways and transit panel.

“The FAST Act is a great achievement, but it does not resolve the long-term solvency challenges of the HTF,” DeFazio and Holmes said in a joint letter. “To ensure that we are not in the same position four years from now, we must immediately begin to identify real, workable funding solutions to carry our surface transportation programs through the 21st century.”

The FAST Act provides $286 billion of federal funding for highways and public transit through fiscal 2020 but the fuel taxes and other levies will bring in only about $200 billion over the five years. Approval of the FAST Act by Congress in late November required the transfer of $70 billion from the general fund to supplement the tax revenues dedicated to the HTF.

Lawmakers have transferred more than $143 billion into the HTF since 2008 to support the fuel taxes.

The Bond Buyer

By Jim Watts

March 23, 2016




Moody’s Joins Effort to Standardize Green Bond Market: Ballard Spahr

The municipal green bond market is in its infancy. For it to achieve scale and widespread recognition, a process for verifying whether a bond is “green” is needed so the market can fairly judge the merits of each green bond issuance. In the absence of recognized standards, issuers can choose to label their bonds as green based upon their own subjective measures.

Only a fraction of the municipal green bonds that have been issued to date feature some type of third-party certification that the bonds are financing or refinancing a project which is benefiting the environment. Moody’s has now joined the nascent effort to standardize the certification process by publishing a proposed Green Bonds Assessment (GBA) approach and methodology. Moody’s invited the market community to comment on the proposed approach, and the comment period ended on February 12, 2016.

A GBA, rather than constituting a credit rating, is a forward-looking assessment of an issuer’s approach to green bond financing. The Moody’s GBA scorecard rates each transaction based on the review of the issuer’s approach in five areas, closely following the voluntary guidelines for issuing green bonds set forth in the Green Bond Principles. The five factors are Organization, Use of Proceeds, Disclosure on the Use of Proceeds, Management of Proceeds, and Ongoing Reporting and Disclosure.

The most heavily weighted factor is Use of Proceeds, worth 40 percent of the GBA score. Under this factor, Moody’s will evaluate whether the green bond proceeds are in line with the environmentally beneficial project categories listed in the Green Bond Principles and which percentage of the bond proceeds is invested into such projects. Moody’s proposed GBA approach and methodology did not specify, however, how exactly Moody’s will make this determination.

Ongoing Reporting and Disclosure is the second most heavily weighted factor, worth 20 percent of the GBA score. Moody’s will consider the nature and the frequency of the expected updates on the status of the projects, as well as the disclosure regarding the impact on the environment, including adoption and reliance on quantitative metrics for measuring the impact, if any.

The Disclosure on the Use of Proceeds and the Management of Proceeds factors are weighted the same—each is worth 15 percent. Under the Disclosure on the Use of Proceeds factor, Moody’s will evaluate the quality of the disclosure regarding the green projects in the initial offering document, specifically looking for a detailed description of the green projects, clarity as to whether the bonds are funding a new project or refinancing an existing investment, whether there is adequate funding for the projects, the quantitative measures to be used for results of each investment and the criteria and method for calculating performance against expected results. Under the Management of Proceeds factor, Moody’s will evaluate the issuer’s procedures for segregating and tracking the green bond proceeds, applying the proceeds by appropriate category and type and having clear investment practices, while giving weight to the existence of an audit of the issuer’s tracking methods and procedures.

The least weighted factor is Organization, weighing 10 percent of the GBA score. Under Organization, Moody’s will evaluate the issuer’s governance and organization structure, its decision-making process relating to the green financing and its framework for determining eligible projects, setting goals and measuring and reporting results. Moody’s also will take into account any external evaluations the issuer might have procured from a third-party environmental expert.

Moody’s will issue a GBA on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent, based on an evaluation of the five factors described above. After an initial GBA has been issued, it may be updated from time to time to take into account the application of proceeds and the impact of the completed projects on the environment. It is not clear whether Moody’s would conduct a follow-up review and update an initial GBA on its own accord, similarly to what it does on the credit rating side, or whether a follow-up review would be done solely at a request of an issuer.

Although a number of questions regarding the GBAs remain, Moody’s decision to develop a structure to assist investors in evaluating green bonds is a step in the right direction and an indication that, despite skeptics, the green bond market may be here to stay.

Attorneys in Ballard Spahr’s Public Finance Group have participated in every kind of tax-exempt bond financing and have extensive experience with the rules and regulations set by the IRS and U.S. Treasury.

Ballard Spahr

by Tatjana Misulic and Kimberly Magrini

March 4, 2016

Copyright © 2016 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)




Rockefeller Institute's State Revenue Report.

Softening Third-Quarter Growth in State Taxes, Weak Forecasts for Fiscal 2016 and 2017.

State tax revenue growth slowed in the third quarter of 2015, a trend that is expected to continue in the remainder of fiscal year 2016 and into 2017 according to the latest State Revenue Report. Personal income tax growth slowed to 6.5 percent and growth in corporate income taxes, sales taxes and motor fuels were weak. Fluctuations in the stock market and the drop in oil prices are two of the reasons that these trends likely will continue into the future.

Read the full report.

The Rockefeller Institute

March, 2016




S&P Methodology For Rating Project Developers.

(Editor’s note: This criteria article supersedes “Rating Criteria For Project Developers,” published Sept. 30, 2004.)

1. Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services is publishing its criteria for project developers.

2. The criteria are intended to enhance the comparability of our ratings on project developers with ratings in other sectors (see “Understanding Standard & Poor’s Ratings Definitions,” published June 3, 2009) and increase the transparency on how we assign ratings for companies in this group. The criteria constitute specific methodologies and assumptions under our “Principles Of Credit Ratings,” published Feb. 16, 2011.

3. The criteria supersede “Rating Criteria For Project Developers,” published Sept. 30, 2004.

Continue reading.

21-Mar-2016




S&P Analysts Address The Prospects For U.S. Health Care.

On March 10, 2016, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services held a webcast on the U.S. health care outlook for 2016 featuring senior analytical leaders of the health insurance, for-profit health care, and not-for-profit health care sub-sectors. Our outlook on these sectors is stable, although either individually or collectively, all areas of health care still face challenges. During the webcast, the audience submitted more questions than we were able to answer in an hour. Many of those questions were about big, cross-sector issues affecting U.S. health care since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The rise of bad debt at some hospitals, the new business models emerging in U.S. health care, the prospects for health insurance sold over ACA exchanges, and the impact of consolidation, were just some of the inquiries we received.

(A replay of the webcast can be found here.)

Here are the answers to these and other questions that were raised during that webcast about the future of U.S. health care.

Continue reading.

23-Mar-2016




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (The City of Houston and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)

In this week’s Extra Credit, Associate Director Omar Tabani explains what’s behind our recent rating action on the City of Houston and Senior Director Dave Hitchcock discusses the highlights of our recent report on Puerto Rico and its related credits.

Listen to the podcast.

Mar. 25, 2016




The Troubled Housing Behind a Muni Bond.

After federal subsidies are cut off, investors see a big loss.

At the Warren and Tulane apartments in Memphis, inspections have found roach infestations, broken windows, buckling ceilings, and missing or damaged appliances. “It’s appalling,” says Jessica Johnson-Peterson, who’s lived at the Warren apartments with her husband and children since 2009. “We have to jump through extreme hoops to even get anyone’s attention.”

Such conditions led the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in February to cut off rent subsidies for more than 1,000 residents. Those federal dollars were to be used to repay $12 million of bonds sold by the apartments’ owner, Global Ministries Foundation. Without that money, the bonds went into technical default, pushing their price to as little as 21¢ per dollar of their face value.

The GMF debts were municipal bonds, government-sponsored debt that offers investors income free from taxes. Munis may call to mind investments in toll bridges and sewers, but they also include bonds like GMF’s issued through “conduits”—local agencies with few, if any, employees that exist only to sell tax-exempt debt for a fee. With little responsibility for the projects they finance—sometimes in different states—the authorities have raised money for privately run nursing homes, charter schools, and even amusement parks.

“Conduits have been a perennial problem in the market,” says Christopher Taylor, the former executive director of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the industry’s regulator. About 60 percent of muni bonds that default are issued by such conduits, according to Matt Fabian, a partner at Municipal Market Analytics.

“Our management team, in addition to outside contractors we engaged, worked hard under very stressful conditions to mitigate physical deficiencies on the sites.”—Richard Hamlet, Global Ministries Foundation
The market for conduit bonds is one of Wall Street’s most opaque niches. Seven days after GMF issued a letter to the bond trustee about the default, some bonds were sold in lots of $25,000 and $50,000 for as much as 10 percent more than face value. Neither the buyers nor sellers are known. The trades suggest that small-time investors may not be getting important information when they buy bonds. In 2009 the muni rule-making board launched a website for reporting such information, but investors may not know the records are available.

GMF, which says on its website that it works “for the glory of God and the eternal welfare of mankind,” owns 10,500 low-rent apartments in eight states. It financed its purchase of the Memphis apartments through the city’s Health, Educational, and Housing Facility Board. The agency’s head says that GMF had a good reputation with the investment community before the default.

Richard Hamlet, GMF’s president, says his organization has invested more than $3 million in the Memphis apartments, which were suffering from crime and poor maintenance before GMF purchased them in 2011. “Our management team, in addition to outside contractors we engaged, worked hard under very stressful conditions to mitigate physical deficiencies on the sites,” Hamlet says.

GMF is a nonprofit. According to its tax records, Hamlet was paid $535,000 in salary and benefits in 2014. He says that’s in line with his industry peers.

Conditions deteriorated after the GMF acquisition, federal reports say. An April inspection of 30 buildings and 25 units found “life-threatening” breaches including exposed wires and blocked emergency exits. Although GMF hasn’t missed payments on the bonds, it’s likely to do so within two years unless it can sell the buildings, Standard & Poor’s Financial Services said on Feb. 19. The end of HUD subsidies put the bonds in technical default. Hamlet says this “is the first bond default I have had in my career in this space.”

Federal housing officials have begun planning to relocate residents of the Warren and Tulane apartments.

“I’m ecstatic,” Johnson-Peterson says. “I feel like it’s an opportunity to be able to provide better chances for my children and a better environment to raise my children.”

The bottom line: Municipal bonds don’t only fund government and big public works. Sometimes the borrowers are private groups with shaky projects.


Bloomberg Businessweek

by Martin Z Braun

March 24, 2016 — 9:17 AM PDT




Bloomberg Brief Weekly Video - 03/23

Taylor Riggs, a contributor to Bloomberg Briefs, talks with Brian Chappatta from Bloomberg News about this week’s municipal market news.

Watch the video.




Fitch: High Bar for Special Revenue Consideration.

Fitch Ratings-New York-21 March 2016: California School Districts’ GO bonds meet the high bar Fitch has set to consider pledged funds secure in bankruptcy, according to a Fitch Ratings report. The report identifies a number of elements Fitch believes provide a sufficient level of comfort that special revenue status is unlikely to be challenged in a bankruptcy.

“Fitch sets a high bar for assuming bonds would survive a bankruptcy under the last of five categories of special revenues, which is ambiguous and difficult to apply in practice. The case for special revenue status must be very clear,” said Amy Laskey, Managing Director, Fitch Ratings.

“A distressed municipality will seek to exploit any reasonable doubt in a bankruptcy proceeding, so a fair or plausible argument is not sufficient to deter challenges and support rating divergence from the general credit. The more complex the proceedings and the higher the stakes for other claimants including public employee pension funds, the more likely it is that the status as special revenue bonds will be disputed.”

Fitch has assigned ‘AAA’ ULTGO ratings to bonds issued by several California school districts whose issuer default ratings are notably lower. The higher ULTGO ratings reflect Fitch’s opinion that the property tax revenues pledged to bond repayment would be considered pledged special revenues under 902(2)(E) of the bankruptcy code.

In contrast, the legal framework supporting the property tax pledge of Chicago Board of Education’s ULTGO bonds create more concern that a legal challenge might be successful. Fitch’s high bar was not met in this case and Fitch could not rate the bonds higher than the ‘B+’/Negative Outlook.

Fitch will host a teleconference to discuss the special report on Wednesday, March 23rd at 2:00 PM EDT. To receive dial-in details for the call, please resister here: http://dpregister.com/10082911

For more information, a special report titled “Special Revenue Analysis: California School Districts and Beyond” is available on the Fitch Ratings web site at www.fitchratings.com.




Follow the Money at LAX.

Travel buffs have a new hobby: scrutinizing how Los Angeles International Airport spends $1 billion a year on operations.

The L.A. city controller last week put the finances of Los Angeles World Airports online. You can look up each invoice paid by the agency that runs LAX. You can see how the money is spent, check salaries of airport employees, chart car rentals by month and see maps of noise impact and rankings of airports world-wide showing LAX lagging. It opens up the inner workings of a major airport as never before.

“I think everybody would be surprised at how much it costs to operate a major airport, just what a massive operation is involved,’’ says Los Angeles City Controller Ron Galperin. “These are very complicated operations.”

The disclosure is part of the controller’s push for more transparency and accountability in city spending. Mr. Galperin has put the checkbooks of different departments online, making every dollar spent downloadable and searchable, and it’s been popular. The city controller’s website got very little traffic until the spending information started going up in late 2013; since then it has tallied a total seven million page views.

“You name it, the city buys it,” Mr. Galperin says.

The Los Angeles airport collects an average $17 per passenger through concessions and fees: When you rent a car, the airport collects revenue from rental-car companies plus a $10 fee to pay for facilities. The airport gets a cut of duty-free sales and every bottle of water sold. When you take a taxi, there’s a $4 fee paid to the airport per drop-off and pickup. Uber and Lyft pay it, too, for use of the roadway and curb spaces. Airlines pay the airport rent for the space they use and landing fees on each flight, which ultimately come out of passengers’ pockets, too.

LAX is the largest airport in the country in terms of the number of passengers beginning or ending their trips there (Atlanta is biggest if passengers making connections are included). Costs at LAX are expected to rise as bills come due for a massive rebuilding program now under way.

Some of the spending showed up Tuesday after bombings at the Brussels airport, when LAX beefed up terminal patrols by police officers armed with automatic weapons and bomb-sniffing dogs. Los Angeles officials said they had no specific threat concerning the airport but wanted to show a bigger law-enforcement presence. Last year, LAX spend about $120 million on security staffing costs, airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles said.

The biggest cost for LAX is employees. The airport spends $374 million a year on salaries and benefits, about 37% of all spending, and another $175 million on contractual services. Behind the scenes are maintenance workers, police and fire officers, airfield managers, lawyers, architects, accountants, PR teams, sales executives recruiting new airlines around the world and many others. (LAX and some other airports have their own police forces; others are patrolled by local municipal police. Federal Transportation Security Administration officers aren’t armed; they screen passengers and cargo boarding planes but don’t carry out law enforcement at airports.)

Airport spending world-wide has gone up as new terminals get built, old terminals get renovated and airports chase new business around the world, even offering to help airlines pay for launching new flights. Airports were once seen as low-cost loading docks for getting people on and off planes as cheaply as possible, with greasy hot dogs on rolling warmers available for the desperately hungry.

Now, though, airports are considered first-impression community gateways, showcases for art, high-quality food, amusement and local ambience. Airports increasingly see themselves pitched in global competition for air service.

But details of the spending at LAX show how running an airport is about much more than public art and incentives for foreign airlines. Los Angeles World Airports spent $3.9 million on Smarte Carte luggage trolleys in 2015, $314,425 for fingerprint and background checks on employees, $257,348 on toilet paper, $23,180 on foam ear plugs, $15,805 on retirement clocks, $11,296 on dog food for airport K-9 teams and $10,562 on badge retractors (those wire things that clip to your belt).

“The scale of the airport’s operation is often overlooked when considering the cost,’’ says Ms. Castles, the airport spokeswoman.

To keep things running smoothly at LAX, the airport agency bought $1,322 worth of WD-40 lubricant. The total tab at Home Depot was $417,811 for the year. The airport police department bought $271,719 worth of body armor, handcuffs, boots, pants and other supplies. Total AT&T bill in 2015: $3.4 million.

There were plenty of big-ticket items. LAX is spending hundreds of millions on construction, including $228 million worth of interior improvements and security upgrades at the Tom Bradley International Terminal last year. About $118 million was spent in 2015 renovating other terminals, sound-proofing and noise mitigation, and $32 million on escalators and elevators. The airport paid $41 million to the city of Inglewood, Calif., for Inglewood’s residential soundproofing and aircraft noise-reduction programs.

More money is coming in as passenger traffic grows. Concession revenue, which includes parking and rental cars, is a big part of any airport’s budget, bigger than landing fees. LAX has undergone a concessions makeover in its terminals with local restaurants spicing up the offerings. It’s resulted in increases in concession revenue for the airport. Though some stores had to be shut down because of the construction, in-terminal concession revenue jumped 8% last year at LAX. Duty-free revenue was up 15%.

The $8.5 billion modernization program largely will be paid for by the $4.50 “passenger facility charge’’ added to each airline ticket. LAX, which has lagged in airport quality surveys around the world, is rebuilding the Bradley terminal now, expanding it with additional gates and concession areas, and will eventually build a central rental car facility, a train to the airport and a people mover inside the airport. There will also be big improvements to the central terminal area. A VIP terminal, paid for by a private company, is under development.

“Frankly the city of Los Angeles needs to see improvements in the passenger experience at LAX,” said Mr. Galperin. “There have been billions that have been spent and more billions that are going to be spent and we want to make sure that all of that is completely transparent.”

But any goodwill built with new facilities could get wiped out by traffic and parking problems, he says. A consultant’s report on LAX commissioned by the city council criticized the airport for a lack of traffic engineering and planning. Traffic already routinely approaches gridlock in the central terminal horseshoe, where picking up an arriving passenger can be an hour-long crawl with honking horns and police whistles blaring.

“Traffic will get worse before it gets better,” Mr. Galperin warns.

The airport has already implemented some recommendations from the consultant’s report and will deliver a complete formal response to its board in the weeks ahead, Ms. Castles says.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By SCOTT MCCARTNEY

March 23, 2016 2:29 p.m. ET

Write to Scott McCartney at middleseat@wsj.com

 

 




New Municipal Bond Activity Up 25% vs. January Totals.

CUSIP Global Services (CGS) today announced the release of its CUSIP Issuance Trends Report for February 2016. The report, which tracks the issuance of new security identifiers as an early indicator of debt and capital markets activity, suggests a resurgence in issuance of new corporate and municipal debt offerings over the next several weeks.

Read the report.




Broadband P3s Attract Business to Local Communities.

Huntsville Utilities’ decision to build a fiber broadband network through which Google Fiber will provide gigabit Internet to residents and businesses will improve the economic competitiveness of Alabama’s fourth-largest city, two state legislators believe.

“Research has shown that communities with gigabit services have exhibited a per capita GDP approximately 1.1 percent higher than similarly situated communities without gigabit service” and this feature also can increase the value of a home by 3.1 percent, wrote Reps. Mac McCutcheon and Laura Hall in an op-ed in AL.com.

Fitch Ratings upgraded Kansas City, Mo.’s bond ratings when Google Fiber started providing gigabit Internet access there and communities have reported an increase in the construction of office buildings and creation of business startups after installing fiber networks and inviting private companies to provide high-speed Internet access, the legislators noted.

Huntsville Utilities will build a new fiber network to monitor its public water, electric and natural gas systems throughout its network. Google Fiber will access the network through a 20-year lease. The public utility will own the network and Google will own the power line-to-home connections, handle all hookups and provide Internet services.

The city views providing universal access to high-speed Internet as a key way of keeping and attracting high-tech businesses that nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., with its municipal-utility-provided fiber network, might otherwise lure away, reported muninetworks.org.

Opponents of these types high-speed broadband P3s have argued that permitting governments to build fiber networks constitutes unfair competition with the private sector, but McCutcheon and Hall disagreed.

“Huntsville Utilities is not planning to compete with private broadband providers. Instead, they are leasing to private parties — lowering the barriers to competition. This sort of arrangement plays to the different strengths of cities and the private sector — cities often invest in and maintain durable infrastructure that’s core to the community, while private entities are generally better at providing a commercial service,” they wrote.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has championed municipalities’ efforts to expand broadband infrastructure, reported Fierce Telecom. The FCC in February 2015 overturned state laws that prevented Wilson, N.C.’s and Chattanooga’s municipal service providers from expanding their broadband networks to neighboring communities where private companies were installing only low-speed Internet service.

The FCC concluded that the overturning the laws “will speed broadband investment, increase competition and serve the public interest,” noting that “[t]he networks in both areas have attracted major employers, including Amazon and Volkswagen in Chattanooga and Exodus FX, Regency Interactive and WHIG TV in Wilson.” Tennessee is fighting the FCC’s ruling.

NCPPP

BY ANGELA SIMPSON

March 16, 2016

Angela Simpson, deputy assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, will talk about telecommunications partnerships as a featured speaker at NCPPP’s Federal P3 Summit, March 17-18 in Washington, D.C.




Municipal Bonds Have a Lot Riding on Race for the White House.

Will Hillary Clinton pump money into infrastructure as president? Will GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump? Is the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds under a new Congress in jeopardy?

Those are all pressing postelection questions that could shape the outlook for municipal bonds.

Municipal bonds—typically used to fund infrastructure products, including bridges, tunnels and sewers—were the best performing fixed-income assets in 2015, posting a 3.3% return, even as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade in December.

But as the race for the White House heats up, questions abound for the muni market.

Munis stand to outperform other fixed-income categories again in 2016, said Peter Hayes, head of the municipal bonds group, and Sean Carney, head of municipal strategy at BlackRock BLK, -0.25% in a research note first issued in January and backed in an early-March update.

That’s good news for wealthy investors who tend to scoop up these bonds for their tax advantages—for qualifying filers, munis are exempt from certain state and local taxes. Modest inflation could help, too, increasing the allure of tax-exempt munis relative to their taxable federal-issued and corporate-issued brethren, all things being equal. Rising inflation can erode spending power on your bond’s income over time.

However, for state and local governments, political uncertainty could sideline muni issuance. And for income-focused investors who need these tax-exempt bonds to lower their tax bills, limited supply may frustrate.

Against that shifting political and regulatory backdrop, here are some key election-related factors to keep an eye on:

Clouds for that rainy-day fund?
For states and municipalities, the political climate, for instance the likelihood for easier taxing capabilities, typically impacts decision-making on capital projects that are penciled in for several years out from an election, said Justin Marlowe, public finance professor at the University of Washington’s Evans School of Public Policy and Governance. The presidential election isn’t likely to sway decision-making on bond issues spanning even two to five years from an election year. Those plans are already baked in, he argues.

But issuers do care now about the future cost of capital, and they may be inclined to try to lock in bond offerings sooner versus later, Marlowe said.

Private-public blend?

On the national landscape comes the potential for new or expanding infrastructure financing tools. They made their way into the Obama administration and could have legs for the future, says Marlowe. One such program, Build America Bonds (BABs) were created to supplement state and local government’s capacity to access conventional corporate debt markets for public infrastructure instead of issuing traditional tax-exempt debt. Will they stay around? Clinton, for one, has called for the creation of a national infrastructure funding bank to help pay for transportation projects. Muni-market trade publication “The Bond Buyer” has declared Ohio Republican presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich and Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders as the friendliest candidates for infrastructure funding. All told, analysts think that private-public financing options could gain increasing attention, which could limit the number of more traditional bonds coming to market.

Obamacare
Candidates including Trump and his Republican presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz have threatened to scrap Obamacare. “Easier said than done,” said Marilyn Cohen, chief executive officer of bond-focused Envision Capital Management. “But it is true that the challenge of funding Obamacare has impacted the fiscal profile of issuers including medium and small hospitals and so this is a national issue that trickles down to the states and locals.”

The economy, stupid
Whether talking about bond issuance or job creation, the economy is a major differentiator in this and any election. Think China and global trade issues can’t touch munis? Think again. “State economies are deeply dependent on exports in ways that wasn’t really the case 10 years ago,” said Marlowe, who points to Washington state’s export-led production of software, aircraft, and more. “Even if local economy fundamentals are solid, the tie-up with Asian markets could have a 2% to 4% impact on local tax collection in Washington state, for example,” said Marlowe, whose University of Washington posting affords him this vantage point. It is also true that state-specific issues, including the budget and economic toll of unfunded pension liabilities in Illinois, can ramp up attention on state and local elections in determining the winners and the losers in the muni-bond market.

The next administration and congressional makeup could have a thing or two to say about the complexity of e-commerce taxation after Amazon.com AMZN, +0.00% has blown up the model, according to Marlowe. States, including Michigan, Colorado and Alabama, are trying to circumvent high-court rulings on cross-state taxation. Sales tax can be one of the major revenue streams that finances public debt, including muni bonds. “This is a macro trend that alone is a huge source of uncertainty and certain to feature in a new congress,” Marlowe said.

Also, Sanders and other lawmakers have questioned the fairness of tax exemption for muni holders. It is a “trial balloon” floated from time to time in Congress and elsewhere that has so far been mostly hot air. A study commissioned by the International City/County Management Association and the Government Finance Officers Association, argues that because investors don’t have to pay an income tax on their interest earnings from the bonds, governments can pay off their bonds at a lower interest rate than they would otherwise. In other words, muni bond issuers can compete with the often higher yields on corporates or Treasury bonds. The tax-free status of municipal bonds saved governments an estimated $714 billion in extra interest payments from 2000 to 2014, according to the report. Without the benefit, a typical bond issue would cost $80 to $210 in added interest per each $1,000 of borrowed money.

Loss of the exemption “could crush the states’ [post tax-benefit] competitive yields compared to corporate bonds,” says Envision’s Cohen. “You could have governors storming the White House and that may keep this topic a non-starter. Washington will have bigger problems than it.”

MARKETWATCH

RACHEL KONING BEALS

Published: Mar 16, 2016 4:00 p.m. ET




The Search for Consensus on Public Pension Reform.

What Arizona has done shows what’s possible when all of the stakeholders look for common ground.

It’s always a big deal when policymakers, labor and management come together and find meaningful solutions to contentious fiscal issues, especially when those issues involve public pension systems. As unfunded pension liabilities continue to skyrocket across the nation, reaching at least $2 trillion, consensus among stakeholders for reform should no longer be the exception but the rule of thumb. And we need to look no further than Arizona’s sweeping overhaul of its statewide public-safety pension system to see how it can be done.

Arizona’s Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) was on a downward trajectory, with $12.7 billion in liabilities and only $6.2 billion in assets. The plan’s debt has been mounting for years due to factors that included poor investment performance and an unsustainable cost-of-living formula structure. Further, reforms that were enacted in 2011 are being challenged before the state’s Supreme Court. So it’s a good thing for the state’s public safety workers and taxpayers that state Sen. Debbie Lesko and other legislators decided to act before it was too late. And they did it thoughtfully by making it a bipartisan effort and including the PSPRS, firefighters’ and police officers’ associations, and local governments.

Major provisions of the Arizona reforms include replacing the broken cost-of-living formula structure with a traditional Consumer Price Index-based calculation for employees and retirees; offering new workers a choice between a defined-contribution plan and a traditional defined-benefit pension plan; and requiring new employees and their employers to share equally, 50/50, in retirement account costs. Without immediate changes, Arizona’s pension debt would have continued to escalate, with every downturn in the market putting the system at risk of collapse.

Unfortunately, it’s not only Arizona that has found itself in this predicament. The vast majority of America’s public pension systems are houses of cards built on risky holdings such as stocks, hedge funds and real estate. Unbalance just one piece of the structure and the houses collapse. We can see this scenario already playing out across the country as many state and local governments face service cuts and tax increases due to tremendous pension debt.

Today’s pension crisis is due to policy decisions made years ago by legislative bodies that created unsustainable systems, lulled by years of a bull market into thinking they could increase benefits based on unrealistic and risky market expectations. But bull markets don’t last forever. When the bottom falls out, taxpayers are left to pick up the shortfall.

If pension systems were set up with less risk (as they once were), more sharing of that risk and lower return expectations, then the real cost of retirement benefits would be more apparent to everyone. So while the recent market downturn isn’t fully to blame for the funding crisis we face today, it is exposing our pension systems for what they are.

History shows that as government pension plans face insolvency, policymakers tend to increase taxes and/or pull funds from important public services, such as education, public safety and transportation, to pay down pension debt. In Arizona’s case, to help make up the shortfall, required employer contributions to the plans increased by as much as 145 percent over the past few years, exceeding 60 percent of payroll in many jurisdictions throughout the state.

Growing pension costs are also threatening the long-term solvency of public employee retirement plans, putting at risk these workers’ hard-earned benefits. As with all workers, public employees should be able to count on every dollar in benefits that they’ve earned and not have to watch their futures go down the drain because of unsustainable pension systems. We have seen enough municipal bankruptcies to know that pubic employees and retirees suffer in that process.

Today’s policymakers didn’t create the mess they find themselves in, but they can certainly take a page from Arizona’s playbook and begin turning the tide to make their systems sustainable. While it’s easy to kick the can down the road for another day, if policymakers don’t get control of the public pension crisis now the ramifications will be dire not only for public employees but also for the public they serve.

GOVERNING.COM

BY CHUCK REED, DAN LILJENQUIST | MARCH 8, 2016




Pension Fund Takes Unprecedented Climate Change Action.

In an effort to highlight the potential impacts of global warming, the nation’s largest public pension fund is asking corporations to include climate change experts on their governing boards.

On Monday, the investment committee for California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) voted to start requiring the corporations it invests in to include people on their boards who have expertise in climate change risk management strategies. It is the first U.S. pension system to establish such a requirement, which comes months after California experienced the largest gas leak in U.S. history and the state’s largest oil spill in decades.

“Updating our requirements ensures that corporate boards have the expertise and competence to adequately understand and address the challenges and risks imposed by climate change,” said California Controller Betty T. Yee in a statement after the vote. Yee is a board member of CalPERS and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS).

As major investors (CalPERS is worth $288 billion), pension systems can — and do — leverage the power of their wallets with corporations as a way of influencing policy. For example, the New York State Common Retirement Fund — the third largest U.S. pension fund — is among a group of major investors that wants ExxonMobil to start publishing an annual assessment of its impact on public climate change policies. Exxon is trying to block their request.

One of the common ways pension funds leverage their clout is through social divestment from companies associated with or in support of controversial issues.

The cause has varied over the years. In the 1980s, many pension funds divested from companies that were doing business in South Africa as a reaction to apartheid policies there. CalPERS alone pulled $9.5 billion. In 2013, a number of pension funds, including CalSTRS and the New York City pension funds, divested from gun manufacturers after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. Climate change and environmental stewardship has been the latest focus.

Still, there’s no proof social divesting actually works, and there are concerns that it actually hurts investment returns for pension funds.

That may partially be why CalPERS and CalSTRS have resisted environmental activists’ calls to divest their stocks in fossil fuel companies. Instead, both systems believe they can have a greater impact by playing more of an activist role with the companies in which they invest. Having a “voice at the table” is far preferable to “the most serious step” of divesting, the two funds explained last year. “Divestment severs our ties with a company and therefore,” they said, “severs our influence as well.”

Even credit rating agencies have taken notice of climate change’s potential impact. Standard & Poor’s now regularly evaluates states and localities’ environmental risks when looking at their credits.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | MARCH 17, 2016




Puerto Rico Illustrates Need For New Public Employee Pension Disclosures.

It’s said that behind every strong man is a strong woman. In the world of public finance, however, we can say that behind every quasi-insolvent public entity – from Detroit, to Puerto Rico, to bankrupt California cities such as Stockton and San Bernardino, to the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago – stands a poorly-run public employee retirement plan. As Congress drafts an insolvency rescue plan for Puerto Rico, it has the opportunity to prevent future Puerto Ricos by increasing the transparency of public employee pension funding and to reduce incentives for state and local governments to underfund their plans and to take excessive risk with their pension investments.

State and local governments face financial distress for many reasons. But it is near-impossible to find a governmental entity nearing insolvency that has a well-run and well-funded retirement plan for public employees. For instance, California’s public employee plans implemented a retroactive benefit increase in 1999, passed on the last day of the legislative session, that increased benefit payments by billions of dollars. The cities of Stockton and San Bernardino declared bankruptcy under pressure from rising pension costs. Illinois has for years used creative accounting to avoid making full pension contributions. Today, under pressure from pension costs, Illinois can barely afford to pay lottery winners. Chicago received a “holiday” from making pension contributions, but was unprepared to resume contributions when that respite ended. Chicago’s schools now face the choice between making pension payments and providing materials for classrooms. Detroit’s main public pension was essentially looted by its participants, with extra payments and diversions of funds to workers 401(k)-type plans. Puerto Rico’s public employee plan paid Christmas and summer bonuses and loaned public employees money to take overseas vacations, with the pension paying half of the interest on those loans. Puerto Rico’s pension funding level verges on zero, and about 20 percent of the retirement system’s remaining “assets” consist of mortgage, personal and vacation loans made to the plan’s participants.

Puerto Rico now faces insolvency. In other words, it simply cannot pay all its debts and Congress is trying to arrange some bankruptcy-type process by which losses can be allocated. Legally-speaking, in Puerto Rico as in other communities, holders of explicit governmental debt are held to be senior to participants in the pension systems. As the New York Times has reported, Puerto Rican law has eight levels in the order of repayment of various forms of government debt, only after which would pension obligations be satisfied.

