Private versus Public

I consider myself fairly well versed in the intricacies of finance, but every once in a while I realize how naive even I am.

Via House’s Frank Says Municipal Ratings Add Unfair Costs

To paraphrase, ratings agencies have been judging Municipal Debt and Corporate Debt according to different criteria. A single A rated municipality has less of a risk of defaulting on a loan than some AAA rated corporate entities. The result of this double standard being increased cost for cities and states and increased profits for high-net worth investors and debt insurance agencies.

Municipal bonds are only appropriate investments for high net worth individuals because of their tax exempt status. The rating of Debt determines how much the interest rate will be; think of it as a city’s credit score. A municipality with the same ability to pay, or rating as a AAA rated Corporation may only receive a single-A rating and be forced to pay a higher interest then is justified by their ability to pay.  In order to get high net worth investors interested these municipalities will pay large fees for bond insurance to achieve the necessary AAA rating or pay higher interest rates.

Hundreds of municipalities have been paying for this bond insurance to achieve the necessary AAA rating.   This insurance is now approaching worthlessness as the companies who sold this insurance have also insured vast sums of mortgage securities.  As the increasing default rate of mortgage’s saps the funds of the incorrectly named Monoline  insurers (AMBAC, MBIA et all), not only is Municipal Bond insurance possibly worthless, but also unnecessary.

Imagine purchasing Auto insurance only to find out that, not only is the insurance company bankrupt, but your car is really a bicycle.


Words Fly


2 responses to “Private versus Public

  1. Tom – I don’t pretend to have an excellent grasp of the intricacies of this issue (as you know), so indulge me in a few naive questions –

    First, are there valid reasons as to why municipalities would be evaluated by different standards than corporations? Could the analysis towards determining the risk of default of a corporate debt be inapplicable towards determining the risk of default of municiple debt for any reasons, including the different “goals” of the two entities?

    Second, how complicit are the municipalities in this? Was there any sort of transparency in the criteria used to evaluate the municipalities? Is there some way the ratings agencies / bond insurers are “scratching the back” of the municipalities?

  2. Also, excuse my poor spelling – “municiple”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s