moody’s | Pension360

Ratings Agencies Express Concern Over Maryland Pension Debt, But Uphold Rating

The major ratings agencies all upheld Maryland’s AAA bond rating this week.

But all three agencies expressed concern over the state’s pension debt. S&P in particular warned that pension liabilities, if not addressed, could lead to a rating downgrade in the future.

From the Maryland Reporter:

Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investor Services call Maryland’s debt “moderate,” but Standard & Poor’s report says it is “above average.”

Moody’s said “low retirement system funded levels” represent a credit challenge for the state and “failure to adhere to plans to address low pension funded ratios” could make the rating go down.

Comptroller Peter Franchot said Wednesday he was concerned that the legislature would be tempted to cut the state’s pension contribution in order to find money for other programs.

Fitch Ratings noted, “Despite pensions being a comparative credit weakness, the state has taken multiple steps to reduce their burden and improve sustainability over time.”

S&P noted “implementation of various reforms and some improvements in funded ratios,” But it said “the state’s below-average pension funded ratios and annual contributions that do not meet the full [annual contribution] also continue to represent downside risk to the rating.”

The Fitch report can be read here.

The Moody’s report can be read here.

The S&P report can be read here.

Photo credit: Lendingmemo

How Credit Rating Agencies Reacted to Illinois Pension Ruling

None of the three major rating agencies changed their outlook on Illinois’ credit in the wake of a lower court ruling that deemed the state’s pension reform law unconstitutional.

But rating agencies are certainly keeping a close watch on the state as the reform law moves up to the Supreme Court. And all three agencies had something to say after the ruling.

Moody’s had the harshest take, calling the ruling “credit negative” that leaves the door open for a rating downgrade. Summarized by Governing:

[Moody’s] issued an analysis on Nov. 24 that said the “state’s negative outlook indicates the possibility that factors such as further growth in the state’s pension liabilities will drive the rating lower still.” The state is appealing the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court but Moody’s was wary of its chances and pointed out that the top court this summer indicated in a separate case on retiree health benefits that would adhere strictly to the pension protection clause.

A top Moody’s official commented further in a WUIS report:

“The average state from our perspective or the expected rating for a state is AA1, which is our second highest rating. And so Illinois is A3, so that’s five rating notches below that,” said Ted Hampton, a Vice President at Moody’s Investor Service. “Which is to say, it’s still an investment-grade rating. It’s still a strong rating in the context of every kind of security that we rate. But it’s far below all of the other states.”

Hampton says Moody’s saw Illinois’ passage of the pension overhaul as beneficial, but not enough to move the credit ratings needle – because a court challenge was suspected. The recent court ruling likewise wasn’t not enough to prompt a change, though Moody’s called the decision “credit negative” in a notice sent out Tues., Nov. 24.

“We do get a lot of inquiries about states, particularly Illinois where there are problems that are in the news, and where the situation is in flux. And publishing these comments helps us get our opinion out to those investors, or to the general public,” Hampton said.

Fitch and S&P said the pension ruling didn’t move the needle much as far as the state’s credit rating. From Governing:

Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s were far more forgiving. Both said they had already factored in the likelihood of court challenge into their current ratings for Illinois. “More importantly, from a credit perspective,” S&P added, savings from the pension reform are not included in the fiscal 2015 budget.”

Interestingly, Fitch’s main concern wasn’t the pension ruling. Instead, the agency said the real concern was the expiration of several tax increases. From Governing:

Fitch did note another trouble spot for Illinois’ credit lurking just ahead: the scheduled expiration of temporary tax increases in 2015. “The state passed a placeholder budget for the current fiscal year with a stated intent to revisit the issue after the November elections,” Fitch said. “Taking steps to address the long-standing structural mismatch between revenues and spending would put the state on more solid financial footing, while failure to take action would be a return to past practices and leave the state poorly positioned to confront future downturns.”

Providence Pension Funding Could Be Worse Than Advertised

Providence Pension Funding, Analysis of Michael G. Riley — Analysis by Michael G. Riley

Sometimes, a pension plan’s official funded ratio can be deceptive. That’s because there are many different assumptions that play into that final number, including the fund’s assumed rate of return.

Michael G. Riley, vice chair at Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, has done some number-crunching to see what Providence’s pension funding would look like if the city lowered it’s return assumption, which currently stands at 8.25 percent.

The results of the analysis can be seen in the table above. Riley’s methodology can be read below. From Go Local Prov:

I have calculated the TRUE pension liability given certain relevant assumptions. Let me first say that if Bondholders did not currently have first lien on Tax revenues, due to a 2011 law passed by the assembly placing public workers and taxpayers at the end of the line, then Providence, Rhode Island would already be rated “junk” by Moody’s, S&P etc. and would have very little flexibility to finance anything.

Mayor Taveras uses among the highest discount rate in the country 8.25%. Moody’s will use and analyze using between 5.5% and 6%. We will use 6% for their analysis and a blended rate based on crossover points indicating 70% muni rate and 30% the providence assumption for returns. The 2012 CAFR is used and assets were then reported as $421 million dollars ( even though assets in the fund were only $247 million) First we will adjust assets down by $57 million based on the auditors admonition against Taveras accounting gimmick, next we will use market value as prescribed by gasb 67.