But the Obama administration Treasury Department’s proposal changes all that: under a draft plan, priority is given so that the rescue plan “not unduly impair the claims of any class of pensioners.” Only after that, “if feasible,” would bondholders be repaid. In other words, the usual, legal order of repayment has been upended. But that’s not out of the ordinary: in Detroit, Stockton and San Bernardino, retirees took only minor losses – or no losses at all – while bondholders often received back only pennies on the dollars. That’s important, since it’s not just Wall Street hedge funds holding those municipal bonds. Especially with Puerto Rican bonds, many ordinary savers purchased municipal bonds to finance their own retirements. Those savers, who did nothing wrong, will see the legal terms on which they purchased those assets overturned and will suffer in retirement as a result.

It may be too much for the political system to allow a large and organized group of citizens to suffer through no fault of their own, regardless of the legalities. But at a minimum, any reorganization plan for Puerto Rico that favors the pension plan over bondholders should include reforms to reduce the chance of a future insolvency. Those reforms should come in the form of improved financial disclosures for state and local government retirement plans.

When a state or local government wishes to issue bonds, it publishes a prospectus that includes information on the other debts of the government. Among those debts are liabilities to the government’s public employee retirement plan. The pension liabilities published in those bond prospectuses are calculated in a way that is inconstant with financial theory and with how other pension plans are required to calculate their liabilities, and are done in a way that literally 98 percent of economists believed understated the true value of pension liabilities.

In other words, state and local governments are borrowing from the public while providing misleading measures that understate their true pension liabilities. And since, as Puerto Rico’s example shows, pension benefits will in practice be paid before municipal bondholders, prospective bond purchasers are being misled regarding the possibility of non-payment. In any other context, this would be a clear-cut consumer protection case in which the public deserves honest and accurate information.

How does this take place? U.S. state and local pensions operate under accounting rules that are unique in the financial world. These rules, which are established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), allow public pensions to value – or “discount” – their future pension benefit liabilities using the assumed rate of return on the investments held by the pension plan. At first this might seem reasonable. But under scrutiny, there’s a good reason why other pensions aren’t allowed to do this.

The benefits offered by state and local pensions are guaranteed. They’re advertised to participants as guaranteed, state laws and constitutions often deem them to be guaranteed and, when push comes to shove, retirement benefits are more likely to be paid than explicit government debt. Discounting a guaranteed benefit using the assumed return on a portfolio of risky assets tells you the “expected” cost of paying those benefits, assuming all goes as planned. But it doesn’t tell you the cost of guaranteeing them. And the liability presented by pension benefits isn’t to pay them if everything goes as planned. The liability – that is, the thing the state or local government is legally obliged to do – is to pay those benefits under practically all circumstances, come what may.

Economists and financial markets know how to express the true value of a guaranteed liability: by discounting the future benefit payments using an interest rate that’s commensurate with the risk of the benefit. If, say, we believed that a pension’s benefits are as guaranteed as U.S. Treasury bonds – meaning, those benefits will be paid under almost any foreseeable circumstances – then those liabilities should be discounted using the yield on Treasuries, currently about 2 percent. As Donald Kohn, then Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, put it in 2008, “The only appropriate way to calculate the present value of a very-low-risk liability is to use a very-low-risk discount rate.”

This is how pension accounting works pretty much anywhere except in the state and local pension world. A U.S. corporate pension plan, for instance, must discount its liabilities using the yield on corporate bonds, currently around 4.1 percent. In other words, pensions are considered to be liabilities on par with explicit corporate debt. That lower discount rate produces a higher present value of liabilities and thus requires the plan to set aside more money to fund its benefits. A corporate pension isn’t required to invest its assets in corporate bonds; it can invest in risky assets like stocks if it likes. But it must value its pension liabilities based on the liabilities own risk, not the risk of the assets used to fund those liabilities. The same goes with most overseas pensions, including pension plans for public employees in other countries. (See my 2015 AEI paper for details on pension plans abroad.)

The result of this faulty GASB accounting is that a bond prospectus issued by almost any state and local government dramatically understates the true value of its pension liabilities. For instance, I pulled up a 2010 prospectus published by the State of Illinois which reported that the state’s various retirement plans had total liabilities of $126.4 billion and assets of $64.0 billion. This implies an unfunded pension liability of about $62.4 billion, against which – in a time of fiscal distress – Illinois’s explicit bondholders would compete (and presumably lose).

What the prospectus doesn’t disclose is that this liability was calculated using an assumed investment return of 8.5 percent, at a time when the yield on safe U.S. Treasury securities was 3.2 percent. Were Illinois pension liabilities calculated using a Treasury yield – which seems appropriate, since the Illinois Supreme Court has recently ruled that that accrued public pension benefits are guaranteed – total liabilities would have been listed at about $332 billion and unfunded liabilities at around $270 billion. Those figures would give bond purchasers a much more realistic picture of how far back they stand in line for repayment.

State and local pension accounting rules have a second perverse and destructive effect: they induce government pensions to take excessive investment risk. Here’s the logic: under GASB rules, a public plan gets to discount its liabilities at the expected return on the plan’s investments. Riskier investments have higher returns than safe investments. So shifting a plan’s portfolio toward riskier investments allows it to assume a higher return, apply a higher discount rate to its liabilities, and reduce the contributions it needs to make to service those liabilities.

Corporate pensions and public employee pension in other countries apply a conservative, fixed discount rate to their liabilities, so they don’t have the incentive to take excessive investment risk. A 2014 survey by the OECD found that the typical large private pension fund in a developed country held about 52 percent of its assets in bonds, 32 percent in stocks, 15 percent in alternative investments like private equity, hedge funds and real estate, and 2 percent in infrastructure. Overall, we can say that about 47 percent of assets were held in risky investments including stocks and alternatives. Public pension funds around the world were a bit more conservative in their investments, holding only about 44 percent of their portfolios in risky assets.

Now consider U.S. state and local government pension funds: according to the Public Funds Survey, the average U.S. public pension currently holds 73 percent of its portfolio in risky investments. There is no reason for state and local plans to take so much risk except to exploit lax GASB accounting rules that allow pensions that take more risk to reduce their contributions.

Moreover, state and local plans have shifted toward riskier investments, even since the Great Recession, as a way to keep their assumed investment returns high and their contributions low. Since 2001, the yield on Treasuries has fallen by about 2.3 percentage points while the assumed return on state and local pension investments has fallen by only around 0.3 percentage points. Plans have kept assumed returns high by taking more investment risk, especially in terms of private equity and hedge funds.

Simply put, the use of GASB’s “expected return” discount rate to calculate public employee pension liabilities both deceives purchasers of state and local government bonds and introduces excessive risk-taking into state and local finance. If Puerto Rico’s pension system is considered “too big to fail,” what do we think would happen if any of Illinois’ public employee plans became insolvent?

The Puerto Rico rescue legislation gives Congress the opportunity to act in a way that protects consumers and public finances without unduly imposing federal government power on state and local governments. Any Puerto Rico legislation should include the provisions of the Public Employee Pension Transparency Act (PEPTA), which was first introduced by California Rep. Devin Nunes in 2011. PEPTA would require that state and local pensions disclose their liabilities calculated using the yield on U.S. Treasury securities. This is a simple calculation that any plan actuary could perform at practically zero cost. PEPTA has been co-sponsored in the House by now-Speaker Paul Ryan and garnered support from the bond ratings agency Moody’s. State and local pensions could measure liabilities for their own purposes however they want and they can fund their pensions however they want. But buyers of municipal bonds deserve an honest view of state and local governments’ true pension liabilities.

Accurate pension liability disclosure is a market-friendly way to increase responsibility in state and local government financing. Given an honest view of public pension liabilities, borrowers will reward governments that responsibility fund their pensions by putting aside more money and taking less investment risk, while penalizing the governments who play fast and loose. Improved disclosure would benefit bond buyers and anyone else who cares about getting an accurate picture of state and local government finance. This requirement seems little to ask of state and local governments given the federal government’s favorable tax treatment of retirement plan contributions and the federal tax exemption granted to state and local government bonds, an exemption that allows those governments to issue debt at lower cost.

Puerto Rico rescue legislation introduced last December by Sens. Orin Hatch (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) — the chairmen of the Senate Committees on Finance, Energy and Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, respectively — contained pension liabilities disclosures that draws on Nunes’ proposal. Any eventual Puerto Rico legislation should retain those disclosure requirements. Congress can act now on public employee pension financing through better disclosure. The alternative may be a federal taxpayer bailout of state and local pensions in the future. Take your pick.

Forbes

by Andrew Biggs

MAR 17, 2016 @ 05:33 PM




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (Bank Loans And Detroit Public Schools)

In this week’s Extra Credit, Senior Director David Bodek discusses our recent report about the $5.1 billion in bank loans reviewed in 2015, and Senior Director Jane Ridley addresses questions regarding Detroit Public Schools.

Listen to the podcast.

Mar. 18, 2016




In Roach-Infested Slums, a Muni-Bond Default Spurs Big Questions.

At the Warren and Tulane Apartments, crime-plagued complexes for impoverished residents of Memphis’s south side, units were infested with roaches. There were broken windows, buckling ceilings, missing and damaged appliances. Sewage littered overgrown lawns.

“It’s appalling,” said Jessica Johnson-Peterson, who has lived at the 248-unit Warren apartments with her husband and four children since 2009. “We have to jump through extreme hoops to even get anyone’s attention.”

The conditions led the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last month to cut off rent subsidies for more than 1,000 residents. With that, the financial fallout spread to a more distant group: Holders of $12 million of municipal bonds that the owner, Global Ministries Foundation, sold through a Memphis authority in 2011 to buy the apartments. The loss of the federal funds caused the securities to default, pushing the price to as little as 21 cents on the dollar.

GMF, which is run by a Baptist minister and says on its website that everything it does is “for the glory of God and the eternal welfare of mankind,” has built a 10,500-unit low-rent real estate empire with money raised through one of the riskiest corners of the municipal-bond market — local agencies with few, if any, employees and that exist only to sell tax-exempt debt for a fee.

With little regulatory oversight or responsibility for the projects they finance, the authorities have raised money for privately-run nursing homes, charter schools and even amusement parks. Almost 60 percent of defaulted municipal bonds were issued by such conduits, according to Matt Fabian, a partner at Concord, Massachusetts-based Municipal Market Analytics. In most cases, investors, not taxpayers, are left on the hook.

“Conduits have been a perennial problem in the market,” said Christopher Taylor, the former executive director of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the industry’s regulator. “I’m not saying affordable housing isn’t a laudable goal, but is this the way in which you should use tax-exempt financing to do it — where there is no, essentially, governmental oversight and control?”

GMF, a Cordova, Tennessee non-profit founded in 2003, has raised $400 million. It owns and operates 60 multifamily complexes in 8 states. It has issued debt through the Public Finance Authority, a Wisconsin agency with no employees, to buy apartments in Indiana, Alabama, Florida and Georgia. GMF used a conduit run by Gulf Breeze, Florida, to issue bonds for a project 360 miles (579 kilometers) away in Jacksonville, on the state’s opposite coast.

Historical Challenges

Richard Hamlet, GMF’s president, said his organization has invested more than $3 million in the Memphis apartments, which were contending with crime and poor maintenance by tenants before it purchased them five years ago. He said HUD rejected its proposal for a “substantial renovation” and opted to cut off federal funds instead.

“The properties had historical challenges with crime, resident upkeep and other issues,” he said.
“The unfortunate physical, crime and ancillary issues which have faced Warren and Tulane are challenging, but we did not retreat,” said Hamlet. “‘Our management team, in addition to outside contractors we engaged, worked hard under very stressful conditions to mitigate physical deficiencies on the sites.”

Hamlet said Hud is auditing his organization’s other subsidized properties, though he said none have failed inspections and “all are in good standing.” Priya Jayachandran, who oversees multifamily housing at HUD, declined to comment through a spokesman, citing ongoing discussions with GMF.

Following on-site visits to some buildings, Standard & Poor’s put 25 GMF-backed bond issues on review for a downgrade last month, saying a decision to withhold funding from other complexes could jeopardize the money used to repay investors. Such a sanction is rare: Last year, HUD cut subsidies to just three of the 17,000 properties it assists.

“Some of them were in poor condition,” Karen Fitzgerald, an S&P analyst, said of the GMF residences. “We put them on Creditwatch pending a full review not just because of the asset quality but also of the management as well as the audited financial statements.”

Good Reputation

In 2011, GMF used the Memphis Health, Educational and Housing Facility Board, which has three employees, to finance its purchase of the Warren and Tulane apartments, in an area where as many as 40 percent of the families live in poverty. A Las Vegas-based environmental consultant concluded that the apartments were in “good to fair” condition at the time, according to the official statement for the bond issue.

The Memphis health board had no responsibility to monitor GMF’s apartments after the bonds were sold, Daniel Reid, chairman of the agency that issued the debt, said in an e-mailed response to questions. Beforehand, the agency investigates proposed projects, the applicant’s experience and the financing structure, he said. It has worked with GMF on several transactions since 2011.

“GMF had maintained a good reputation with all sectors of the investment community, including rating agencies and HUD prior to the current default,” Reid said.

Hamlet, a former executive at an apartment management and development firm, expanded into the housing business by starting a separate non-profit, GMF Preservation of Affordability Corp., in 2004. The housing unit transferred $7.1 million to the ministry in 2014, according to federal tax filings, subsidizing its missionary work, which includes training pastors, producing a national radio program and undertaking evangelistic crusades overseas.

GMF’s “main concern is for the residents of our affordable housing communities,” Hamlet said. “We entered this space to make a difference in the lives of our residents.”

GMF is also a lucrative family business. Hamlet was paid $535,000 in salary and benefits in 2014, according to GMF’s tax records. Four other family members received $218,000. Hamlet said his compensation is in line with peers in the industry.

Failing Grade

Conditions deteriorated after the GMF acquisition, according to federal inspection reports. HUD, which is responsible for overseeing the low-income housing it subsidizes, gave the apartments a score of 67 when they were inspected October 2012. A passing score is 60. In 2014, it dropped to 38.

After inspections in April and December 2015, HUD gave GMF a list of health and safety violations that required immediate response. The April inspection of 30 buildings and 25 units found “life threatening” breaches including exposed wires and blocked emergency exits, as well as buckled ceilings, cracked windows and leaking pipes.

In January, HUD found missing or inoperable smoke detectors, blocked emergency and fire exists and other deficiencies, according to a Feb. 3 letter from the agency. HUD cut off Section 8 project-based rental assistance payments, which are used to pay bondholders.

“The abatement came as a surprise to us,” Hamlet wrote in an e-mail to trustee Bank of New York Mellon that was disclosed in a bond filing.

GMF’s failure to comply with the conditions of its contract with HUD triggered a technical default. Without the federal subsidies, GMF is likely to miss payments due to investors within the next two years unless the apartments can be sold for enough money to retire the debt, S&P said on Feb. 19, when it cut the rating 10 ranks to CCC+, seven steps below investment grade.

Hamlet said the default is a rarity. “Our bond issues historically have performed well,” he said. This “is the first bond default I have had in my career in this space.”

GMF is in discussions with two separate groups interested in purchasing the Warren and Tulane apartments, Hamlet said in a March 7 letter to Bank of New York Mellon.

Scrutiny Elsewhere

Officials have revealed poor living conditions at other GMF apartments. An August HUD inspection at a GMF’s Eureka Gardens complex in Jacksonville found mold, water damage, broken windows and appliances, and peeling paint. After being ordered to fix the violations, the building passed a follow-up inspection, said HUD spokesman Jereon Brown. At Serenity Towers, a 396-unit complex in Memphis, a report released last month by the city’s code enforcement unit found that more than a third of the apartments had bedbugs. The inspection also revealed broken and damaged windows, ceiling leaks and damaged toilets.

Hamlet said that GMF has spent “millions” in Jacksonville and $200,000 to combat the bedbug infestation in Memphis, saying “much progress” has been made there.

Residents of the Warren and Tulane apartments are getting a fresh start: federal housing officials have begun planning to relocate them.

“I’m ecstatic,” said Jessica Johnson-Peterson. “I feel like it’s an opportunity to be able to provide better chances for my children and a better environment to raise my children.”

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

March 13, 2016 — 9:01 PM PDT Updated on March 14, 2016 — 10:25 AM PDT




Chicago Settling $390 Million Tab When City Can Least Afford It.

Chicago taxpayers, already reeling from a financially strapped school system and mounting pension costs, are looking at a final tab of about $390 million to end ill-timed bets on interest rates.

The city council on Wednesday authorized issuing as much as $200 million of bonds to help pay termination fees, estimated at $100 million, to unwind derivative contracts linked to its water debt, the last of the city’s interest-rate swaps. Chicago has already paid about $290 million to exit other swaps, according to city documents. In May, Moody’s Investors Service lowered its rating to speculative grade, increasing pressure on the city to restructure the debt.

Chicago and other municipal borrowers made wagers on the future direction of rates using agreements with banks to swap payments in a gamble to squeeze out additional savings. The strategy backfired when the Federal Reserve lowered rates in an attempt to stimulate the economy in the wake of the financial crisis. The result: issuers have paid billions to unravel those agreements.

The swaps “were intended to be defensive in some ways, reduce interest costs, and they’ve been anything but that,” said Richard Ciccarone, the president of Merritt Research Services, which tracks municipal finance. “They’ve been very costly to the city.”

The deals were agreements to trade interest payments based on variable-rate debt and intended to reduce losses for municipalities when interest rates rose. Instead, the Fed kept rates near historic lows, and governments had to pay the market value to break the contracts. To compound the pain, interest rates have declined this year even after the central bank boosted its target rate in December for the first time in almost a decade.

In April, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced a plan to end the city’s interest-rate swaps and convert its variable-rate debt to fixed rate. Less than a month later, Moody’s dropped Chicago’s rating to Ba1, one step below junk, accelerating the strain on the city by giving banks the right to require it to repay debt early or pay fees to break swap contracts.

Lowest Rated

“We are not out of the woods,” Emanuel told reporters at City Hall on Wednesday. “This is another additional step in righting the ship, fixing the fiscal conditions of the city, and making our health of our fiscal picture stronger.”

Chicago is the lowest-rated big city in the nation, with the exception of Detroit. Its finances deteriorated as its pension shortfall deepened, reaching $20 billion. That’s more than $7,000 per resident. In October, Emanuel made some progress when he pushed through a $543 million property-tax hike, the biggest in city history. Its proceeds will bolster public safety worker pensions. The city’s public schools are also grappling with pension debt. The cash-strapped system owes another $676 million to its retirement fund by June 30, and the junk-rated district’s deficit is projected to reach $1 billion a year through 2020.

The city has exited all of its interest-rate swaps tied to general-obligation, sales and waste-water debt. Chicago is using the approved borrowing to get out of the water derivatives. There was no public discussion during Wednesday’s meeting before aldermen approved issuing the bonds.

“While it’s an important step as the city moves forward on refinancing its variable-rate debt and getting out from underneath these swaps, it was disappointing that there weren’t more questions over the details that would have reflected a better understanding by the city council members as to what the full cost of the program will be, how it will be impacting them in the future, and how this information will be used going forward to avoid this same cost,” said Laurence Msall, president of Civic Federation, which tracks the city’s finances.

Necessary Step

While the council’s finance committee approved the $200 million deal in January, a full vote got delayed after some members asked for more time to review the issuance. Scott Waguespack, one of the alderman who had asked the administration for more information, agreed that the issuance should move forward after he met with the mayor’s staff and finance department. The deal was originally scheduled to price in the first quarter. The city expects the borrowing “in the coming months,” according to Molly Poppe, a city spokeswoman.

“There’s a little bit of assurance there that the amount of the payoff is not exorbitant,” Waguespack said. “We’re kind of resigned to relying on what the market is doing for making the payment.”

Exiting the swaps is necessary to ensure long-term stability of the water system, said Dennis Derby, an analyst and portfolio manager at Wells Fargo Asset Management, which holds Chicago general obligations and water debt among its $39 billion in assets. The city’s water system’s security is “fairly strong,” he said.

“We look at it from an operating standpoint as certainly a stronger credit than they had been in the past,” said Derby, who is based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. “In order to have a strong credit operationally, they need to remove that swap termination risk, which is I think a prudent thing to do.”

Bloomberg Business

by Elizabeth Campbell

March 17, 2016 — 2:00 AM PDT Updated on March 17, 2016 — 7:59 AM PDT




Commentary: Why the Municipal Market Is Going to Need Defending.

The next five years are going to be critical for municipal finance, as surely as default follows distress.

All of a sudden, everyone is eager to defend tax exemption and the municipal market. Hundreds of local officials signed a letter drafted by the National Association of State Treasurers advising the federal government to keep its hands off. In Congress, two House members are starting a bipartisan municipal finance caucus to do much the same thing.

This is good news for all those who think states and municipalities are best served by being able to borrow whenever they feel like it, without having to apply to a higher authority for permission.

It’s also a good thing because, boy, is municipal finance going to need defending.

Let me boil this down before I boil over. Every time the municipal market has produced an Event, federal regulators and would-be overlords have reacted with astonishment, outrage, scrutiny, and new rules. As they should; their primary mission is to protect investors.

Consider the rise of the Memphis “Bond Daddies” in the late 1960s and the New York City financial crisis of 1975. The result: the creation of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

Then there was the Washington Public Power Supply System default in 1983 and the Orange County bankruptcy in 1994. Each produced You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me moments, lengthy analyses, and new rules.

Since then we’ve had a steady stream of Events: the deliberate mis-pricing of bonds and swaps called “yield-burning,” the Jefferson County and Detroit bankruptcies, and the trashing (by certain parties) of the General Obligation pledge.

What is going to differentiate this year from the past is the possibility of multiple events. There’s Puerto Rico at $70 billion in bonded debt, as well as pension liabilities. But there’s also the Detroit Public Schools, Chicago Public Schools, and even the city of Chicago.

The municipal market has played a role in every case. Sometimes municipalities delayed balancing the budget with the upfront money they got in connection with swaps. Sometimes they sold bonds to cover operating expenses. Other times, as revealed in the Chicago Tribune’s 2013 series “Broken Bonds,” they used so-called “scoop and toss” refundings—borrowing money to pay debt service and push off repayment for years, even decades.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, as Richard Ciccarone, head of Merritt Research Services, pointed out last year on his MuniNetGuide website: “Too often, government officials and politicians have appeased taxpayers by adopting unhealthy fiscal practices by either maintaining expenses they can’t afford or by keeping lower taxes than their liabilities warranted,” he wrote. “At the same time, investors and rating agencies may be inadvertent enablers if they ignore early signs of imprudent debt policies or other negative credit factors that are developing but not of immediate concern.”

Former Kentucky state official and full-time market commentator Kristi Culpepper observed last year, “All of the recent insolvencies in the municipal bond market have combined protracted fiscal mismanagement with a reliance on innovative financial products (e.g. interest rate swaps and pension obligation bonds).”

The mainstream media is interested in politics, not public finance. It treats every financial blowup as a discrete, rather than a related. almost predictable, event. Washington, I suspect, isn’t going to make the same mistake. Borrowing larger and larger amounts of money to delay making hard public policy choices isn’t an appropriate use of the municipal bond market.

It’s going to be very hard for those who would preserve the municipal market to excuse such abuses. I still think states and municipalities should be able to borrow money when they want to. But I won’t defend the indefensible.

The next five years are going to be critical for municipal finance, as surely as default follows distress. This market is a victim of its own success: The numbers have gotten too big. Be prepared for the firestorm to come.

Bloomberg Business

by Joseph Mysak Jr

March 15, 2016 — 5:10 AM PDT




Moody's: Volatile Market Likely to Increase Unfunded U.S. Public Pension Liabilities in FY 2016.

New York, March 17, 2016 — Recent market volatility has negatively affected the asset performance of several large US pension plans, and could be an early signal that fiscal 2016 returns will fall short of assumed targets for the second consecutive year and erase funding improvements seen in FY 2013 and 2014, Moody’s Investors Service says.

“We project unfunded pension liabilities on a reported basis will grow by at least 10% in fiscal 2016 under even our most optimistic return scenario,” Thomas Aaron, a Moody’s AVP — Analyst says in “Market Volatility Points to Growing US Public Pension Debt in 2016.”

Moody’s also states that 55% of pension plans in its sample are not receiving contributions from state or local governments that cover current benefit accruals and interest on existing unfunded liabilities. That, combined with poor investment performance, will make pension plan liabilities even larger.

Unfunded pension liabilities could reach a four-year high relative to payroll in all but the most optimistic scenario, Moody’s says.

Using available fiscal 2015 accounting disclosures of 56 public plans, Moody’s also projects an alternate scenario of negative 10% returns where a 59% increase in reported-basis unfunded liabilities are estimated. Moody’s adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPLs) will grow up to 29% under the same return scenarios.

However, exposure to market volatility across public plans varies widely among individual states and local governments. While unfunded pension liability growth is anticipated in 2016, the capacity of individual governments to absorb increasing pension costs depends on revenue growth and the ability to control other expenditures.

For its research, Moody’s analyzed 56 state and local government pension plans with total assets of more than $2 trillion in FY 2015. The sample comprises slightly more than half of all public defined benefit pension assets and mostly includes plans with June 30 fiscal year-ends.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Fitch: Flint, Chicago Lead Lawsuits Pressure Water Sector.

Fitch Ratings-New York-08 March 2016: (This announcement replaces the release published on March 4 and corrects the estimate of the costs that the entire U.S. water sector would bear to replace, comprehensively, all lead service lines, which would range from a few billion to $50 billion.)

Lawsuits filed against the city of Flint, MI and the city of Chicago could have a broad, long-term impact on the entire U.S. water sector, Fitch Ratings says.

Utilities are stepping up education efforts to bolster public confidence while also evaluating their existing treatment protocols to ensure ongoing water quality. Significant investment in service line replacement also may be forthcoming over the near term, particularly if the Environmental Protection Agency materially alters existing rules.

Various lawsuits filed against Flint and certain government officials allege that the water residents were using was unsafe. The city had changed water sources and the lawsuits state that the newer source had higher corrosive properties that eroded the pipes, leading to highly elevated lead levels in the water. Separately, certain Chicago residents filed suit against the city within the last several days alleging that repairs by Chicago to its water system allowed dangerous levels of lead to enter the drinking water supply and that the city did not sufficiently notify residents that they may have been exposed.

The EPA currently regulates drinking water exposure to lead based on its Lead and Copper Rule, which seeks to minimize lead in drinking water primarily through corrosion control of lead pipes. If corrosion control is not effective the rule can require water quality monitoring and treatment, corrosion control treatment, the removal of lead lines and public education. The EPA is considering strengthening the rule sometime later this year or next. In light of these lawsuits and the heightened public focus on possible lead contamination, Fitch expects any proposed rule revisions will likely move the industry toward removing all lead service lines.

Reprioritizing and accelerating lead pipe replacement would add significant additional capital needs to the sector and could compete with other critical infrastructure projects, including developing sufficient long-term water supplies and replacing aging infrastructure components other than lead lines. Some sources estimate over 6 million lead service lines exist across the U.S.

Many of these are located in the Northeast, Midwest and older urban areas. We believe the capital costs to replace these lines could range from a few billion to $50 billion, based on industry estimates that the number of lead service lines could be as high as 10 million and replacement costs per line could be as high as $5,000. The EPA’s latest survey estimated the entire sector needs $385 billion in water infrastructure improvements through 2030 and this estimate includes the costs to only partially replace lead pipes. Either level of capital cost would likely be manageable for the sector as a whole if it is spread out over a time frame like the one in the EPA survey. However, implementation over a shorter time span may create stress for individual credits.




Federal Appeals Court Deciding Municipal Broadband Expansion.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal appeals court will decide whether to overturn a Federal Communications Commission ruling allowing city-owned broadband services to expand into areas overlooked by commercial providers.

Tennessee and North Carolina both previously passed laws preventing the expansion of super-fast Internet service in their respective cities of Chattanooga and Wilson to surrounding areas.

The FCC last year voted 3-2 to override those laws. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who voted with the majority, said at the time that some states have created “thickets of red tape designed to limit competition.”

Chattanooga markets itself as the “Gig City” for the widespread availability of gigabit-speed Internet service. Such service is about 50 times the national broadband average — or enough bandwidth to download an entire movie in about two minutes.

At an appeal of the FCC ruling Thursday before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, FCC attorney Matt Dunne called the areas around Chattanooga “digital deserts that are imploring Chattanooga to come to them,” according to arguments posted on the court’s website.

State lawmakers have argued that private broadband providers will have difficulty competing with service subsidized by local governments. But at Thursday’s hearing, attorneys for Tennessee and North Carolina argued the issue is one of state sovereignty. They said the FCC is unlawfully inserting itself between the states and their subdivisions.

Judge Helene White said Congress has stated clearly that it wants the FCC to remove barriers preventing access to broadband because access affects education and other core government interests. Referring to the FCC’s ruling, she asked the attorneys for the states, “Why isn’t that exactly what they’re doing?”

Joshua Turner, a private attorney representing Tennessee, argued that Congress hasn’t given the FCC any special authority to promulgate broadband.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MARCH 17, 2016, 6:36 P.M. E.D.T.




Assessing the Less Contemplated Risks of Bank Placement Agreements.

Direct bank placements have been increasingly utilized as a capital source for healthcare and other tax-exempt entities over the past several years. While our focus is within healthcare finance, the potential risks discussed here are relevant to entities across the entire municipal landscape. Due to the private nature of bank placements, it is difficult to assess the total size of the market; however, it is not uncommon to find one or several bank placement obligations on a not-for-profit hospital’s balance sheet. Borrowers have eagerly taken advantage of the attractive cost of capital, ease and speed of execution, as well as lower issuance cost and less required documentation compared to publicly issued bonds. As many of our clients prefer to use their limited time and resources on running their core business in this disruptive
operating environment, bank placement financing has emerged as an appealing capital source.

A number of sources, including the rating agencies, have done a commendable job of educating the marketplace on certain risks associated with bank placements. The emphasis of the bank placement risk discussion has generally been focused on the ability of lenders to accelerate debt repayment, the renewal risk or contingent liability aspect of many agreements, as well as the general lack of public disclosure on key covenants and events of default included in bank agreements.

Tax-exempt bank placements are structured in various forms including variable rate, synthetic fixed rate (variable with an interest rate swap or hedge) and natural fixed rate. The natural fixed rate bank placement has been a popular structure for many not-for-profit hospitals as an alternative to interest rate swaps. As the bank placement market has evolved, we have noted certain provisions have become more onerous, making the typical natural fixed rate bank placement structure share a risk profile – not dissimilar to interest rate swaps, but in a slightly different and perhaps more adverse form. In our view, one of the most underappreciated risk elements of bank placements is the “yield maintenance” or “increased cost” provision. This clause allows the lender wide latitude to unilaterally increase the underlying all-in interest rate by modifying the interest rate, tax-exempt ratio or credit spread of the agreement. Typically yield maintenance language in bank placements does not specify what conditions would trigger the bank to raise the underlying placement all-in interest rate, but rather very broadly specifies the considerations allowing yield maintenance enactment for a wide variety of developments.

The current environment in bank lending is trending toward more onerous regulation and greater capital requirements, led by Dodd-Frank and Basel III. These and other regulatory changes could lead banks to enact yield maintenance language to retain bank placement returns on capital. If additional capital requirements are imposed on banks for any reason, including a bank downgrade, additional costs could be passed on from the bank to the borrower. In tax-exempt placements, a tax-law change that reduces the tax-benefit banks generate from tax-exempt lending could lead to an enactment as well. While these are several potential examples, the open-ended nature in which yield maintenance provisions are drafted in documents provide banks extreme leeway in not only the circumstance that can trigger enactment but also the magnitude of the increase or compensation owed to the bank upon enactment. While no bank lenders have enacted these provisions to date and we still view the probability of enactment as low despite the heightened bank regulatory agreement, all borrowers should be fully aware of these provisions at the management and board level and the potential for interest rate increases that could be significant under most bank documents. Further, in recent transactions, we are seeing banks require the ability to retroactively enact yield maintenance provisions up to 12 months from the time they give notice, so in essence the bank could ask for payment of the lost yield up to a year prior to the borrower even receiving notice.

Another consideration for borrowers is the make-whole call provision currently included in many natural fixed rate bank placements. Make-whole calls are fairly standard in the taxable fixed rate bond market, but of course, nearly every long-dated municipal fixed rate bond is structured with a 10-year par call option. One implication of a make-whole call is it virtually eliminates the ability to economically refund a fixed rate placement. While on shorter bank placements this is not necessarily a major concern for a borrower, it becomes a more important consideration on a longer-term placement of greater than 10-years.

The other important discussion point with make-whole call provisions is the one-way termination structure. Most fixed placement call provisions only include a scenario where the borrower will make a payment to the bank. If interest rates increase and the borrower wanted to refund the debt; the borrower would receive no compensation. However, if interest rates have declined or if the current rate levels are less than the yield or formula in the make-whole call, the borrower would be required to pay a make-whole premium to the bank. While make-whole call provisions vary by bank, some require strict yield maintenance to call the bonds, meaning the make-whole premium would require the payment of the underlying bank cost of funds (which can be a subjective interest rate) plus the entirety of the credit spread. On taxable bond issues, the make-whole call formula is typically based on a formula of Treasury rate plus a spread that is materially less than most bank placement credit spreads, making the bank placement make-whole provisions potentially more punitive in comparison.

As noted, we believe yield maintenance and make-whole call provisions to be important consideration points, but borrowers should also understand and contemplate the relationship between both the yield maintenance and
make-whole call provisions. For example, considering if a yield maintenance provision is enacted and how it could ultimately impact any potential make-whole premium if the borrower desires to refund the debt following the yield increase.

