When you stick your neck out and make prognostications about the future, sometimes you're going to be wrong. I’m certainly no exception. But when it comes to really big misses, I think Meredith Whitney’s call for a monster blow-out of the Municipal Bond market is on top of the list.
Meredith is a smart lady. That being the case, it’s worth looking into why she was so wrong. A report this weekend from the Bond Buyer provides a partial answer:
A 32% ($138B) YoY decline is a very big relative change. The drop in long-term financing was not offset by increases in short-term debt; that category fell by 7.4% ($5B).
The drop in total borrowings is almost exclusively a result of the 46% ($129B) in the “New Money” category. The drop in New Money debt issuance is a consequence of hundreds of cities and states collectively saying:
We’re in a pinch on revenues. Let’s not spend any money we don’t have to for the time being. We’re going to have put off the construction of the new (Sewer plant, overpass, water treatment facility, school, whatever). The last thing we want to do is go to the Muni market and borrow any more.
As a result of many individual decisions to defer infrastructure projects, the Munis have kicked the can down road. They have eliminated the current and future expenses related to these projects. With that, they have stabilized the trajectory of their debt growth and improved short-term cash liquidity (by having less ST debt). In the process, they have created a shortage of muni bonds (relative to expectations) in the market.
Thus, all may appear well in muni land. A successful re-balancing has taken place, for the time being. If the munis can continue to push off infrastructure projects, they will not suffer the fate that Ms. Whitney feared they might.
I said that the munis had “kicked the can down the road”. In this case, it’s quite a different form of can kicking. When the Federal government raises the debt ceiling, we all say, “They kicked the can”. But the munis are doing (pretty much) the exact opposite, so Can Kicking would appear to be an improper/unfair description of what is happening with Munis. I think it's still valid, deferring infrastructure investments is another form of kicking.
Like most Kicking efforts, it will end badly sooner or later. I’m looking at a potential example as I write. One of NYC’s reservoirs is about a half mile away. A $60mm NYC/NYS funded construction plan was shelved a month ago. Could this become one of those examples where Kicking goes badly? Consider this daisy-chain.
The Croton Reservoir is part of a chain of reservoirs that provide water for NYC. It’s large (22 miles), but it’s small in comparisons to the big man-made lakes further upstate. Croton is important because it connects directly to those upstate reservoirs via an underground tunnel. That tunnel goes north, and then west. It is 1,000 feet deep where it meets the Hudson River.
A bit of physics. The upstate reservoirs are 1,000 feet above the sea and the tunnel is 1,000 below. The tunnel is (was) large enough to drive a truck through so the water pressure at the lowest part of the tunnel is enormous. What might you expect from a 75 year old tunnel under that much pressure? A leak? Sure.
This is one hell of a leak. As much as 35 million gallons a day was the estimate seven years ago. There is evidence that rate has since accelerated. That comes to 13 billion gallons a year, which is sufficient for 250,000 average Americans. Think Orlando, Madison, Winston-Salem or Reno. Each of these cities uses about as much water as NYC is leaking. In China, this much water would meet the needs of 1.7mm people, In Bangladesh it would be sufficient for 3mm. It's enough to fill 650,000 in-ground swimming pools. That’s a leak.
It gets worse. The leak was first detected in 1988. Therefore something like 15 million swimming pools worth of drinkable water have been pissed into the ocean. It’s so bad that areas on either side of the tunnel have sinkholes. People have been forced to move. Properties have been condemned. And the sinkholes keep getting bigger.
There are already dozens of lawsuits on this. They are after the State and the City who own and maintain the reservoirs. The judges have all sided against the City and State, and there have been promises to fix the damn leak for years. A few years ago, a formal plan was put together.
This is no small engineering matter. A new tunnel will be built that connects the old tunnel before and after the break. Once completed, the old tunnel will be cemented closed. The diversion tunnel will be ½ mile long. Recall that this is 1,000 below sea level, any construction/mining this deep is both difficult and dangerous (the bends). Those normal risks are, however, trumped by risks that the nearby existing tunnel breaches during construction of the diversion tunnel. The water pressure in the tunnel is sufficient to crush a submarine.
The only option is to stop the flow of water in the tunnel from the source, and then pump out what is left. The supply of water would be cut for about a year while the diversion tunnel is completed. This takes us back to the Croton Reservoir and the cancelled construction at this location. The plan was to raise the spillway by four feet. This change would have added a permanent storage to the NYC system of 11B gallons (11 days of consumption). It was intended that this expansion of storage would be completed before the leaking water tunnel is closed. It would have provided an additional level of comfort on available water for the City. Not any longer.
