Moody s Adopts State and Local Pension Adjustments

Transcription

1 Moody s Adopts State and Local Pension Adjustments New England States GFOA Manchester Village, VT Marcia Van Wagner Vice President Senior Analyst, US Public Finance

2 Pensions are a growing source of credit pressure» Liabilities and costs continue to grow across the public sector Reasons include demographic trends, imprudent benefit increases, contribution shortfalls, and lost decade in the stock market On reported actuarial basis, unfunded liabilities in 2011 were $800 billion, more than doubling since 2005 Negative credit impact is compounded by recent years slow recovery of tax revenues Credit rating downgrades of several states and locals attributable mainly or partly to pension pressures 2

3 Liabilities have risen sharply while revenues stalled While unfunded pension liabilities more than doubled from 2005 to 2011, tax revenues experienced their sharpest downturn in many decades and only a weak/moderate subsequent recovery» 2012 state tax revenues ($800bn) up nominal 3.2% from peak in 2008» 2012 local tax revenues ($592bn) up nominal 2.6% from peak in 2009» Calendar 2013 will be the first full year that state revenues exceed prerecession levels on an inflation-adjusted basis, according to NASBO and the Rockefeller Institute. Data on calendar year basis from US Census Bureau, and includes tax rate increases 3

4 Increase in pension liability relative to revenue is a negative credit factor» accrued unfunded pension liabilities are similar in nature to debt» amounts are significantly larger than bonded debt in many jurisdictions» complex and difficult to manage, especially at the local level» continue to grow if not prudently funded and amortized» can become a heavy burden on operating budgets and drain liquidity» may be on legal parity with GO debt in some jurisdictions 4

5 Pensions are one of many rating factors» Pensions are just one of many factors in a government credit rating For example, 10% weighting in our state and local government rating scorecards» For majority of governments, pension obligations remain manageable in context of revenues, resources, and budget-cutting powers Most have taken needed actions to accommodate increased pension costs and balance budgets Reforms are lowering employer normal costs, and in some cases reducing accrued liabilities But, more rating actions possible where pension pressures continue to rise 5

6 Moody s adjustments to state & local reported pension data» Adopted in April 2013, following Request for Comment in July 2012» Published data for states in July 2013» Data for largest locals forthcoming» Purpose of adjustments is to provide greater transparency & comparability of liability measures for use in our rating analysis» Provide a balance sheet measure, similar to that in private sector» Not intended as a guide, standard or requirement for state or local governments to report or fund their obligations 6

7 Four principal adjustments to as-reported pension data» Allocate liabilities of cost-sharing plans to participating government employers based on their proportionate shares of total plan contributions» Discount accrued actuarial liabilities (AAL) using a high-grade (Aa quality) corporate bond index rate as of the date of valuation» Use fair or market value of assets (MVA) instead of smoothed asset value to calculate Moody s adjusted net pension liability (adjusted AAL minus MVA) Although we are using AVA for local governments until MVA is disclosed» Calculate a standardized annual amortization metric related to the adjusted net pension liability, on a 20-year level dollar basis 7

8 Why are we making these adjustments?» To improve the transparency and comparability of pension information across state and local governments for use in our credit analysis of public sector entities» To create a balance sheet liability concept that is similar to that used in the private and not-for-profit sectors and comparable to measures of debt as of a specific point in time» To address the fact that government accounting guidelines allow for significant differences in key financial assumptions that can make statistical comparisons in the sector very challenging Our adjustments are not intended as a guide, standard or requirement for state or local governments to report or fund their obligations 8

9 Bond index discount rate provides a balance sheet measure» Our approach is similar to private sector standard set by FASB» Discounts the promised benefit payments using current market interest rate Treats pension benefits as bond-like obligations Liabilities are measured independently of asset mix or performance Liabilities of identical pension plans (government, hospital, or manufacturer) measured on the same day should be identical» Contrasts with public sector approach focused on funding Discounts using assumed investment rate of return based on asset mix Estimates the PV of employer contributions, if assumptions are met Market risk in this approach increases as the return assumption increases 9