One final trend in the current bank placement market is to also include ratings based downgrade triggers as an event of default under the agreement. In addition to covenants that are often stronger than public fixed rate bonds, a ratings downgrade trigger adds another risk element that could potentially allow a bank placement provider to accelerate debt upon an event of default breach. Managing to a rating covenant isn’t as controllable as managing to discrete financial covenants; such as days’ cash on hand, maximum annual debt service coverage or debt-to-capitalization requirement. We also note, recently, hospital ratings have been adjusted solely based ratings criteria changes.

In summary, we believe that bank placements will continue to be an attractive capital source for not-for-profit hospitals for all the advantages they offer regarding cost of capital and ease of execution. However, as noted, the lower cost of capital does not come without certain inherit risks compared to traditional publicly offered bonds. While no banks have enacted yield maintenance/increased cost provisions in bank placements to date and we see enactment as a low probability event, we believe this is the key systemic risk of the structure and potential high severity. One of the key lessons of the financial crisis is to understand and contemplate all the risks embedded in financing agreements. Ultimately, we believe it is critical for borrowers to contemplate how these risks fit in the overall capital structure and within the organization’s risk tolerance.

The Bond Buyer

by Mike Quinn

March 10, 2016

Mike Quinn is managing director and Todd Smart is a vice president of Ziegler Investment Banking, Healthcare Finance.




Recent Developments Affecting Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Loans.

New Jersey Governor’s Conditional Veto Restricts New Jersey PACE, Florida’s Supreme Court Expands State’s PACE Market, Congress Extends the Federal Investment Tax Credit and States Reduce Effectiveness of Net-Metering

In today’s climate conscious world, renewable energy sources—and programs to support their use—are increasingly important. Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) loans, beginning in 2008, have become a major tool for local governments, homeowners, and commercial property owners to use to install energy efficient upgrades, such as solar panels or energy efficient windows, on private property.

Previous Dechert OnPoints discussed the potential for securitization of PACE loans as well as regulatory developments regarding PACE potential.1 This Dechert OnPoint discusses some recent developments regarding PACE.

New Jersey PACE

To date, thirty-two states have approved legislation implementing some form of PACE program. The legislature in New Jersey, a potential major market for solar panel installers and other green industries, passed a bill which could have significantly expanded the Garden State’s PACE program but Governor Chris Christie issued a conditional veto of that bill on November 9, 2015.

The Governor’s conditional veto stipulates that (i) no municipality that is disqualified from the local budget examination exemption issued to municipalities in connection with special assistance funding from the state would be eligible for a PACE bond program, (ii) PACE assessments should not be made against properties with less than five dwelling units and (iii) existing lienholder consent must be obtained in connection with PACE assessments. Additionally, instead of rolling out the program across the state, the program would be limited to the first ten municipalities to apply and be approved by the New Jersey Division of Local Government Services.2

Advocates of the bill passed by the legislature are concerned that these conditions will stall the development of industries associated with PACE loan spending in New Jersey, and thus, limit such economic activity within the state. Proponents of the NJ PACE bill argue limiting the program to commercial properties in only ten municipalities will prevent the economies of scale needed for wide-spread development of a NJ PACE program. Advocates have also indicated that the multi-family condition proposed by the conditional veto is problematic because single-family homeowners are a major source of borrowers within PACE loan systems but Governor Christie’s conditional veto bars single family homeowners from New Jersey’s program.3

The conditional veto, however, appeals to mortgage companies and others who object to the super priority status of PACE assessments; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example have indicated that they will not purchase mortgage loans on homes with PACE financing if such loans have pari passu status with tax liens.45 The mortgage companies claim that such prioritization: (i) changes the risk profile of properties which are subject to PACE assessment liens relative to the credit underwriting completed in the initial closing of a mortgage loan and (ii) lessens PACE lenders incentives to maximize profits in foreclosure as compared to mortgage lenders because of the size of PACE loans (which are usually up to US$20,000) and because of the inability of PACE lenders to accelerate PACE loans for the full amount in the event of a default. Under the conditional veto scheme, PACE assessments will remain subordinate to mortgages and other lien holders unless consent is granted to change the prioritization among the liens by the applicable mortgage lenders.6

Additionally, advocates of the PACE bill have expressed concern that the Governor’s first stipulation will prohibit some large population centers, such as Newark, Camden, and Atlantic City from accessing the program because the conditional veto bars special funding recipients—which includes these cities—from participating in the program.7 These areas, however, have more potential commercial sector borrowers, given their population sizes. The ten municipality limit will also reduce the number of potential borrowers, further lessening the program’s potential success.

Florida PACE

In contrast to Governor Christie’s actions, the Florida Supreme Court recently rejected two challenges to PACE programs in Florida in a combined case.8 The court rejected a claim by the Florida Bankers Association, which objected to the super priority status of PACE loans, by holding that the group did not have standing.9 The decision sidestepped the issue of whether PACE loans may subordinate mortgage loans; even so, the solar industry seems optimistic about the potential of Florida’s PACE market.

The Florida Supreme Court also reviewed the bond validation process used to provide PACE loans, specifically whether the process complied with Florida statutes. On this point, the court validated the special assessment revenue bonds used by the Florida Development Finance Corporation (FDFC) for Florida’s PACE program.10 However, the court also held that the FDFC must remove all references within the financing agreements to judicial foreclosure as a remedy and remove all references to the FDFC’s own or delegated authority to levy the special PACE assessments in order for the program to comply with Florida statutes.11 The court held that once these changes are made, Florida’s PACE market will be in accordance with state law and the court’s decision.12

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision may help expand the growth of PACE programs in Florida, especially in the residential market. In 2014, residential PACE spending surpassed commercial PACE spending13 and Florida may be poised to take advantage of PACE market growth nationwide.

Federal Investment Tax Credit

Nationwide, the market for solar panels and the PACE loans that often finance them will be strengthened by Congress’s extension, in December 2015, of the Federal Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy. This tax credit extends the 30% federal tax credit through 2019.14 Thereafter, the credit will decline through 2022 to 10%, where it will remain.15 This tax credit has been a crucial component in the growth of renewables and this extension is predicted to lead to US$73 billion—or a 56 percent boost—in new investments according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance over the next five years.16

Commercial PACE

Commercial PACE has not taken off the same way that residential PACE has. One reason is that most statutes providing for commercial PACE require the consent of the first-mortgage lender on the related property. It appears that the consent processes within the mortgage lending institutions for allowing commercial PACE assessments to be placed on one of their borrower’s properties can be lengthy. Connecticut’s Green Bank appears to have done a good job explaining commercial PACE to mortgage lenders in Connecticut. It may only be a matter of time before other states follow.

Net-Metering Under Threat

Net-metering is a tool and billing mechanism that credits solar energy system owners for the electricity they add to the grid when their solar panels create more energy than their home or business uses.17 Net-metering helps consumers and businesses but some utilities dislike the policy because they believe it lowers profits.18 The public utilities commissions in both Nevada and Hawaii changed their state’s rules in December and October, respectively,to lower the rates earned by selling back excess energy.19 Nevada also increased the basic service charges for solar- panel users.20 As a result, SolarCity, a major solar panel installer, announced that it will leave Nevada—firing 550 employees and closing a training center opened in November 2015 in the process of moving out.21 The moves by Nevada and Hawaii may be followed in other states; for example, a utility in Arizona is already seeking permission to enact the same changes as Nevada.22

Conclusion

Late 2015 saw many developments in the renewable energy sector including regulation that helped establish or expand PACE programs that have helped increase availability of renewable power in many states. These programs also often help create jobs, such as the 10,000 estimated jobs that Renovate America has created through its PACE lending since December 2011.23 Though New Jersey’s PACE program is constrained by Governor Christie’s conditional veto and questions of PACE loan prioritization remain, Florida’s program appears to be poised for growth. Congress’s extension of the Federal Investment Tax Credit should also help this growing field.

To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.

Dechert LLP – Patrick D. Dolan and Kira N. Brereton

USA March 1 2016




Privatized University Housing: An American P3 Success Story.

While Washington policy experts ponder how best to advance Public-Private Partnerships (P3) as a solution to the underfunding of U.S. infrastructure needs, they should look no further than to colleges and universities for a true American success story.

In recent years, privatized university housing has emerged as an important alternative by which higher education institutions use P3 financing to build new student housing capacity. Since 2010, over 64,000 new beds on more than 100 different campuses across the country have been financed, built and are being maintained by the private sector.

By way of background, P3 is a financing technique that has emerged in Western economies as a way for the private sector to provide public infrastructure. It can take various forms, but in its broadest application involves a private sector sponsor contracting for a fee with a governmental entity to finance, construct, operate, and maintain a given piece of public infrastructure such as a toll road or a bridge that remains under governmental ownership. Proponents point to various private sector efficiencies as one of the technique’s advantages.

The Obama Administration and many in the think tank world are active promoters of P3, and this approach is often positioned as an alternative to the U.S. municipal bond market that historically has provided about 75% of our country’s infrastructure financing. This market is unique to the U.S. and it remains a primary reason that the P3 model has not caught on here with the same speed as it has in other countries. To date, P3 has only provided about 1% of infrastructure financing in the last 25 years.

So why has P3 in the privatized, on-campus university housing sector been so successful? There are unique characteristics of this sector that allow for P3 and the municipal market to work well together and provide a better overall solution than if a transaction was executed purely through one financing technique or the other. Said another way, convergence of the two markets (municipal and P3) delivers a better result.

An overwhelming number of higher education institutions in the U.S. have significant capital improvement and deferred maintenance plans where improvements are necessary not only to replace and restore aging facilities, but also to modernize academic programs and expand capacity. High on the list of needed improvements is student housing, a large portion of which remains dilapidated or outdated.

Unfortunately, most higher education institutions have to operate on lean budgets and, with the nation’s recent economic challenges, support for new capital projects is scarce. As an auxiliary service, student housing often falls low on the list of priorities, taking a back seat to direct education projects. Colleges and universities often have to choose between improving their educational facilities and providing new student housing, making P3 financing an attractive alternative when traditional state funding is unavailable.

Even if state funding is available, the procurement process associated with obtaining such funding can be burdensome and time consuming, often taking years to complete. P3 financing offers an alternative that is usually faster and often more cost effective than the traditional approach, allowing colleges and universities to meet their needs and the needs of their students more immediately.

Under a long standing provision in federal law, tax exempt financing is available for these projects through a 501c3 sponsor, which enters into a tri-party partnership through a long-term ground lease with its university partner, and development and operating agreements with a private sector partner that provides student housing development and management expertise. This is less often the case for other infrastructure sectors and levels the playing field for P3 in terms of the cost of financing as compared to the municipal market for student housing projects.

Additionally, there is a dedicated revenue source to pay for these new student housing rooms–typically, from the parents of students attending the college. Many infrastructure projects often do not have a specified revenue source to repay the related debt. The private sector in a P3 transaction obviously expects to be paid for the financing and other services they are providing and it is helpful to have a readily identified source of that payment in the case of privatized university housing.

As a consequence of this confluence of circumstances, American higher education is often opting to use P3 to deliver expanded housing capacity. It has the low financing cost of the municipal market and the efficiencies of the private sector in terms of development, operations and maintenance with the university transferring this responsibility to the sponsor. Note the final product is also a lot nicer than the dorms many of us Iived-in decades ago when attending college.

One example of many is the Texas A&M University System (“System”). Beginning in 2013, P3 financing was used to finance and construct approximately 4,000 beds of on-campus housing on four separate campuses of the System. The System’s Administration distributed an RFP to pre-qualify developers of student housing. Numerous firms responded, five of which were selected as qualified developers. Subsequently, these five firms competed for each project with specific requirements of design, location, construction, financing, operations and maintenance.

The System partnered with Collegiate Housing Foundation, which is a national 501c3 organization that over the last 17 years has participated in 49 projects in 23 states, to own the facilities, and also partnered with one of the qualified developers for each of the projects.

Those facilities are all now completed and open for operations. Over the next year, the System plans to utilize a similar P3 approach for three additional new construction projects, as well as the acquisition of a fourth.

Washington should be informed by the lessons of this success story. It should expand the availability of tax exempt financing to other infrastructure sectors for state and local government to advance key projects. Until it does, P3 may continue to languish as a financing alternative to the considerable backlog of U.S. infrastructure needs.

The Bond Buyer

By Chris Hamel and Michael Baird

March 7, 2016

Chris Hamel is Head of RBC Capital Markets’ Municipal Finance group.

Michael Baird is a Managing Director overseeing RBC Capital Markets privatized higher education practice.




High-Yield Muni Sector Thrives on Inflows, Low Volatility.

Inflows should remain steady and continue to fuel the municipal high-yield sector, where strong performance, attractive spreads, and low volatility are boosting demand while other fixed income asset classes languish, municipal experts said this week.

At the same time, the sector has also seen the arrival of “fallen angels,” as formerly investment grade credits like Chicago became part of the speculative market, giving investors more options.

With performance thriving and volatility trending lower, heavy demand has pumped cash into high-yield municipal bond funds for the past 22 weeks to extend the sector’s more than two-year recovery, while other fixed-income sectors, like corporate bonds, have sold off.

“Most of the returns are being driven by the income, and the stability is noteworthy this year as well,” John Miller, co-head of fixed income at Nuveen Asset Management told The Bond Buyer on Tuesday.

Municipal high yield mutual funds have three month total returns of 1.65%, year to date of 1.06%, and 4.46%, 3.71%, and 7.22% over one, three, and five years, according to Morningstar data as of Mar. 9.

Excluding Puerto Rico, defaults have been low in the municipal high yield arena, and that has moderated redemptions and boosted demand, according to the Miller, who manages municipal funds with about $20 billion of assets, including a high-yield municipal portfolio.

“There is less of a compelling reason to redeem,” he said.

Despite some spotty selling pressure during individual weeks or months, he said the municipal high-yield sector in general has been on a recovery path since the end of 2013 – and remains on that path.

“2014 was a very strong year, and 2015 was much more of earning your income and coupon and also low volatility, good demand, good liquidity and low default, and 2016 looks a lot like 2015 so far,” Miller said. “Investor inflows to high-yield muni product are consistently positive alongside municipal products in general” so far in 2016, he continued.

Additionally, Miller said while the sector’s low supply pales in comparison to corporate issuance of roughly $1 trillion a year, there are increasing defaults in the corporate bond market and added volatility from its exposure to the low oil prices and oil and gas exploration and production.

The municipal high-yield sector by comparison has less exposure, he said, to the more highly energy-intensive sectors that are affecting the corporate market – even though there isn’t as high a corollary in the municipal market.

Overall, the scenario of strong market technicals should lead to many additional weeks of inflows in the near-term as demand for the product grows under the current positive market conditions, experts said.

Triet Nguyen, managing director and group co-head of NewOak Fundamental Credit, said the technicals for the sector have been bolstered by steady inflows into high-yield municipal funds, though the inflows tapered off last week.

High-yield municipal funds reported inflows of $27.310 million for the week ended March 2, after inflows of $245.834 million the previous week, according to Lipper data. Experts said the inflows probably result from seasonal shifts in assets ahead of the April 15 income tax deadline.

Weekly reporting municipal bond funds attracted $212.25 million in the week ended March 2, after inflows of $696.39 million in the previous week, Lipper said.

Nguyen said scarcity and investors’ growing confidence in the U.S. economic outlook has helped insulate the high-yield municipal market from this year’s sell-off in the corporate bond market.

“Many high-yield names are trading at levels that seem disconnected from the underlying credits,” he said.

For example, Nguyen said corporate-backed municipals in the distressed energy and commodity sectors are at their richest levels in years versus their corporate counterparts.

That has helped price stability on the municipal side, he said.

“On the taxable side, many of the energy-related names are trading at depressed dollar price levels that reflect expectations for an eventual debt restructuring, yet on the muni side the same credits are still trading at a much higher dollar price,” he said.

While rising interest rate fears do have a more direct impact on the municipal market, the Federal Reserve Board’s quarter point increase after more than eight years of its zero-bound target was understated and showed little to any effect on the general or high-yield market. “That is not to suggest that it couldn’t eventually have a big impact,” Miller said, “but it doesn’t appear to be having a big impact just yet.”

The Fed’s rate increase may even have been a catalyst of investment in the municipal high-yield asset class, according to Miller.

“I think people were waiting to get it over with to see what the impact would be – and there weren’t any undue declines out there resulting from that,” he said.

Investor concerns seem to be waning even in a sector that is heavily long-dated. “Although those fears are ever-present, I think they receded a bit, and that is one worry that is less pronounced,” Miller said.

The opportunity to earn attractive average spreads of 250 basis points compared to the generic triple-A market helps offset the sectors’ inherent risks.

Miller said there is value to be had in the health care sector where mergers and acquisitions have been strong and credit upgrades have been more frequent than downgrades lately.

For instance, nonrated bonds for New York’s Albert Einstein Medical Center recently sold with a 5.50% coupon due in 2045 at par, and have traded up since the late January new issue, according to Miller.

In addition, the property tax-backed sector has seen steadily narrowing credit spreads – but yet is still attractive with some credits offering plus-240 basis points to the triple-A scale, down from as high as plus-275, Miller said.

“Underlying that is very steady property tax collections supporting these bonds and making them secure and reliable,” he explained.

Nonrated bonds for the Crystal Crossing Metropolitan District in Colorado recently sold with a 5.25% coupon due in 2040 at par back in January and have also traded up in the secondary market due to the strong market conditions, Miller noted.

Meanwhile, the tobacco sector – a top-performer in the last two years — is also offering value due to some technical and fundamental catalysts, he said.

The sector has been supported by the steady inflows in 2014, 2015, and in 2016, according to Miller, as well as the combination of employment growth and falling oil and gas prices, which contributed to the stabilization and consumption.

He said they are a liquidity management tool that is sensitive to fund flows. “People buy them when they have inflows so they can sell them when they have outflows,” he said.

The most actively-traded tobacco credits are California’s Golden State Tobacco Securitization 5.75% coupons due in 2047, which is was trading at 6.08% yield on Wednesday. The bonds are rated B3 by Moody’s Investors Service and B-minus by Standard & Poor’s.

While these bonds represent the traditional municipal high-profile, the strong performing sector has gone through a bit of a recent transition, as “fallen angel” credits have arrived, expanding the scope and availability of high-yield options.

“While real-estate dependent sectors such as senior living and special assessment districts [dirt bonds] have rebounded along with the housing market, a new source of high-yield supply is coming from traditionally investment-grade sectors, specifically local governmental entities who have never fully recovered from the Great Recession, and are now struggling with the rising burden of unfunded pension liabilities,” Nguyen said.

“School districts from Chicago to Detroit and Philadelphia are paying the price for years of structural deficits which are now brought to a head by budget shortfalls at the state level, and Illinois and Pennsylvania are prime examples of this,” Nguyen continued.

While a lot of high-yield is new projects involving hospitals, schools, roads and bridges, it can also include “fallen angel” credits, so-called because of their recent decline from investment grade ratings due to serious fiscal distress and resulting credit turmoil, Miller said.

While many credits in Chicago remain investment-grade, Chicago general obligation bonds and Chicago Board of Education public school credits lost their investment-grade ratings last year amid the city’s pension woes and severe credit deterioration and their own rocky finances.

Chicago carries a junk-level rating of Ba1 from Moody’s Investors Service, and BBB-plus ratings from both Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s, with negative outlooks.

Spreads on a $500 million GO refunding and restructuring in January offered narrower spread penalties in its first GO deal since approving a large property tax hike.

However, its 2038 maturity with a 4.875% yield still offered 229 basis points over the triple-A benchmark when the deal was priced by Citi Jan. 12.

Even including these new troubled credits into the high-yield municipal universe Miller expects a forecast of lower default activity outside of Puerto Rico to be a supportive of the municipal high-yield sector going forward.

“In a low interest-rates world, an average of 250 basis points of excess return is pretty good, so I think the demand continues to be there,” he said.

“I think we can earn our coupon and plus perhaps a moderate amount of price appreciation if your credit selection pans out favorably,” he added.

The Bond Buyer

By Christine Albano

March 11, 2016




S&P Reports On U.S. Public Finance Bank Loans Evaluated In 2015.

NEW YORK (Standard & Poor’s) March 9, 2016– Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services U.S. Public Finance department said in a report today that in 2015 it evaluated the impact on obligors’ ratings of 126 bank loans totaling $5.16 billion. Of that total, five loans negatively affected the credit quality of Standard & Poor’s-rated parity obligations because of lenient covenants and inadequate liquidity levels to handle potential acceleration events.

The overwhelming majority of bank loans generally haven’t negatively affected U.S. public finance issuers’ credit quality when the financing structures mitigate contingent liquidity risks and where liquidity is sufficient under our criteria, the report says.

The report is titled “S&P Evaluated $5.1 Bil. Of U.S. Public Finance Bank Loans In 2015: Issuers’ Liquidity Positions Helped To Support Ratings.”

Standard & Poor’s continues to stress the importance of loan disclosures in our written analyses and communications with issuers as direct purchase debt is often not subject to disclosure rules like rated securities.

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. Members of the media may request a copy of this report by contacting the media representative provided.




Moody's Predicts Bright Future for U.S. P3 Market.

Although the U.S. public-private partnership market has been marked by slow growth and fragmentation, it is poised to become one of the world’s largest, predicted Moody’s Investors Service.

“New state and federal P3 resources and political and legislative support, combined with a strong underlying legal framework for contractual enforceability and a deep capital market ready to finance projects,” will help to drive this projected surge in P3s, the credit ratings agency said March 10.

The creation of the Build America Transportation Investment Center (BATIC), which serves as an information and coordination clearinghouse for state and local governments and project sponsors that wish to pursue P3s, is improving the outlook for this market, said Moody’s.

On the other hand, the FAST Act also cuts Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funding by about 70 percent from 2015 levels although negative effects of this may be blunted by the fact that the law also allows TIFIA to keep uncommitted funds, Moody’s added.

A record number of availability-payment P3 agreements were finalized in 2015, including several that were negotiated by states that had never undertaken such projects, the credit ratings agency noted. Examples include the KentuckyWired broadband P3, the Ohio Portsmouth bypass, Pennsylvania’s Rapid Bridge Replacement Project, and Michigan’s Freeway Lighting Project.

“State-level P3 activity has risen over the last three years and nearly all P3 projects have been completed early or on time,” noted Moody’s Vice President and Senior Analyst John Medina.

However, many government agencies have much to learn about how to negotiate and conduct P3s, he warned.

“The need for more inter- and intra-government P3 best practice sharing remains key for the U.S. P3 market’s long-term development compared to other markets where infrastructure development and funding may be more centrally aligned,” Medina explained.

NCPPP

March 14, 2016




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast: The U.S. Healthcare Sector Outlook.

In this week’s Extra Credit, Managing Director Martin Arrick and Director David Peknay provide an overview of our recent report on the U.S. healthcare industry and our outlook for the segments within the sector, including for-profit and insurance companies.

Listen to the Podcast.

Mar. 11, 2016




The Tools We Need to Measure the Real Value of P3s.

A lot of deals never get off the ground because they appear to be too expensive. But we’re not looking at them the right way.

It’s no surprise that public-private partnerships (P3s) are a hot topic in the United States. Non-traditional approaches to infrastructure financing promise to help fiscally strapped state and local governments increase investment in public infrastructure, something everyone wants to happen.

But how exactly do P3s make good on this promise? Despite popular perceptions, P3s aren’t all about (or even mostly about) lowering construction costs and increasing operational efficiency. The really unique value of P3 arrangements arises from the way they can transfer a specific project funding risk, such as revenue volatility, from local taxpayers to private-sector investors who can bear such risk more efficiently.

“Less fiscal risk, more public infrastructure” is a compelling story. But despite the obvious need for much more investment in public infrastructure, intense interest among public-sector officials, and a huge amount of available private-sector capital, the development and adoption of P3s in the United States has been far slower than expected. Why?

The common theme of failed deals is not hard to find: sticker shock. Risk-transferring P3 transactions appear to be expensive compared to traditional alternatives, which erodes support and makes otherwise-surmountable issues fatal. But it is not substantively correct in many cases. It is actually a problem of measurement. If P3s are to fulfill their promise, we need better tools for measuring the value of what they are expected to deliver.

Risk-transferring P3s appear expensive because the existing ways of describing and evaluating infrastructure financing alternatives (such as the classic “value for money” analysis) focus on expected project-level costs but generally fail to adequately measure the value of funding risk transfer in the public sector’s specific fiscal context.

Such a one-sided analysis is akin to judging an insurance policy by adding up all the expected premium payments but ignoring the policyholder’s specific benefits of avoiding costly outcomes, such as personal bankruptcy, when an unexpected event occurs. Looked at this way, an insurance policy will at best appear to be a bad deal — and at worst an egregious waste of money that calls into question the purpose of the policy in the first place.

Inadequate measures of P3 value also impede risk-transferring product innovation. Despite private-sector infrastructure investors’ ability and motivation to develop innovative financing products, new infrastructure risk-sharing techniques won’t be pursued without a guide to their specific value to the public sector. This is true even where there is an intuitive understanding that risk transfer will be valuable to fiscally constrained governments.

Measuring the value of infrastructure risk transfer is not easy. It involves probabilistic modeling of uncertain factors and their interactions in both complex infrastructure projects and the public sector’s fiscal situation. A lot of data and math is required. But successful precedents in the private sector (most notably in financial portfolio management) show that a probability-based methodology can be the basis for practical and effective tools that could be widely used by real-world decision-makers.

A specialized tool for measuring the value of fiscal risk transfer that is accessible to non-technical users among public-sector decision-makers and stakeholders could directly address the problem that risk-transferring P3 transactions appear unnecessarily costly. With such a tool in place, the focus of P3 proposal development and evaluation would shift to optimizing the (now measurable) value of risk transfer for fiscally constrained governments, leading to faster product innovation, better deal-success ratios and higher levels of investment in public infrastructure.

Such a specialized tool for P3 risk transfer doesn’t exist — but it could. There’s already powerful off-the-shelf software, abundant fiscal data for U.S. state and local governments, and skillful and motivated people on all sides of the P3 equation. The tool should be designed first and foremost to protect the public sector from bad deals — and to do this in a way that is clear and transparent to a broad range of stakeholders. But it also must ensure that genuinely valuable P3 proposals get a fair hearing.

Given the scale of the challenge of improving America’s public infrastructure, developing better ways to correctly evaluate all of the public sector’s options is clearly worth the effort. Measurement of P3 value should be part of the solution, not the problem.

GOVERNING.COM

BY JOHN RYAN | MARCH 11, 2016




GASB Request for Research.

Gil Crain Memorial Research Grant

Since its formation in 1984, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has encouraged academics and other researchers to conduct studies that would be relevant to the GASB’s standards-setting activities. For more than 30 years, such research efforts have resulted in publishing their research in research briefs, journal articles, and occasionally in GASB research reports.

The GASB hopes to encourage more collaborative research efforts with academics by offering two $5,000 research grants, to be awarded by the end of June 2016.

To learn more, click here.




Experts to Convene to Discuss Federal Scoring Solutions.

Restrictive budgetary rules that make it difficult for the federal government to negotiate real estate leases and public-private partnerships will be explored in-depth during NCPPP’s Federal P3 Summit in Washington, D.C.

Federal scoring makes such projects very expensive for agencies to pursue because Appendix B of Circular A-11, issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), treats as a capital lease any lease that ends in government ownership of the developed asset. An agency must record, or “score,” in its budget the entire cost of a capital lease the year the agency enters into it. Operating leases, on the other hand, can be scored year by year, explained Dorothy Robyn, former head of the U.S. General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service in a Brookings Institution blog.

“OMB and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have gradually extended the reach of A-11 to preclude most public-private ventures aimed at financing federal acquisition of capital assets,” noted Robyn.

NCPPP will hold two sessions on federal scoring during the Summit. The first will provide an introduction to the issue and set the stage for the second session during which Robyn and several other experts will discuss the merits of potential solutions and the extent to which they are likely to be implemented.

The introductory session will be moderated by Sandy Hoe, Senior of Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP, and feature:

The second session, “Point/Counterpoint Debate on Federal Budget Scoring Issues,” to be moderated by George Schlossberg, Partner at Kutak Rock LLP, will feature views from Robyn and panelists:

To help develop solutions to the obstacles federal scoring imposes, NCPPP will use the discussions held during these sessions in a federal scoring research project it is conducting with the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Public Development Infrastructure Council, which is funding this effort. ULI also will discuss this issue during an expert’s roundtable at its spring meeting.

The Federal P3 Summit will be held March 17-18 at the FHI 360 Conference Center in Washington, D.C. For more information about this event and to register, visit the event website.

NCPPP

By March 4, 2016




MSRB: Muni Trading Volume Continues to Fall in 2015.

WASHINGTON — Municipal bond trading volume fell 13% during 2015 while the overall number of trades remained relatively stable, continuing a pattern that stretches back to 2007, according to data released Thursday by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

The 2015 level of $2.42 trillion in total par amount of bonds traded was down from about $2.77 trillion the year before and a significant decrease from the peak of $6.7 trillion in 2007. The MSRB’s data for the third quarter of 2015 showed the trading volume was the lowest it has been since at least 2005, when the self-regulator began recording market statistics.

The decrease can mostly be attributed to the continued fall of the total par amount traded for variable rate securities, the board said. The volume of variable rate trades dropped 40% year over year in 2015 while the par amount traded for fixed rate securities grew nearly 5% in 2015 when compared to the year before.

Despite the falling trading volume, the actual number of trades rose in 2015 to about 9.26 million from roughly 8.91 million in 2014. The number of trades has ranged between 8.91 million and about 10.6 million since 2007. The combination of lower trading volume and stable numbers of total trades suggests there has been a drop in average trade size over time.

The data also shows that customer trades, as a part of overall trading volume, has also slipped slightly over the last few years, falling to 77% in 2015 from 84% in 2011. Interdealer trades as a percentage of trading volume, in turn, grew every year during that span, rising to 24% of the volume in 2015 compared to only 16% in 2011.

Puerto Rico bonds and New Jersey transportation bonds topped the most traded bond lists. A Commonwealth of Puerto Rico bond with a 2035 maturity and an 8% coupon led with a trading volume of $7.48 billion in 2015 and a New Jersey State Transportation Fund Authority bond with a 2044 maturity and 4.25% coupon had the most number of trades, at 6,741.

The Fact Book also tracks the number of continuing disclosure documents issuers have submitted over the past few years. Overall disclosures declined about 6% in 2015 from 2014, but are still about 12% higher than they were in 2013, according to the board.

The large spike in disclosures in 2014 coincided with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s introduction of its Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation initiative in March of that year. The initiative allows issuers and underwriters to get more lenient settlements from the SEC for self-reporting any time during a five-year period that an issuer said it was in compliance with its continuing disclosure obligations, when it was not. Municipal market participants have credited MCDC with improving their continuing disclosure compliance.

While many of the breakdowns explaining the different financial documents that were submitted remained similar between 2014 and 2015, the number of filings to disclose a failure to provide annual financial information decreased 22% to 5,716 from 7,323 the year before.

Many of the document submissions for event notices also stayed relatively similar year over year, but the MSRB data shows there were 21 documents filed to disclose an adverse tax opinion or event affecting tax-exempt status compared to nine in 2014. There were also 33 fewer notices filed because of bankruptcies and receiverships and 53 fewer documents filed because of non-payment related defaults.

The MSRB’s Fact Book is compiled using information dealers and issuers submit throughout the year that is posted on the self-regulator’s EMMA system, the sole repository for required disclosures in the muni market.

THE BOND BUYER

BY JACK CASEY

MAR 3, 2016 3:14pm ET




Pension Fears Cloud U.S. Municipal Debt Market.

On the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, just across from the hot dog stands and thrill rides on the old Steel Pier, sits the Trump Taj Mahal. Opened in 1990, it went bust a year later. Two other casinos carrying the name of Donald Trump went the same way over the following years. The Taj — which failed again in 2014 — was sold last week to Carl Icahn after emerging from bankruptcy protection.

But Mr Trump — the frontrunner in the race for the Republicans’ pick for president — is not the only one to have struggled in this rundown gambling resort in the south of New Jersey. The city itself is on the verge of running out of money, laid low by years of duff investments, plunging property tax receipts and competition from a new crop of casinos across the north-east.

Serious trouble could still be averted. State governor Chris Christie — now a potential running mate for Mr Trump — could come up with a rescue package acceptable to the city before April, which is when cash flows turn negative, on Standard & Poor’s projections. But in the meantime, the fate of the city’s debt is weighing on America’s $3.7tn municipal bond market. Investors know that when it comes to the crunch, pensioners tend to do better than bondholders.

That was the case in Detroit, the biggest ever collapse three years ago, which inflicted losses on holders of its “general obligation” bonds. Such instruments are not attached to any particular stream of revenue but were nonetheless thought to be rock-solid, as they are backed by a full faith and credit pledge and the unlimited taxing authority of the city. Even so, investors in Detroit’s GO bonds took big hits as the city restructured its balance sheet — just as investors in other classes of bond did after the bankruptcies of Stockton, Vallejo and San Bernardino, all within the past few years.

The threat of more battles between retirees and bondholders is bothering Peter Hayes, who oversees $110bn of state and local debt as the head of the municipal bond group at BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager. Everyone is anxiously eyeing Chicago’s $20bn unfunded pension liability — in particular, he says, conscious of the mismatch between the short horizon of the typical term of political office and the very long horizon of pension obligations. Time and again, politicians have shown that they’d rather protect voters than investors.

Detroit “set a fairly dangerous precedent” for GO bondholders, he says. “Politics seemed to trump the rule of law.”

Some lobby groups are urging authorities to cut pensions benefits, as persistently low interest rates increase the present value of their future burdens. In Philadelphia, for example, a watchdog has urged the mayor, the city council, the pensions board and union groups to combine to put its $4.8bn pension fund on a firmer footing.

