Join Today!

Muni Bond Talk

Posts Tagged ‘municipal bond defaults’

Jefferson County, Take The Money And Run

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Legislators in Alabama’s Jefferson County on Wednesday voted 4 to 1 to file for bankruptcy court protection and thereby put in motion what could be the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. We hope the state will quickly step in to take over the negotiation – similar to what other state governments (ie, Harrisburg, PA) have done when local officials act like children. The headline risk on events like this can cause the fragile muni bond market to quickly deteriorate.

The right thing to do is for bondholders and the county to work this out. The wrong thing to do is for the county commissioners to in effect to approve a “walk out”. To imply the entire county has no assets to sell off now or in the future is plain silly. How about selling off or privatizing local government assets like city hall, office buildings, vacant land? Or what about securitizing future revenues from parking garage revenue and sales taxes?

There is plenty of time to make annual payouts over the next 30 years. As the economy improves so will Jefferson Country. But to just take the money and run is just plain wrong. Oh and by the way, its illegal.

“I am disappointed by the commission’s decision… as bankruptcy will negatively impact not only the Birmingham region, but also the entire state,” Gov. Robert Bentley said in a statement moments after the County Commission voted. “By filing for bankruptcy, the county commission now relinquishes control of its affairs into the hands of a federal bankruptcy judge,” Bentley said.

Despite a tentative deal with creditors reached in September to settle $3.14 billion of debt, county commissioners this week resurrected the threat of a Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing largely because the estimated savings from the September agreement had shrunk by about $140 million. The filing could add to heightened concerns in the $3.7 trillion U.S. municipal bond market, which has recently been hit hard by the high-profile debt crisis in Pennsylvania’s capital of Harrisburg. Creditors such as JPMorgan Chase & Co and the county in September reached a tentative deal calling for Jefferson County’s sewer-system debt to be substantially reduced, but final terms were not reached.

A sticking point discussed in a commissioners’ meeting on Monday was adjustment of a $140 million difference between the originally agreed-upon $2.05 billion the county must repay the creditors. That figure recently crept up to $2.19 billion. The September agreement was seen as a turning point for Jefferson County, which since 2008 has teetered on the edge of a bankruptcy that would have surpassed that filed by Orange County, California, in 1994. Jefferson County’s debt escalated in the mid-2000s with interest and auction rate bond deals as it sought to refinance an upgrade of its sewer system. Should Jefferson file Chapter 9 bankruptcy, at over $5 billion for the county’s total indebtedness, it will be the largest municipal filing in U.S. history.

Harrisburg, The Saga Continues

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011

Reports from Bloomberg were that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett and the Harrisburg City Council are in a standoff resulting from Harrisburg’s filing of Chapter 9 bankruptcy last week. The governor is looking to overrule the city council’s action and have the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania take over the finances of the city.

The story – often reported by our friends at Cumberland Advisors – is that of an incinerator that was not needed, but built as a boondoggle. After failing to attract enough business, the city decided to spend much more money retrofitting the incinerator, putting the city’s pledge behind the bonds used to finance and retrofit. This turned into a disaster. The city stopped making payments on the incinerator debt last year. With much consternation and discussion, they have continued to pay debt service on their general-obligation bonds.

Last week the city council voted to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy for Harrisburg, even though the Mayor of Harrisburg was against it and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania itself had passed a law declaring that it would be illegal for Harrisburg to declare bankruptcy.

There is now a court-mandated delay of a month to sort this out. On Monday, a judge for the US Bankruptcy Court in Pennsylvania set a November 23 court date to settle the legality of the bankruptcy declaration by the council.

Why is the state moving as if the matter has already been settled in its favor? It’s not just the politics, it’s the state not wanting Harrisburg’s woes to result in much higher borrowing costs for towns and cities in the rest of central Pennsylvania.

What do we see reflected in the municipal bond market, given the current state of affairs?

