How Credit Rating Agencies Reacted to Illinois Pension Ruling

Illinois map and flag

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.”

New Jersey Credit Rating Cut By S&P; Record 8th Downgrade Under Christie

Chris Christie

Credit rating agency S&P has downgraded New Jersey’s credit rating by one step, to A. The downgrade comes just 5 days after Fitch downgraded the state’s rating.

Notably, the state has been downgraded eight times under Chris Christie, the most under any governor in the state’s history.

Reported by Bloomberg:

The reduction to A, the sixth-highest level, with a stable outlook follows a Sept. 5 downgrade by Fitch Ratings. It gives New Jersey the same general-obligation grade as California, which is on track for an upgrade as revenue exceeds Democratic Governor Jerry Brown’s estimates. Only Illinois has lower ratings than New Jersey among U.S. states.

“New Jersey continues to struggle with structural imbalance,” S&P analyst John Sugden in New York said in a statement today. “The governor’s decision to delay pension funding, while providing the necessary tools for cash management and budget control, has significant negative implications for the state’s liability profile.”

Christie, a 52-year-old Republican in his second term, broke his promise this year to make $2.5 billion in extra pension payments in fiscal 2014 and 2015 to help trim unfunded obligations. He has called for more changes to the plan as costs for employee benefits crowd out other state spending.

[…]

New Jersey’s pension deficit, which reached $53.9 billion in 2010 after a decade of skipped payments and expanded benefits, fell to $36.3 billion with Christie’s changes. It then grew to $47.2 billion in 2012 as he made only partial contributions.

For fiscal 2014, which ended June 30, Christie contributed $696 million, less than half the planned $1.6 billion. Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson, ruling in Trenton on June 25 in a lawsuit filed by state worker unions, said Christie was within his power to reduce the payment because he faced a fiscal emergency.

All three of the major rating agencies – Fitch, Moody’s and S&P – have downgraded New Jersey’s credit rating in 2014.