What credit rating agencies want to see from all municipalities is some kind of plan, says Jane Ridley, a senior director in the US public finance team at S&P in New York. It does not particularly matter what the plan looks like, or what kind of assumptions authorities are using. But a plan gives some comfort that they are not simply hoping that the problem goes away.

“Are they aware of it?” she asks. “What do the rising costs look like? What would they need to address over time to meet their obligations?”

Munis remain a haven, amid choppy fixed-income markets. There are still 336 triple-A American municipalities, on S&P’s count, from Acton Town in Massachusetts to Yorba Linda, California — all with solid economies, tight budgets, stable institutions and good liquidity. This week investors digested about $12bn of new issuance across the market, an unusually high amount, without much drama.

Even Chicago is still selling debt at reasonable rates. In January the city sold $500m of GO bonds with a 5 per cent coupon, yielding 229 basis points more than the benchmark rate for the best-rated borrowers. That was less than a 252 bps spread in a similar sale last July, shortly after Moody’s had downgraded the city’s credit rating to junk.

But a triple-C borrower like Atlantic City — which was rated single-A until 2012 — is a reminder of how quickly things can turn.

And when they do, investors are unlikely to emerge with the swagger of a Mr Trump.

“Stop saying I went bankrupt,” he tweeted last June. “I never went bankrupt but like many great business people have used the laws to corporate advantage — smart!”

Financial Times

by Ben McLannahan

Last updated: March 4, 2016 12:42 pm

ben.mclannahan@ft.com




Chapter 9 – Five Proposals for Meaningful Reform.

When the next recession occurs there probably will be other municipalities in severe fiscal distress that opt to file under chapter 9. Now is a good time for capital market participants to focus on changes to chapter 9 that address the lessons from the most recent round of municipal bankruptcies.

The most significant lesson is that chapter 9 is unclear in many respects such that judges, with little or no municipal experience, have the leverage to achieve settlements often unsatisfactory to the capital markets. Settlements are often agreed to as a means of avoiding the risk of creating bad legal precedent. To address the lack of clarity of chapter 9 and to root it in municipal realities, we suggest the following as the top five critical changes that should be made to protect the capital markets.

1. Restricted Funds Should Be Treated in the Same Manner as Special Revenue

In the municipal world, bonds may be payable from a specified revenue stream that may not be used for any other purpose or that must be used to pay the bonds before being used for any other purpose. The restricted revenue stream is typically deposited into a special fund on behalf of bondholders. Substantively the restricted use serves a similar function as a lien.

An undecided issue in chapter 9 is whether the owners of bonds payable from restricted funds have a property interest in these funds that will be protected in the event of a bankruptcy filing.

This issue was raised but not decided by the court in the Detroit bankruptcy. Chapter 9 should be amended to provide that bonds backed by restricted funds are protected in the same way as special revenue bonds. The same principles apply – the bondholders are taking the risk of a specified revenue stream and this risk should not be impacted by a bankruptcy filing.

2. Intercept Structures Should Be Immune from a Chapter 9 Filing

In municipal finance, bonds are often paid from monies due from a State to a municipality. These monies are intercepted and paid directly to the trustee on behalf of bondholders. A lien is typically not granted on these State payments, but the intent is to provide special protection to bondholders so that these credits are evaluated based on the likelihood of the State payments being made.

An open issue in chapter 9 is whether these State payments are property of the municipality. If they are property of the municipality, the automatic stay applies. This issue was litigated but not decided by the court in the Vallejo bankruptcy. Chapter 9 should be amended to provide that

State aid intercepts are not property of the municipality. This would allow bonds backed by these

State payments to continue to be paid during the bankruptcy case, thereby preserving the basic credit risk intended when these bonds were issued.

3. Special Revenue Bonds Should Not Be Subject to Cram Down

Another unresolved issue in chapter 9 is whether special revenue bonds may be crammed down.

This issue was litigated but not decided in the Detroit bankruptcy.

The cram down provisions allow a secured creditor class to be bound by a plan even if this class

does not vote in favor of the plan so long as at least one impaired class votes for the plan and the secured creditor receives treatment based on the court-determined value of the property securing the debt and/or an adequate rate of interest. A cram down could, therefore, result in the lowering of the principal amount of the bonds or a lowering of the interest rate.

Chapter 9 incorporates the chapter 11 cram down provisions. However, the structure and intent of special revenue bonds is that they not be impacted by a bankruptcy filing. This creates an ambiguity in the Code that should be rectified. Chapter 9 should be amended to provide explicitly that special revenue bonds and bonds payable from restricted funds cannot be crammed down.

4. The `Best Interests of Creditors’ Test Should Be Defined and Rooted in Municipal Realities

In chapter 11, a plan must satisfy the best interests of creditors test by providing each group of creditors, as well as creditors as a whole, with at least as great a recovery as would have occurred in the event of a hypothetical liquidation. The test sets a minimum bar for class and aggregate creditor recoveries.

Because municipalities cannot liquidate, the chapter 11 liquidation test does not work in a chapter 9. Consequently, courts have compared plan recoveries with recoveries that would have occurred in the event the case were hypothetically dismissed. But in doing so, several courts have held that a dismissal would lead to a death spiral, and therefore invariably conclude that the best interests of creditors test has been satisfied no matter what the level of class and aggregate recoveries. This interpretation of the test renders it ineffective to protect creditors.

To address this inadequacy, chapter 9 should be amended to provide that the best interests of creditors test means:

A. Since in any dismissal certain claims would have stronger legal rights under State law, a plan must provide that any unsecured class that benefits from a state constitutional or statutory provision requiring superior payment of such obligations will be treated materially better than other unsecured claims. Superior claims would include (i) general obligation bonds backed by full faith and credit with no statutory limit on the ability to raise taxes to provide payment, (ii) pension payments with constitutional protections requiring payment under all circumstances, and (iii) obligations provided with an explicit constitutional or statutory first priority of payment.

B. In order to maximize aggregate creditor recoveries in a manner reasonable under the circumstances, a plan must provide that (i) the number of municipal employees, as well as their salaries and benefits, are comparable to those in municipalities of similar size, wealth and geographic area, (ii) taxes are raised as high as possible without causing a counterproductive economic impact, and (iii) the municipality maximizes the value of assets used for a proprietary rather than a public purpose, including monetizing such assets.

5. The Unfair Discrimination Test Should be Objective and Straightforward

Similarly situated classes of creditors may be treated materially differently only if there is no unfair discrimination. Courts have varied in their views of the meaning of unfair discrimination.

The court in Detroit held that discrimination is not unfair so long as the disparity does not violate the moral conscience of the court. This standard is totally subjective.

Chapter 9 should be amended to provide for an objective definition of unfair discrimination.

Materially different treatment between similarly situated classes should be considered fair only if either:

A. The class provided the better treatment has contributed equivalent new value to the municipality.

B. State law provides for materially better treatment for the class receiving the superior treatment.

This definition would be objective and similar to that used by many courts in chapter 11. The definition would provide a continuity of expectation based on State constitutional and statutory provisions designed to protect designated creditors.

These five proposed changes to chapter 9 would clarify the treatment of creditors and provide clearer guidance for the expectations of market participants. All of the changes are consistent with basic principles of municipal finance and should be integrated into chapter 9.

THE BOND BUYER

DAVID DUBROW

MAR 3, 2016 10:49am ET

David Dubrow is a partner at Arent Fox LLP in New York.




State-By-State Trends In U.S. Public Finance, 2015.

While upgrades far outnumbered downgrades in U.S. public finance (USPF) in 2015, the positive movement was not spread equally across the country. Some states experienced significant upward movement, while others saw more downgrades, and the reasons for the rating changes in 2015 varied. These same patterns could repeat in 2016, but changes in the economic environment of certain states could alter the reasons for rating changes and the general trend in rating movement. (Watch the related CreditMatters TV segment titled, “Why U.S. Public Finance Rating Trends Could Vary By State This Year,” dated March 2, 2016.)

Overview

Continue reading.

02-Mar-2016




BlackRock, Citi Say Buy Munis as Yields Climb From 50-Year Low.

Just weeks removed from the lowest municipal-bond yields in 50 years, BlackRock Inc. and Citigroup Inc. are imploring investors to buy.

Their recommendation stems from a confluence of factors, ranging from depressed yield levels worldwide to an imbalance of supply and demand in the $3.7 trillion municipal market. Though 10-year yields have climbed in March in six of the past seven years, now might be the best chance to buy tax-exempt debt, according to Vikram Rai, head of muni strategy at Citigroup in New York.

“This year, we expect that the cheapness could be relatively short-lived and we strongly recommend that investors utilize this temporary cheapness as buying opportunities before yields plummet again,” Rai said in a Feb. 29 report. “This is not the time to sit on the sidelines.”

Fixed-income investors have had to re-calibrate their expectations in 2016 as China’s economic slowdown and plunging oil prices have buffeted global equity markets, spurring demand for the safest assets. In the U.S., yields have plunged even though the Federal Reserve raised its target for the first time since 2006. That’s made muni buyers wary of calling a bottom to rates.

BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager, shares Citi’s view of taking advantage of increased yields.

Supply is building in the coming weeks, making it tougher for states and cities to borrow at current levels. They may have to offer investors better deals.

“Seasonal weakness, when we see that, is often a good opportunity to buy at better value, so look for that coming up in the near-term,” said Peter Hayes, who oversees $110 billion of state and local debt as the head of BlackRock’s muni group.

Here are four charts that show what BlackRock and Citi see in the market.

Absolute Advantage

Benchmark 10-year muni yields have climbed from near-record lows, making them more appealing to fixed-income investors. At 1.76 percent, the Bloomberg index is the highest since January and up 0.2 percentage point from Feb. 11.

Before the yield increase, some individual investors were in “rate shock,” Rai said.

“It’s really nothing more than the market hitting resistance,” said Sean Carney, head of muni strategy at BlackRock. “It’s a pullback in a market that has come a long way and is going to assess the next move.”

Supply Glut

An increase in municipal-bond supply gave investors the opportunity to be more picky in their purchases, leading to higher yields. Long-term fixed-rate issuance reached $9.8 billion in the week through Feb. 26, the highest since November, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“Some of the more recent deals have been met with a little bit more resistance,” Hayes said. “Supply is likely to pick up — especially given the fact that rates are so low.”

Crowded Market

State and local governments have scheduled about $15 billion of bond sales in the next 30 days, the largest slate since November, Bloomberg data show. The figure tends to underestimate the amount of offerings because some are announced just days in advance.

That’s a trend muni investors usually encounter. Issuance in March has exceeded that in January and February each year since 2012, Bloomberg data show. That contributes to benchmark yields typically increasing during the month.

What could offset that this year is if non-traditional muni investors consider the bonds with global yields near record lows, Rai said. While corporate debt seems cheap to state and local securities, munis benefit from the flight to safe assets that has pushed U.S. Treasury yields lower and 10-year debt from Japan and Switzerland to below-zero rates.
Relatively Cheap

The 1.76 percent yield on benchmark 10-year munis compares with 1.75 percent on similar-maturity Treasuries, Bloomberg data show. The ratio is a measure of relative value between the asset classes. It climbed to 101 percent on Monday, the highest since October, signaling that tax-free bonds are cheap relative to their federal counterparts.

Investors who don’t benefit from tax-exempt interest will occasionally cross over and add munis when their absolute yields increase. Over the past 10 years, the ratio has averaged 97.6 percent.
For an individual in the top federal income-tax bracket, the muni yield is equivalent to 3.1 percent on taxable securities.

Munis overall have returned 1.2 percent this year, compared with 3.2 percent for Treasuries, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show. For tax-exempt debt, coupon payments have driven most of the gains, rather than a jump in bond prices.

The underperformance to Treasuries hasn’t yet turned muni mutual fund flows negative. Rather, they’ve seen money pour in for 21 straight weeks, the longest stretch since December 2014, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

“We’re going to tend to underperform when rates fall, as they’re doing now, particularly in this flight to quality we’re seeing in U.S. rates,” Hayes said. “But when rates do rise, we tend to outperform.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

February 29, 2016 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on March 1, 2016 — 5:48 AM PST




States Losing Ability to Borrow at Record Lows as Issuance Rises.

States from California to Massachusetts are paying the highest premiums in three months when selling bonds as a flurry of tax-exempt debt issuance is met with slowing inflows into municipal mutual funds.

Municipal issuers plan to sell $10.6 billion of long-term fixed-rate debt this week, more than any five-day period since Nov. 16, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Massachusetts sold $1.1 billion Thursday, in the second-biggest deal of the week.

“When the new issue guys start making calls, they don’t get as a receptive of a phone call as when the market’s running hot and when the funds are getting a ton of cash,” said Matt Dalton, chief executive officer of Rye Brook, New York-based Belle Haven Investments, which oversees $4 billion of municipal bonds.

The spread, or extra yield, investors demand on Massachusetts debt above AAA rated bonds is 0.22 percentage point, or 0.065 percentage point more than the three-month average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Last week, California spreads reached a three-month high of 0.31 percentage point.

Yield premiums on state general-obligation bonds are rising as investors pay closer attention to growing pension deficits and retiree health care liabilities, according to Bob DiMella, co-head of MacKay Municipal Managers at the investment advisory firm MacKay Shields LLC.

U.S. state pensions had 74 percent of assets required to meet obligations to retirees in fiscal 2015, down from 77 percent in the prior year, Wilshire Consulting said Tuesday. On top of that, new government accounting standards may reveal that state and local governments that previously addressed pension funding still face risks or remain underfunded.

Negative Outlook

Massachusetts, which ranks second behind Connecticut for the highest per capita income, had its credit-rating outlook changed to negative by Standard & Poor’s in November because the state was drawing down reserves even as the economy was recovering from the Great Recession. Reserves have declined as spending has outpaced revenue. S&P rates Massachusetts’ general obligation bonds AA+, the second-highest investment grade.

Massachusetts is projecting reserves of $1.35 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, about $220 million less than the previous year, according to S&P. The state has also suspended transfers of excess capital gains tax revenue to a budget stabilization fund.

“In general, we expect states to set aside during good times, extra revenues into a budget stabilization fund for use during the downturn,” said S&P analyst David Hitchcock “The concern is here, they’re having strong growth in revenue and they’re not building up reserves for the bad times.”

Fund Flows

In February, municipal bond mutual funds netted $4.8 billion, a $200 million decline from the previous month, according to Lipper US Fund Flow data. Money has flowed to muni mutual funds for 21 straight weeks.
“Over the month of February that money has been placed so things are slowing down a little bit, which has caused spreads to widen,” Dalton said. “There’s still cash and cash is still coming in, but it’s not piling up like it was,” Dalton said.

In a Wednesday order period for individual investors, Massachusetts sold at least $160 million of the bonds, said Assistant Treasurer Sue Perez. The commonwealth was expecting retail orders of $120 million to $150 million, she said.

The higher premiums were reflected in the prices set Thursday after mutual funds and other big buyers submitted orders. The 10-year bonds were sold for yields of 2.08 percent, or 0.32 percentage point more than top-rated bonds with the same maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Thirty-year callable bonds were priced to yield 3.02 percent.

Supply next will be lighter than initially anticipated, she said. As of Wednesday, states and local governments plan $6.4 billion in long-term bond sales, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“That may actually work to our favor,” said Perez.

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, proposed a $39.6 billion budget in January that deposits $206 million of excess capital gains tax revenue into the budget stabilization fund, a positive development, according to S&P. The amount is $150 million less than the $356 million that would have been deposited under a state formula.

“It wouldn’t be the full amount but it would be at least an increase that they haven’t seen for three years,” Hitchcock said.

Massachusetts’ economy, anchored by higher education, health-care and technology sectors, is performing better than the nation as a whole. The state’s unemployment rate was 4.7 percent in 2015 compared with 5 percent for the U.S.

Even so, the commonwealth is burdened by a growing debt service and pension costs. The pension fund had 61 percent of assets required to meet obligations to retirees in 2015 compared with 78.6 percent in 2008, according to S&P.

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

March 2, 2016 — 9:00 PM PST Updated on March 3, 2016 — 11:59 AM PST




Bloomberg Brief Weekly Video - 03/03

Taylor Riggs, a contributor to Bloomberg Briefs, talks with reporter Joe Mysak about this week’s municipal market news.

Watch the video.

March 3, 2016




Municipalities Risk Missing Refinancing Window as Issuance Slows.

State and local governments in 30 U.S. states borrowed less for the sole purpose of replacing higher-cost debt than they did during the same period in 2015, causing them to miss out on an unexpected persistence of cheap money that may not last. They were slow to take advantage of interest rates that touched five-decade lows in February amid volatility in financial markets, only to edge back up as stocks rallied.

 

“2016 has produced something of a surprise for a lot of bankers, and I think it takes a while to crank up the machinery to do the refundings,” said James Dearborn, who oversees $29.5 billion as head of municipal bonds in Boston at Columbia Threadneedle Investments. “Maybe what we’re seeing is just that delay from the outset of the year.”

Local governments raced to refinance last year before the Federal Reserve increased borrowing costs for the first time since 2006, easing away from the near zero interest rates that had been in place since the worst of the credit crisis. After the Fed’s initial jump in December, turmoil in the global equity and credit markets has dashed most forecasts for higher rates this year. Investors now project a 10 percent probability the central bank will tighten monetary policy at its March 16 meeting, down from 50 percent at the end of 2015, according to pricing in interest-rate futures markets.

The slowdown in bond sales follows a years-long push by states and cities to cut costs because of the financial effects of the recession, which left officials hesitant to run up new debts. As a result, the $3.7 trillion municipal market is smaller than it was at the end of 2010, according to Fed data.

 

While issuance climbed in the first eight months of 2015, bond sales dropped each month since November compared with a year earlier, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Municipalities sold about $27 billion of bonds for the sole purpose of refinancing during the first eight weeks of this year, compared with about $32.5 billion at the start of 2015, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

There are about $15 billion of bond sales scheduled over the next 30 days, the most since November, Bloomberg data show. The actual amount may be even higher as some deals are made public only days ahead of time. The governments may have missed out on the best time to borrow: Yields on top-rated 10-year bonds have climbed to 1.77 percent from as little as 1.57 percent on Feb. 11, according to Bloomberg indexes.

 

 

Analysts and investors predict that the pace may pick up. Phil Fischer, head of municipal research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, forecasts that there will be about $440 billion of municipal bonds issued this year, up from about $403 billion in 2015.

“We’re expecting a pretty hefty year of issuance,” Fischer said. “We’ve got more bonds to issue and rates are even lower now than they were last year.”

Issuance should be higher now, given how low rates are and the demand from investors for new securities, according to Dan Solender, head of municipals at in Jersey City, New Jersey for Lord Abbett & Co., which manages $18 billion of the debt.

“Going forward, if it’s in the money to do the refunding, you’d expect them to happen because the demand is pretty strong in the market,” he said. “And there’s plenty of room for more supply.”

Bloomberg Business

by Elizabeth Campbell

March 1, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on March 2, 2016 — 5:47 AM PST




Buying Cigarettes With Gas Money Keeps Tobacco-Bond Rally Aflame.

Lower-for-longer oil prices might mean higher-for-longer prices on municipal tobacco bonds.

Tobacco securities, which are repaid from legal-settlement money that states and localities receive from cigarette companies, have been a top-performer over the past two years. That’s because — for the first time in a decade — Americans aren’t giving up smoking. Instead, as gasoline costs plummet to the lowest level since 2009 along with oil prices, they’re spending their savings on cigarettes. And the more the companies sell, the more governments get.

High-yield tobacco debt has gained 2.8 percent in 2016, compared with 1.5 percent for all speculative-grade obligations and 1.1 percent for munis as a whole, Barclays Plc data show. Some securities are at the highest prices since 2013 after the segment of the market posted double-digit returns in each of the last two years.

“One of the benefits of low energy prices is when people go and buy their cigarettes, instead of getting the no-frills brand, they can actually buy the major manufacturers, which is good for our tobacco bonds,” said Jim Schwartz, the head municipal credit analyst at BlackRock Inc., which oversees $110 billion of state and local debt.

Across the U.S. tobacco industry, cigarette shipment volumes were little changed in 2015 compared with a year earlier, according to regulatory filings from Reynolds American Inc. The company, along with Lorillard Inc. and Philip Morris USA, agreed in a 1998 settlement to make annual payments to states in perpetuity to settle liabilities for health-care costs tied to smoking.

Reynolds, the maker of Camel and Pall Mall cigarettes, shook up the tobacco industry last year when it paid $25 billion to acquire Lorillard, whose biggest product is the Newport menthol line. With the new brand, Reynolds’s shipment volume grew 17 percent year-over-year. In a conference call, Debra Crew, president of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, cited lower gasoline prices as a reason for higher sales.

The resilience of cigarette purchases is a departure from the trend over the past decade, when tobacco companies saw demand decline in the face of anti-smoking campaigns, higher taxes and the growth of e-cigarettes. From 2007 to 2014, shipments fell an average of 4.7 percent annually, according to the National Association of Attorneys General. The 0.1 percent decline last year was the least since 2006.

Tobacco debt has rarely had a bad day in 2016, gaining in 32 of 41 trading sessions, according to data from S&P Dow Jones Indices.

“The market is catching up to how large of an impact near-term consumption declines can have to long-term bond valuations,” said David Hammer, who oversees about $40 billion as co-head of the muni portfolio team at Pacific Investment Management Co.

The largest single tobacco bond, a Ohio obligation with a June 2047 maturity, climbed to an average 90.4 cents on the dollar on March 1, the highest since May 2013, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s equivalent to a 6.6 percent tax-free yield. The debt is rated six steps below investment grade by Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s.

Most tobacco securities are considered junk because when governments first sold them more than a decade ago to get advances on their legal settlements, they didn’t anticipate how quickly Americans would give up smoking. Moody’s projects that a 4 percent annual decline in cigarette shipments would cause 80 percent of the bonds to default.

“We continue to use a more severe consumption decline scenario than what we’ve experienced historically as our base case,” said Hammer, whose high-yield municipal fund has outperformed 99 percent of peers in the past year. The top three holdings are tobacco securities. “But we have acknowledged the recent trend that consumption declines have slowed, which makes a big difference on tobacco bonds as a whole.”

The bonds are different than most in the $3.7 trillion municipal market because they’ll continue to pay in perpetuity, even if there’s not enough money to make full payments and they default. Tobacco securities are also among the most frequently traded because sometimes taxable buyers will step in and purchase the obligations if they get too cheap.

That probably hasn’t been the case lately, because the taxable high-yield market has been dragged down by energy companies, making corporate debt cheap relative to municipal tobacco bonds.

“If you’re a corporate high-yield buyer, it’s the most expensive you’ve seen them since the financial crisis,” said Guy Davidson, director of municipal fixed-income in New York at AllianceBernstein Holding LP, which oversees about $32 billion of state and local debt. “I’d bet most of the buyers in the last year have been muni buyers and the sellers have been largely taxable ones.”

With Puerto Rico tied up in a restructuring battle, speculative-grade muni investors have few alternatives to buy, meaning tobacco bonds could continue to climb, Davidson said. He helps run a $2.3 billion high-yield fund that has four of its five largest holdings in tobacco. It beat 95 percent of peers in the past year.

Individuals have poured money into high-yield municipal funds for 21 straight weeks, adding $4.2 billion over the period, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

It also helps that gasoline remains below $2 a gallon and the national unemployment rate is the lowest since February 2008. Neither metric shows signs of changing soon.

“People have more money in their pockets and they seem to be buying cigarettes,” Davidson said. “We think tobacco bonds are still attractive. We wouldn’t underweight them, even though they’ve had a good run.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

March 3, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on March 4, 2016 — 4:48 AM PST




Fitch: January Air Traffic Should Lift Most U.S. Airports.

Fitch Ratings-New York-02 March 2016: US airports will likely see benefits from the continued increases in air traffic that were indicated by January’s air traffic results, Fitch Ratings says. However, even with solid overall growth that follows 2015’s impressive gains, a few air carriers are lagging the others, which may cause their shared hubs to underperform compared with other US airports. We expect some of the carriers’ key airports to be at some near-term risk to maintain their recent growth given their relative tightness in expanding carrier capacity as well as capital development at their respective terminals and airfields.

The five largest US airlines reported that their January traffic and capacity numbers rose despite a northeast blizzard that cancelled an estimated 10,000 flights and closed airports from the Carolinas through New England. The median traffic growth rate rose 3.7% compared with January 2015.

In our view, January traffic numbers can be a leading indicator of annual momentum. Both economic conditions and carrier profitability can cause some deviation. Fitch expects 3.0%-3.5% passenger growth at US airports in 2016, following a nearly 5% gain in 2015. We expect major market airports to lead while performance at smaller airports and secondary hubs will see mixed results.

JetBlue and Southwest Airlines reported top growth consistent with prior periods, indicating that airports like Logan International Airport in Boston, Orlando International Airport, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and Tampa international Airport will benefit.

In contrast, growth at United Airlines and American Airlines was lower than that of the other major carriers in January, as it was in all of 2014 and 2015. Chicago O’Hare International Airport is unique in that it is a big hub for both carriers but is benefiting from infrastructure investments at the airfield to limit delays, increasing its attractiveness to travelers. O’Hare has other carriers serving the market that should help it rise to even higher levels this year. Newark Liberty International Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and Charlotte Douglas International Airport also have United and American near their top.




Fitch: Flint, Chicago Lead Lawsuits Pressure Water Sector.

Fitch Ratings-New York-04 March 2016: Lawsuits filed against the city of Flint, MI and the city of Chicago could have a broad, long-term impact on the entire US water sector, Fitch Ratings says. Utilities are stepping up education efforts to bolster public confidence while also evaluating their existing treatment protocols to ensure ongoing water quality. Significant investment in service line replacement also may be forthcoming over the near term, particularly if the Environmental Protection Agency materially alters existing rules.

Various lawsuits filed against Flint and certain government officials allege that the water residents were using was unsafe. The city had changed water sources and the lawsuits state that the newer source had higher corrosive properties that eroded the pipes, leading to highly elevated lead levels in the water. Separately, certain Chicago residents filed suit against the city within the last several days alleging that repairs by Chicago to its water system allowed dangerous levels of lead to enter the drinking water supply and that the city did not sufficiently notify residents that they may have been exposed.

The EPA currently regulates drinking water exposure to lead based on its Lead and Copper Rule, which seeks to minimize lead in drinking water primarily through corrosion control of lead pipes. If corrosion control is not effective the rule can require water quality monitoring and treatment, corrosion control treatment, the removal of lead lines and public education. The EPA is considering strengthening the rule sometime later this year or next. In light of these lawsuits and the heightened public focus on possible lead contamination, Fitch expects any proposed rule revisions will likely move the industry toward removing all lead service lines.

Reprioritizing and accelerating lead pipe replacement would add significant additional capital needs to the sector and could compete with other critical infrastructure projects, including developing sufficient long-term water supplies and replacing aging infrastructure components other than lead lines. Some sources estimate over 6 million lead service lines exist across the US. Many of these are located in the Northeast, Midwest and older urban areas. We believe the capital costs to replace these lines could exceed $275 billion. The EPA’s latest survey estimated the entire sector needs $385 billion in water infrastructure improvements through 2030 and this estimate includes the costs to only partially replace lead pipes. Either level of capital cost would likely be manageable for the sector as a whole if it is spread out over a time frame like the one in the EPA survey. However, implementation over a shorter time span may create stress for individual credits.




RFC: GASB Research Projects.

Every year, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) reaches out to poll Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC) members (e.g., NFMA) about prioritizing their large volume of research projects.

NFMA gets to select six high priority and six medium priority research projects from the list on Attachment D.  A description of each GASB research project is in Attachment A.

If you wish to submit your vote for any GASB research project as a high/medium priority project, email your choice to Gil Southwell at gsouthwe@wellscap.com by 3/25/2016.

National Federation of Municipal Analysts




S&P: Rating Structurally Enhanced Debt Issued By Regulated Utilities And Transportation Infrastructure Businesses.

1. Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services is updating its criteria for assigning issue credit ratings to structurally enhanced debt (SED) issued by regulated utilities and transportation infrastructure businesses. This update follows our “Request for Comment: Rating Structurally Enhanced Debt Issued By Regulated Utilities And Transportation Infrastructure Businesses,” published on Feb. 27, 2015. These criteria are related to the criteria “Methodology: Holding Companies That Own Corporate Securitizations And Structurally Enhanced Debt Transactions,” published on Feb. 24, 2016.

2. We define SED as debt that 1) is issued by a financing group that is delinked from its parent company (see chart 2), and 2) includes structural enhancements designed to reduce the likelihood that the financing group (including the related operating company) may default. For an operating company that experiences a moderate degree of underperformance, the enhancements provide a set credit remedy period (see glossary of terms) during which the company can take steps to stabilize its credit quality, or creditors can sell the company’s shares while it retains significant value. SED structures lack postinsolvency protection, unlike structures such as corporate securitizations.

3. The criteria partially supersede our “Methodology For Considering Pre-Insolvency Structural Protections In Europe,” published on Dec. 13, 2012, on RatingsDirect. It relates to the more general criteria articles “Principles Of Credit Ratings” published on Feb. 16, 2011, and “Corporate Methodology,” published on Nov. 19, 2013. The criteria explain how Standard & Poor’s applies its corporate methodology to SED and analyzes its specific features.

Continue reading.

24-Feb-2016




Finding the Express Lane to a Successful P3.

Managed-lane projects are springing up all over. There are some key considerations to making public-private partnerships work for them.

Even with the enactment in December of the new five-year federal transportation law, the Highway Trust Fund will remain underfunded to meet our needs as many heavily travelled corridors continue to deteriorate at a rapid pace. Public authorities will continue to look for new ways to manage highway congestion, make the best use of limited capacity, and pay for rehabilitation and expansion of existing roadway infrastructure.

“Managed lane” projects refer to toll roads where the rates motorists pay vary depending on the level of traffic: the more traffic, the higher the tolls. Drivers choose to either pay the tolls or stay in the adjacent free lanes. Public-private partnerships (P3s) have become an important tool to help meet many of these projects’ technical and financial challenges. But P3s have challenges of their own that sponsors of these kinds of projects will need to deal with.

A dozen managed-lane P3s have emerged across the country — including projects in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Texas — since the first one, the Capital Beltway Express Lanes project in northern Virginia, got underway in 2008, and several other jurisdictions are contemplating the use of P3s to deliver managed-lane projects.

Managed-lane projects are technically demanding, as they typically involve building or reconstructing busy highway corridors in densely-populated urban centers. They are also complicated in that they can require integration of active traffic management, variable-rate tolling, high occupancy vehicle enforcement and transit vehicles — or a blend of these — to improve overall traffic flow. These projects not only include the construction of new lanes but also the conversion of existing free or HOV lanes.

Historically, variations of the managed-lane concept have been attempted using conventional design-bid-build procurements financed with traditional techniques, such as tax-exempt bonds or toll revenue bonds, and paid for with associated toll revenues. Even using these conventional, well-understood project delivery methods, managed-lane projects are complex, and a P3 approach can take on added commercial and financial dimensions that can be even more difficult to navigate. To maximize the chances for success, there are three common factors that public project sponsors should consider:

• Establish a clear decision framework: The decision to deliver a managed-lane project as a P3 is often assessed using a value-for-money framework, which evaluates whether the public sponsor receives better value on a risk-adjusted basis for the life of the project through the P3 alternative than through a more traditional project-delivery and financing model. Having a clear decision framework that assesses risk factors such as financial feasibility, operations and maintenance, and design and construction is critically important. Such a framework supports defensible, well-informed decisions and allows public officials to communicate a project’s benefits with confidence.

• Create innovative structures to fill the funding gap: All large infrastructure projects depend on a reliable funding plan — a particular challenge for managed-lane P3s, which tend to be among the largest and most costly highway projects in the market. Most of these projects are tolled, and the uncertainty of forecasting traffic demand and toll revenue makes their funding plans more difficult to analyze and structure.

To address this challenge, successful managed-lanes project funding plans must balance three major elements: payment mechanisms for private developers (that is, whether they get paid based on how many cars use the tolled lanes or a set amount each year depending on their performance in managing and maintaining the road); financial structuring (whether the public sponsor guarantees the amount of toll revenue) and tolling policies (such as whether HOVs ride free in the toll lanes and how tolls are adjusted over time). An approach that takes into account all of those elements will help sponsors to better address funding gaps.

• Incentivize high-performance infrastructure: One advantage of P3 structures is that commercial incentives for private-sector innovations can drive down costs, accelerate project completion and improve overall asset performance (the condition of the facility and its ability to function as intended) and corridor throughput (how many vehicles pass through the facility over time) . P3 contracts typically define the required performance standards for the private developer, and their payments are contingent on meeting those standards. P3s typically include contractual mechanisms that require the private developer to maintain a defined level of throughput or be subject to financial penalties. Private developers are strongly motivated to achieve these objectives when their own capital is at risk.

Ultimately when officials consider whether a managed-lane project should be developed as a P3 transaction, project owners must know what questions to ask in search of striking a correct balance between the public interest and a project’s benefits to developers and investors. Finding this balance is not easy, but the right blend of private-sector creativity, innovation and risk transfer can deliver successful solutions.

GOVERNING.COM

BY ED CROOKS | FEBRUARY 25, 2016

Ed Crooks leads KPMG’s Water and Wastewater Public-Private Partnerships activities in the United States. The views expressed are his alone and do not necessarily represent those of KPMG.




Moody's: Governments Well Positioned to Handle P3 Financial Obligations.