Most of the Harrisburg general-obligation debt is insured. Ratings on Harrisburg itself have been withdrawn by the rating agencies. Bonds backed by Assured Guaranty, the healthiest of the bond insurers (AA3 Moody’s and AA+ Standard and Poor’s) are trading at 5.5% to 6%. Bonds from downgraded insurer MBIA (now National RE), rated Baa1/BBB, are trading in the 6.25-6.50% range, and bonds with other insurers who are below investment-grade and have no rating are all over the lot, with trades in the 7%-plus range (levels courtesy of Oppenheimer). This is in a world where longer-maturity, high-grade Pennsylvania debt is trading in the 4.5% range.

The one thing we know for sure is that the bond insurers come down squarely of the opinion that Harrisburg has NOT taken the necessary steps to avoid bankruptcy: raising taxes, selling assets, and using their full faith and credit to pay their bonds.

So far, this has not carried over to the state’s own bonds, as far as any patina of higher yields associated with the problems of Harrisburg. The state sold bonds this week at their normal high-grade level.

Stay tuned as this develops.

Reprinted by permission from our friends at Cumberland Advisors

Harrisburg Burns

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011

We have written about Harrisburg PA.s struggle extensively during the past two years. A small city unable to pay off a jumbo-sized debt hasn’t shaken the muni market. Despite eye-catching headlines recently over Harrisburg bankruptcy filing, the news barely fazed other muni investors and probably rightly so.

A Messy Situation

Harrisburg’s financial woes stem from an incinerator originally built in 1972. Plagued with operating problems from the start, the city nevertheless decided to expand and retrofit the plant in 2003, taking on $125 million in debt. The initial contractor on the job went belly up, which led to more borrowing and debt that mushroomed to $310 million – a daunting sum for a city of 49,000 residents and a total municipal budget of less than $60 million. Ultimately, the city filed for bankruptcy, which the state is currently challenging in court.

Bonds Are Insured

Although Harrisburg’s move was unusual, the market hardly took notice. Harrisburg is not a significant issuer of bonds, and its financial plight has been well documented. A good portion of Harrisburg’s overall debt is insured, and many of the bonds associated with the incinerator are secured by Assured Guaranty, which made some payments the city previously missed. However, Assured credit rating has been lowered several times from AAA to where it is today.

While there are other cities and municipalities face strained finances, few are confronted with challenges similar to Harrisburg’s. Defaults continue to be extremely rare. Last year, municipal defaults totaled $2.65 billion, an 8.6% decline from 2009. So far this year, defaults total $1.1 billion, a small fraction of the $2.93 trillion in outstanding municipal bonds.

In the meantime, a judge placed Harrisburg’s bankruptcy on hold for a month, enabling bond insurers to file briefs in the case while state lawmakers are pushing to take over the city’s finances. Soon after Harrisburg filed for bankruptcy, the state sued, concurring with the mayor’s opposition to the filing. Harrisburg’s City Council voted three times over the summer to reject a financial recovery plan under the state’s program for distressed communities. All the decisions were carried by a 4-3 margin. The measure on October 12th to file bankruptcy was approved by the same 4-3 margin.

Municipal Tax Revenue Grows for 7th Straight Quarter.

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Municipal credit revenue continues to improve. This week it was reported that US state and local government tax revenue rose almost 7% in the second quarter, from a year earlier. This marks seven quarters in a row of growth (following five quarters of decline). More importantly, tax revenue now slightly exceeds the peak of revenue set in 2008, before the financial crisis set in.

This is important on two counts. First, it blunts the Meredith Whitney arguments that led to the bond-fund sell-off last winter. But also, it reinforces the argument about the quality of municipal credits. Many state and local municipal entities enjoy captive audiences – for water, sewer, transportation, etc. They performed in this recession like they have in others, by tightening belts, cutting costs, and raising fees where necessary. And this has been a big contributor to the curing of the muni market since last winter.

The White House proposals are keeping muni rates high. The Obama administration’s Jobs Bill has proposed imposing a tax on individuals or couples above certain income thresholds, to essentially eliminate the tax advantage enjoyed between the 28% and 35% tax bracket. This 7% tax would translate into roughly a 35-basis-point tax on muni yields (4-4.5% range). We do not think there is much chance of this proposal being enacted – certainly not to include existing municipal bonds. However, the uncertainty is helping to contribute to tax-exempt bond yields which are much higher than they would be without it. In some cases, taxable BABs (Build America Bonds) yields are only marginally higher than the tax-exempt form of the very same credit. The market has started to see cross-over buyers respond to this anomaly.

