Vol. 1, No. 8, Published December 9, 2015
Summary of Ratings and Borrowing Costs
Where Does California Fit In?
California is wrapping up 2015 with better ratings than a year ago, but the Golden State still has much room for improvement.
The Golden State received upgrades from Fitch in February (A+) and Standard & Poor�s in July (AA-). Moody�s last upgraded California in June 2014 (Aa3).
However, we still remain lower than all but two rated states: Illinois and New Jersey. And Pennsylvania�s ratings remain only slightly better than those of the Golden State. (See a detailed comparison.)
But for California, holding the higher rating levels over time is what matters most. Lower ratings provoke investors to demand higher yields, which translates into higher borrowing costs.
The State�s recent 20-year yield sat at 3.05 percent, higher than the 2.76 percent yield on a national benchmark of AAA-rated bonds, a difference of 0.29 percent. (See Figure 1.)
Compared to the prior month, the nominal yield on the California benchmark fell by 0.05 percent, while the nominal yield on the national benchmark dipped by 0.04 percent.
The difference between the two benchmarks one year earlier was slightly wider: California�s yield was 3.15 percent, while that same national benchmark was at 2.79 percent, a difference of 0.36 percent.
How should the benchmarks be explained? Though these data points appear to be getting narrower, there seems to be a slight trend toward a tighter relationship.
What does this mean for California taxpayers?
In general, for every $1.0 billion in bonds issued, the State will incur higher borrowing costs as a result of investors demanding higher investment yields. The result in such a scenario would be about $18.7 million in higher debt service over a 20-year period compared to the national benchmark of AAA-rated, tax-exempt bonds. (See Figure 2.) This compares to higher debt service of $23.5 million illustrated in last month's edition, while before that the cost sat at $25.5 million.
Indeed, this is also being noticed in secondary trading (where investors are buying and selling amongst themselves). Using spot observations, the differences could be as low as 0.2 percent.
Observe that the band is quite narrow in the early years and grows over time. This reflects market uncertainty, among other things.
Source: Municipal Market Data as of 11/23/15
When it comes to understanding why investment yields and borrowing costs behave this way, it helps to look at long-term trends.
Figure 3, below, shows the one-year trend in another widely used index, the Bond Buyer 20-Bond Index, over the past year. California�s most recent offerings are shown as vertical bars.
The grey band represents the normal variance around a long-term trend, which can be thought of as the center of the grey band. The blue line represents the changes in the trend over time.
Source: The Bond Buyer
Interest rates on state and local government bonds are lower than they were a decade ago. Figure 4 also uses the Bond Buyer 20-Bond Index, but over a longer 10-year period.
Despite the fluctuation of rates over this longer period, it is important to remember that this index is more than three-quarters of one percent lower than it was 10 years ago. Borrowing at today’s rates is, by comparison, still a bargain versus borrowing 10 years ago.
We have been fortunate to be in the market several times this year when California has been at the lower end of the band.
Source: The Bond Buyer