Using public-private partnerships to develop large public projects has had a “limited impact” on governments’ credit profiles, Moody’s Investors Service concluded.

Most governments “have proved resilient” in meeting both negotiated financial obligations — such as making availability payments — and potential contingencies, the credit rating agency said in a press release announcing a new report on its findings (paywall). A Moody’s representative offers several reasons for this finding.

“Funding for PPP projects is often spread over a long period of time. Fiscal commitments are often small in scale relative to the size of a government’s balance sheet and revenue sources,” explained Kathrin Heitmann, an analyst in Moody’s Project Finance and Infrastructure team.

The United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have the most experience conducting P3s and have developed strong secondary and refinancing markets and legal frameworks to support P3s, Moody’s pointed out.

The United States, on the other hand, has been slower to adopt the procurement method, in part because of the ready availability of municipal bond financing for large infrastructure projects. Moody’s estimates, for example, that only 0.5 percent of California’s net tax-supported debt is associated with P3s. In Florida the amount is 11.4 percent and in triple-A rated Indiana, about 24 percent, reported Reuters. As a result, developers view the United States as the world’s largest virtually untapped P3 market, noted the news agency.

Countries whose credit profiles are most likely to be affected by real or potential P3 financial obligations are those that are struggling through economic downturns or “have low creditworthiness,” reported Moody’s.

The ratings agency acknowledged that its findings are not comprehensive because the financial details of P3s that have been negotiated are not always disclosed fully.

“Additional reporting provided by some governments beyond mandatory reporting requirements enhances transparency and facilitates our assessment of both contractual and contingent PPP payment obligations,” said Heitmann.

By NCPPP

February 25, 2016




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast: (The Not-For-Profit Health Care Outlook And Our Rating Action On North Dakota)

In this week’s Extra Credit, Senior Director Kevin Holloran discusses the rationale behind our 2016 outlook for the not-for-profit health care sector and Associate Director Carol Spain addresses questions concerning our recent rating action on North Dakota.

Listen to the Podcast.

Feb. 26, 2016




S&P: U.S. Not-For-Profit Health Care Outlook Remains Stable In 2016 On Sector Recovery.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ outlook on the U.S. not-for-profit health care sector remains stable despite industry pressures (see “U.S. Not-For-Profit Health Care Sector Outlook Revised To Stable From Negative, Though Uncertainties Persist,” Sept. 9, 2015), reflecting operational improvements driven by the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion, through a noted boost in volumes, revenues, and improved payor mix; management initiatives that have delivered on their early promise to improve performance; increasing balance sheet flexibility with generally higher levels of unrestricted reserves as compared to a few years ago; and continued operational benefits from recent merger and acquisition (M&A) activity.

Overview

Continue reading.

25-Feb-2016




Rhode Island's New Route for Funding Bridge Repairs: Truck Tolls.

Rhode Island has the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the country — 23 percent. Now, it’s taking a novel approach to paying for their repair: Truck-only tolls on major bridges throughout the state.

Rhode Island lawmakers adopted the plan earlier this month, and Gov. Gina Raimondo promptly signed off on it. The agency estimates that tractor trailers cause 70 percent of the damage to the state’s roads every year, but currently account for just 20 percent of the revenue to pay for that infrastructure.

Overcoming opposition from truckers, the new law authorizes tolls of up to $20 on large commercial trucks for a statewide trip on Interstate 95. The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) anticipates that once it starts collecting tolls over the next two years, they’ll raise $45 million a year — a 10 percent increase to the agency’s budget.

That money, combined with $420 million worth of bonding, would pay for repairs or replacement of 650 bridges in the next decade. That would bring the percentage of structurally deficient bridges to under 10 percent, as required by federal law, according to RIDOT spokesman Charles St. Martin.

“Trucks are the vehicles that impose the greatest amount of damage on the highways,” said Patrick Jones, the head of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, an industry group. “In fact, when you’re building the highways, you’re building them to handle heavy trucks.”

Rhode Island’s approach is unique in the United States, Jones said. It is “probably the only state that is imposing tolls only on trucks, not on all vehicles,” he said. “However, if you look at the entire world, it’s not uncommon.” Germany and Switzerland, for example, have nationwide truck tolls.

Raimondo, who originally pushed a plan with even higher tolls on trucks last year, argued that Rhode Island was virtually alone among Northeastern states in not tolling the interstate. Connecticut, which removed its tolls following a deadly 1983 crash at a toll plaza, is the only other state between Maryland and Maine that doesn’t use tolls. Although, lawmakers there are reconsidering that stance.

Trucking groups fought the proposal vigorously. “Our strategy has been since day one, no tolls,” Rhode Island Trucking Association president Chris Maxwell told Providence’s WPRI. “We’re not down at the statehouse to cut any deals or make nice with anybody. From day one, [we’ve been] against tolls.”

The state trucking group suggested last year that raising Rhode Island’s diesel tax and truck registration fees would be better ways of raising money.

Stephanie Kane, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates, said the new tolls have already prompted some companies to consider leaving Rhode Island. “While the governor heralds RhodeWorks as a jobs booster, the reality is that it harms Rhode Island businesses and will cost Rhode Island jobs,” she said.

The American Trucking Associations also warned Raimondo that her administration’s plan to prevent trucks from leaving highways to avoid tolls could run afoul of federal regulations. Those rules require states to let trucks have easy access to food, fuel, repairs and rest, an association lawyer wrote.

Federal law also normally prevents states from tolling existing interstates without adding new capacity. Rhode Island’s tolling program takes advantage of one of the exceptions to that law: States can put tolls on a non-tolled bridge if they replace or repair that bridge. Each of Rhode Island’s 14 proposed tolling sites is on a bridge or overpass.

The tolls would all be collected electronically using E-ZPass transponders. RIDOT anticipates that it will contract with a company to design, build, operate and maintain the tolling operations. The agency expects the cost of running the program will only take up 5 percent of the revenues. “This application of new technology has made it feasible for the DOT to implement tolls on many bridges that were uneconomical in the past,” St. Martin said.

Rhode Island’s new tolls are part of a larger effort, called RhodeWorks, to shore up the state’s crumbling bridges. It would include massive new projects, like the completion of a $170 million replacement of the viaduct carrying I-95 through Providence, as well as preventive maintenance for hundreds of bridges.

One of the biggest elements of the plan is rebuilding an interchange of two major highways on Providence’s west side, which means replacing 11 bridges. The project has been on the books for 30 years and could cost as much as $500 million — more than the whole RhodeWorks program. The state hopes to win federal grants to cover much of the cost.

New federal funding from Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which Congress passed late last year, will also help Rhode Island’s bridge-building effort. Increased federal funding helped the state cut in half the amount of bonding it planned to use for RhodeWorks. That, in turn, reduced the amount of interest the state will pay by 65 percent.

GOVERNING.COM

BY DANIEL C. VOCK | FEBRUARY 23, 2016




Bloomberg Brief: Riggs on Increasing Healthcare Bonds (Audio).

Bloomberg Brief’s Taylor Riggs discusses the rise in health-care bonds from states and municipalities as they try to keep up with rising health costs.

Listen.

February 22, 2016 — 5:09 AM PST




New York Leads Refinancing Wave as Muni Yields Touch Decades Low.

The era of rock-bottom interest rates is sticking around for American states and cities, prompting a fresh wave of municipal-bond sales.

New York City Tuesday sold general-obligation debt for the first time since July to pay off higher-cost securities. The $800 million offering is the biggest tax-exempt sale this week and is set to be followed by refinancing deals from Los Angeles’s schools, the Kentucky building commission and North Carolina, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Just two months after the Federal Reserve took its first step back from the near-zero interest rates in place since the credit crisis, borrowing costs in the $3.7 trillion municipal market have slipped back near five-decade lows. With investors seeking havens from equity-market turmoil, 20-year muni yields are holding at 3.27 percent, matching the level reached in December 2012 for the lowest since 1965, according to the Bond Buyer’s index.

“If rates stay here we’ll get a lot of new issuance and a lot of refundings,” said Phil Fischer, Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s head of municipal research in New York. “Money is very cheap.”

New York’s bonds priced at a top yield of 3.09 percent for those maturing in 19 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Ten-year bonds were issued for yields of 2.09 percent, 0.43 percentage point more than AAA-rated municipal bonds of the same maturity.

State and local governments have long taken advantage of low borrowing costs to refinance, with many rushing to do so last year as the Fed moved toward its first rate increase since 2006. Municipalities issued about $420 billion of long- and short-term debt in 2015, the most since 2012.

The pace in 2016 has lagged the same period a year earlier: About $45.4 billion of municipal bonds have been issued this year, down from $50.2 billion in 2015, Bloomberg data show. In both years, about half of the proceeds were used exclusively for refinancing. Before Tuesday, the slide for New York governments had been more pronounced, slipping to $3.5 billion from $4.2 billion.

The continuation of low rates could foster an increase in securities offerings. Yields on top-rated tax-exempt bonds maturing in 10 years reached as little as 1.57 percent on Feb. 11, the lowest since late 2012.

The city’s sale comes after it refinanced $750 million of general-obligation bonds in July, which officials estimate will save about $109 million. The Los Angeles Unified School District is set to sell $575 million of refinancing debt next week, with another $551 million planned by the Kentucky’s building agency and $330 million by North Carolina.

For New York, the interest savings have added to its financial gains, with growing sales and income-tax collections helping the city build $5 billion in reserves. The New York City economy, larger than all but four U.S. states, added 213,000 jobs in 2014 and 2015, pushing the unemployment rate to 4.9 percent.

While the financial sector accounts for 10.9 percent of New York City’s employment and 20 percent of its wages, the economy continues to diversify, thanks to the higher education, health-care and technology industries.

New York’s fiscal strength has led investors to accept lower yields to hold its bonds. The spread, or extra interest they demand relative to AAA rated bonds, dropped to 0.29 percentage point in trading Tuesday, near the 26-month low hit last month, according to Bloomberg indexes.

Moody’s Investors Service rates New York’s general obligation bonds Aa2, its third-highest investment grade. Standard & Poor’s gives the bonds a comparable AA rating.

The latest sale should do well, said Matt Dalton, chief executive officer of Rye Brook, New York-based Belle Haven Investments, which oversees about $4 billion of municipal bonds, including New York’s general-obligation debt. New York received $151 million of orders from individual investors on Monday, according Eric Sumberg, a spokesman for Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Municipal bond mutual funds have had 19 straight weeks of in-flows, including about $1.4 billion two weeks ago, according to Investment Company Institute data.

“Retail investors want to balk because they don’t like the interest rate environment, but they have so much cash they don’t have much choice,” Dalton said. “Munis still make sense on an after-tax basis.”

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

February 22, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on February 23, 2016 — 12:57 PM PST




Puerto Rico Risks Dangerous Precedent by Protecting Pensions.

A suggestion from a U.S. Treasury official to protect Puerto Rico’s pension payments while also seeking cuts from all bondholders may be viewed as the latest sign that politicians favor retirees over investors in cases of municipal distress.

Treasury Counselor Antonio Weiss said in prepared testimony Thursday that a failure to ensure payments from Puerto Rico’s pension system, which has more than 330,000 beneficiaries and is underfunded by $44 billion, would harm the commonwealth’s residents and damage its economy. Meanwhile, “all creditors must be at the table” to restructure the island’s liabilities to an affordable level, he said.

It could “set a dangerous precedent,” said Peter Hayes, head of munis at BlackRock Inc., which oversees $110 billion of the debt. “Pensions are clearly down the capital structure in terms of hierarchy and repayment. So the political side of it is boosting them higher than bondholders.”

Weiss said in Washington that there was a difference between protecting pensions and saying that they “should be prioritized above everything else.” He said all stakeholders should receive fair and equitable treatment.

Political Priorities

The suggestion to shield Puerto Rico’s pensions, combined with bankruptcies in Detroit and Stockton, California, show that the politics around retiree benefits can often muddy the outlook for repayment assumed by bond investors. Constitutionally protected general obligations would recover about 72 percent under a plan from the commonwealth released earlier this month. Other securities would get less.

In Stockton, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System was protected from cuts while some bondholders received cents on the dollar. In Detroit, the city’s pensions got more than twice what creditors who loaned the city money for those funds received. General obligation bondholders settled for less than full value, even though the $3.7 trillion municipal market has long believed that such debt is sacrosanct.

Moody’s Investors Service said Thursday in a report that recovery rates for bondholders have generally been lower than for retirees in municipal bankruptcies. Of the six large bankruptcies cited in the report, four of them paid pensioners 100 percent of what they were owed.

Generally, to fund a pension plan, “you raise taxes and you pay for it, or you have to make cuts if you don’t want to raise taxes,” Hayes said in an interview at BlackRock’s New York headquarters. “We’re seeing this political will to make pensioners whole and ignore the other two options.”

Ryan Deadline

Puerto Rico’s benchmark general obligations with an 8 percent coupon and maturing in 2035 traded at an average 71 cents on the dollar, the highest price since Feb. 5, data compiled by Bloomberg show. They’ve been little changed in 2016 as many investors are entrenched in their positions ahead of a restructuring.

Republican Representative Mick Mulvaney from South Carolina also brought up the risk of a “dangerous precedent” in potentially favoring pensioners at the expense of bondholders during a Thursday hearing of the House Financial Services Committee’s oversight and investigations group.

“That doesn’t strike me as fair,” he said.

Congress is considering whether to inject the federal government into a more central role in a crisis that’s escalated since Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla in June said the government can’t afford to pay its debt.

Puerto Rico has already defaulted on some securities and has warned that it may halt payments as soon as May without a solution. House Speaker Paul Ryan directed Republican committee chiefs to come up with a plan by the end of March.

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

February 25, 2016 — 10:42 AM PST Updated on February 25, 2016 — 1:52 PM PST




Bloomberg Brief Weekly Video - 02/25

Taylor Riggs, a contributor to Bloomberg Briefs, talks with reporter Joe Mysak about this week’s municipal market news.

Watch the video.

February 25, 2016




Moody's: Global Changes in Economy, Technology, and Finance Transforming Environment for Higher Education.

New York, February 23, 2016 — The global higher education sector is undergoing significant transition, with growing demand, increasing competition, and evolving funding models, Moody’s Investors Service says in a new report. The strength of enterprise risk management and strategic positioning will drive the financial health of individual universities as they adapt to this changing environment.

“Demand will continue to grow based on the benefits of advanced education. Increasing desire for lifelong learning expands the pool of students. At the same time, globalization and new delivery models drive increased competition for students, faculty, research funding and philanthropy,” Moody’s Associate Managing Director Susan Fitzgerald says in “Global Higher Education Faces Period of Significant Transition.” She adds, “While risk increases during transition periods, the sector overall is expected to be resilient.”

Due to the significant growth in demand for education, government funding will be unable to keep pace, particularly amid competing governmental budgetary priorities. This will shape how higher education is funded globally, with students bearing a greater burden of costs. There will also be continued expansion and change in the types of student loans offered.

Amid the global evolution of higher education, changes to regulatory frameworks and oversight mechanisms will intensify and accelerate. Public university funding will become increasingly tied to public policy priorities.

Over time, there will be an increase in mergers and restructurings, with more universities pursuing these arrangements to achieve economies of scale and contain expenses.

Moody’s says most mergers of public universities will be driven at the governmental level, rather than by individual universities. Merged entities can benefit from increased enrollment, size and programmatic diversity, but simultaneously face risks as they address the structural challenges that contributed to the merger. Some private colleges lacking brand recognition and scale will close in an increasingly competitive environment.

Beyond seeking to enroll more international students, universities are expanding their brand footprint, either by directly establishing branch campuses outside their home state or country, or partnering with universities in other countries. This can aid revenue diversification and result in a growing pipeline of students at the home campus, Moody’s says.

Additionally, students will seek out not only an affordable university, but one with flexible alternatives, including online learning. Online education will become a more accepted and mainstream strategy for universities across regions and programs, and will provide universities with alternative revenue streams and new branding opportunities.

Rising fixed costs are a credit challenge for many universities, particularly against a constrained revenue environment. These costs include new infrastructure costs as universities absorb debt service and facilities operating costs previously covered by their associated governments, as well as rising regulatory and compliance costs. With an aging university workforce in many countries, pension and other post-employment benefit costs will be an increasing burden for universities globally.

The report is available to Moody’s subscribers here.




Treasury Plan for Puerto Rico Favors Pensions Over Bondholders.

WASHINGTON — If it’s up to the Treasury Department, public employees in Puerto Rico who were promised pensions could be better off than investors who bought the island’s bonds.

A broad plan being put forward by the Treasury Department to ease Puerto Rico’s financial crisis would put pension payments to retirees ahead of payments to bondholders — a move that some experts fear could rattle the larger municipal bond market.

The proposal was being driven by evidence that Puerto Rico’s pension system is nearly out of money, leaving retirees who are dependent on it financially vulnerable.

“The major problem is, the entire pension system is close to being depleted,” said Antonio Weiss, counselor to Jacob J. Lew, the Treasury secretary. “But 330,000 people depend on it. It’s unfunded, and they have to be protected.”

Shielding retirees from pension cuts, the thinking goes, would not only protect thousands of older residents on the island, but it might also encourage younger retirees to stay there, rather than move to the United States mainland in search of new jobs and incomes.

Out-migration is considered a prime cause of Puerto Rico’s financial tailspin, because it shrinks the island’s economy, leaving fewer people and fewer dollars to support the crushing debt.

Puerto Rico is said to have about $72 billion of financial debt outstanding, most of it in the form of municipal bonds. By some estimates, it has incurred an additional $43 billion in unfunded pension obligations.

But deciding that pensioners’ interests should be put above those of bondholders — if a choice must be made — is not without certain risks.

Some public-finance experts say they fear that if Puerto Rico can renege on promises to pay debts to investors, while sparing retirees, other municipalities might try to do the same, casting a pall over the larger market in municipal bonds, where American towns and cities have gone for decades to get the money they need to build roads, schools and other public works.

If Puerto Rico gets special treatment, “you have huge contagion risk to the entire municipal market,” Andrew N. Rosenberg, a partner at the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, said at a recent gathering of creditor representatives.

Treasury officials said such concerns were unfounded. The framework they are proposing would be designed only for distressed United States territories, like Puerto Rico, and could not be used by states or municipalities on the mainland.

Officials pointed to a report by an investment firm, Nuveen Asset Management, which said, “We believe most institutional investors understand Puerto Rico’s unique situation and the coming debt restructuring will not create widespread credit implications.”

Still, moving public pensions to the top of the stack would infuriate at least some bondholders — especially those who paid close to face value for their bonds years ago, when they were still rated investment grade, and who had expected to hold them to maturity and get all their principal back.

Although the bondholders have often been portrayed as deep-pocketed vultures since Puerto Rico’s debt crisis began, many of them are small investors, themselves trying to save for a comfortable retirement.

“Most Puerto Rican debt is held by individuals,” said Thomas Moers Mayer, a lawyer representing two large mutual fund companies, Franklin Advisers and OppenheimerFunds, which together own about $10 billion in Puerto Rican debt securities. “They are mostly over 65, and they mostly have incomes of less than $100,000 a year. They are not vulture funds. They are your friends and neighbors.”

Some Republican senators — notably Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah — whose constituents are among the bondholders, have expressed similar views. Puerto Rico’s debt is unusually widely held because it offered above average yields and interest that was exempt from federal, state and local taxes, no matter where the buyer lived.

Treasury officials have said they are willing to work with Congress to find a suitable way of handling the different categories of creditors.

Financial help for Puerto Rico will be the subject of a hearing on Thursday by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Mr. Weiss is scheduled to be the sole witness.

Any rescue plan would need congressional approval and various committees in the House and Senate are weighing ways to help the island reduce its debt and better manage its economy.

Paul D. Ryan, the Republican speaker of the House, has set a deadline of March 30 for a House version of a bill. A version of Treasury’s plan was outlined in a draft bill presented to a Senate committee; it has not been voted on.

The draft, obtained by The New York Times, also calls for a five-member “fiscal reform assistance council” appointed by the president to hold the island to meaningful budgeting, disclosure and fiscal reform practices. The board would have the power to make across-the-board budget cuts if necessary.

Members of Congress, especially Republicans, have expressed concern about whether Puerto Rico has the wherewithal to manage its future finances, even if it gets help in the short term. Credit markets have also been reluctant to invest further in Puerto Rico’s bonds without some assurances that the island’s finances will be better managed in the years to come.

The idea of an oversight board has rankled residents, however, who say it has overtones of colonialism.

The part of the proposal that gives priority to pensioners has received little attention. Currently, Puerto Rico’s laws and Constitution give top priority to general-obligation bonds — the type backed by the government’s “good faith, credit and taxing power.”

Puerto Rico is not unique in this respect; for decades, the general-obligation bonds of all the states have been marketed as virtually default-proof, safe enough for widows and orphans. The concept was developed after the Civil War, as a way to rebuild investor trust after a number of notorious bond defaults.

Other bonds carry with them varying degrees of legal repayment security. Puerto Rico’s debt is extraordinarily complex, but in general, its bonds can be ranked in a hierarchy of eight levels, with general-obligation bonds at the top. The ranking is described in an analysis of the debt by the Center for a New Economy, a nonpartisan research group in San Juan.

Public workers’ pensions, the center found, fall on a second hierarchy altogether, which sets priorities for the government’s operational disbursements. Here again, however, payments due on general-obligation bonds come first, followed by payments due on legally binding contracts. Outlays for pensions come third.

That means that under existing law in Puerto Rico, if there is not enough money to pay both general-obligation bonds and public retirees’ pensions, the money would go to bondholders.

But the Treasury’s proposed restructuring framework would change that. It would require that the restructuring plan “not unduly impair the claims of any class of pensioners.”

General-obligation bondholders, on the other hand, would get such protection only “if feasible,” according to the draft that outlined the plan.

This new legal framework is being created because Puerto Rico, as a United States territory, has no access to bankruptcy laws, where complicated claims by creditors can be worked out in a court under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge.

Puerto Rico has already defaulted on some of its bonds. More payments are due in May and June. Bonds are now nearly impossible to sell, and members of Congress, especially Democrats, as well as financial experts say the island’s troubles will become increasingly enormous if some kind of restructuring framework is not approved soon.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

FEB. 24, 2016




GASB Outlook E-Newsletter Q1, 2016.

Read the Newsletter.




Public-Private Partnerships Have Limited Impact on Government Debt - Moody's.

Public-private partnerships have had a limited impact on government debt profiles around the globe, including in the U.S. states of California, Florida and Indiana, Moody’s Investors Service said in a report published on Monday.

The market for leveraging private dollars to build public projects is far more mature in the U.K., Canada and Australia than it is in the United States. Construction firms have been eyeing the United States as the largest untapped market for such projects globally.

Obligations from such so-called PPP, or P3, projects make up only about 0.5 percent of the total net tax-supported debt in California, for example.

In Florida, that number is 11.4 percent, and for triple-A rated Indiana, it is 24.2 percent, Moody’s said.

“Funding for PPP projects is often spread over a long period of time,” Moody’s analyst Kathrin Heitmann said in a statement. “Fiscal commitments are often small in scale relative to the size of a government’s balance sheet and revenue sources.”

The U.S. market has been slow to develop, largely because state and local governments can use low-interest municipal bonds to build bridges, schools, water treatment facilities and other infrastructure.

Even so, several massive U.S. transportation projects underway have P3 components, including California’s $68 billion high-speed rail and Illinois’ $14 billion South Suburban Airport near Chicago. P3s are also being used and considered more often for universities and public buildings like courthouses.

The contracts can also be long, complicated and sometimes risky. Kentucky’s $324 million P3 for statewide high-speed internet access faces a 39 percent shortfall in the annual revenue it needs to make bond payments, state officials said in January, according to WDRB News in Louisville.

P3 payment obligation risks can also stress the credit profile of procuring governments, especially in economic downturns or for governments with poor creditworthiness, Moody’s said.

So far around the world, however, “the credit strength of most public sector entities has proved resilient to contractual and contingent PPP risks,” it said.

Moody’s report was constrained by its ability to capture some P3 obligations in its review of debt because not all contractual payment obligations are disclosed, it said.

The report was released in conjunction with the 2016 Institute of International Finance’s G20 summit in Shanghai.

Reuters

(Reporting by Hilary Russ; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Mon Feb 22, 2016




Mintz Levin: Department Of Energy Provides Major Funding Opportunities.

The start of the new year has brought with it numerous opportunities for energy tech funding from the Department of Energy. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been or are being given out to companies and research institutions across the country – opportunities stretch a wide variety of focus areas, from solar energy storage to grid modernization. It’s evident that energy and environment is a top priority for the Obama administration in its final year in office, and this is good news for those companies on the cutting edge of energy technology. For details on several of the DOE’s funding initiatives and its particularly substantial efforts on grid modernization in particular, read on.

One of the most significant recent DOE funding efforts is its new Grid Modernization Multi-Year Program Plan. Alongside the plan comes an award of up to $220 million over three years to support research and development in advanced storage systems, clean energy integration, standards and test procedures, and a number of other key grid modernization areas. The DOE has already invested more than $4.5 billion through the Recovery Act stimulus funding over the past few years. This most recent round of grid mod funding will support 88 innovative grid technology projects led by 14 of DOE’s National Labs, in coordination with public and private-sector partners. These projects will seek to solve challenges posed by the integration of conventional and renewable sources with energy and smart buildings, all while ensuring the grid is secure against threats like cyber-attacks and climate change. For more info on the labs and projects that will be funded by the DOE award, click here.

Other recently announced DOE funding opportunities include the following:

$58 million to advance fuel-efficient vehicle technologies, with which the DOE will solicit projects across vehicle technologies like energy storage, electric drive systems, and advanced combustion.

$21 million to lower solar energy deployment barriers, money that is intended to help states take advantage of falling solar prices while also supporting research on solar energy innovation and technology adoption patterns.

$18 million to develop solar energy storage solutions, money that will fund six new projects across the US that will enable the development and demonstration of integrated, scalable, and cost-effective solar tech that incorporate energy storage power to American homes after the sun sets or when clouds are overhead.

$11.3 million to develop flexible biomass-to-hydrocarbon biofuels conversion pathways that can be modified to produce advanced fuels and/or products based on other factors like market demand.

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.

Article by Thomas R. Burton III

Last Updated: February 12 2016

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.




Making Transportation Finance History with a Green Muni Bond.

We’ve made tremendous strides up the high road to a clean energy economy over the past decade, thanks not just to new car performance standards and the Clean Power Plan but also to historic investments made in the much-maligned American Reinvestment and Recovery (Recovery Act). The building momentum is palpable and inspiring.

And much more investment is needed. Credible estimates claim that trillions of dollars will need to drive us forward to this brighter future. And this is where environmental finance can fill the gap. What is environmental finance? As guru Michael Curley sums up, “The goal of environmental finance is to bring the greatest environmental good to the largest number of people at the lowest possible cost.” (for this and much other wisdom see his textbook on finance policy). To do this job, finance experts have a toolbox. The Recovery Act used a couple of tools, most notably grant-making and tax incentives. Fortunately, there’s also a multi-trillion dollar global bond marketplace.

In order to help attract investors in this market, NRDC is proud to be part of the Green City Bond Campaign (organized by the Climate Bonds Initiative) to help with the certification and issuance of bonds to finance new infrastructure, including clean transportation projects. Green city bonds are similar to municipal bonds, except that they are labeled “green,” their proceeds go to green investments and issuers “track and report on the use of proceeds to ensure green compliance.” (see the nifty primer on green city bonds here). This is an exciting marketplace for financing sustainability, as you can see from this graph drawn from the latest Climate Bonds Initiative (for more info go to the two-page update itself):

Even better news is that 2016 started off with a bang, as New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA, the nation’s largest public transportation agency) issued their first-ever green bond. As the Climate Bonds Initiative noted in its press release quoting my colleague Doug Sims last week, this is also the first U.S. muni bond certified as Low Carbon Transport based on new criteria and the largest certified green bond so far at $500 million.

Proceeds from bond sales go to capital investments in electrified rail, which provides millions of rides to New Yorkers every day. This is an important part of New York’s clean transportation future, with subway ridership trending upward about 11 percent from 2009-2014 alone to more than an eye-popping 1.7 billion rides a year. Issuing this historic green bond to support this growth serves multiple purposes as described in the Climate Bonds Initiative’s primer – it diversifies the investor base for rail, helps inform and involve residents in the future of rail in New York, and opens up new a collaboration between New York City agencies which might lead to other innovative initiatives.

Now that MTA has blazed the trail for green bonds, other transit agencies should seriously consider using this tool for leveraging public investments. There are trillions of dollars at play in the bond marketplace, and investors, cities and the environment deserve more clean transportation investment opportunities.

Deron Lovaas’s Blog

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Posted February 17, 2016




What’s Holding P3s Back?

Chris Hamel, managing director head of municipal finance at RBC Capital Markets, hosted the webinar: Why Haven’t Public-Private Partnerships Caught on for Infrastructure Financing in the U.S.? In it Hamel addressed what he said was the core infrastructure needs for the U.S.: more funding.

Public-Private Partnerships

Hamel said he believes that through an increased use of public-private partnerships (P3) the U.S. would be able to breakdown greater funding barriers. He says that P3s often mean something different to everyone — comparing the process to six blind men all describing an elephant.

“The municipal government can finance infrastructure cheaper than the private sector because of the roll of prevision tax exemption on their debt. While this may not be the only factor that affects the analysis of the union execution vs. P3, it is an important one that frankly often prevails,” said Hamel.

Hamel feels there are three suggested elements for the U.S. to develop its own unique approach to P3s:

Policy Questions and Problems that Arise

“It comes down to what are we all comfortable with in public and private funding? With the events surrounding the water in Flint, Michigan, would it have done better being handled in the private sector?”

Hamel relates the Internet to a private sector that, in a sense, most are comfortable with. A different example, which may draw different opinions is the public sector gaining revenue through tolls, while in the private sector the naming rights to a bridge (or other structure) are sold to gain revenue.

Another problem Hamel sees is that private sector innovation can have unintended consequences for the state and local government. In the example of the Phoenix airport, Sky Harbor, a great deal of revenue is generated by the airports transportation — but with new transportation apps gaining popularity, Sky Harbor loses that revenue.

“How will the airport re-seize the revenue taken by Uber and Lyft?”

Hamel believes that the key to making P3s and solving the U.S.’s infrastructure challenge is gained through collaboration.

BY MAILE BUCHER ON FEB 18, 2016




Cleared for Takeoff: Airports and the P3 Opportunity.

As their potential for value creation gains recognition, airport public-private partnerships are picking up momentum.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of legislation that created the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Privatization Pilot Program, designed to allow access to sources of private capital for airport improvement and development projects. What is the state of airport public-private partnerships (P3s) in the U.S.? And what do local government officials need to know when considering airport P3s?

It’s clear that airport P3s are gaining some momentum, as evidenced by major projects in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and in New York City, along with other initiatives around the country.

In February 2013, a consortium known as Aerostar Airport Holdings closed a 40-year concession and renovation deal for San Juan International Airport. Puerto Rico received $615 million upfront and revenue sharing in exchange for a long-term lease. What has happened since then? The operational handover to Aerostar was executed smoothly without any labor disputes or operational disruptions, and all airport employees who wanted to continue working were retained. Aerostar recently completed a $148 million renovation that enhanced airport baggage handling, energy efficiency, parking, and food, beverage and other store offerings.

And last May, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey selected the consortium of LaGuardia Gateway Partners (LGP) for a $3.6 billion central terminal redevelopment project at LaGuardia Airport. By using a P3 model, the Port Authority felt that it would be able to complete the project more quickly, cause less disruption to airlines and transfer certain risks of cost overruns to the private sector.

There are other ongoing airport P3 initiatives to watch. In Denver, for example, the city and county recently issued an RFP to hire a “strategic program development advisor” for a project to create more space for revenue-generating shops and restaurants in the Great Hall of Denver International Airport’s Jeppesen Terminal. And in Austin, Texas, the City Council authorized negotiations with Highstar Capital to lease 30 acres, including the South Terminal, at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

While these projects indicate growing interest in airport P3s in this country, the U.S. airport P3 market is still in a relatively undeveloped stage. Globally, by contrast, approximately 40 of the biggest 100 airports are fully or partially privately owned and/or operated, an indication that greater private-sector involvement is seen as valuable.

So as investors and private airport operators evaluate opportunities across the United States, what do they generally look for? First, they want to see a vibrant regional economic environment characterized by a growing population and employment base along with the likelihood of continuing GDP expansion. Also critical to potential investors is a large and stable amount of “origin and destination” traffic. O&D traffic — as opposed to hub/connection traffic — tends to reflect the essentiality of an airport to the region it serves.

For public officials exploring airport P3 projects, the questions are the same as for any transaction: “What am I getting?” and “What am I giving?” On the positive side, a P3 can create savings for airlines; generate upfront and periodic payments that can be used for non-airport purposes; bring greater commercial discipline via a comprehensive business plan and global relationships; and transfer risk to the private sector. And a P3 can bring more sources of creativity from both the public and private domains to solving infrastructure problems.

On the other side of the ledger, in a P3 a public authority is likely to have to cede some direct control over a project to the private sector; typically must agree to contractual provisions that commit future public funds regardless of actual revenues; and in some cases incur higher financing costs related to capital projects.

Whatever the pros and cons, it’s clear that airport P3s are slowly gaining acceptance across the U.S. as evidence of their value creation becomes better understood. The FAA privatization program has significant unused capacity. These unused slots represent an opportunity for public authorities that want to drive more economic development through their airports.

GOVERNING.COM

BY ANDREW DEYE | FEBRUARY 17, 2016




The Transparency That Public Pensions Need.