As we head into the last quarter of the year we expect to see municipal supply pick up. It downshifted greatly early in the year, due to the high interest rates fostered by the Whitney meltdown. With lower nominal rates, visible supply is starting to pick up. But the December/January reinvestment period should also be vigorous – especially given the volatility of the equity market. That should mean most of the reinvestment goes back into the muni market.

And after much consternation on all sides, we do not expect the Administration proposals with regard to tax-free bonds to pass. This should also mean that the muni market will return to more normalized pricing levels relative to Treasuries.

Thanks to our friends at Cumberland Advisors.

With U.S. AAA Downgrade, Could Munis Default As Meredith Predicted?

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

The tax-free municipal bond market looks vastly different as we head toward the end of the second quarter of 2011 than it did when we were in the middle of the Meredith Whitney-led meltdown in January of this year.

In January the muni market was battered by the continued onslaught of municipal bond fund redemptions. Most of this damage occurred after Ms. Whitney’s appearance on 60 Minutes in December, when she forecast “hundreds of billions” of municipal defaults in 2011. This started the unmitigated selling, which peaked at over $4 billion per week in January. Because bond fund selling was mostly long-maturity bonds (and the funds own higher-yielding, longer-term bonds to pay their dividends), municipal bond yields soared, with long-term yields reaching 5.15% in the AAA range and between 5.5 and 6% on many high-grade revenue bonds. The bid side was often nonexistent, and liquidity was very spotty.

As Cumberland readers know, the signs were very evident that this was liquidity-driven, not credit-driven. Among these signs was the opposite movement of FALLING yields in the Build America Bonds taxable market, on the very same credits whose yields were being driven higher in the tax-free market. This was because pension funds, foreigners, and other taxable buyers were embracing the municipal credit that the retail investor was rejecting. The other sign was the fact that shorter-term yields had moved very little in the tax-free municipal market – if a true credit event had taken place, yields across the whole maturity spectrum would have moved up sharply.

As we hit the halfway point of the year, we see that 30-year AAA tax-free yields have fallen from 5.11% to 4.37% (source: Bloomberg), a drop of 75 basis points; and 10-year AAA yields have fallen from 3.47% to 2.63%, a drop of 84 basis points. Now, of course, there have been movements in Treasury yields, as well as market concern of a possible slowing economy, that have sent those yields down.

It is important to remember that this is AAA scale. Many high-grade bonds in the A and AA categories traded MUCH cheaper in January. But it is useful to look at the relative value of Treasuries and Munis from January to now. The biggest improvement in ratios was in the 10-year range. But because of the longer duration of 30-year bonds, the biggest improvement in price was in the longer end of the market.

The reasons behind this lie in the fact that most of the damage was in the long-maturity end of the market, since this was where most of the bond fund selling was concentrated. This is the area which could cure the most. Also, new-issue municipals this year are substantially reduced. Part of this was the “move up” of municipal supply at year-end from what would have been early-2011 issuance. This, of course, helped start the downdraft in the muni market in November, as issuers wanted to beat the expiration of the Build America Bonds program. Also, many state and local governments that had flexibility did not issue bonds at the nominally high yields that persisted early this year. We expect the first half of this year to close with approximately $110 billion in issuance. We expect the current lower rates will induce MORE supply in the second half of this year, but 2011 will most likely end up close to $250 billion – a marked decline from recent years.

The overall improvement in municipal finances has also contributed to improvement in the market. State and local governments (in total) are heading toward the sixth quarter in a row of RISING tax receipts. Also, problems in the pension area, which have gotten widespread press coverage, have started to be addressed. We expect this trend to continue.

The selling has abated in the municipal fund arena. Though most weeks have seen outflows, they are much smaller, and there were actually inflows a couple of weeks. Part of this is just the normal abatement of pressures, but it is also the recognition, even among retail investors, that things had really reached a point where the market was severely oversold.

