Tag: moody’s pensions

Pennsylvania Recieves Third Consecutive Credit Downgrade, and Its Pension System Is The Culprit

14261388427_17845c4f62_z

Just a few weeks ago, Pension360 covered the story of Pennsylvania’s pension tussle; in short, the state’s governor wanted lawmakers to address pension reform before they left on their vacations. Well, lawmakers are now on vacation and pension reform is gathering dust. The state’s credit rating is now paying the price.

From Reuters:

Moody’s Investors Service downgraded its rating on Pennsylvania debt to Aa3 from Aa2 on Monday, the third consecutive year that a new state budget has prompted a credit cut.
Moody’s cited underperforming revenues and the continued use of one-time measures in its latest downgrade. After wrestling with lawmakers over public pensions and cutting millions of dollars through line-item vetoes, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett didn’t sign the 2015 budget until more than a week after the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.
The state has about $50 billion of unfunded long-term pension liabilities. About 63 cents of every new dollar of state revenue goes to pay pension costs, Corbett, a Republican, has said.
In order to close a deficit of about $1.5 billion without raising taxes, the state’s Republican-run legislature passed a spending plan that included one-time transfers of money from dedicated funds, such as one that helps volunteer fire companies purchase equipment.
Growing pension liabilities, coupled with modest economic growth, will limit Pennsylvania’s ability to regain structural balance in the near term, Moody’s said.

But the state can’t say it wasn’t warned; in fact, Moody’s, Fitch and S&P all warned Pennsylvania that they would be forced to downgrade its credit rating if the state produced an inadequate budget. A big part of what defined “adequacy”, in the eyes of the agencies, was doing something about the state’s dangerously unhealthy pension system.

Moody’s noted two key trends in its warning, released back in late April:

* High combined debt position driven by growing unfunded pension liabilities, and a history of significantly underfunding pension contributions that will be reversed slowly over the next four years
* Rapidly growing pension contributions will absorb much of the commonwealth’s financial flexibility over the next four years challenging its ability to return to structural balance or make meaningful contributions to the depleted budget stabilization fund

Moody’s, in its latest report, left the door open for upgrading the state’s rating. On the other hand, it also left the door open to downgrade it further. From Watchdog.org:

The rating could improve, Moody’s said, if the state reduced its long-term liabilities, including its unfunded pension liability. The rating could also rise if Pennsylvania replenished its reserves and revenues came in above projections, Moody’s indicated.
In turn, the rating could drop more if revenues come in worse than expected, if long-term liabilities grow and if further declines pressure liquidity, Moody’s said.
Moody’s gave Pennsylvania a stable outlook, saying that while Pennsylvania’s economy will grow more slowly than the United States on average, it has stabilized. Moody’s also cited a “recent history of improved governance, reflected in timely budget adoption and proactive financial management.”

Pennsylvania now has the third-worst credit rating among all 50 states. Illinois and New Jersey are the only states that carry lower ratings.

Is S&P Downplaying the Instability of Local Governments Saddled With Pension Obligation?

Credit-cards

Local governments around the country are increasingly saddled with mounting debts due to outstanding pension obligations. So why are many of them seeing boosts in their credit ratings?

At least one credit analyst is wondering aloud whether rating agencies –specifically, S&P– are purposely downplaying the risk of investing with local governments. From Governing:

Since last fall, when S&P released new scoring criteria, the agency has been reassessing ratings for thousands of local governments. Generally, and as predicted by S&P itself, the new criteria resulted in more upgrades of governments than downgrades. But a Janney Montgomery Scott analyst pointed out in his July note on the bond market that those changes have not put S&P’s ratings more in line with competitors Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings.

In some cases, rather, agencies’ ratings scores for the same local governments have diverged even more.

“I do not remember a time when I saw so many credits with not just a one-or-so-notch difference here and there, but multiple-notch differences in some cases,” said Tom Kozlik, the analyst who wrote the note. “This is not part of the typical ratings cycle (where sometimes one rating agency is a little higher and vice versa, I suspect). As a result, I expect that rating shopping could be on the rise if the current trend continues.”

In other words, the fear is that S&P is going easy on local governments in hopes that those governments will prioritize S&P’s rating services over those of its main competitors, Moody’s and Fitch. If a government published only its highest rating, it can mislead investors as to the risk of an investment. And, that appears to be exactly what is happening. From Governing:

There has been a pattern of governments only publishing an S&P rating. In June, for example, there were a little more than 200 local governments that sold debt competitively. Of those, one-quarter of them only published an S&P rating, according to Kozlik’s review. Another 11 governments only published an S&P rating but also had an outstanding Moody’s rating within the past three years (Kozlik dismisses 16 cases where the outstanding Moody’s rating is prior to 2011).

Like S&P, Moody’s has also revamped its ratings criteria in the wake of the financial crisis, however changes have mostly focused on giving pension and other long-term liabilities more weight in the final score. Most local government pension liabilities shot up during the financial crisis and many have still not gained back much – if any – ground. This change has contributed to Moody’s issuing more downgrades.

S&P has been quick to defend their ratings. The man behind the ratings change talked to Governing about the controversy:

Jeff Previdi, the S&P managing director for local governments who spearheaded the agency’s criteria change, defended the process. He said that the criteria had been heavily tested and had gone through a public comment period. The new criteria scores municipalities in seven categories: management, economy, budgetary flexibility, institutional framework (governance), budgetary performance, liquidity and debt/liabilities. The score for economy counts for 30 percent of the total score; all other categories are given a 10 percent weight.

The intent was to make the process and scoring as transparent as possible, Previdi said. Additionally, he added, the upgrades have tended to outpace downgrades for a very simple reason: Governments are doing better now than when they were last assessed.

“When we are reviewing under the new criteria, we’re not working with the same metrics of the old criteria,” he said. “It’s not done in a vacuum. Over this time we’ve been in a generally positive environment for local governments — that’s informing some of the results you see.”

While S&P is upgrading many local governments, Moody’s has been doing the opposite: the agency has issued twice as many downgrades as upgrades, according to Kozlik.