Pension investments are increasingly complex, but disclosure standards have not kept pace.

The stock market’s recent volatility is a continuation of the bumpy ride investors have experienced since the Great Recession. Such swings used to have little direct effect on public pension plans, but that has changed.

That’s because over the past four decades public pensions, in hopes of boosting investment returns, have shifted funds away from fixed-income investments such as government and high-quality corporate bonds. Today they hold, on average, about half of their assets in stocks and another quarter in alternative investments such as private equity, real estate and hedge funds. Between 2006 and 2013, the percentage of their funds invested in alternative assets more than doubled.

Not surprisingly, the collective returns of public fund investments over the last few years have been volatile, ranging from a high of 21 percent in fiscal year 2011 to a low of 1 percent in fiscal 2013. Returns for calendar 2015 are expected to be essentially flat.

Rules governing disclosure and transparency haven’t kept pace with these trends. While some individual funds and states have made changes, more work must be done to increase transparency and present a clear picture of funds’ bottom-line performance and costs.

Alternative investments can be complex. Most, including private equity and real estate, can be challenging to accurately value because there is no public exchange. They also often come with higher management costs. The total cost of managing pension assets has increased by more than 30 percent over the past decade, reducing returns on alternatives by as much as 10 to 20 percent for some plans.

Current disclosure standards were designed for much simpler investments and do not provide enough transparency for these complex and costly alternatives. Beneficiaries, taxpayers and policymakers need better information about the investment performance of public pension plans because investment returns account for an estimated 60 percent of the money paid out in the form of pension benefits.

Insufficient transparency affects the ability to discern how much is being paid in fees and the resulting impact on investment returns. Current accounting standards allow public pension plans to report investment returns without deducting the cost of fees paid to investment managers, known as “gross of fees.” More than a quarter of the largest plans take this route. Some additional costs, such as carried interest and some performance fees, also can go unreported.

There are some exceptions. One of the few plans to comprehensively report performance fees is the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System. In 2014, the plan reported that performance fees paid to investment managers accounted for about half of its overall fees.

And last July the nation’s largest public retirement plan, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), raised the bar on investment-fee transparency by announcing that it would disclose the full amount it pays to invest in private equity. In November, CalPERS’ new policy of providing additional reporting on carried interest for private equity and other performance fees showed that external investment partners realized $700 million from profit-sharing agreements in fiscal 2015 — information the public would not have had without the new reporting policy.

Movement toward stronger reporting and greater transparency on the costs associated with alternative investments appears to be gaining momentum. The Institutional Limited Partners Association’s Fee Transparency Initiative, a widely supported industry effort to establish comprehensive standards for fee and expense reporting among institutional investors and fund managers, is advocating total fee reporting by private equity managers and their investors. And in a recent letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 13 state and municipal treasurers and comptrollers — many of them members of the Fee Transparency Initiative — appealed for industrywide standards on private equity fee disclosure, including carried interest.

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to successful investing, but there is a uniform need for full disclosure on investment performance and fees. This will help ensure that risks, returns and costs are balanced in ways that follow best practices and that public pension plans accurately disclose the fees that are paid.

State pension plans are entrusted with $3 trillion in public funds and face the challenge of a $1 trillion gap in the amount needed to pay for pension promises. With the dramatic shift toward more complex alternative investments, government workers and taxpayers deserve more complete information on both the cost of managing pension investments and the bottom-line results of these riskier investment strategies.

GOVERNING.COM

BY SUSAN K. URAHN | FEBRUARY 16, 2016




In Snow Removal, a Model for Change.

St. Paul took an unusual path to improving a vital public service, one that holds promise for other city operations.

Clearing roads after a snowfall is not a new problem for cities in northern climes. But government is infamously prone to institutional inertia, and substantial improvement in such routine city services can be slow. After the particularly difficult winter of 2013-2014, St. Paul, Minn., Mayor Chris Coleman decided that the city needed a new perspective on snow removal to reach best-in-class status. The city’s approach to achieving this holds lessons for governments everywhere.

As many government officials have learned, excellence in delivering the most basic and essential public services is crucial to bringing the public on board with more ambitious, visionary goals. “If your people aren’t convinced that you know how to plow a street, it’s difficult for them to embrace your larger vision of how to modernize the city,” Coleman says.

Snow removal in St. Paul is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works (DPW), the city’s largest agency. To both streamline its organizational structure and improve how DPW delivers services, the mayor’s office reached out in August 2014 to a nonprofit called Civic Consulting MN to explore a collaborative, inclusive — and free — model of outside consultation.

The traditional model for management consulting in the public sector is tactical. Teams of external consultants diagnose a problem, prescribe a solution, present a bill for their services and then depart — leaving the hard work of implementing their recommendations to government leaders. Dave MacCallum, who leads Civic Consulting MN, explained that the model it has been developing since 2014 is different, not only pairing pro bono consultants with leaders in municipal government but also seeing the process of change through to completion.

Cities across the country have experimented with models incorporating volunteer help from leading civic and business experts. But approaches that work in the private sector do not always translate well to public problems. The success of such programs depends on the background of the loaned executive and the willingness of the bureaucracy to cooperate. In St. Paul, many of these issues were resolved by working through Civic Consulting MN, a skilled intermediary.

Though snow removal was the original charge, the partnership focused on several issues across the Department of Public Works; in order to make improvements in one area, organizational change was required throughout. And the innovation work had to be done on top of the department’ daily operations, so time was in short supply. Scott Cordes, St Paul’s director of innovation and an instrumental driver of the partnership, describes the project as remarkable in its speed of completion, which he attributes to thorough buy-in at all levels.

At the outset, Civic Consulting MN connected private-sector human resources experts with DPW leadership to design a team-based model for internal improvement. Together, they established several working groups that included newer employees, experienced public servants, department managers and Civic Consulting MN partners. DPW Director Kathy Lantry says this team-based model was effective in pairing fresh, external perspectives with institutional knowledge to generate smart, efficient plans for restructuring.

The lesson here is that outside experts can be effective in spurring structural innovation only if they source creative ideas from existing staff. For innovation to be successful, it must be paralleled by a shift in internal culture. The DPW staff participated in the changes from ideation to execution, ensuring that the new shape of the department would immediately be a good fit.

Snow removal, as a result, is a much more efficient operation in St. Paul than before, and the public has taken notice. In a recent snow emergency, for example, the city needed to tow only half as many cars compared to similar events, the result of better communication with the public as to where they can and can’t park during a snowstorm. Joe Spah, the city’s director of street maintenance, says DPW is now using data to track what trucks are on the road, where they are going, when they are pre-treating streets and how weather forecasts should inform executive decisions.

Mayor Coleman hopes this ethos, which pairs best-in-class operations with structural change, will infuse the rest of the city’s operations: “It’s going to be a great platform to take across the city into other areas,” he says. Indeed, this partnership models a perspective on managing change to which cities everywhere should aspire.

GOVERNING.COM

BY STEPHEN GOLDSMITH | FEBRUARY 17, 2016

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.




Credit FAQ: How Standard & Poor's Approaches Rating the Growing Number of North American Light Rail Transit Projects.

Government agencies across North America are turning to the public-private partnership (P3) financing model to deliver new passenger light rail transit infrastructure, especially in Canada, where P3s are a tried and tested model with over 100 social accommodation projects such as hospitals successfully deployed across the provinces.

Continue reading.

Feb. 19, 2016




U.S. Public Finance Records Nearly Twice As Many Upgrades As Downgrades In 2015, Says S&P Report.

SAN FRANCISCO (Standard & Poor’s) Feb. 16, 2016–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services upgraded more ratings in U.S. public finance (USPF) than it downgraded in 2015, the fourth consecutive year with positive rating movement, according to “U.S. Public Finance Records Nearly Twice As Many Upgrades As Downgrades In 2015,” published today on RatingsDirect.

“The fourth quarter was the 13th in a row in which upgrades outnumbered downgrades in USPF, extending the longest quarterly streak of upgrades outpacing downgrades since the first quarter of 2001,” said Larry Witte, a senior director in Standard & Poor’s Global Fixed Income Research Group. “The experience in 2015 continues that of most of the past 15 years: There were more downgrades in just two years, 2003 and 2011. The latter was an anomaly because most of the downgrades were in the housing sector, which had about 1,200 ratings downgraded after the U.S. sovereign rating was downgraded in August 2011.”

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.

Global Fixed Income Research: Lawrence R Witte, CFA, Senior Director, San Francisco (1) 415-371-5037;
larry.witte@standardandpoors.com

Media Contact: Michelle James, New York +1 212 438 5054;
michelle.james@standardandpoors.com




New Stadium? Teams Now Want the Whole Neighborhood.

Traditionally, when sports teams tried to convince cities to pay hundreds of millions to build new stadiums, they tended to make lofty promises about benefits to the local economy, that new businesses and residences would rise to serve the throngs of fans. Time and again we’ve seen these promises fall short — ” ‘downtown catalysts’ that failed to catalyze,” as Neil DeMause put it in the Nation.

Now teams are taking matters into their own hands — and, of course, they will reap the benefits.

Craig Edwards of Fangraphs has tracked the pattern of MLB teams developing the land near their ballparks to open up new revenue streams. The Atlanta Braves’ plan to move to the suburbs of Cobb County included $400 million of mixed-use facilities, with the team controlling the development. After suffering years of delays due to a bad economy, the St. Louis Cardinals in 2014 finally completed the first phase of their development, Ballpark Village, featuring bars, restaurants and the team’s hall of fame. The Chicago Cubs have planned a $575 million mixed-use complex called the 1060 Project, which will include a hotel, fitness club and office and retail space.

It’s not just baseball. SportsBusiness Journal’s David Broughton put together a comprehensive list of more than 30 mixed-use developments around stadiums that to some extent directly involve team ownership. These included the joint proposal by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders for a stadium in Carson City, California, and the plan to develop the St. Louis riverfront for the Rams — both now obsolete with the Rams’ pending move to Los Angeles. Their proposed stadium project in Inglewood will include “a 6,000-seat performance venue, 890,000 square feet of retail, 780,000 square feet of office space, 2,500 new residential units, a 300-room hotel and 25 acres of public parks,” as well as a campus for the NFL’s western expansion of its media arm.

Many of these projects profiled by SBJ are part of future stadium plans, but among those currently active are L.A. Live, a complex next to the Staples Center, home of the NBA’s Clippers and Lakers and the NHL’s Kings, that includes two luxury hotels, 13 restaurants, and the Grammy Museum. There’s Xfinity Live, an entertainment district anchored by Citizens Bank Park, Lincoln Financial Field and the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, developed by Comcast, which owns the Flyers. And the New England Patriots have Patriot Place, a 1.3 million-square-foot development including a movie theater, bowling alley and outpatient health care center.

As Edwards notes, it’s difficult to tell just what kind of impact these mixed-use developments have on teams’ financials in terms of mandated revenue sharing. For baseball specifically, he uses MLB’s approach to team-owned television networks — whose revenues aren’t subject to revenue sharing outside of television rights fees, which the league sets at “fair market value” — to guess the same would be true for land development. “With this risk, team owners can reap great rewards,” Edwards writes.

Those rewards are further bolstered by the usual subsidies, exemptions and abatements that cities and states concede to teams, as demonstrated starkly in the case of the Milwaukee Bucks. Already a controversial plan given Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s simultaneous cutting of the state university system budget by $250 million, the stadium proposal gives the team nearly full control to develop a “sports and entertainment district” without having to pay property taxes on “parking lots, garages, restaurants, parks, concession facilities, entertainment facilities, transportation facilities and other functionally related or auxiliary facilities or structures.”

The traditional fleecing of America’s cities by sports franchises used to involve only tax breaks and funding to build privately owned stadiums, whose concession sales, signage fees and other revenue flowed directly to the teams. Now, by controlling the mixed-use developments surrounding the ballparks, owners have found a new way to profit off the generosity of local municipalities — even when stadiums are publicly owned, as will be the case with the new Bucks arena. They’ve just shifted their money-making strategy a few blocks over.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Bloomberg View

By Kavitha A. Davidson

26 FEB 16, 2016 8:10 AM EST

To contact the author of this story:
Kavitha A. Davidson at kdavidson19@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net




Muni Bonds Undone by Lehman Collapse Test Latest Market Turmoil.

As investors demand higher premiums to buy debt sold by financial firms, two Alabama utility districts are selling about $1.7 billion of bonds backed by decades-long natural gas trades with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada.

The sales by the Lower Alabama Gas District and the Black Belt Energy Gas District will test whether the fears of a worldwide economic slowdown are seeping into a niche of the municipal market, where utilities borrow to buy fuel from banks that’s delivered years later. With investors demanding the most extra yield in 31 months to hold bank bonds, Wells Capital Management and Barclays Plc say concern about financial turmoil could lead to losses on the gas debt, which carries the same ratings as the financial firms involved.

“Recently the muni market has woken up a little bit to what’s going on in the corporate market,” said Lyle Fitterer, the head of tax-exempt debt at Wells Capital Management, which oversees $39 billion of municipal bonds. “You’re seeing people lighten up on some stuff or a little bit more nervous about corporate-backed deals in the muni market.”

Municipal utilities have issued more than $30 billion of tax-exempt bonds to buy gas under long-term contracts, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The bonds are paid back with revenue the utilities bring in when the fuel is resold. In return for their commitment, the utilities receive a discount from the prevailing market price, which has tumbled about 42 percent since May.

Banks also benefit: They get the proceeds of the bond issue and pay it back over time through the delivery of gas. The bonds typically carry the ratings of the lowest-ranked corporate entities involved because of the risk investors won’t be repaid if the delivery contracts aren’t fulfilled.

That’s happened before. After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed during the 2008 credit crisis, more than $700 million of bonds issued by Main Street Natural Gas Inc. of Kennesaw, Georgia, defaulted as a result. Bondholders have recouped about 77 cents on the dollar.

The Lower Alabama district, which buys long-term natural gas for about 10,000 customers in southern Alabama, plans to sell $675 million of the fixed-rate debt as soon as this week. The bonds are rated A3 by Moody’s Investors Service, its seventh-highest investment grade, based on Goldman Sachs’s standing. Goldman Sachs guarantees that its subsidiary J. Aron & Co. will supply the gas.

Black Belt plans to issue $1 billion of such bonds next week in the biggest prepaid gas issue since 2012. The “Black Belt” is a region in Alabama known for its fertile, black topsoil and, before the Civil War, cotton plantations worked by African-American slaves.

The Black Belt bonds, which will be issued in fixed and floating rates, are rated Aa3 by Moody’s, it’s fourth-highest investment grade, because of RBC. Black Belt will sell the gas it purchases to districts in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina.

“There’s a lot of demand,” said Joann Hempel, a Moody’s analyst. “These are a great opportunity for them to, one, lock down some supply and number two, they get this supply of gas at a discount to market prices.”

Albert Bean, a board member of the Lower Alabama district and co-general manager and chief operating officer of Black Belt, didn’t return calls seeking comment. John Norman, a managing director at Municipal Capital Markets Group Inc., which is advising both districts, declined to comment.

Tiffany Galvin, a Goldman Sachs spokeswoman, and Elisa Barsotti, a spokeswoman for RBC, declined to comment.

Time To Sell

On Feb. 1, Wells Capital sold $7.3 million of prepaid gas bonds issued by a San Antonio public corporation because spreads in the municipal market — or the difference in yield between benchmark and lower-rated securities — hadn’t widened as much as those in the corporate market, said Fitterer.

The debt maturing in 2025, which is backed by Goldman, traded at a yield of 2.55 percent, or about 0.9 percentage point more than top-rated bonds of the same maturity. Goldman Sachs corporate bonds maturing in 2022 traded on Feb. 16 at 3.29 percent, about 2.07 percentage point more than benchmark bonds.

“We sold because of where spreads were in our market relative to what’s been going on in the corporate market,” Fitterer said. “There was a buyer around and spreads actually moved quite a bit tighter.”
Municipal gas bonds are at risk of being affected by widening financial-sector credit spreads, which increased by as much as 90 basis points this year, Barclays municipal strategist Mikhail Foux wrote last week. He said the municipal debt is currently relatively expensive, with the yields the closest in more than a year to similarly rated bonds.

“While U.S. banks have not sold off in the same manner as their European counterparts, we think the sector could face near-term stress,” Foux wrote. “We recommend being cautious on this muni sub-sector in the near term. However, if yields adjust meaningfully higher, we would view it as a buying opportunity.”

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

February 17, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on February 18, 2016 — 2:42 PM PST




Muni Yields at 50-Year Lows Make Buyers Wary of Calling Bottom.

Some of the biggest municipal-bond buyers have stopped trying to call the market’s peak.

Just 38 months after tax-exempt yields touched the lowest since 1965, they’re back at that level following a rally in the safest assets as investors seek havens from the global financial turmoil. For BlackRock Inc., Nuveen Asset Management and Vanguard Group Inc., which combined oversee some 10 percent of the $3.7 trillion municipal market, the plan is to keep buying — and avoiding large bets one way or another on where interest rates move next.

“Calling rates is not easy — you have a flight to quality going on, and trying to call that turning point is oftentimes difficult,” said Chris Alwine, head of muni funds in Malvern, Pennsylvania, at Vanguard, which oversees $155 billion of the debt. “That’s really the debate going on in munis right now: You’re dealing with macro forces that are forcing rates lower, and then muni factors indicate there’s some vulnerability in the market. When we put that all together, we’re positioned more neutrally.”

China’s economic slowdown and plunging oil prices have buffeted global equity markets, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index down by more than 7 percent this year. Seeking to avoid stock-market losses, individuals have poured $4.7 billion into mutual funds focused on state and local-government debt this year, extending a 19-week stretch of inflows, Lipper US Fund Flows data show.

The yield on a Bond Buyer index of 20-year municipal general-obligation bonds fell last week to 3.27 percent, matching rates reached in December 2012 for the lowest since 1965. Top-rated 10-year munis yield 1.6 percent, just above the low hit in late 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

With investors shunning risk, not all securities have benefited equally from the rally. The yield difference between 10-year bonds rated BBB, the lowest tier of investment-grade ranks, and AAA debt last week reached 1.06 percentage points, the widest since November, Bloomberg data show. The spread between A rated revenue bonds and top-rated debt hit 0.64 percentage point, the widest since August 2014.

“We have to focus on relative value analysis because we cannot predict the absolute value,” said John Miller, co-head of fixed income in Chicago at Nuveen, which manages more than $100 billion of munis. “We can’t sit back and say we don’t buy bonds unless they yield more than” a certain amount.

Bets on higher interest rates from the Federal Reserve this year mostly have been thrown out the window, two months after the central bank raised its target for the first time since 2006. Bond traders are pricing in a 40 percent chance that the Fed will raise rates by year-end, futures indicate. Just months ago, the major debate was over how many times the central bank would raise borrowing costs this year.

One threat to the recent price gains is the prospect that sales of new bonds may increase. Issuance in March has exceeded that in January and February each year since 2012, Bloomberg data show. Because of that trend, benchmark 10-year yields have increased during the month in six of the past seven years.

“We’re being pulled lower in yield by Treasuries, the question is do we get pushed higher in muni rates in terms of issuance?” said Peter Hayes, head of munis at BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager, which oversees $110 billion of the debt. He said the company is slowing muni purchases until supply picks up.

Alwine, Hayes, Miller and their peers can’t afford to wait around too long with money flowing into their funds and the broad market. Individuals have added $6.8 billion to muni funds since the Fed lifted interest rates on Dec. 16, the Lipper data show. Since then, benchmark 10-year muni yields have declined by almost half a percentage point.

“Investors are more comfortable now with the fact that rates aren’t going to spike up significantly,” Hayes said. “They realize they need to get invested. There’s an opportunity cost of sitting in cash too long.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

February 16, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on February 17, 2016 — 5:58 AM PST




SIFMA Releases Electronic Bond Trading Platform Report For U.S. Corporate and Municipal Securities.

New York, NY, February 17, 2016 – SIFMA today released the results of its survey of electronic bond trading platforms for U.S. corporate and municipal securities. The survey results highlight a fixed income market structure that is evolving and adapting given regulatory and market constraints, and reflects a significant market focus on electronic trading as an emerging part of fixed income market structure. At this stage, the survey revealed that the platforms have primarily focused on the corporate bond market which has approximately $8 trillion outstanding and over $1.4 trillion issued in each of the last three years. Platforms have deployed innovative solutions to improve pre-trade price transparency as well as address various dimensions of the liquidity challenges in fixed income markets.

“Fixed income electronic trading platforms are investing in new technologies and finding innovative and creative ways in which to both aid price discovery and to enhance access to market liquidity,” said Randy Snook, executive vice president, business policies and practices at SIFMA. “This report is intended to provide useful information to market participants about the existing and a number of emerging electronic trading platforms and trade execution protocols, as increased competition among the players shapes this space. The information from this survey will help to inform a constructive dialogue around fixed income market structure with both market participants and policy makers.”

The survey provides profiles of electronic bond trading platforms and includes information on the target markets, trading protocols, technology interfaces, planned enhancements and related capabilities. It is provided to give stakeholders a greater understanding of the changing electronic trading marketplace.

Key takeaways include:

The report is available here.

Release Date: February 17, 2016
Contact: Katrina Cavalli, 212.313.1181, kcavalli@sifma.org




Obama's Last Budget: The Breakdown for States and Localities.

The president’s budget outlines ambitious spending proposals in health care and infrastructure — though their likelihood of passing is slim.

Every budget is about winners and losers. In that regard, President Obama’s final budget is a $4 trillion mixed bag for states and localities.

Many of his proposed initiatives would benefit urban areas, which won him praise from some but criticism from others who say such help would come at the expense of rural America.

Looking at the big picture, the proposed budget maintains the agreement reached last year that helped states and localities by lifting automatic cuts on discretionary spending, which are known as sequestration cuts. The budget also outlines ambitious spending proposals in health care and infrastructure — two key financial pressure points for state and local governments.

But getting such proposals through Congress looks tough, if not impossible. The president’s fiscal 2017 budget, unveiled on Tuesday, would pay for many new spending initiatives by imposing new taxes on the wealthy, as well as putting a new $10.25 per barrel tax on crude oil.

In a rare move, neither the Senate nor House budget committees have asked Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to testify about the package. Other committees will hold hearings for agency budget requests, but the House and Senate are crafting their own proposals without apparent regard for what OMB might have to say.

Still, Obama’s spending plan will likely shape the debate in Congress to some extent this year. As the congressional spending season gets underway, it will provide a blueprint for approaching many domestic programs.

Here are some of the main budget policies that would impact states, cities and counties:

Health Care
States would see some financial relief under Obama’s proposal, which sends new money directly to them.

The budget calls for $1.1 billion over two years to combat opioid abuse, including $920 million to help states provide medication-assisted treatment. It also calls for $90 million to help states expand programs to prevent prescription drug overdoses, particularly in the rural areas that have been hit hardest by the epidemic.

The budget would also extend the period in which the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of providing Medicaid coverage to individuals made eligible by the Affordable Care Act. The grace period would temporarily ease, or at least delay, the rising health-care costs many states are facing.

Water
The budget would provide $267 million in funding for water security initiatives, helping states in the South and West deal with a historic drought. Obama’s proposal would also fund a national research center to study ways of making desalination — the process that makes seawater drinkable — more affordable and efficient so it could be used on a larger scale. Another program would give money to the U.S. Geological Survey to help develop real-time water data so consumers and utilities can monitor their usage and learn how to consume less.

But Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, a Republican who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chastised the president for collectively cutting more than $257 million from state revolving loan fund accounts. In a statement issued Tuesday, Inhofe accused the president of putting “cities and rural communities and their basic infrastructure needs at the bottom of his priority list.”

Transportation and Roads
Driverless cars are the future, according to this budget anyway. Obama is calling for a $4 billion investment over the next decade for the testing of self-driving cars because of their potential to reduce pollution, traffic and accidents.

Meanwhile, the proposed $10-per-barrel fee on oil would help pay for $300 billion in new infrastructure investments. That idea was first floated last week, but Republicans have already panned it, saying the oil fee would be passed down to consumers and burden them with higher taxes.

The budget also strives for a regional approach to transportation. It would let metro areas get $10 billion worth of annual federal transportation money directly, rather than having it flow almost exclusively through states.

Tax Reform
The budget includes some staples from prior budgets, including a business tax overhaul that would clamp down on companies dodging U.S. taxes by sheltering profits in international holdings.

The president’s plan also calls for a new, partial tax on municipal bond interest — a proposal fiercely fought by state and local government associations because it would likely lead to higher interest rates.

Obama is also promoting the idea of America Fast Forward Transportation Bonds, which would be a taxable municipal bond that would encourage more private investment in public infrastructure. Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., the president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, applauded the Fast Forward Bonds, but he said eliminating muni bonds’ tax-free status would ultimately discourage investment in infrastructure projects and stifle job creation.

Agriculture
Obama has again looked to crop insurance and other farm subsidy programs for cuts, potentially saving $18 billion over 10 years. But the cuts stand little chance of passing into law. House Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway, a Texas Republican, immediately fired off a statement saying Obama’s plan deals “a severe blow to America’s farmers and ranchers who have already suffered a 56 percent drop in net farm income over the past two years.”

Homelessness
Sticking with his goal to end family homelessness by the end of the decade, Obama calls for $11 billion to help families find permanent housing. That includes expanding the rapid rehousing and Housing Choice Vouchers programs that help families find affordable housing. Still, many have criticized the administration for not going far enough to restore significant cuts these programs suffered under sequestration.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | FEBRUARY 9, 2016




Visible Hand.

With Neighborly, Jase Wilson meshes crowdfunding and bond markets to change how cities are built.

For someone who has devoted his life to helping cities, Jase Wilson MA ’08 grew up in a decidedly small town. Maryville, Missouri, has a population of 12,000 people, with civic life revolving around “farms, factories, and football.” Its one claim to fame is that it is the birthplace of Dale Carnegie, the promoter of American self-improvement, and Wilson followed in his footsteps as a self-taught whiz kid. “Most kids have a social life or play sports; I was in my bedroom taking apart computers and figuring out how circuit boards fit together,” he says.

His diligence earned him a free ride to attend engineering school. But during a visit to the University of Missouri at Kansas City, he happened on a pamphlet about “Urban Planning and Design.” After a 20-minute conversation with the department head, he was hooked on cities — structures as intricate as the most complex circuit board. “Cities are the sum of all other endeavors,” Wilson says. “They are co-created by the wants and desires of all the people inhabiting them. There are so many forces at work.”

Understanding those forces — and harnessing those desires — has become Wilson’s life work, culminating four years ago in the creation of Neighborly, a “community investment platform” that seeks to apply small-town values to big-city development. When fully up and running, it will allow citizens to directly fund community projects, from skate parks to elementary schools. If public finance may not seem sexy, consider this: much of the urban infrastructure we see daily — schools, highways, bridges, hospitals, water and sewer systems, and public housing — is funded through municipal bonds. It’s a $3.7 trillion market, with some $1 billion changing hands daily, and yet the ordinary citizen has little say about how it operates.

“If people knew they could invest in a street or school down the street, they would do that in a heartbeat,” contends Wilson. “They don’t because the market has been made very, very complicated by a handful of global banks who make a profit off making it as complicated as it can be.” These banks buy bonds in large blocks, too expensive for the average consumer, and resell them to brokers and large institutional investors, who may then resell them again as shares in bond funds for which they can charge large commissions.

Neighborly, by contrast, would take a page from Kickstarter by allowing citizens to buy a single bond, for an amount as low as a few hundred dollars, directly from a municipality. At the same time, it would enable cities to fund projects that communities want without having to appeal to the fickle interests of the bond markets. “We see a world in which anyone can invest in anywhere, and places can borrow money to finance the things they want and need directly from the community,” Wilson says.

Wilson has long worked to use technology to make cities run better. As a grad student in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), he went beyond the urban design training of his undergraduate education to think big about how cities function. “DUSP offered a far broader range of perspective on how cities evolve from the collective imagination, and how they both solve and exacerbate complex social problems,” he says. Case in point: the frustrations he heard while sitting in on meetings of low-income community groups in the Boston area. “Listening to their conversations about trying to put together money for various ideas that would help elevate their community, and seeing how they were on the losing end of an uneven distribution of tax dollars, made a big impression on me,” he says.

After graduation, Wilson focused on a company he founded to develop open-source software for cities to communicate with and gather data from citizens. His introduction to public finance was in 2011, when he was invited to speak at a conference at DUSP on urban planning and technology organized by Robert Goodspeed PhD ’13, where another speaker showed an example of a park that had recently been built through crowdfunding in the United Kingdom. “That MIT conference planted a seed,” he says.

Wilson began thinking more deeply about how crowdfunding could be harnessed on a larger scale. “Even after 10 years of studying cities, I was in the dark in terms of how cities were funded,” he admits. “There was always this sense that there was this weird invisible force that guides the shape of what we build.” A few weeks later, he sat down with Patrick Hosty, a municipal bond trader in Kansas City, and the lightbulb went off. They began putting together a plan for a platform that would combine crowdfunding and bond markets.

The idea of borrowing from individuals to fund civic projects goes back to the Medicis of Renaissance Italy, but the municipal bond is a distinctly American invention, starting in the 1800s when a group of citizens passed the hat to finance construction of a canal in New York, giving themselves IOU’s for repayment. Neighborly seeks to return the market to those roots, by creating a platform in which individuals can search for localities or interests, such as education or the environment, in which they would like to invest.

Municipal bonds are generally seen as low-risk investments and have the benefit of being tax-free, giving them a leg up on mutual funds and stocks. “A municipal bond with a 5 percent return could be the equivalent of another investment yielding 7.5 percent, and an order of magnitude less risky,” Wilson says. Just as important, however, the platform provides investors with projects to which they can feel personally connected. “You know exactly what you just built, because you can reach out and touch it,” Wilson says. “That’s different than putting money in a stock or corporation.”

As proof of demand, he points to a bond offering by Denver last August, in which it crowdfunded $12 million, in increments of $500, of $550 million to improve city roads and buildings. The bonds sold out in 16 minutes. So far, Neighborly has conducted a test project in a small school district in California, buying $2 million of a $20 million offering and selling it in $500 shares to early investors.

After struggling to raise seed funding for his company in Kansas City, Wilson reluctantly moved it to San Francisco last year. The move paid off; in September, Neighborly announced that it had raised $5.5 million from Silicon Valley venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale and actor-turned-investor Ashton Kutcher, who made Neighborly one of the first investments of his VC firm Sound Ventures.

In the first part of 2016, the company plans to roll out bonds for several other school projects in the Bay Area, where there is interest by Silicon Valley investors both in giving back to the community and finding tax-free havens for their money. But Wilson is hardly stopping there. “Eventually we want to be interplanetary. Mars will require many projects to get off the ground.”

Celestial bodies aside, Wilson is hoping that Neighborly can be an investment win-win, giving people a chance to build up their cities while keeping money in their communities. “It feels so good to jump out of bed every morning and know you are building this thing that’s in the service of civic visionaries,” says Wilson, “taking the decision making out of the hands of that invisible force and putting it back into the service of people.”

MIT News

Michael Blanding | School of Architecture and Planning

February 8, 2016




Meet the Canadian Who Developed a Ranking System for All 3,141 U.S. Counties.

John McLean said he developed an interest a few years back when he became aware of the information gaps that existed in the U.S. municipal bond market.

If nothing else the numbers are staggering — two million data points.

But that’s the outcome when you set out to the build the first of its kind in the U.S., a ranking system based on social and economic factors for all of the 3,141 counties in that country.

In all, the rankings, compiled in Canada, are based on 36 data inputs. There’s information on demographics; environment (including data on climate change and declarations of disaster); home ownership; real estate taxes; social indicators (including education and crime levels) and personal infrastructure (such as levels of police and teaching.) That information came from more than a dozen different government or government-related sources.

Known officially as The American County Review (ACRe), the work represents more than eight months of toil by John McLean, who for the past 23 years had focused his attention on bond analytics, bond pricing and developing bond indexes, initially at Scotia Capital and most recently with the Toronto Stock Exchange.

“There are 36 different measurements used for each county. We roll those up on an equal weight basis, and that’s how you get the top ranking within the state and [then] in the nation,” said McLean who developed the product to assist individuals and institutions make important living and investment decisions.

McLean, who has filed a patent on his work, called the past eight months a “labour of love.” He said he developed an interest a few years back when he became aware of the information gaps that existed in the U.S. municipal bond market. The muni-market is huge – almost US$4 trillion outstanding – with many issues being done on a tax-exempt basis.

“It seemed that ratings on municipal bonds were often assigned but never reviewed or updated,” said McLean, who then set out to develop a unique and non-arbitrary risk assessment of issuers at the county level. (Apart from county government issuers, school boards, redevelopment agencies, school districts, and publicly owned airports and seaports also issue.)

News that the rating agencies “may not be on top of their game, and may not be doing their best,” surprised McLean. “I always thought there was a better way, an easier way and a more frequent way to measure than [that done by the] rating agencies which is very subjective.”

In other words, he would target the U.S. municipal market by developing a better model, by providing better services but do it in a manner that is transparent and open.

“By looking at all the different economic and social factors, that are not interpretative, you get a good picture of what’s going on,” he said. Such information could be used for both individuals and corporations to make decisions.

“It works both ways,” said McLean. “It’s not just a case of attracting attention in investment because you are ranked high. You are trying to get more information into the hands of people who make those decisions.”

So who is going to purchase McLean’s product? The data providers — Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg — are a possibility as are commercial real estate investors; muni-bond issuers, investors and ratings agencies. Another possibility is to use the information to develop so-called Smart Beta bond indexes. Meantime users can obtain a free look at some data on the website www.acredata.com.