The stock market, after turning in a very good performance through April of this year, has turned jittery with the Dow Jones shedding almost 900 points since the start of May. This has caused somewhat of a re-assessment of the needs of fixed income in overall investment portfolios. Presumably some of the fund selling went into equities and, depending on the timing, these assets could have been whipsawed.

We are now in the middle of a large reinvestment period where approximately $100 billion is rolling off through a mixture of coupon payments, maturing bonds, and called bonds. With fund selling reduced and some wariness in the stock market, we expect a lot of this money to now be reinvested in the bond market.

We realize that, while the municipal market is still cheap on a relative basis in the very short end and in the long end, the “giveaway market” of January and February has certainly turned around. This is causing us to be more cautious from a maturity and duration standpoint as we manage portfolios.

Reprinted with permission from our friends at Cumberland Advisors

Central Falls Turned Upside Down By Unions

Friday, August 5th, 2011

One mans’ garbage is another mans gold. The painful truth is that as muni debt increases, so do the risks that someday it will be politically, economically and financially worthwhile for borrowers to escape it. The Central Falls bondholders seem to have dodged the bullet for now. The question is when the union sue the town, will the bondholders be vulnerable to losses as pensions and health-care obligations are re-negotiated. Muni bonds are great until your local town bond issuer declares Chapter 9 like bankruptcy. Then all bets are off until the smoke clears.

To see a real live insolvent Central Falls GO bond that last traded at 58 cents on the dollar, go to bondview. For more about this situation, here is a good piece from our smart friends at the WSJ’s Op-Ed on Muni bonds, bankruptcies and unions….

On Monday the small Rhode Island town of Central Falls declared bankruptcy because its sky-high labor costs had impaired its ability to pay its bills. The ratings agencies say the development is no surprise, but we wonder whether they’ll be saying the same thing when a bigger city falls off a cliff.

Central Falls’s financial problems are not much different from many states and municipalities. Inflexible and costly collective bargaining agreements have driven up its labor costs and crowded out services. The city is running $5 million annual structural deficits on a $16 million budget. Its pension and retiree health-care bills add up to $80 million. Public safety officers contribute a mere 7% of their salaries to pensions and can retire after 20 years with pensions equal to 50% of their final year’s salary. Such a system in which employees spend more time in retirement than working is unsustainable. Greece, Q.E.D.

In the last year the state has appointed two receivers to bring the city back from the dead, but neither has been able to repeat the miracle of Lazarus. The city’s first receiver Mark Pfeiffer raised property and car taxes by more than 20%, but higher taxes merely drove residents out of town.

In February Governor Lincoln Chafee replaced Mr. Pfeiffer with retired state supreme court judge Robert Flanders. He, too, asked the unions for concessions but came up empty-handed. Mr. Flanders then shut down the city library and community center. In a last ditch effort to save the city from bankruptcy, Mr. Flanders asked retirees to accept scaled-back pensions and to contribute more to their health benefits. The retirees overwhelmingly voted no.

The bright side of Central Falls’s saga is that it’s causing Rhode Island lawmakers to double down on pension reform. As Governor Chafee said earlier this week, “This is not just a Central Falls issue, this is a state issue.” Dozens of towns in Rhode Island, including Providence, have similar pension problems. The state’s pension system, which has a $7 billion unfunded liability, is one of the worst funded in the nation.

Mr. Chafee, an independent, and the Democratic state legislature have committed to tackling pensions in the fall. State treasurer Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, recently issued a report that suggests modifying retirees’ cost-of-living adjustments, raising the retirement age and creating new hybrid pensions that include a 401(k)-style plan and a modest defined benefit. These all sound like good ideas, but the test of Democrats’ sincerity will be when the unions turn out en masse at the capitol to denounce them for betraying their party and trashing collective bargaining.