NYC’s has numerous sources of water. The Croton reservoir system could be eliminated for a period of time without a real shortage. However, that would not be true if the tunnel was closed for an extended period, particularly if there was a drought in the northeast.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the cut off in supply were much longer than the one-year projection. The North East has been blessed/cursed with above average rainfall for years due to the long running La Nina, but rainfall is impossible to predict. Could we be in a full-blown El Nino (dry in the NE) when the construction starts? Maybe. If so, NYC will regret not having upgraded the storage capacity at the Croton system.
I don’t want to leave the impression that NYC is headed for trouble. The possibility of a hard landing is small. But there are risks, and those risks are increased as a result of the cancellation of the Croton project. Caswell Hollowy, the NYC commissioner on the tunnel repair project said in 2010:
“You want to know how long the water is going to be off so you know where the supplemental water is going to come from. It’s absolutely critical to get it right.”
When Hollowy said this, the plan to upgrade the Croton system was still on. Now it is has been shelved (Budget concerns were the reasons cited). It's now more "critical" to get that timing right. I'm laying 4 to 1 they don't.
The Bond Buyer reported a drop of $129B in New Money bonds. If you consider the $60mm Croton project as being representative, about 2,200 projects got cancelled last year. With that big a number, it is just a matter of time before something falls through the cracks (literally) and economic consequences follow.
Will NYC or some other city have water supply problems?
Will some municipality have a breakdown in its water treatment capacity that results in huge sewage leaks?
Will a bridge collapse that restricts important commerce?
Will there be a blow-out of the electrical grid due to underinvestment?
The answers to these questions (and more) is that infrastructure breakdowns will occur. If we don’t invest, the resulting “leaks” will come back and bite us in the ass.
So far, the munis have reacted to their changed financial circumstances and have avoided the fate that Whitney saw coming. If they (collectively) continue doing what they did in 2011, they will probably avoid a financial crisis. But that doesn’t preclude problems sometime soon. Some big “things” are going to break. When they do, large communities will be affected. In the end, Whitney might be right that some munis will run into trouble. If that trouble is the consequence of a significant infrastructure failure, Meredith Whitney will be right, for the wrong reasons.
Notes:
*I’m sorry this went on and on. I just love big construction projects.
*Why did the tunnel under the Hudson fail? It went through a section of limestone. The water from the reservoir is filled with acid rain. The acidic water dissolves limestone. The original tunnel designers had no clue what acid rain was, so the limestone section was not sealed during construction.
*The 138B drop in New Money is equal to 0.9% of total GDP. This lack of borrowing was a drag on total output. Another good example of Debt = Growth.
.
Posts
No need to apologize Bruce. I find it fascinating, as weird as that may be. :-)
ReplyDeleteWe really need to get our priorities in order in this country.
So another words Mr Krasting, you are saying that NYC ***DID*** default.
ReplyDeleteThey merely defaulted on a promise to repair a water system, instead of defaulting on a bond.
One shows up in GASB accounting systems, the other one allows corrupt politicians to lie and claim they did not default.
The water default, as you point out, has already resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and destroyed property -- interest by some other name.
If you were a stupid lawyer, arguing about the meaning of "is" -- perhaps this sort of legal hairsplitting might slide... unfortunately, you are not a lawyer and neither are most of your readers
Stop trying to play us. Whitney was right about the defaults, wrong about America's willingness to stick our heads in the ground.
A formal default would have embarrassed the corrupt politicians, but would be a lot cheaper than this form of default
Tks Greg, Interesting.
DeleteNot sure that the "big leak" and the side story of the Croton system are evidence of "default". You might be able to say that if it plays out wrong, and there were to be a shortage when the shutdown happens.
But even then I wonder about "liability". NYC/NYS have big budget constraints. They also have big infrastructure needs. How could you fault them (even if it goes bad) when the reason in the first place is:
"We gotta tighten our belts."
De-leveraging sucks. But it is necessary. Hard to see it as a "default". But it will sure feel like it, when it happens.
b
Mr Krasting -- I would argue that the cost of the leak is just a off-balance sheet equivalent of cost of default.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, it is not rocket science to expect a 75 year old underground pipe system to require repair. Its a wonder it lasted as long as it did.
If you make a decision to rely on that pipe, you are implicitly agreeing to spend the money to maintain it as well. If you don't spend the money to do so, that is just a form of default. Service the pipe, service the interest on debt -- same thing, just one is off balance sheet
And this crap about austerity is beneath all of us. Living within your means is not austerity - its called reality
The politicians love to quote Keynes during bad times -- we need to spend like there is no tomorrow!! But Keynes also insisted on running surpluses during good times, paying down the debts.
Politicians long ago defaulted on the other half of Keynesian policy, and this de-leveraging nonsense (when it starts) is essentially the bankruptcy proceeding by another label.
But even using the Bernank's numbers, de-leveraging has not started. He and Geithner just shifted bad debts from idiot bankers to taxpayers.
Stealing from pensioners and savers to prop up failed bankers is not evidence of de-levering.