So what are the three top ranked counties with above 100,000 populations? Hamilton (Ind.); Sumter (Fla.) and Weld (Col.).

Financial Post

Barry Critchley | February 9, 2016 | Last Updated: Feb 10 12:39 PM ET

bcritchley@nationalpost.com




Fox Rothschild: Lower Oil Prices Lead To Significant Public Finance Issues.

For months, I have been telling people that while we all love paying less at the pump for our gasoline, lower oil prices will have significant consequences in the broader economy. North Dakota’s budget process this week provides a prime example.

On Monday, North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple ordered most state agencies to cut their budgets by a little more than 4% in an effort to cover a $1 billion revenue shortfall that the Williston Herald characterizes as “unprecedented.” The consensus opinion is that the decreased revenues from the production and sale of oil in the state, stemming from lower oil prices, is responsible for the bulk of the revenue deficit.

North Dakota’s state agencies will have to make their budget cuts by February 17, and those cuts are said to be the largest in raw dollars in the state’s history. Furthermore, the state is planning to draw $497.6 million from the state’s Budget Stabilization Fund, leaving only around $75 million “in the rainy day fund for what [the Governor] called the ‘unlikely event’ that the July revenue forecast would be even worse.”

In addition, some North Dakota officials have speculated aloud that the budget shortfall will put pressure on the legislature to tap into the state’s $3.5 billion trust fund for oil taxes.

There can be no doubt that the budget cuts for state agencies are going to have material impacts on some of the state’s services and we fear that those affected often are the one most dependent on those services. There also is no doubt that North Dakota is not the first state or local government struggling with decreased revenues as a result of lower oil and natural gas prices; nor will it be the last.

Lower prices for consumers are nice but we all should be aware of the unpleasant consequences associated with lower commodity prices. Lower prices don’t just mean lower profits for oil and gas companies, but also raise material concerns for real people. We think the industry should do a better job of making people aware of those issues.

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.

Article by Jack R. Luellen

Fox Rothschild LLP

Last Updated: February 7, 2016




NABL: President Releases FY 2017 Budget Proposals.

On February 9, 2016, President Obama released his fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget proposals. The budget proposes an increase in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) budget, including funds earmarked for enforcement, although the budget documents mention enforcement areas outside of tax-exempt bonds, such as transnational organized crime and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. The budget also proposes increases to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) budget, with a goal of doubling the SEC budget in five years. The budget also includes the Administration’s proposal from late last year to give all territories and their subdivisions, including Puerto Rico, access to bankruptcy. The tax policy proposals in the budget are substantially the same as the proposals included in last year’s budget.

The President again proposed to limit to 28 percent the benefit of certain tax preferences, including tax-exempt interest.

The President also again proposed a new category of private activity bond, Qualified Public Infrastructure Bonds (QPIBs). QPIBs would be available for certain governmentally-owned exempt facilities and would not be subject to volume cap or the alternative minimum tax. QPIBs would expand the safe-harbor for governmental ownership to allow for greater private business use to encourage public-private partnerships.

The President has also re-proposed a new direct-pay bond program, America Fast Forward (AFF) bonds. As before, the permissible uses would include nearly all of the current uses of tax-exempt bonds, such as private activity bonds and short-term capital needs, and would also include the new QPIBs. However, while AFF bonds could be used for current refundings, they could not be used for advance refundings. As with last year’s proposal, AFF bonds would be exempt from sequestration and the credit rate for AFF bonds would be 28 percent.

The other bond-related proposals in the budget include:

A description of the proposals is contained in the Treasury Department’s Green Book, which is available here.




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (How Flint’s Water Crisis Affects Michigan and Our Outlook for the Water-Sewer Sector).

In this week’s Extra Credit, Associate Director Carol Spain discusses Flint’s water crisis and its potential implications for the state of Michigan, and Senior Director Ted Chapman explains our revised U.S. municipal water-sewer criteria and the outlook for the sector.

Listen to the Podcast.

Feb. 8, 2016




S&P’s Public Finance Podcast (U.S. Not-For-Profit Cultural Institutions and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Budget).

In this week’s Extra Credit, Director Charlene Butterfield provides an overview of our recent report on cultural institutions and our outlook for the sector, and Senior Director Dave Hitchcock explains why we view the Massachusetts budget proposal as a step in the positive direction.

Listen to the Podcast.

Feb. 12, 2016




S&P: The Supreme Court Stay Of The Clean Power Plan Adds Uncertainty But Has No Immediate Rating Impact.

On Tuesday, Feb. 9, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) while an appeals court considers various challenges to the plan, which aims to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Given that oral arguments in the key lawsuit will not occur until early June, it’s likely that the EPA will not be permitted to continue implementing the CPP until 2017, under a new U.S. president and EPA administrator.

That said, the temporary stay does not actually negate the CPP, nor does it shed much light, in our opinion, on whether or not the Supreme Court (and any lower courts) may overturn it. It strictly provides the Court (and the industry, by extension) more time to react to the rule prior to implementation, without bearing any of the economic impacts of implementation. However, some legal observers believe the stay could signal judicial concerns about the structure of the CPP, despite the EPA’s established authority to regulate carbon emissions.

Continue reading.

12-Feb-2016




S&P Continues to Monitor the Credit Quality of U.S. Public Power and Cooperative Utilities With Carbon Exposure.

NEW YORK (Standard & Poor’s) Feb. 12, 2016–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services today said that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Feb. 9, stay of the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP) is unlikely to affect the ratings on those public power and electric cooperative utilitiesthat would need to reduce carbon emissions to comply with the regulation.

In what many have categorized as an extraordinary order, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the EPA’s regulation pending proceedings in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The circuit court will assess the merits of plaintiffs’ efforts to invalidate the CPP. The Supreme Court’s order, containing fewer than 150 words, did not indicate the rationale underlying its decision.

The EPA finalized its CPP carbon emission regulations in August 2015. The CPP calls for reducing U.S. power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions 32% by 2030 relative to 2012 benchmarks. Compared with the national reduction target of 32%, each state has individual mandates that vary greatly. The state-by-state standards reflect significant regional differences in the mix of fuels their utilities use to generate electricity. The rule directs states to file initial implementation plans by Sept. 6, 2016, and final plans by September 2018. States failing to meet these milestones will be subject to federally designed implementation plans.

If the Supreme Court’s stay postpones the state implementation plans’ September 2016 delivery date, it might also defer the rule’s financial impacts on utilities. With or without a delay, we do not view the rule’s financial pressures as imminent because the regulations do not require utilities to meet interim compliance goals until 2022. The rule’s pathway to a 32% national reduction in carbon emissions includes interim reduction targets spanning 2022-2029.

Standard & Poor’s is unable to predict the outcome of the legal proceedings challenging the CPP and will continue to monitor those proceedings to discern their impact. As we noted in our commentary, “The EPA’s Clean Power Plan Is Not An Immediate Credit Threat To U.S. Public Power And Co-Op Utilities, But Uncertainties Remain” (published Oct. 20, 2015, on RatingsDirect), we believe that the EPA’s carbon emissions rules will not lead to lower ratings during our two-year outlook horizon.

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.

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.




Contradictory Pension Reports.

Two groups published studies this week looking at whether traditional pensions or 401(k) plans are better for teachers and came up with … exactly opposite conclusions.The University of California at Berkeley looked at the state’s teacher pension system (CalSTRS) and found that for the “vast majority” of California teachers (six out of seven), a defined-benefit pension provides more secure retirement income than a 401(k)-style plan.

The study also concluded that pensions reduce teacher turnover, “which is better for students, reduces costly and time-consuming training, and increases teacher effectiveness.” It portrayed 401(k) and cash balance plans as bad for teachers because they place more risk on the retiree as their final benefit is not defined. Such plans also decrease the incentive for early and mid-career teachers to stay on the job, the report said.

Separately, TeacherPensions.org ran an analysis of teacher pensions in Illinois. It found that traditional pensions are not a good deal for teachers because they disproportionately favor those who stick around for 30 or 35 years, “at the expense of everyone else. The state plan assumes, and depends upon, the fact that the majority of teachers will not stay long enough to collect full benefits.” The report recommends considering other retirement plan options, such as the 401(k)-type plan offered to full-time staff at Illinois’ state universities.

Maybe this seeming contradiction isn’t that great a surprise. Consider the sources. It’s worth pointing out that TeacherPensions.org produces lots of reports that spell out the shortcomings of traditional pensions, while the Berkeley study was funded by CalSTRS.

Still, one lesson worth thinking about is that no two pension plans are alike. A key difference between the plans in Illinois and California is the so-called withdrawal penalty, which occurs when a teacher quits and opts out of the retirement system before reaching retirement age.

All states let teachers withdraw at least the automatic contributions taken from their paychecks, sometimes with interest — as is the case with California teachers. But Illinois has one of the most punitive withdrawal policies of any public retirement plan in the country. Illinois teachers who withdraw early don’t even get all their own contributions back in full. The state charges withdrawal tax, meaning they only get 89 cents back for each dollar taken out of their paychecks. No wonder the TeacherPensions.org authors conclude these pensions are a bad deal for most teachers.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | FEBRUARY 12, 2016




Rethinking the Game Plan for Stadium Bonds.

Is a 30-year bond realistic when the economic lives of stadiums are proving to be much shorter?

In the world of sports stadiums, 20 is the new 30.

Stadiums are typically financed through bonds that take 30 years to pay off. But their useful life isn’t always that long.

Just take last month’s announcement that the St. Louis Rams would be decamping to Los Angeles, leaving behind its 20-something football stadium for a shiny new one. The St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority is still paying off a portion of the $259 million in bonds it issued to build the Rams a new stadium when they moved from L.A. in 1995.

It’s not the only issuer paying off 30-year debt for a project that didn’t make it the full life of the bond. In Georgia, the Atlanta Falcons are moving to a new stadium next year even though the Georgia Dome is less than 25 years old. The San Antonio Spurs left the Alamodome in 2003, just 10 years after it was built.

With twice as many new stadiums being built over the next three years compared to the last few, it begs the question: Is a 30-year bond still realistic when the economic lives of stadiums are proving to be much shorter?

The basic answer, according to municipal analysts, is that it depends on the terms of the stadium deal. The St. Louis deal to woo the Rams away from L.A. is now regarded as one of the worst deals in football. That’s because in its leasing agreement with the team, St. Louis said its then-brand new Edward Jones Dome would remain in the top 25 percent of NFL stadiums. That meant the city had to pay for renovations to ensure the stadium operated at a “first-class standard.”

When the stadium fell out of the top quartile, that kicked off a legal battle between the team and city over what investments were necessary to bring it back into compliance. An arbiter sided with the Rams, but the city’s convention authority still refused to pay. As a result, the team’s lease converted to a year-to-year one, which ultimately spelled the end of the team’s tenure in St. Louis.

Giving a team that much leverage over a city is uncommon today, said Tamara Lowin, director of research at Belle Haven Investments. “The Rams deal is one of the reasons there are now requirements that teams stay as long as the bond is outstanding,” she said. If they don’t stay, these so-called non-relocation agreements force teams to pay hefty penalties.

Over the past two decades, governments have gotten more savvy in their negotiations with professional sports teams in other ways, too. Officials have been less inclined to foot the entire bill for stadiums when they see team owners benefitting from luxury suites and other high-price add-ons that increase the team’s valuation and put more money in owners’ pockets.

Meanwhile, a host of economic studies have shed doubt on the argument that sports facilities increase economic value for host cities. “All those factors made people on the public side say, ‘Do we really think this is a great investment?’” said Wells Fargo Securities Analyst Randy Gerardes.

Publicly financed football stadiums are an especially troublesome investment because of their sheer acreage and large seating capacity. It’s difficult to find uses for the infrastructure beyond the NFL season — although many stadium authorities have gotten better in recent years at eking revenue out of them. For example, pro stadiums now host college football rivalry games, international exhibition soccer matches and the occasional live concert with a pop star big enough to fill 70,000 to 90,000 seats.

But there are few meaningful uses of stadiums after their pro sports teams leave. In Houston, officials were able to repurpose the Astrodome for rodeos and concerts for several years until it was shut down in 2008 because of fire code violations. “Some publicly owned stadiums that have lost their professional sports team tenants have been effectively repurposed for collegiate or local use, yet these tend to be older assets with little to no debt outstanding [which lowers the facility’s operating costs],” said a recent Moody’s Investors Service analysis.

These are the kind of factors state and local officials are considering as the next round of stadium building kicks off. Most of these projects are likely to be a combination of public and private financing as publicly funded stadiums are no longer palatable.

For municipalities and states issuing bonds for these types of projects, Gerardes says a 30-year life is still reasonable — as long as the government installs safeguards to protect the stadium’s economic livelihood for the life of the bond. “I think that’s really how you’re going to get comfortable with this phenomenon,” he says. “You need to make it pretty iron-clad that the team has a big disincentive to move.”

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | FEBRUARY 11, 2016




New York’s Subways Court Millennials With First Green Bonds.

The busiest U.S. mass transit agency, which carries 8.5 million people on a given weekday, wants to change that by joining a growing marketing push among local governments to pitch bonds to investors who are looking to do well by doing good. It’s planning to issue $500 million of so-called green bonds next week, the first time it’s offering securities certified for projects that help curb the pace of global warming.

“It’s a way to easily publicize programs they they’re doing that may fall under the public radar,” said Rob Fernandez, director of environmental, social and governance research at Boston-based Breckinridge Capital Advisors, which manages $24 billion. “The other benefit is that it’s seen to broaden their investor base.”

U.S. state and local governments have issued about $7.5 billion of green bonds since 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The designation is helping borrowers in the $3.7 trillion market appeal to buyers who use social factors such as the environment, education and health care to guide their decisions.

Last year, Columbia Threadneedle Investments, a unit of Ameriprise Financial Inc., started a U.S. Social Bond Fund, mainly composed of tax-exempt debt. TIAA-CREFF Financial Services and Calvert Investments have social and green-bond funds, respectively, though most of their holdings are taxable securities.

Green bonds are issued by development banks, such as the World Bank, municipalities, utilities and corporations. Eligible projects fall into eight broad categories, including renewable energy, clean transportation and sustainable water management.

That makes them applicable to the municipal market, which has financed public works for years without the acknowledgment of an environmentalist brand. In 2014, state and local governments spent $320 billion on transportation and water infrastructure, three times more than the federal government, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The people who seem most interested in social-impact investing are millennials and women, said James Dearborn, head of tax-exempt securities at Columbia Threadneedle. Its bond fund owned $250,000 MTA debt as of Sept. 30 2015.

“As the baby boom generation ages and begins to pass away, then we end up with a wealth transfer that takes place and a lot of people who will be getting the wealth of the baby boomers will be women, who outlive men generally, and millennials,” said Dearborn, who declined to comment on whether he’d buy any of the transit agency’s bonds next week.

“Obviously mass transit is about reducing the carbon foot print — fewer cars on the road, more people in trains and buses and light rail,” he said. “Also, if you look at the generalized ridership of mass transit, by and large you’re supporting lower-income individuals whose only means of transportation is public transportation.”

Seattle’s transit agency, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, issued about $940 million of green bonds in August, the largest-ever green muni issue. Proceeds were used to expand Seattle’s light-rail system and refinance higher-cost debt.

Says Who?

To comply with green bond principles, issuers need to show to non-profit standards setters like the London-based Climate Bonds Initiative how they determined the projects were eligible, ensure bond proceeds are spent on the designated projects and provide annual reports on the impact of the investments. Some issuers also hire outside consultants to review project selection and evaluation.

The MTA’s bonds, backed by system-wide revenue, will be certified under standards set by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The transportation agency hired Sustainalytics, an Amsterdam-based firm, to verify compliance with the guidelines.

“The certification process is a voluntary verification initiative which allows the MTA to demonstrate to the investor market, the users of the MTA’s transit and commuter systems and other stakeholders that the series 2016A bonds meet international standards for climate integrity, management of proceeds and transparency,” the MTA said in a preliminary bond offering statement.

The MTA’s subways, trains, and buses help reduce carbon emissions by getting commuters off the road. Two-thirds of New York state’s 19.7 million people live and work in the region it serves. The transit agency estimates it allows the region to avoid 17 million metric tons of carbon emissions, compared with the 2 million it produces to run the system.

“By leaving their cars at home and embracing mass transit, New Yorkers play a dramatic role in reducing carbon emissions,” MTA Chief Executive Officer Thomas Prendergast said in a statement.

While a green designation may help generate more demand by attracting environmentally-conscious investors, there’s no clear evidence that it lowers borrowing costs, said Vikram Puppala, an associate director at Sustainalytics.

“The formal green bond market allows investors who are already interested in investing in this product to identify them and be confident that the money is actually going to green projects,” he said.

Bloomberg Business

by Martin Z Braun

February 10, 2016 — 1:01 PM PST Updated on February 11, 2016 — 8:24 AM PST




Texas `Dirt' Bonds Make Comeback With Fewer Investor Protections.

Westlake, Texas, carved out a special district to borrow $26.2 million last year for a developer to lay the groundwork for a “European style village” with residential villas, hotels and a wedding chapel around an 8.3-acre lake.

The debt for the new community some 35 miles (56 kilometers) northwest of Dallas is part of a small but growing niche of the $9 billion Texas dirt-bond market that’s not bound by regulations that since the 1980s have protected buyers from the risks of a property-market crash. A record $211 million was raised last year by selling the public-improvement district debt, which allows developers to borrow before a project begins, making them akin to the securities issued in other states that defaulted during the last real estate crash.

“The risk to bondholders would be higher” in a housing-market rout, said Lisa Washburn, a managing director for Municipal Market Analytics in Concord, Massachusetts.

Following an influx of new residents that caused the population to swell by more than 1,000 a day, Texas’s local governments have been stepping up sales of municipal bonds that help transform vacant tracts into newly-minted homes and commercial developments. The flood of debt has paid for water lines, roads, parks and other infrastructure needed to keep up with the booming Texas economy, which has started to cool as the drop in oil prices ripples through the energy industry.

 

The real estate district bonds are paid off by a property tax, which is covered by residents after they move in. That can pose a risk to investors if the houses sit vacant, the developer doesn’t complete the project or it can’t meet the tax bills until they’re sold.

Most of the bonds issued for such developments in Texas have been through municipal-utility districts, which have faced heightened regulations since the housing crash of the 1980s pushed many to default. The 800 districts are regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, require that developers make minimum investments before bonds can be sold, and have broad power to levy property taxes.

That’s provided security to bondholders. None of those districts missed debt-service payments in 2012 or 2016, years when Florida and Colorado borrowers had defaults rates from 1 percent to 15 percent, according to Municipal Market Analytics.

The public-improvement district bonds, which raise money for the same purposes, aren’t covered by those regulations. And their use has been on the rise: While only about $500 million have been issued since the structure was authorized by Texas lawmakers in the 1980s, $311 million of that was in the past two years. About a dozen districts sold them in 2015.

The securities tend to have lower credit ratings than their more heavily regulated counterparts or no ratings at all. While more than 60 percent of municipal-utility districts are in Moody’s Investors Service’s single-A rating category, most of the public-improvement district debt sold last year wasn’t ranked, according to Bloomberg data. Borrowers frequently forgo ratings if they’re unlikely to qualify for an investment grade.

Many public-improvement bonds issued last year were for suburbs ringing the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where rapid job growth has been driving housing starts and price gains to the highest level in a decade.

Shrinking Inventory

That area’s real estate market has been resilient despite the oil industry’s contraction. Last year, the inventory of houses for sale shrank 9 percent in north Texas after declining about 12 percent the year before, according to North Texas Real Estate Information Systems. In November, Dallas home prices were up 9.4 percent from a year earlier, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index.

In Westlake, where Fidelity Investments is the largest employer with more than 5,000 workers, developers of the 85-acre Solana Public Improvement District are using the proceeds of the January 2015 sale for infrastructure needed to build homes and commercial buildings. That initial work will be done by August, said Sarah Dodd, spokeswoman for Centurion American Development Group, a developer.

When finished in a decade, Westlake Entrada, as it’s known, is slated to include 322 single-family villas and condos at prices ranging from $360,000 to $995,000, according to bond documents. Plans also include two hotels, restaurants, retail and office sites and an amphitheater, chapel and events center.

Dodd, the spokeswoman, said the risk to bondholders is mitigated by a “stringent” review of proposed districts by the local-government officials that establish them. “Due diligence is very comprehensive,” she said.

The arrangement allows the development to be built in a “way that doesn’t burden existing taxpayers,” said Amanda DeGan, Westlake’s assistant town manager.

The securities have offered high yields at a time when interest rates are holding near half-century lows. In November, the Jackson Ridge Public Improvement District in Aubrey, north of Dallas, sold $10.2 million of unrated bonds maturing in 2040 at a yield of 8.25 percent, more than twice as much as top-rated bonds. The Bayside Public Improvement District in Rowlett, another suburb of the city, is scheduled to sell $13.5 million of the debt next week.

The debt lets cities and counties to fund development without the cost. But some investors are hesitant to take on the risk that they may not be repaid if the housing market doesn’t hold up.

“It’s a legal structure that’s not dependable,” said Doug Benton, senior municipal credit manager for Cavanal Hill Investment Management, which manages about $6 billion. The firm doesn’t invest in public improvement district bonds. “The pledge is weaker.”

Bloomberg Business

by Darrell Preston

February 9, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on February 10, 2016 — 9:52 AM PST




Unlikely Beneficiary of Cheap Gas Turns Out to Be Highway Bonds.

Americans are paying less at the pump and more at the toll booth, making municipal bonds for highway projects one of the rare winners from the oil-market crash.

Tax-exempt toll-road and turnpike securities have gained 1.8 percent this year, outpacing the 1.6 percent return for the broad $3.7 trillion market, Bank of America Merrill Lynch data show. That’s extending a five-year run of out-performance for the bonds, the longest streak since the data begin in 2005.

The slide in gasoline prices is adding fuel to the rally in the muni-market niche, where state and local governments have sold $109 billion of debt tied to roads, bridges and tunnels that charge a fee. With more drivers hitting the road, the finances are looking brighter: In December, Moody’s Investors Service assigned a positive outlook to toll roads for the first time.

 

“If oil prices are low for a couple of years, it’s a great time to take advantage of some of these energy-dependent sectors like tollways,” said Justin Hoogendoorn, a managing director in Chicago at Piper Jaffray Cos., which recommends adding the securities. “We’re definitely seeing their revenues improve and it’s translating to tighter spreads.”

The cost of a barrel of oil has been cut by more than half since June, sending gasoline down to about $1.70 a gallon, the lowest since the depths of the recession seven years ago. That pushed the number of Americans traveling more than 50 miles (80 kilometers) above 100 million, a record, from Dec. 23 to Jan. 3, with 91 percent driving to their destination, according to a projection from the American Automobile Association.

Traffic will grow by a median 3 percent for the 45 toll roads rated by Moody’s, the company said in a December report. It raised its outlook on the segment to positive, citing a forecast of 5 to 6 percent increase in revenue this year, once toll increases are included.

Some have done even better than that. Collections at the Harris County Toll Road Authority in Texas soared by 12.9 percent in the 2015 fiscal year, while the Florida Department of Transportation’s turnpike revenue jumped 10.7 percent and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission saw a 7.8 percent increase, according to data compiled by Piper Jaffray. The three are among the 15 largest issuers of tollway securities, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The securities offer higher relative yields as interest rates in the municipal market hold near the lowest since the 1960s. Harris County’s bonds due in 2034 traded Feb. 10 at a 2.55 percent yield, about 0.3 percentage point more than benchmark munis, Bloomberg data show. They were first sold in October for a yield of 3.08 percent, some 0.4 percentage point more than AAA debt. Harris County had more than $2 billion of highway debt outstanding at the end of August, according to bond documents.

“The fundamentals of some of the toll roads are improving — you’ve seen some spread compression, but we still think there’s some value there,” said Burt Mulford, a manager of tax-exempt funds in St. Petersburg, Florida, at Eagle Asset Management, which oversees $2.5 billion of state and local debt. “There’s more volatility in the revenue stream on toll roads because it’s based on economic conditions.”

Crude-oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange have plunged as supply worldwide exceeds slowing global demand. The price for a barrel has dropped about 26 percent this year to just over $27, holding near the lowest since 2003.

While a boon for toll roads, the slide from $100 a barrel in mid-2014 has wreaked havoc on budgets in states that count on oil-related revenue. Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas and North Dakota are among the most-dependent on the energy industry, according to a report last month from Standard & Poor’s.

In Alaska, which last month lost its AAA rating from S&P, the state will collect only a third of the $5.2 billion of revenue initially expected for the fiscal year ending June 30. It may have to institute a personal income tax for the first time in 35 years to balance its budget.

Investors should sell bonds backed by municipalities that count on oil until public officials figure out how to combat the price decline, according to Hoogendoorn at Piper Jaffray. The extended drop suggests that the supply-demand imbalance isn’t a fleeting phenomenon, he said.

“Tollways are non-essential, and obviously you can have varying traffic,” Hoogendoorn said. “But ultimately, we’re going to drive, and with low gas prices, we’re going to drive quite a bit more.”

Bloomberg Business

by Brian Chappatta

February 11, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on February 12, 2016 — 4:09 AM PST




Replay: Exposure Draft U.S. Local Tax-Supported Ratings.

Senior Fitch analysts discussed the proposed criteria addition to our US local tax-supported ratings.

Listen.




Muni ‘Junk’ Is Seen as Treasure.

As concerns about interest rates, the economy and oil prices spooked junk-bond investors in the fourth quarter, one area of the risky debt market emerged as a relative flight to safety: municipal high-yield bonds.

Since October, nearly $300 million has flowed into the $1.9 billion Market Vectors High-Yield Municipal Index ETF (HYD), according to ETF.com. At the same time, $2.6 billion left the two largest high-yield corporate-debt ETFs.

HYD has a 4.3% yield—5.1% to 7.1% when the effect of reduced taxes are considered—and a 0.35% expense ratio. To get that yield, investors have to swallow exposure to lower-rated municipal credits, including the Chicago Board of Education, Puerto Rico, Jefferson County, Ala., and tobacco bonds across many states.

“Municipal yields are competitive for a risk profile that is fundamentally different” from corporates, says Jeff Weniger, senior strategist at BMO Private Bank in Chicago. “There may be long-term problems in a few areas,” he says, but corporate defaults, in comparison, can cascade across industries, regardless of location.

While 25% of HYD’s portfolio includes investment-grade bonds, nearly all of the holdings are revenue bonds, which depend on specific tolls or fees.

Moreover, HYD’s modified duration is 9.3 years, compared with 4.7 years for iShares National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (MUB), which invests only in investment-grade muni bonds. That means HYD is more sensitive to short-term interest-rate changes.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By ARI I. WEINBERG

Updated Feb. 7, 2016 10:09 p.m. ET

Mr. Weinberg is a writer in Connecticut. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.




GASB Issues Guidance on Blending Certain Component Units Into Financial Statements.

Norwalk, CT, February 11, 2016 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today issued GASB Statement No. 80, Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units. The Statement is intended to provide clarity about how certain component units incorporated as not-for-profit corporations should be presented in the financial statements of the primary state or local government.

Statement 80 clarifies the display requirements in GASB Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity, by requiring these component units to be blended into the primary state or local government’s financial statements in a manner similar to a department or activity of the primary government. The guidance addresses diversity in practice regarding the presentation of not-for-profit corporations in which the primary government is the sole corporate member.

While this Statement applies to a limited number of governmental units, such as public hospitals, it is meant to enhance the comparability of financial statements among those units and improve the value of this information for users of state and local government financial statements.

The requirements of the Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2016, with earlier application encouraged.




GASB Board Meeting Highlights.

Meetings of the GASB were held at the GASB offices in Norwalk, Connecticut on January 5–6 in accordance with the notice of meetings published in advance of the meetings. The minutes of the December teleconferences were formally approved at the January 5 meeting. The following topics were discussed: Leases; Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units; Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements; Financial Reporting Model Reexamination; Debt Extinguishment Issues; and Implementation Guidance—Update.

Leases

The Board reviewed a preballot draft of the proposed Exposure Draft, Leases, and provided clarifying edits on the draft document. The Board tentatively decided that the Exposure Draft should propose that only governments whose principal ongoing operations consist of leasing assets to other entities be required to disclose future lease payments that are included in the lease receivable, showing principal and interest separately.

Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units

The Board reviewed a preballot draft of a final Statement, Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units, and provided clarifying edits on the draft document.

Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements

The Board continued redeliberations and reviewed a draft text of the Standards section of a final Statement. The Board provided clarifying edits on the draft Standards section.
The Board also discussed respondent feedback requesting that the Board delay this project until the reexamination of Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions, and tentatively decided to proceed towards issuance of a final Statement.

Financial Reporting Model Reexamination

The Board continued discussion of three general approaches to the recognition of elements of financial statements and presentation for governmental fund financial statements. The three approaches discussed by the Board include near-term financial resources, near-term financial resources with current-period operating liabilities, and working capital (formerly referred to as short-term accrual). For each approach, the Board discussed the relationship with the objectives of financial reporting, messages conveyed by financial statements, recognition concepts, potential benefits and challenges, recognition of specific transactions, and pre-agenda research. After the discussion, the Board tentatively decided to further develop the near-term financial resources approach, working capital approach, and a working capital approach with a variation to recognition of post-employment benefits and compensated absences. The Board also tentatively decided to further explore the following four presentation alternatives for resources flows: statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances (current format); cash flows statement categories; recurring transactions separated from one-time and limited-time transactions; and short-term (or current) activities separated from long-term activities.

Debt Extinguishment Issues

The Board discussed the scope of the project and tentatively decided that it should include consideration of (a) whether the use of solely existing resources placed into an irrevocable trust to retire a bond warrants defeasance accounting as provided in Statement No. 7, Advance Refundings Resulting in Defeasance of Debt, (b) the deferral treatment of the difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the debt when existing resources are used in conjunction with refunding bond proceeds and when only existing resources are placed into an irrevocable trust to retire bonds, (c) disclosure requirements related to items (a) and (b), and (d) the treatment of prepaid insurance related to a refunded bond.

Implementation Guidance—Update

The Board considered issues raised by respondents to the Exposure Draft, Implementation Guide 20XX-XX. The Board considered modifications to some proposed questions in response to these issues. The Board did not object to the proposed modifications and provided other suggestions to clarify the content of the materials. The Board tentatively decided to exclude from the Implementation Guide proposed Questions 4.69 and 5.37.




GASB Proposes to Establish a Single Approach for Reporting Leases of State and Local Governments.

Norwalk, CT—February 8, 2016 — The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) today issued a proposal to establish a single approach for state and local governments to report leases based on the principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Limited exceptions are provided in the draft guidance, including short-term leases (12 months or less) and financed purchases.

The proposed Statement would provide guidance for lease contracts for nonfinancial assets—including vehicles, heavy equipment, and buildings—but exclude grants, donated assets, and leases of intangible assets (such as patents and software licenses).

Under the Exposure Draft, Leases, a lessee government would be required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible asset representing its right to use the leased asset. A lessor government would be required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources.

A lessee also would report the following in its financial statements:

A lessor also would report the following in its financial statements:

“This proposal would more closely align the accounting and financial reporting for leases with the substance of these arrangements,” said GASB Chair David A. Vaudt. “Establishing a single model for reporting governmental leasing agreements should result in greater transparency and usefulness for financial statement users and reduced complexity in application for state and local government preparers and auditors.”

Other issues addressed in the Exposure Draft include accounting for lease terminations and modifications, sale-leaseback transactions, nonlease components embedded in lease contracts (such as service agreements), and related-party leases.

The Exposure Draft — and a high-level GASB in Focus overview — is available on the GASB website, www.gasb.org. Stakeholders are encouraged to review and provide comments by May 31, 2016. The GASB will host a public hearing on the Exposure Draft on June 29, 2016. Additional details, including instructions for registering to participate or observe, are highlighted in the document.




EPA’s Financial Technical Assistance Designed to Spur Community Water Infrastructure Projects.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing funding and guidance to communities to help them develop effective investment strategies, which can include various types of partnerships, to improve their drinking water and wastewater management infrastructure.

Through its WaterCARE program, EPA will spend a total of $500,000 to provide 10 communities with financial and technical support which will include assistance in developing rates, revenue and affordability analyses, asset management practices, water efficiency studies, resiliency assessments, and financing and funding options.

The communities that were chosen to receive this assistance have populations of less than 100,000 with below-average median household incomes, face public health challenges, and/or are able to undertake water infrastructure projects. The results of successful projects will be shared with other communities that have similar water infrastructure development needs.

The WaterCARE program participants are:

The WaterCARE program is one of several initiatives being conducted by EPA’s Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center, “which works with on-the-ground partners to provide financial technical assistance to communities,” EPA explained.

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, for example, is a federal-state partnership that provides communities a permanent, independent source of low-cost financing for a range of water quality infrastructure projects, which can be conducted through P3s. In connection with this, the center is launching a State Revolving Fund Peer-to-Peer Learning Program with the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities and engaging in other SRF outreach on state-of-the-art practices.

The center is conducting a Water Infrastructure Public-Private Partnership and Public-Public Partnership Study and local government training with the University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center and West Coast Exchange.

The center is also working with its partners to promote the use of new tools such as EPA Region 3’s “Community-Based Public-Private Partnerships (CBP3) Guide for Local Governments,” which helps communities explore alternative market-based tools, P3s and other funding sources to build and maintain integrated green stormwater infrastructure.

NCPPP

By Editor

February 4, 2016




How Oil States Are Dealing With Sinking Prices and Revenue.