Muni Investors Looking Good in Vallejo, CA

Saturday, May 28th, 2011

Vallejo, California, the biggest U.S. city in bankruptcy, won court permission to send its exit plan to creditors, its municipal bondholders for a vote after retired workers dropped their objections. In summary, “The plan doesn’t alter securities tied to designated revenue sources, such as about $175 million in water revenue bonds, and other special tax obligations secured by special revenue of the city’s restricted funds, according to the documents. ”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael S. McManus in Sacramento, California, approved a disclosure statement for the plan in an order. McManus will take creditors’ votes into account when he decides whether to approve the plan at a hearing to be scheduled in the coming weeks. A hearing on the disclosure statement had been set for today. The retirees, represented by a court-sanctioned committee, were the last major objectors to the plan, which would cut labor costs and stretch out payments to other creditors.“The committee was concerned if the bankruptcy dragged on, their actual pensions might be jeopardized,’’ R. Dale Ginter, an attorney for the committee, said in a May 23 interview. During the bankruptcy, the city succeeded in cutting costs by firing employees, renegotiating union contracts and reducing what it pays to subsidize retiree health care. Vallejo, a onetime U.S. Navy town of about 120,000 on San Francisco Bay, sought protection from creditors in May 2008 under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, after the recession eroded tax revenue and unions rejected wage cuts. Chapter 9 allows municipalities to reorganize debt rather than liquidate. The plan doesn’t alter securities tied to designated revenue sources, such as about $175 million in water revenue bonds, and other special tax obligations secured by special revenue of the city’s restricted funds, according to the documents. The case is In re City of Vallejo, 08-26813, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento).” Source: Today’s (5-27-11) Bloomberg Municipal Market Brief.

Another great American tradition is found in the millions of decisions that pass through and from our court system. We are a nation of law. We have a system that respects contracts. It carries with it the notion that obligations that are undertaken are to be fulfilled in economic terms if they are reasonable.

Vallejo’s municipal bankruptcy occurred because the politicians who ran the city ignored these fundamental values and obligated the city taxpayers to unreasonable burdens. Now the court is throwing these excessively costly burdens out. After $10 million of litigation, we are getting to some resolution. Meanwhile, please note the highlighted portion of this news report. It states that the payment stream for the essential-service revenue bond that funded the supply of water to the city is intact.

Many have emphasized importance of essential-service revenue and of the legal construction that protects these bond holders. Here is a prime example. The city is in bankruptcy, yet the bond holder is getting paid.

Reposted with permission from our friends at Cumberland Advisors.

Chicago Federal Reserve Says Dont Worry About Muni Defaults

Monday, May 2nd, 2011

There is good news and bad news from the Chicago Federal Reserve which said that 2011 will be a tough year in local government finance. Minimal growth or outright declines in property tax revenues, reduced assistance from state governments, and requirements to make larger payments to underfunded public pension funds will loom large for many local governments. However, if history is any guide, few local governments will either default on their municipal bonds or end up in bankruptcy. The aftermath of actual local government bankruptcies—such as that of Vallejo, CA, in 2008—suggest that governments are hurt badly when they emerge from bankruptcy, particularly in their ability to issue debt. And so, in all but the most dire cases, local governments under stress are likely to take alternative steps to shore up their fiscal positions.

Muniland and Pensions, (2/15/11)

Friday, April 1st, 2011

“In December, projections by Meredith Whitney, the banking analyst, about possible municipal defaults began to rattle the $2.86 trillion municipal-debt market. Investors withdrew $1.2 billion from U.S. municipal-bond mutual funds, the 13th-straight outflow, Lipper U.S. Fund Flows said about the week ending Feb. 10. About $24.8 billion has been redeemed since the week ended Nov. 17, including a record $4 billion in the week ended Jan. 19, the most since Lipper started compiling data in 1992.” Source: Bloomberg, Feb. 14.

Panic-driven mutual fund redemptions continue to depress the prices of high-grade Munis. To us, this means the buying opportunity for well-selected issues is intact. Remember, this is an idiosyncratic securities sector. Broad-brush painting of “all Munis are going to default” is specious.

