S&P to the Feds: You Ain’t Got the Money Of
So I go away to get oriented to my new job, and look what happens:
S&P gives warning on credit outlook for U.S.
Early Monday, Standard & Poors, the company that rates all kinds of bonds, downgraded its outlook for U.S. government debt from “stable” to “negative.” The unprecedented warning negatively impacts the market value of all outstanding government debt, and if S&P takes the next step and actually downgrades the U.S. debt rating, it would force the Treasury to pay higher interest rates to borrow money.
Interest on the national debt is the third-largest federal spending category. In the last 12 months, the Treasury has paid more than $400 billion in interest — and rates are currently at historically low levels. A ratings drop could cost the taxpayers billions in extra interest payments every year. Worse, the higher rates needed to entice borrowers also would negatively affect our economy.
The United States still maintains its “triple A” bond rating, but the downgrade warning signifies concern that Congress will not act prudently to rein in deficit spending.
As Kevin D. Williamson notes, credit agencies' actions tend to be a lagging indicator.
First there is a consideration that S&P is a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, which had some force up until recently in lots of regulations -- S&P (along with Moody's and Fitch were the only 3 NRSROs for a while) had a huge lock on a lot of this business for a variety of reasons, but a lot of their power came from governmental/regulatory recognition. So you're not about to bite the hand that feeds you.
But that changed recently, in that the reliability of the NRSROs were undermined with the whole AIG/CDO mess in 2008. So a variety of regulatory bodies have been loosening the NRSRO grip on measuring credit risk and related capital needs. As a result, S&P can look out a little more for the interest of investors, as opposed to bond issuers. And as opposed to the government, which really hasn't been making friends in the financial services industry in general.
Charles Krauthammer sees this move as a vote of no confidence in Obama (or rather, Obama's boring speech from last week). It's definitely a political kick in the pants to the various parties to get a move on on entitlements ... because that's really where the action is.
And - surprise! - the White House is annoyed. Well, guys, all that financial reform took away that lever, and you asked them for better credit analysis. So now you get it, good and hard.
Jim Manzi looks at what tax levels would be required to cover holding entitlements as currently constituted (answer: pretty frickin high). Megan McArdle also sees this as a signal to Congress to get serious (she also points out the short-term nature of much of the debt... in danger of being exposed to increasing interest rates, and yowza! Liquidity issues!)
The answer can't be taxing the rich, because there aren't enough of them (how many times do we keep having to say that?) I don't think leaving entitlements as-is is a realistic option, either.
I do think that as much as prior generations have tried to offload the costs on future generations, the buck stops right now... mainly because there aren't enough people in those future generations.
The Boomers' parents are dying, being in their 80s, so they're not going to pay the bill... and the Boomers thought that through their clout they may have been able to hang onto what was given to their parents -- nope. I do think that Boomers are gonna get whacked with entitlement cuts, not just Gen X and younger.
All About Debt
You can't take it with you.... and that includes debt. The "latest trend" is retirees racking up debt. Good news: the debt can't be passed on to the next generation. Bad news: it certainly can be passed to the estate -- forget about an inheritance.
Now the beauty is that in the governmental world, there has been attempts to put that debt on the next generation. Ha, ha, SIKE! Who were the idiots who thought they'd be made whole on this debt? Anyway, I've got a rundown of all sort of governmental debt issues.
What happens when a state goes bankrupt. Go to the link for the short story. Long story: not quite sure, because there's no official, orderly method for state bankruptcies, unlike municipal bankruptcies.
What's up with these Build America Bonds? Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Institute gives you the skinny. And there's definitely a public pension link. Whee!
California
Overview from Prof. Hanson - he seems a smart guy. Why is he staying in California then? [Though this pot ought not be calling that kettle black. I'm in New York. My excuse: I got a deal on a sweet house with an observatory. AN OBSERVATORY! Can't get that everywhere.]
California bond woe bodes ill for states. That's not the only group it bodes ill for.
Back to the future with Jerry Brown - unlikely that fiscal sanity ahead in the near future. Fiscal crash? A distinct possibility. Yes, pensions are involved.
Illinois
Illinois debt default insurance increases to record cost -- Proof that Quinn is an idiot compared to Daley. Just like any Ponzi, the smart operators are the ones who get out before the decline. Once the Ponzi starts to contracts and cash out, that's when the cliff is fast approaching. I wouldn't want to be holding Illinois bonds, whether state or muni. More on same.
Chicago debt rating lowered - yes, pensions are involved.