Oil prices are now at their lowest level in 12 years — below $30 a barrel. That’s great news for consumers, but not for the states that depend on oil tax revenues.

The falling price of oil, which has declined more than 60 percent since June 2014, has some states scrambling. With no end in sight, states that are more dependent on the industry simply can’t replace the revenue by withdrawing from their substantial rainy day funds.

Oil, natural gas and mining account for about 10 percent or more of gross domestic product in eight states: Alaska, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. Last year, total tax revenues in the eight states declined by 3.2 percent, according to a new analysis by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. In contrast, the remaining 42 states reported a 6.5 percent increase in total tax revenues.

Although most of these states tend to budget conservatively, the good years for oil had an impact on their finances.

“As oil went up in price, so did budgets and spending,” said Roy Eappen of Wells Fargo Securities. “I think now they’re realizing — if they didn’t before — that they can’t assume oil is going to bounce back.”

As these states consider changes to address the revenue shortage, their potential solutions vary widely — from a complete financial overhaul to minor budget tweaks.

The Poster Child: Alaska

Alaska’s situation is the most precarious because it’s the only state that directly funnels much of its oil revenue into its operating budget. Until recently, high oil revenues paid for up to 90 percent of the state’s operating costs and allowed Alaska to beef up its rainy day reserves to about $17 billion — enough to cover more than two full years of state expenses.

But in 2015, the state withdrew $2.8 billion from its rainy day savings to close a budget gap. This year’s budget relies on a $3.4 billion withdrawal despite cutting about $1 billion in spending. In the past year, the state’s total tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds. Last month, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the state’s credit rating from a top-rated AAA to AA+ and warned it could be downgraded again.

In response, Gov. Bill Walker has proposed completely revamping Alaska’s revenue system. His fiscal 2017 budget, which starts July 1, includes the state’s first income tax in more than three decades. While small — about 1.5 percent for most Alaskans — the tax likely won’t be popular with residents.

Walker’s budget proposal would also restructure the state’s $47 billion Permanent Fund, a low-risk investment fund that’s fed by about one-quarter of the state’s oil revenue and pays an annual dividend to residents. The state would seize the fund, increase the amount of oil revenue going toward it by half and put the fund’s investment earnings toward future operating budgets. The other half of oil revenue would be used for residents’ dividends. This year’s payments were about $2,000; under Walker’s proposal, payments would likely be cut to $1,000.

Looking Long in Louisiana

In Louisiana, the drop in oil prices has merely exacerbated the state’s longstanding structural budget issues. Many say the state’s budget imbalance started during its building boom and revenue surge following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Instead of socking the money away in a rainy day fund, the state cut income taxes. Between that and the economic downturn, the state has struggled to meet revenue expectations ever since.

The previous administration tended to rely on one-time fixes to balance the budget. But that approach won’t work for Gov. John Bel Edwards, who just inherited an estimated $750 million shortfall in the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. Next year’s shortfall is projected to be up to $1.9 billion.

Edwards recently announced across-the-board cuts to address the current budget gap and has asked lawmakers to consider long-term solutions for next year’s budget, including raising the tobacco tax and reducing business tax credits and personal income tax deductions.

Cuts, Cuts, Cuts

Like Alaska and Louisiana, Oklahoma and West Virginia are considering spending cuts to address the oil shortfalls. But unlike them, they aren’t considering longer term solutions. The governor in West Virginia made across-the-board cuts of 4 percent for most state agencies to address a $250 million-plus gap. While officials in Oklahoma already made across-the-board spending cuts for the current fiscal year and are eyeing more cuts to close a projected $900 million gap in fiscal 2017.

A Local Problem, Too

In North Dakota and Texas, some of the biggest pressure is localized.

Williston, N.D., the epicenter of the state’s boom since the discovery of the Bakken Shale deposit in 2009, is seeing signs of an economic slowdown. Still, slowing down from warp speed is relative. For example, Williston only recently lost its top ranking in the state for the amount of sales tax it collected. For the first time in four years, Fargo — which has more than five times the population of Williston — collected more sales taxes than the boomtown.

West Texas began feeling the slowdown in oil production last year. So far, lower oil prices and weaker production have caused property tax values to drop 6 percent compared with a year ago. “Layoffs have caused weaker consumer spending, which is impacting sales tax revenues,” according to a Moody’s Investors Service analysis.

Still, the state governments are also feeling the slowdown and making adjustments.

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple on Monday ordered state agencies to cut their budgets 4 percent to offset the projected shortfall of more than $1 billion. North Dakota is the second most dependent state on oil revenue, after Alaska, but it has taken steps to buffer itself from that volatility. For example, North Dakota caps the flow of severance tax revenue — the tax imposed on the production of oil and minerals — into the general fund to about 4.4 percent. Excess funds get diverted to local governments and special funds.

In Texas, total tax collections declined 6 percent in just the first four months of fiscal 2016. Texas diverts much of the oil revenue into its rainy day fund. Still, Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar cut the state’s revenue expectation in October by 2.3 percent to $110.4 billion over its current two-year budget cycle. But Wells Fargo’s Eappen notes that Heger also set the budget well below what the real revenues have been. This “created an additional cushion against oil price revenue shocks, even beyond the downward revenue adjustment in October,” said Eappen.

Then There’s New Mexico and Wyoming

New Mexico is considering withdrawing from its rainy day fund to fill a $145 million hole in this year’s budget. Lawmakers are also reconsidering a $230 million spending increase in Gov. Susana Martinez’s fiscal 2017 budget. Wyoming’s governor, on the other hand, is setting aside unspent appropriations from this year to plug in next year’s estimated shortfall of $150 million.

GOVERNING.COM

BY LIZ FARMER | FEBRUARY 4, 2016




Kansas Lawmakers Scrutinize KU’s Out-of-State Bond Issue.

The University of Kansas borrowed $330 million to build facilities without the approval of the Kansas Legislature.

KU used a Wisconsin agency to issue $326.9 million in bonds last month, setting up a private corporation to serve as the debtor so it would not have to seek legislative permission.

University officials say they followed the law.

But House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, criticized the arrangement as “circumventing legislative oversight and escaping the public view.”

House Republicans are drafting legislation to prevent state universities from making similar arrangements in the future.

“Kansas taxpayers deserve for their elected representatives to be involved in substantial financial deals to make certain there is transparency and accountability wherever state assets are involved,” Merrick said in an e-mail.

Lawmakers have expressed concern that students will be forced to pay off the debt through tuition increases, a fear that KU officials say is unfounded.

The $326.9 million in bonds was issued on behalf of the KU Campus Development Corporation, a nonprofit corporation the university established in October that is led by KU chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little and other high-level university administrators. Another $56 million was collected from premiums that investors paid for the bonds.

The money will be used to finance the construction of a science building, a dormitory, a student union and other facilities on the university’s Lawrence campus as part of a revitalization plan. Maryland-based Edgemoor Infrastructure and Real Estate will design and build the facilities for $350 million.

To pay for the project, KU relied on the Public Finance Authority in Wisconsin to issue the bonds during the first week of January – instead of the Kansas Development Finance Authority, the agency that typically handles Kansas bond issues. A bond issue by the finance authority would have required legislative approval; going out of state to borrow money did not.

Structuring the bonds this way “protects the state from liability for that debt,” said Tim Caboni, KU’s vice chancellor for public affairs.

The corporation will have to pay back the bonds over 30 years at a 3.76 percent interest rate. It will get that money from KU, which will lease the newly constructed buildings from the corporation at a cost of $21.85 million a year.

‘They rushed’

Rep. Mark Hutton, R-Wichita, said he and other lawmakers had raised concerns about the project in recent months. The university issued the bonds in the first week of January, shortly before lawmakers returned for the session.

“I would maintain that they rushed to do the project before we gaveled in for session, because they knew we were going to raise those issues and try to block the project,” Hutton said. “We have not been given adequate information to be able to justify or validate whether the need is there or not.”

Caboni said the university tried to issue the bonds through the state finance authority. The agency said that would have required legislative approval.

Although the state finance authority was required to get legislative approval, the university was not, Caboni said. He added that state law “says if we’re not using state funds, there’s no requirement to get approval of the Legislature. So, No. 1, we followed the law. There was no need for legislative approval.”

The university chose to issue the bonds through a Wisconsin agency instead so that the new residential facility can open in time for the 2017 fall semester, Caboni said. He added that the university has a great need for more bed space.

“We know the Legislature has said to us over and over again ‘Don’t come to us and ask for investment. We don’t have the funds to do that right now,’ ” Caboni said, noting that the governor and other policymakers have challenged the university to act more like a business in recent years. “We were creative. We operated like a business, and we did what institutions across the nation have done: partnered with a private entity and bundled projects together to get a great deal for the families and students of the University of Kansas and for the state of Kansas.”

Moody’s Investor Services downgraded the university’s credit outlook from stable to negative in December, citing the risks of the large capital expansion financed through bonds.

Tuition concerns

Hutton expressed concern that the university would rely on student tuition to pay off the bonds.

“This is $22 million a year in debt service that the university is going to have to come up with. They’ve made it clear they’re not asking for money from us. So where it’s coming from?” Hutton said. “It’s going to come from students. We asked them in Joint Committee (on State Building Construction) if they had any studies as to how the impact of this debt would be on tuition, and they said they had done no studies on that.”

Caboni disputed the notion that the bonds would cause tuition to increase. He said some of the projects paid for by the bonds will be self-financing, such as the new dorm and parking garage.

Caboni said tuition would go to cover some of the cost of paying off the bonds but that it would come from expected enrollment increases by international students rather than a tuition increase.

About $6.4 million of the annual cost is expected to be covered by nonresident enrollment growth, according to the university. The remaining cost will be covered by revenue generated by the facilities, operational savings and an $18.70 per semester student fee that was passed by the Student Senate to finance the construction of the student union, the university said.

“Look, I know there’s been some suggestion that this will raise tuition at the university. What really drives tuition (is that) … the per-student subsidy by the state is down 40 percent since 2000. That’s the main driver of tuition increases. It’s not this project. We have a $1.2 billion budget, of which $20 million is going to pay off these bonds,” Caboni said. “If we can’t make our budget, that means we’ve got bigger problems – not as an institution but as a state. Because what that means is the small percentage of our budget which we get from the state will have cratered.”

Hutton called KU’s bypassing of the Legislature a “slap in the face to every legislator.”

“If this is such a great project, if this is going to enhance KU and the regents universities so much that it’s worth all this to go through, then surely you trust it enough to bring it to the Legislature,” Hutton said.

Regents OK project

The project received approval from the Kansas Board of Regents in December.

Rep. Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, House budget committee chairman, said lawmakers had raised concerns about the cost of the project at a November meeting of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. He said the Board of Regents was supposed to get answers to lawmakers’ questions before the bonds were approved, but that did not happen.

Breeze Richardson, spokeswoman for the regents, said in an e-mail that her office was “unaware of any requests that were not met. The Board Office has confirmed with the University of Kansas, following the meeting of the Legislative Budget Committee on Monday, November 9, all questions asked of the University were answered.”

Meeting notes taken by Ryckman’s staff show the committee raised numerous concerns that were to receive further clarification – about the cost of the project, whether the state and students would be liable for the debt and that, unlike a typical public-private partnership, the corporation formed by the university would be bringing no capital to the project. Ryckman and his staff said those concerns were not addressed.

The KU bond sale comes at a time when lawmakers have called for more oversight of the state’s finances in the wake of financing arrangements made by the Brownback administration.

“It’s the same thing. It’s all one thing to me,” Ryckman said. “More accountability, more oversight, more structure.”

Hutton said the House speaker has tapped him to write a bill to prevent state universities and state agencies from circumventing the Legislature on bond issues in the future. He hopes to introduce legislation this week.

Passing legislation to prevent state universities from doing this in the future would be an “awful message to be sending to the national business community that actually is looking at this project as an innovation,” Caboni said. “The way the university has done this has made us a national leader in the relationship between universities and private entities.”

THE WICHITA EAGLE

BY BRYAN LOWRY

FEB 1, 2016

blowry@wichitaeagle.com




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 the video.

Jan. 27, 2016




S&P: In The U.S. Merchant Power Space, A Stable Business Climate Has Become An Oddity.

Being stranded is something U.S. independent power producers and merchant generators are familiar with these days. In earlier, more hopeful times, the sector had heralded the advent of energy efficiency, distributed generation, and proliferating renewables as progressive developments for the electric power industry.

Continue reading.

Feb. 2, 2016




Standard & Poor's Maintains Its Focus On Direct Loans After Evaluating $15.8 Billion In 2014.

Providing a precise measure of the U.S. public finance direct bank loan market is challenging for a variety of reasons—but primarily because bank loans are not explicitly required to be disclosed because they are not securities.

Continue reading.

Jan. 27, 2015




Advocates Say Climate Right for Resilience Ratings.

BOSTON — Climate experts and municipal issuers see the capital markets — investors with more than $70 trillion in assets under management — as valued financing streams for resilience and green projects.

Transparent carrot-and-stick bond rating criteria along resiliency lines would help, they say.

“Now is the time to be pushing infrastructure projects,” South Miami, Fla., Mayor Philip Stoddard, an aquatic scientist, said in an interview. “By the time sea levels are rising, no one’s going to loan us money.”

Quirky weather is in the national headlines more frequently. As August began, and just as President Obama unveiled a major climate-change plan, severe flooding hit Tampa, Fla.; wildfires struck Northern California; a tornado touched down in Michigan; and severe thunderstorms knocked out power in parts of southern New England.

Bond rating agencies are increasingly studying the ramifications of environmental and climate developments such as the far-reaching Obama proposal, earthquakes, and hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas and oil deposits from shale rock.

Recently, climate experts met at Standard & Poor’s in New York to discuss rating incentives as proactive steps to obtain capital and insurance more cheaply, avoid downgrades and minimize the cost of debt service to taxpayers.

“We regularly publish extensive research on the implications of environmental and climate-related risks for entities that we rate, and our evaluation of environmental, social and governance risks is a key part of our ratings methodology,” S&P said in a statement. “We continue to review the relevance of climate risk for creditworthiness and how we assess and present it as a risk factor in our analysis.”

A spokesman said S&P welcomes feedback from market participants on climate change and their role in the ratings process, and that its current climate-change related research goes back 10 years but has intensified over the last three.

S&P on Wednesday issued a report on the increase of fracking-related earthquakes in the Midwest, and what it sees as potential credit consequences for municipalities in that region.

“Resilient financing projects need to be started now to protect public health and property,” said Alan Rubin, a storm financing expert and managing director at Tigress Financial Partners.

Rubin, nicknamed the “Hurricane Czar,” helped design and underwrite the catastrophe fund for hurricane relief in 1992, while working in Lehman Brothers’ investment banking division, after Hurricane Andrew caused more than $30 billion in damage in South Florida.

Regions such as South Florida and the Gulf Coast are notably vulnerable, though not alone. Hurricane Sandy struck the Northeast in October 2012, killing 185 people overall as it right-angled directly into the New York City region. Boston last winter received a record 109 inches of snowfall that forced repeated shutdowns of its mass transit system.

“In my city, it has become painfully obvious that we have to set difficult goals for ourselves. The extent of the climate crisis demands it,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said in the Vatican last month at the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences.

According to the U.S. Climate Assessment Report, New York State must protect against a two- to six-foot mean sea level rise in New York Harbor and Long Island, and make properties resilient in much larger flood plains due to 71% more intense precipitation and a 12% rise in flood magnitude.

In the Southeast, Stoddard has been educating his citizens about rising sea levels.

“Capital market financing, reflecting our risk reduction with credit ratings and financial incentives, will be necessary throughout coastal regions of the country due to the magnitude of funds needed,” he said. “Everyone I’ve talked to thinks it’s a great idea. I haven’t gotten any resistance. We need every kind of incentive to make things more resilient.

“They want to keep the government at arm’s length for the time being,” Stoddard said of the rating agencies. “But it’s critical to set up rating guidelines and incentives a pretty clear picture. We need them to be more clear about carrots and sticks.”

In June, Moody’s Investors Service called on coastal cities in Virginia’s Hampton Roads region — home to the world’s largest naval base and second-largest U.S. east-coast port — to continue investing and planning to mitigate negative credit effects from weather-related and tidal flooding.

“Cost forecasts indicate a potential need for greater investment in this area by local governments across the region,” Moody’s said in a report. Moody’s said Hampton Roads municipalities, which include Virginia Beach and Norfolk, generally have high credit ratings and budget flexibility.

In the last three years, the city of Hampton, which Moody’s rates Aa1, has spent $28.7 million on flood mitigation and has set aside funds in its 2016 budget for additional consultancy preparation.

Late in 2013, S&P issued its first surge-only rating, BB-minus to New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s $200 million MetroCat Re Ltd. Series 2013-1, the first catastrophe bond that covered storm-surge risk arising from named storms.

“We anticipate that this deal represents the start of a long-term alternative reinsurance option that diversifies MTA’s risk-management strategy,” authority Chairman Thomas Prendergast said at the time.

S&P said its rating reflected the principal at-risk nature of the offering. MetroCat Re collateralized the reinsurance through a cat bond and had its own credit rating separate from mainstream MTA credits such as transportation revenue bonds and dedicated tax fund bonds.

Last month, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved a series of street-level flood barriers across the 16-acre World Trade Center site, primarily around its transportation hub.

The Port Authority’s board of commissioners approved $113 million for flood mitigation and resiliency projects designed to prevent further Sandy-type damage. A grant through the Federal Transit Administration’s emergency relief program is expected to cover about 75% of the cost, or about $85 million.

Peter Ellsworth, senior manager for investor programs at Boston-based advocacy group Ceres, said members of its investor network on climate risk, whose total assets under management exceed $13 trillion, are increasingly attentive to material climate-related risks and the opportunities for investing in related projects.

“We believe that credit rating agencies could send a strong signal about the value of effectively managing long-term sustainability risks, including those associated with climate change, by having credit ratings reflect the presence of such strategies and practices designed to reduce such risk,” he said.

Consensus resilience criteria, say Ellsworth and others, would be similar to the commercial mortgage-backed securities risk reduction criteria S&P uses and could be piloted to provide data for S&P use. They also say green and resilient bonds are more profitable, less risky and free up 30-year profitable business models.

Rubin said green bonds and resilience bonds weave common threads, though sometimes they are erroneously lumped together.

“If you have a coal-burning plant and you want to improve the environment with better technology, that’s green. If you have a system that protects the plant from disaster, that’s resilience. They can be symbiotic,” he said.

The Rockefeller Foundation is working with the Swiss nonprofit Global Infrastructure Basel and other organizations to integrate ratings with resilience as part of its 100 Resilient Cities initiative. “We’re starting to think about resilience more broadly,” said Elizabeth Yee, vice president for strategic partnerships and solutions at 100 Resilient Cities.

The project aims to help cities worldwide become more resilient to what it considers “shocks” — catastrophic events including hurricanes, fires, and floods — and “stresses,” including water shortages, homelessness and unemployment. “We’re helping cities become more resilient to physical and economic challenges,” said Yee.

The foundation, which has committed $164 million to the program, has chosen 67 cities to date, including 16 in the U.S. Last month it began its push for the final 33. The foundation encourages collaboration: For instance, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley qualify as separate municipalities, but still work together on common Bay Area concerns.

“We know how integral the value of resilience is to many municipalities and we have a number of tools in our platform,” said Yee, who spent 14 years as a muni bond banker at Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Barclays in San Francisco and New York.

THE BOND BUYER

BY PAUL BURTON

AUG 7, 2015 12:31pm ET




Safe Havens In a Stormy Market for Muni Bonds.

Reading a municipal bond prospectus isn’t the most entertaining or easiest of reading you’ll ever do. But for municipal bond investors, it is mandatory.

In today’s credit-crammed society, it’s easier to tiptoe around the municipal bond sinkholes than the corporate ones. Yet investors who ignore the details in a municipal bond offering and remain exclusively yield driven will suffer the consequences of credit quality and price erosion.

The muni sinkholes are numerous but easily avoided if you read the public information. Take for example the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (aka Chicago Public Schools, CPS). This school system has financially collapsed. The Chicago Public School system has for years had the same approach to debt management as Puerto Rico—NONE.

Management has issued more and more debt, papering over deficits and never displaying the will to take corrective action. Their ineptness is clearly spelled out in the $875 million January 14, 2016 municipal offering that was pulled due to lack of investor interest. This offering listed for investors all the things they never, ever wanted their bonds to be involved with. It contained words and phrases like: The Pension Fund is underfunded; swap terminations; credit downgrades; operating budget gaps; structural deficits. You get the idea.

The 28-year tax-free CPS municipal bonds were going to be offered at 7.75%. This is a whopping 5% more than a comparable investment grade muni. Geeze…the more one reads the more the Chicago School System mirrors Puerto Rico.

I am not saying a deal won’t eventually close. But it’s curious that the hedge funds already burned by the Puerto Rican folly barely showed a pulse for the CPS debt.

Retail investors don’t belong in B2 rated junk municipal bonds like Chicago Public Schools. Instead, invest in pristine, highly rated tax-free municipals that will preserve capital. There are dozens of ways to take investment risk—municipals should not be among them.

Stick with the boring, reliable, and trustworthy names you know. If you are public minded and want to loan money to a school system, then consider the Texas Permanent School Fund backed munis (PSF).

The PSF fund has been around since 1854. Stocks, bonds, real estate, mineral rights and commodities back it. Such a guarantee is exceptional. Plus, its management and good history puts the old-line municipal bond insurers to shame. According to the Texas PSF unaudited financials, total assets are $28.95 billion. Not every year is a financial winner but you can bet the PSF won’t rubber stamp or guarantee any bonds without proper due diligence.

Consider the newly issued Grand Prairie Texas Independent School District General Obligation bonds, 4.00% due August 15, 2029 CUSIP: 386155DR3. Grand Prairie has a population of 138,000 with a growing economy. It is a stone’s throw from the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area. School enrollment is a hair over 29,000 and has grown about 2% since 2012.

Bonds on their own are rated AA-. With the PSF Guarantee they are AAA rated. These bonds are an excellent credit on their own but should a financial calamity occur, the Permanent School Fund steps up and pays the interest and principal.

The district has a fund balance and has made its 2014 pension and other post-employment payment obligations. The ten largest taxpayers represent 9.2% of net taxable assessed value. Bonds yield 2.42% to the February 15, 2026 call and 2.75% to the August 15, 2029 final maturity. That’s a 4% taxable equivalent yield to the call if you are in a 39.6% Federal bracket and 4.56% TEY to maturity. Plus, there’s no 3.8% ObamaCare tax if you meet the net investment income and adjusted gross income thresholds. Good quality munis for baby boomers are a win-win.

Forbes

by Marilyn Cohen

Feb 2, 2016 @ 02:01 PM




Puerto Rico's Argentina-Like Debt Gambit Comes With a Big Catch.

Puerto Rico is turning to a novel, yet increasingly popular, approach to lighten its crippling $70 billion debt load.

Pioneered by Argentina in the mid-2000s, and used by Greece and Ukraine in debt restructurings in recent years, the proposal is part of a plan to cut the island’s obligations by 46 percent and avert a default that would be the biggest of its kind. The novel part is a sweetener — in the form of “Growth Bonds” — that could potentially help creditors get all their money back.

But there’s a catch: the bonds only pay out if Puerto Rico can collect enough taxes over the next 35 years. And for the commonwealth, that’s a big if.

While it worked in Argentina because the commodities boom helped the nation quickly recover from its fiscal crisis, Puerto Rico faces a very different set of circumstances. Not only has the economy contracted in the past decade, its prospects remain bleak. That’s raising questions about whether the offer is credible enough to win over bondholders as they kick off negotiations over how to restructure its debt.

“It’s hard to see any meaningful economic growth coming out of Puerto Rico in the foreseeable future,” said Matt Fabian, a partner at Municipal Market Analytics, a research firm based in Concord, Massachusetts.

“Those securities would essentially have no value. The most likely outcome is that they never receive a payment.”

The stakes are high. After years of borrowing to fix budget shortfalls, Puerto Rico warned creditors that it may stop debt-service payments if it fails to renegotiate its debt before May 1, when a $422 million Government Development Bank payment comes due. Two commonwealth authorities have already defaulted on payments to investors.

Puerto Rico’s proposal, announced on Monday, would reduce its obligations to $26.5 billion from $49.2 billion. Bondholders would swap their securities for new notes that delay principal and interest payments.

The plan consists of two types of securities: so-called Base Bonds that begin paying interest in 2018 and the aforementioned growth bonds, which repay principal after 10 years only if Puerto Rico’s revenue collections surpass targeted levels. Creditors have a chance to recoup all of their money if revenue growth exceeds the estimated annual rate of inflation.

Puerto Rico estimates it will begin repaying the growth bonds in 2029, if the island’s economy begins to grow at 2.5 percent by 2022, according to the restructuring plan. That might be an optimistic assumption.

“It’s difficult to come up with economic scenarios where Puerto Rico grows at 2.5 percent in the near future,” said Orlando Sotomayor, a professor of economics at the University of Puerto Rico. “All economic fundamentals point in the opposite direction and include declining population, workforce participation, reduced investment, and education.”

The proposal also doesn’t detail how the commonwealth will support its largest pension fund, which owes current and future retirees $30.2 billion — a big question mark for Lyle Fitterer, the head of tax-exempt debt at Wells Capital Management, which oversees $39 billion of municipal bonds, including Puerto Rico securities.

“That’s a big unknown,” Fitterer said. “That obviously will impact bondholders’ ability to get paid back.”

Upside Potential

Growth bonds aren’t entirely new to the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market. Many housing or community development-projects are financed with tax-exempt securities that are repaid based on future increases in property taxes or assessment fees.

Greece and Ukraine have sold similar securities to help restructure their debt. Last year, Ukraine included so-called GDP-linked warrants, whose payouts are tied to economic growth hurdles. The benefit for the issuer is that payments aren’t made until economic growth can support them. For bondholders, they offer the potential for bigger profits once the borrower gets back on its feet.

“The upside of the growth bonds is directly in line with the economic recovery of the commonwealth,” Barbara Morgan, a spokeswoman who represents the Government Development Bank at SKDKnickerbocker in New York, said in an e-mail. “Without a willingness from all parties to invest in solutions that move the island’s economy down that path, no one wins.”

Still, the securities can be notoriously hard to value. And for issuers, it’s questionable whether they’re worth it because of how big a liability they can become over time. When Argentina initially issued the GDP warrants in its 2005 debt swap after defaulting on $95 billion in 2001, the securities were deeply discounted by some investors who were skeptical of the country’s growth prospects.

As the economy grew, the warrants created a larger-than-anticipated debt payment for Argentina. It’s paid investors about $10 billion since 2005. And the country could potentially be on the hook until 2035 — when the warrants finally mature.

“It really depends individually on each country and each security that you look at,” said Siobhan Morden, the head of Latin American fixed-income strategy at Nomura Holdings Inc.

Bloomberg Business

by Michelle Kaske

February 2, 2016 — 9:01 PM PST Updated on February 3, 2016 — 5:54 AM PST




Fitch Releases Exposure Draft on Adding Enhanced Recovery to U.S. Local Gov't Criteria.

Fitch Ratings-New York-02 February 2016: Today Fitch Ratings is releasing an exposure draft for public comment that proposes the inclusion of enhanced recovery prospects in its U.S. local tax-supported ratings.

“During the comment period for our state and local government criteria, Fitch received many comments from investors, issuers and other market participants suggesting rating above the ULTGO/IDR in certain circumstances based on distinct and significantly different recovery prospects in the event of a municipal bankruptcy,” said Amy Laskey, Managing Director.

“We have identified two such circumstances: statutory liens and visibility during bankruptcy.”

Municipal securities benefiting from a substantial preferential right in a bankruptcy proceeding as a result of a statutory lien granted under state law have significantly improved bondholder protection. Fitch proposes to rate bonds backed by revenues with a statutory lien one to two notches higher than the equivalent stream without the statutory lien.

Recovery can also reasonably be estimated when there is sufficient visibility, via a plan of adjustment, into the potential recovery prospects during a bankruptcy proceeding.

Fitch invites feedback from market participants on this proposed criteria addition until Friday, February 26.

Fitch will host a conference call to discuss the proposed criteria addition on Thurs., February 11 at 2:00 PM EST. To receive dial-in details for the call, please resister here: http://dpregister.com/10080506

 




Public Pension Reform Advocacy Group Launches.

PHOENIX – Well-known figures in municipal finance and local government are leading a new advocacy group created to help local governments face what it describes as the “uncertain future” of public pension plans.

The Retirement Security Initiative launched publicly Tuesday.

Leaders include municipal bankruptcy expert Jim Spiotto, former New York Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch, Lois Scott, Chicago’s former chief financial officer, and former San Jose, Calif. Mayor Chuck Reed.

Spiotto, a managing director of Chapman Strategic Advisors, said that the RSI is there to help provide government officials with help and information about what reform steps other governments have taken, and to generally “help them help themselves.”

Backers describe the initiative as a national, bipartisan advocacy organization.

“The initiative is really to be of service to state and local governments,” Spiotto said.

The RSI said in its announcement that pension liabilities are in excess of $1 trillion, putting state and local governments throughout the U.S. under tremendous strain to both provide public services and meet their pension obligations.

“As pension costs continue to skyrocket, policymakers often pull funds from important public services like education, public safety and transportation to pay pension debt,” the announcement said. “In the end, it’s taxpayers and communities that pay the price.”

Former Utah state senator Dan Liljenquist said that it is essential to act quickly to prevent an even bigger problem down the road.

“We need to fix the pension crisis now to avoid further tax increases and public service disruptions,” said Liljenquist, who advocated for pension reforms as a state lawmaker. “Many pensions, as they are currently structured, are like the game Pac Man, chewing up funds that should be going toward essential community services.”

The RSI said it advocates for state and local governments to act to ensure that their retirement plans are “sustainable, fiscally sound and responsibly managed so that all retirees and employees get paid what they have earned.” The organization also advocates for decision making and management of retirement plans to be “open, transparent and non-political.” It says it advocates at the federal, state, county and municipal levels.

Reed, who fought for pension reform in San Jose, was one of the primary promoters of California ballot initiative efforts to give voters more power over government pension benefits and to limit government spending on retirement costs. Initiative backers withdrew from the field this year, saying they would come back in the next election cycle because financial backers believe the 2018 political climate might be more receptive.

All stakeholders need to have some input in pension solutions, Reed said. “Solutions to the funding and cost crises need to be developed with input from employees, retirees, labor, management, taxpayers and fiscal experts,” said Reed. “RSI has the experience and resources to bring all of these parties together.”

Ravitch, Reed, Scott, Spiotto, and Liljenquist are the members of the RSI board of directors.

Peter Furman, the initiative’s executive director, formerly worked as Reed’s chief of staff in San Jose.

THE BOND BUYER

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 26, 2016 2:48pm ET




Moody's RFC: Green Bonds Assessment - Proposed Approach and Methodology.

We are seeking feedback in response to our proposed Green Bond Assessment (GBA) methodology. Our GBA would provide an evaluation of the bond issuer’s management, administration, allocation of proceeds to and reporting on environmental projects financed with the proceeds derived from green bond offerings.

Our assessment process will score each bond issue on five key factors (along with their respective sub-factors), weighted to reflect their relative importance, to arrive at a composite grade. The composite grade, in turn, will inform an overall assessment that runs from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Poor). After a GBA is initially assigned, it may be refreshed periodically, based on information provided in the issuer’s subsequently issued annual reports.

After the transaction comes to market, we may periodically refresh the GBA.

We invite market participants to comment on the Request for Comment by February 12, 2016 by submitting their comments on the Request for Comment page on www.moody’s.com.

Download the RFC.




GASB Seeks Participants for Field Test of the Exposure Draft, Certain Asset Retirement Obligations.

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board invites you to participate in a field test of the Exposure Draft, Certain Asset Retirement Obligations, issued in December 2015 and available for public comment until March 31, 2016. The Exposure Draft can be found here. The GASB would like to gather feedback from preparers of governmental financial statements on (1) potential implementation difficulties, (2) the costs associated with the initial and ongoing implementation of the proposed standard, and (3) whether any provisions of the proposed standard are unclear.

Field tests are a part of the GASB’s due process activities and help the GASB to establish effective standards. Participating entities volunteer to go through the exercise of “implementing” the proposal as if it were in place and then provide feedback to the GASB regarding that process. A fact sheet describing the benefits of participating in a field test and what participation involves is available on the GASB website and can be found here. The feedback that you provide will be considered by the Board in development of a final Statement. Participants would be expected to complete and return the field test results to GASB by March 31, 2016.

If you are willing to participate or have any questions, please contact project team member Brett Riley at bjriley@gasb.org or 203-956-5216, or lead project manager, Jialan Su at jsu@gasb.org or 203-956-5339, by Friday, February 5, 2016.




NABL: GASB Seeks Input on Revenue from Exchange Transactions.

GASB is conducting pre-agenda research on reporting revenue from exchange transactions. Common examples of exchange transactions that produce revenue for governments include user charges for water, sewer, and electricity and fees for parking lots and street meters. The project team has designed an online survey to assess the information regarding revenue from exchange transactions that is essential to meeting user needs.

Access the survey.

The objective of this research is to gather feedback on these broad questions:

The survey need not be completed in one session. If you save your responses, you will be provided an individualized link to return to your survey at a later date to complete it. If you would like to respond to the survey by phone or have any questions, please feel free to contact Amy Shreck of the GASB project team at ashreck@gasb.org.

The deadline for completing the survey is Friday, February 19, 2016.




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






Copyright © 2026 Bond Case Briefs | bondcasebriefs.com