Forced selling by mutual funds depresses the pricing references that are used by the pricing series. Most Munis do not trade every day. Hence, the drop of a few prices lowers the estimated prices of all Munis. This perception issue has created a misunderstanding in the market and resulted in exacerbation of the selloff.

Think about it this way. Let us examine the case of a single mutual fund that must sell to meet redemptions. The fund manager needs the cash at once. He sells his liquid and highest-credit-quality names, which allows him to get cash as once. These same bonds are used to price the entire universe of Munis. The next day all Muni reference prices are lower, even though most of them did not trade. Since the mutual fund holds many bonds, its share price reflects the new pricing, and hence is lower. That alarms more shareholders and another round of selling triggers a downward spiral. This has been going on for 13 weeks.

Some say the cause of the selling is the opacity in the unfunded pension systems of the states. Maybe so. Moreover, maybe that is part of the hype. We think the pension issue is clear. One only needs to do the homework.

In a state like Delaware, the pension system is nearly fully funded. The credit rating of the state is AAA. There is no pension issue in Delaware. The same is true for many states.

There are 218 separate state pension plans among the 50 states. There are 2,332 local pension systems. Thank you, Natalie Cohen of Wells Fargo for the data. Natalie notes the differences by illustrating Indiana. The Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund is about 94% funded. The Indiana teacher plan is only 43% funded. In NJ, which was just down-graded by a rating agency, Natalie reports the public fund is 56% funded, the local fund is 71% funded, and the teachers’ plan is 64% funded. As we have been saying for months, broad brushing Muniland does not work. One must drill deeply into the data.

Estimating the present value of an unfunded pension obligation is imprecise. It takes a lot of assumptions and falls into the murky realm of actuarial science. Moody’s offers that “a 100 basis point movement in the discount rate results is an inverse movement in the obligation of approximately 8-12%.” Current rules allow much flexibility to states and local government in making assumption choices.

That is about to change. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is issuing new rules on accounting and reporting liabilities for pensions and other post-employment benefits. These are in draft form now. The rating agencies are combining the actual bonded indebtedness of states or local governments with the unfunded liability estimates. That is why NJ was recently downgraded.

In addition, there is legislation at work to force pension disclosure to be more consistent and transparent. Public Employee Pension Transparency Act or H.R.6484 is under discussion in the House of Representatives. It will require timely information on al governmental pension funds and it will impose penalties for failures to disclose. Rating agencies are endorsing such legislation. So do we. The effect will be to improve funding and force clarity. We expect this to become law in this congressional session.

At Cumberland, we already look at the unfunded obligations and the assumptions. We are glad to see this issue being addressed by states and local governments and by the rating agencies. It has been a long time coming.

One group that objects strenuously is the public employee unions. They are now the largest organized labor faction in the US, and they are trying to preserve the status quo. There is where the political rubber hits the road. We expect this to be a state-by-state fight. We saw the first salvo fired in Illinois as the retirement age was extended. Major changes proposed by NJ Governor Christie currently are stymied in the state’s legislature. Watch what happens as the NJ budget fight gets down to the last minute.

In our view, these issues will get resolved because they must get resolved. State and local governments cannot continue to fund promises they cannot afford. The tide has changed. We expect nearly all of them to alter their budgets, and we expect austerity to be imposed. The notion of electing default or bankruptcy as an option seems politically dead to us.

We continue to buy well-selected Munis at tax-free yields in excess of the taxable yield references. We are witnessing a generational opportunity and want to seize it Muniland and Pensions

David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer

Published with permission by our friends at Cumberland Advisors

Muni Defaults: Whitney and Roubini (3/26/11)

Friday, April 1st, 2011

“The rule on staying alive as a forecaster is to give ‘em a number or give ‘em a date, but never give ‘em both at once.”

–Jane Bryant Quinn, Reader’s Digest, 1 Dec. 1980

Meredith Whitney broke the rule. This now haunts her to the point that she declined to appear before a Congressional committee that wanted to discuss Muni default issues. Nouriel Roubini is a skilled economist. He knows this rule. He, therefore, used modifiers to adhere to it.