OK -- shorter version:
ReplyDeleteLets say I, as a debtor, knowingly and deliberately allow assets to fall into disrepair. Assets that provide the revenue used to pay interest on my debts. Assets that you (as creditor) considered as collateral for the loans you made.
How is that not a default?
Neglecting the water infrastructure is imperiling the assets needed to pay debts, the same assets that are collateral for those debts.
The courts have ruled (according to your blog post) that the government officials are 100% to blame. It is deliberate neglect.
The only problem here is: when you and I commit wanted neglect, *WE* pay for the litigation costs. When the corrupt government employees commit neglect ... **WE** the taxpayers end up paying for their crimes.
Same as in an actual default.
Toe-MAY-toe, Toe-MAH-toe ... this is default.
Didn't I read somewhere that the banks have taken to lending to municipalities in a big way lately? Could this account for the drop in bond issuance?
ReplyDeleteGreg - your point is made. Astute and well-made. I agree.
ReplyDeleteMeredith Whitney wrong?
ReplyDeleteNot wrong, IMO - just too early.
I've been working in the finance/revenue area of local government here in the Midwest for about the last 30 years. Just had a career change (my choice), and I still work as a 'servicer' for local government, but more in the services outsourcing area.
There's lots of problems out there with bonded indebtedness, particularly with what are called 'Alternate Revenue Bonds' and categories also known as 'Re-development Bonds' (think bonds issued as part of TIF, Special Redevelopment, Special Assessment, or Special Service Area type bonds).
Here's the simple reality. In most places, the property tax base has yet to make substantial adjustments to what has happened to the real estate market. It's not uncommon for many substantial Midwest real estate markets to see the ratio of property tax market value/current market value in the 120% up to 140% range (a *$400,000 house/130% = real current market value of around $310,000)
(Note: * = $400,000 market value for real estate taxation purposes).
That's really more common than anybody wants to admit, and if there's a real increase in foreclosures, that tax base for a whole bunch of these alternate revenue bonds, plus certainly for the existing redevelopment bonds - well, that tax base is going to dry up and shrivel away.
GASB is talking about issuing a new 'Statement' for state and local governments on having an annual a five year projection on 'substantial' income and expenditures for state and local governments. If what GASB is taking comments on actually comes to pass and has to be implemented, those annual filings by units of local government will be interesting, to say the least.
Whitney did say "12 months" in the CBS interview. In that sense, she did miss. But pay no attention to the big players who are making fun of her prediction. (Not you Bruce, you are neither big, nor making fun.)
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that only her timing is off. $200b in defaults will quite likely be with us in less than 2 years (if Bernanke can keep things together for even that long).
Now does anyone realize that the banks bent over the CA. and NY AG's to sign the robo-signing agreement with the threat of state issued bonds? Seems rather easy to figure out. BTW this is just another example of consequences not being allowed because the fundamentals scream that ANY state issued debt should be massively lower in value.
ReplyDeleteWhitney not wrong. Just early.
ReplyDeleteI recall reading a bunch of blogs in 2005 about the Real Estate bubble. They were not wrong. Just early. People that made contingency plans, especially by not buying at the peak, were much better off.
As an Illinois resident I think hard about these issues. Looking at Greece I wonder if my home is just a millstone of taxation. Anonymous 7:55PM is correct that market values do not reflect taxation values. And I do not think our teachers can be paid their pensions unless my taxes quadruple. Will I be willing to eat Alpo in retirement in chilly Illinois with my thermostat at 60 degrees so that Politicians and Teachers that were over-promised can live in sunny Florida and play golf every day? Very very unclear. There will be haircuts.
You can see this in Greece's astounding level of tax avoidance/cheating. But when you have a house, or a car, or an investment portfolio, it is there for the taxing. Nevertheless, you will see rioting similar to Greece's if you try to tax the prudent savers to pay for these fantasy promises. These bonds are shaky.
In general, you should be sellers of corrupt Blue States and buyers of more fiscally conservative Red States. Part of this is just demographics. Red states have sparser populations and less historical over-promising.
I am hopeful new technology can provide some solutions. Dean Kamen has demoes online of his invention that purifies water. It is intended for Africa but may find a use in NYC.
I am sure Warren Buffett will be happy to run some tanker trains of drinking water into NYC for the right price too. BNSF owns 13,000 bridges and pays for their upkeep, unlike the government.
Meredith Whitney is the new Elaine Garzarelli.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with the view that Whitney is on to something but that the situation will not end in financial market calamity as much as social and political unrest at the local level.
ReplyDeleteSaying all of that I do wonder if the US will not go the way that places like Australia and the UK have gone on many public works projects, the Public-Private Partnership model aka P3. Look at Puerto Rico for instance where a major toll road is being planned and executed under a P3 structure. One wonder if this kind of arrangement won't be more prevalent in the US in the years to come.
http://bit.ly/wggZ3N