This table reveals the truth through analysis, if you want to believe Taveras lies then keep reading the Projo and WPRI. If you are an accountant or actuary including those employed by Providence please refute these numbers in public.

According to NASRA research, the average pension fund in 2013 assumed a rate of return of 7.72 percent.

NASRA used a sample of 126 public pension plans. Only four plans had return assumptions higher than 8 percent.

Moody’s: Strong Returns Can’t Keep Up With Obligations

Moody’s released a strongly-worded report today on the state of public pension funds in the U.S. The report claimed that strong investment returns haven’t improved the funding gap facing pension systems, because unfunded liabilities have grown even more than assets.

From Bloomberg:

The 25 largest U.S. public pensions face about $2 trillion in unfunded liabilities, showing that investment returns can’t keep up with ballooning obligations, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The 25 biggest systems by assets averaged a 7.45 percent return from 2004 to 2013, close to the expected 7.65 percent rate, Moody’s said in a report released today. Yet the New York-based credit rater’s calculation of liabilities tripled in the eight years through 2012, according to the report.

“Despite the robust investment returns since 2004, annual growth in unfunded pension liabilities has outstripped these returns,” Moody’s said. “This growth is due to inadequate pension contributions, stemming from a variety of actuarial and funding practices, as well as the sheer growth of pension liabilities as benefit accruals accelerate with the passage of time, salary increases and additional years of service.”

U.S. states and cities are contending with underfunded worker retirement systems. The 18-month recession that ended in June 2009 wiped out asset values and forced cuts to contributions. Now, liabilities are crowding out spending for services, roads and schools.

For the report, Moody’s gathered data on the 25 largest pension funds in the country, which control about 40 percent of all pension assets in the U.S..

The New York Common Retirement Fund had the best average return over the past 10 years. The fund returned 8.67 percent annually.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

Court: CalPERS Can Sue Credit Rating Agencies Over Investment Losses

CalPERS lost over $10 billion during the financial crisis, and many of those losses stemmed from financial instruments given top-notch ratings by ratings agencies Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.

CalPERS filed a lawsuit against the agencies for assigning ratings that misrepresented the quality of the failed investments, but the lawsuit had been held up for months as the agencies appealed the suit’s legitimacy in the lower courts.

But on Wednesday, the California Supreme Court ruled that CalPERS could indeed sue the agencies. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The lawsuit involved its $1.3 billion investment in 2006 in three financial products – Cheyne Finance, Stanfield Victoria Funding and Sigma Finance – that had gotten the highest ratings from Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. They were securities issued by banks and management companies and available only in private offerings to a limited number of institutional investors, including the pension system.

Only after all three went bankrupt in 2007 and 2008, CalPERS said, did investors learn that the products’ assets consisted largely of high-risk subprime mortgages. The suit also alleged that the rating agencies’ fee agreements had a built-in bias, entitling them to full fees only if they issued passing grades.

The ratings agencies had argued that their ratings were a form of free speech. The court agreed, but pointed out an important qualifier:

While investment ratings are a form of free expression, said the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, they are not mere expressions of opinion or predictions of success, which are immune from negligence suits. Instead, the court said, the ratings are factual assertions, issued “from a position of superior knowledge” about the investments’ financial health, and thus can be challenged if made falsely and carelessly.

And while federal law prohibits states from regulating credit-rating agencies, damage claims for misrepresentation are “within a field traditionally occupied by the states,” Justice Martin Jenkins said in the 3-0 appellate ruling.

Both ratings agencies appealed the decision Wednesday, but the court denied their appeals.

Moody’s: Illinois Pension Debt Is Worst In Country

Moody’s released a report last weekend measuring the pension liabilities of all states relative to state revenue. By that measure, Illinois has the worst pension debt in the country, according to the report. From the Sun-Times:

Illinois’ pension liability as a percentage of state revenue is far and away the nation’s highest, according to a new report from a major credit-rating agency.

The state’s three-year average liability over revenue is 258 percent, Moody’s Investors Service says.

The next closest? Connecticut, at about 200 percent.

The Moody’s report averaged the Illinois percentage from 2010 through 2012. In 2012 alone, the state’s rate was 318 percent.

The state has a $100 billion deficit in the amount of money that should be invested in the portfolios of five state-employee pension accounts.

[…]

In the latest report, Moody’s sets [the median] level at 51 percent.

Several larger states, similar to Illinois, are well below the median and rank in the 10 lowest percentages of adjusted net pension liability, including Ohio, Florida and New York. The group also includes Illinois neighbors Iowa and Wisconsin — the latter having the lowest level next to Nebraska.

Only three others states — New Jersey, Hawaii and Louisiana — have rates higher than 120 percent.

The report acknowledged the state’s pending pension reform, which currently sits in court. From the Sun-Times:

Lawmakers adopted an overhaul plan last fall that cuts benefits and increases worker contributions to significantly cut that debt.

But the law has been challenged in court. A Sangamon County judge indicated last week he wants the case moved swiftly to appellate courts, suggesting the Illinois Supreme Court’s rejection in July of a law affecting retiree health insurance could prove a model for the pension challenge.

Moody’s points out that even if the pension overhaul gets constitutional approval from the state’s high court, it still will take decades for Illinois government to dig out of its financial hole.

Photo by Chris Eaves via Flickr CC License

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

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?

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.