Let’s talk about Whitney’s forecast first. With great media fanfare, she predicted “50 to 100” sizeable muni defaults, totaling about $100 billion, in 2011. That is correct: she said this year. The year in which the economy is in some sort of recovery and when the interest rate is held near zero by the Fed.

Meredith did not know about any oil shock when she made this forecast. While the current MENA turmoil is a serious new development, the resulting oil price shock will not help her be right in her forecast. In our view, there is nearly zero chance that there will be 50 to 100 sizeable Muni defaults amounting to $100 billion in the calendar year of 2011.

Nouriel Roubini suggested that there may be “close to $100 billion of defaults over five years, but typical 80% recoveries are far higher than on corporate bonds.” Nouriel outlined his view of trouble in the Muni world and attempted to measure the exposure in a very thoughtful way. He noted that most of the bonds he expected to default were in the high-yield or junk-bond category. His base-case estimate of defaults over five years for the investment-grade sector was under $30 billion, with “ultimate recovery” of nearly all the losses. Nouriel reminds us that “governments cannot be liquidated” like corporations.

Bloomberg’s Joe Mysak observed the following about Roubini:

“And so noted doomsayer Nouriel Roubini joins the numerous commentators who have opined about the municipal bond market, the most famous, of course, being Meredith Whitney, who in December on the CBS show ‘60 Minutes’’ blurted out the prediction that there would be ‘hundreds of billions’’ of municipal bond defaults in 2011. That $100 billion estimate from the Roubini firm isn’t in the same league as the Whitney call. What’s more, it may not be so outrageous, depending upon how you count defaults. The record year for municipal bond defaults was 2008, when 167 issues totaling $8.5 billion went bust, according to the Distressed Debt Securities Newsletter. In 2009, more municipal bonds defaulted, 207, on a lower dollar amount, $7.3 billion. In 2010, 82 deals failed to pay on $2.7 billion in bonds. The $100 billion over the next five years isn’t outside the realm of possibility. How are you counting? The people at Distressed Debt Securities, who have been doing it for decades now and who are the only ones with a historical database over that time, and who use a consistent methodology in their approach, count new defaults only in their calculations, which I think is the correct way to do it. Some analysts, scanning the daily material event notices at the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s EMMA web site, count all notices of default that are posted by issuers. And by doing it that way, by counting bonds that are already in default, you can come up with many more billions of dollars in defaulted municipals every year. That’s because it takes years to cure some of these things. In the case of so-called dirt-bonds, used to finance infrastructure improvements to real estate developments, for example, bondholders have to wait until the real estate is foreclosed upon and sold before they see any end to their money woes. Dirt bonds are the overwhelming majority of those that have defaulted over the past few years. The same long wait is true for bonds used to build speculative projects like toll roads, or de-inking mills, or aquariums, or any of the other various quixotic stuff that has been financed in the municipal market. Actual municipalities, that is, cities and counties, rarely default on their obligations. When they do, they usually cure them in pretty short order, in months if not weeks. Jefferson County, Alabama, which defaulted on almost $4 billion in sewer debt several years ago, is an outlier. If history is a guide, it probably will remain so. So, $100 billion over five years? That’s the headline number. It’s not impossible, especially if you count continuing defaults. Still, that’s quite a crystal ball.”

We believe it is important for readers to understand the term default. Here is the official definition from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). Remember, bondholders are concerned about monetary defaults. Non-monetary defaults are important because they tell you about the management of the organization or its political structure. These non-monetary defaults actually can provide a bond buyer with opportunity for a bargain if he is willing to do the homework.

“DEFAULT–A failure to pay principal of or interest on a bond when due or a failure to comply with any other covenant, promise or duty imposed by the bond contract. The most serious event of default, sometimes referred to as a ‘monetary’ default, occurs when the issuer fails to pay principal, interest, or both, when due. Other defaults, sometimes referred to as ‘technical’ defaults, result when specifically defined events of default occur, such as failure to maintain covenants. Technical defaults may include failing to charge rates sufficient to meet rate covenants, failing to maintain insurance on the project or failing to fund various reserves. If the issuer defaults in the payment of principal, interest, or both, or if a technical default is not cured within a specified period of time, the bondholders or trustee may exercise legally available rights and remedies for enforcement of the bond contract.”