Going back to Steven Malanga's piece and the connection of BABs and Illinois, along with an earlier piece on Illinois's debt rating.
Michigan -- A Michigan city rattles its cup at charities, in an about-face. I work in NYC, near Wall Street, and I run into panhandlers all the time. I never give them money (neither do I give it to buskers) - I don't want to encourage them. I recommend the charities tell the city to go screw. Also, I wonder if giving this money out in contraindications to their stated charitable aims actually undermines their tax-exempt status. Any tax lawyers in the house?
What's up in Europe?
Europe welcomes Irish bailout request. Oh, I bet they do. They've been wanting to force the tax rates higher in Ireland so as to reduce the attractiveness of the Irish market compared to other euro-zone countries. Looks like the bailout proposed is smaller than that for Greece. Hmmm. And Ireland actually tried some cuts before going begging, unlike Greece (which didn't make cuts until =after= getting the bailout.)
Muni bond market
Muni-holders, get ready to suck it up [subscription link for WSJ]. Any municipal bond bailout would have to originate in the House. Not happening in the lame duck session, so it's put off for when the new class of Repubs are in there. Do you see this happening? I don't.
More on the muni market weakness.
"Happy" stuff--Pajamas media attempts their own fiscal reform push. Good luck with that guys. And did I need to mention it? Yes, pensions and Social Security are involved.
Their official website for the National Economic Rescue Initiative.
This is by no means exhaustive [even if we're exhausted]. Share your own links of govt debt stories.... and check your portfolios for muni bonds. There may be a rough ride ahead for you...
Making Promises for Someone Else
...and trying to make them stick.
Doesn't work too well in one's personal life, and it's not working too well in public life now.
Two examples from the Fat Man of New Jersey - first, via Ace of Spades, we have Chris Christie talking about how Corzine tried to suck out all the cash as he was going out the door; and the most recent decision from Christie to kill a rail tunnel for which Jersey would have been on the hook for cost overruns.
The whines go up from the crowd ... "OH BUT WE WERE PROMISED!" Yes, and who was promising? Do you see those people in the governorship of NJ? Christie isn't putting up with that crap.
All sorts of groups are learning the value of a government promise -- when they can't even pay basic bills to outside vendors, do you think you're going to be safe, public employees? You can pour as much money as you want into the election, but that didn't help ex-governor Corzine, now did it?
The governed class are now in revolt against the governing class, and trying to make them pay for the promises they have made and want to make. The money is running out fast in some pension plans; John Bury (now in new blog digs) has projected the NJ pension money will be gone in 5 years.
Of course, it's not just public employees -- people are trying to hold onto the "entitlements" that demographics are not going to let us keep unchanged... but while people don't want them cut, they do realize that they will be cut.
But this is the real bottom line - even if the public unions did manage to buy/steal the election via various shenanigans, there's not much they're going to be able to do to keep the cash train running. The money is running out, no matter who is in charge. And the way this demographic Ponzi stops working, it's not that people can cash out and get their dough before it collapses. They need a steady flow of money.... and at some point that will stop if expectations and benefits aren't moderated starting now.
And you bet your sweet bippy that a "correction" of these expectations is going on right now, and will be imposed on the Boomers. I may love my Ma, but it's not like I feel any obligation to her collective generation. Others who waited too late or had no kids...nobody is going to feel obligated to you.
And we certainly don't feel obligated to fulfill the promises you made to yourselves, hoping to impose them on younger generations.
Pension and State Finance roundup, 19June2010
- Searchable database of NY pensions [can also find general payroll info elsewhere on the site] -- I recommend searching on year 2009 for info, not all info for 2010 is in there yet.
- Mortality of the ancient Romans - if one survived childhood [disease, mistreatment] and young adulthood [military service for men, childbirth for women], life wasn't necessarily short. Of course, most didn't make it to 30.
- Betting against state finances - it's the hot market tip! Except it's no secret....
- The asset return assumption is really about who pays for the pensions: the higher the assumption, the more it's future generations who will pay
- GASB kinda sorta changes the public pension accounting rules, but if states/municipalities promises that they reaaaally truly intend to fund their pensions properly.... dear lord, this is just wasting time. You get to use the old rules if you promise to behave? Or else what? People will go "nyah nyah"?
- Surprise! Blago trial involves pension obligation bonds -- gee whiz, why wouldn't I want public servants to have a big pot of money to play with? I'm sure if they promise reeaaaaaaally truly to abide by their fiduciary duties.... ugh.
- POBs are money-losers anyway, even without that extra dollop of corruption for the full flavor of public pension failure.