MSRB reported a Fact Book on the hundreds of thousands of items and on the 10.5 million muni trades for 2010. There were 371 disclosures of a principal & interest delinquency; these involved 1951 securities. The overwhelming majority of them were in project-specific or otherwise non-rated or “junk” bonds. So if you count them on the default list, the list gets bigger.

Does that mean you have to buy any of these bonds? Certainly not. Does delinquency mean an actual monetary default will occur? Maybe yes, maybe no. Each case is different.

When it comes to actual defaults in 2011, the statistics, so far, are improving. “Municipal-bond defaults in the first two months of 2011 are down 50 percent from the same period last year, Standard & Poor’s said. Eight bond deals totaling about $222 million have entered default this year, compared with 16 totaling more than $329 million during the same period of 2010,” said J.R. Rieger, vice-president of fixed-income indexes for S&P in New York (Bloomberg, March 4).

The media has been filled with talk about municipal bankruptcy. This is a serious subject, of course. But it, too, has been overblown. Evidence from the 2008 Vallejo, California bankruptcy demonstrated how costly this is for a city or county. Vallejo has spent nearly $10 million so far and has nothing to show for it. The Bond Buyer, a trade publication, reports that “Vallejo bonds backed by non-general fund revenues amount to $62 million of debt. They have been paid in full and on time throughout the bankruptcy proceeding. They include securities with dedicated income streams including water revenue bonds, tax allocation bonds, and assessment and improvement district bonds.”

So far, in 2011, there has been just one Chapter 9 filing. Bloomberg reported it:

“Boise County, Idaho, with a population of about 7,450, filed for bankruptcy, making it the first U.S. municipality to file Chapter 9 this year. The county sought protection after a federal jury in December found the county violated federal fair housing law in its conduct related to a developer’s plan to build a 72-bed residential treatment facility for teenagers, the Idaho Statesman reported. The jury awarded a $4 million judgment to a developer, which hasn’t been paid. The county’s budget this year is $9.3 million. The county estimated its liabilities at less than $10 million, according to a March 1 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Boise. Alamar Ranch LLC, the developer, was the largest unsecured creditor with the $4 million claim. Idaho is one of 26 U.S. states that authorize municipal bankruptcy. Like Chapter 11 under the federal bankruptcy code, municipalities allows debtor to adjust debt. Unlike corporate bankruptcies, creditors can’t force municipalities into liquidation and the bankruptcy court has little oversight of municipal operations. Six municipal entities filed for Chapter 9 last year, most of them small utility or sewer districts. The capital of Idaho, Boise, is in adjoining Ada County.”

Whitney’s report does not delve deeply into the recovery history of Munis and into the technical details of default. Nor does she examine the complexities of Chapter 9 bankruptcy.. That is a shame, since she does deserve credit for publicizing the important issue of budget stress in Muniland.

Roubini does examine recovery. He offers estimates and methodologies. And he thoroughly describes the issues involving Chapter 9. His conclusion is that Muni recovery is much higher than markets seem to be pricing and that the widespread use of Chapter 9 is unlikely.

We believe the Roubini report is straightforward and worthy of respect. It is serious research work. It examines nearly two centuries of development in state and local government debt in the United States. It explains the methodology that it used to reach conclusions and estimates. We are less respectful of the Whitney report.

Roubini also attempts to estimate the price adjustment needed in the market in order to normalize the Muni-treasury spread. He notes that the financial crisis sell-off brought Munis to “absurd panic levels.” He reminds readers that, while things are improved since these wide spreads, the Muni market is still under “extreme strain.”

Cumberland agrees with Roubini’s conclusion that the “ratio of Muni yields to Treasuries remains elevated.” We continue to be buyers of well-structured, high-grade, tax-free municipal bonds and of corresponding taxable municipal debt. They remain cheap, and spreads still have a ways to go before normalcy in pricing is attained.

David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer

Published with the permission of our friends at Cumberland Advisors