10 Disclosure improvements may allow future refinements» Some adjustments will serve in an interim capacity until new GASB 68 guidelines are implemented.» Relevant additional reporting items include: Government shares of cost-sharing plan liabilities Sensitivity of liabilities to 1 percentage point change in discount rate (i.e. plan-specific estimate of liability duration) Components of pension expense (such as normal cost) 10

11 2011 ANPL for New England States State Reported UAAL ANPL Rank ANPL/Revs Rank Connecticut 20,069,660 41,587, % 2 Maine 2,688,100 5,656, % 14 Massachusetts 16,752,915 44,732, % 9 New Hampshire 4,273,547 2,748, % 21 Rhode Island 4,094,109 5,273, % 12 Vermont 1,191,646 2,436, % 24 Median 8,322, % Average 18,880, % Excludes some small pension plans 11

12 Ratings implications of pension adjustments» No state ratings were downgraded because of the changed methodology» This is primarily because we had already taken rating actions for the states with the greatest pension pressures: Illinois, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey, Hawaii (and Puerto Rico)» Rhode Island has a negative outlook largely because of the unresolved nature of its pension reform» We put 29 local governments on review for downgrade. Of those, we have downgraded ratings for 18, including Chicago, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Portland, OR and Santa Fe, NM. We have also downgraded a number of Chicago-area credits that were not on the review list, including Cook County and Chicago Public Schools Most of the downgrades were in the Midwest. None in New England!» Additional downgrades could result from our proposed local government GO rating methodology, which increases the weighting on pensions and debt 12

13 APPENDIX 13

14 Proposed and final adjustments to pension data 14

15 Sample discount rate adjustment $billions Reported AAL $50 Assumed investment rate of return Citibank Pension Liability Index AAL projected forward 13 years at 8.00% 8.00% 5.47% $136 Discounted at 5.47% $68 15

16 Adjusted pension liabilities for the 50 states and rated local governments FY 2011 ($billions) 50 States Rated Local Governments Reported AAL 1,427 1,577 Reported AVA 1,019 1,203 Median discount rate 8.00% 7.50% Market value of assets 873 n/a* Moody s adjusted pension liability Moody s adjusted net pension liability Median discount rate for Moody s adjustments 1,817 2, % 5.54% ANPL as % of US GDP 6.35% 6.22% *Note: For local governments, the introduction of MVA rather than AVA is dependent on more consistent reporting of MVA in accord with the new GASB standards. 16

17 State rating methodology scorecard debt and pension metrics» Distinct metrics and breakpoints reflect our analytical view that pensions are debt-like but not the same as bonded debt Sub-Factor Measurement Aaa Aa1 Aa2 Aa3 A Baa and below Debt (10% weight) Net Tax Supported Debt/ Total Governmental Fund Revenues Less than 15% 15%-30% 30%-50% 50%-90% 90%- 130% Greater than 130% Pension (10% weight) 3 Year Average Adjusted Net Pension Liability/ Total Governmental Fund Revenues Less than 25% 25%-40% 40%-80% 80%- 120% 120%- 180% Greater than 180% 17

18 Local government rating methodology scorecard debt and pension metrics DEBT/PENSIONS (20%) Very Strong Strong Moderate Weak Poor Very Poor Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B & Below Weight Net Direct Debt / Full Value < 0.75% 0.75% n < 1.75% 1.75% n < 4.00% 4.00% n < 10.00% 10.00% n < 15.00% > 15.00% 5% Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues 3-Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Full Value 3-Year Average of Moody's Adjusted Net Pension Liability / Operating Revenues < 0.33x 0.33x n < 0.67x 0.67x n < 3.00x 3.00x n < 5.00x 5.00x n < 7.00x > 7.00x 5% < 1.13% 1.13% n < 2.63% 2.63% n < 6.00% 6.00% n < 15.00% 15.00% n < 22.50% > 22.50% 5% < 0.50x 0.50x n < 1.00x 1.00x n < 4.50x 4.50x n < 7.50x 7.50x n < 10.50x > 10.50x 5% Utilize Moody s adjusted net pension liability metrics Three-year average is used to smooth the volatility inherent in the metric Debt breakpoints more restrictive than pensions reflecting the fixed nature of debt obligations; pension measures are estimates, may be volatile across years and can be renegotiated and reduced 18 18

19 Contact: Marcia Van Wagner

20 2013 Moody s Investors Service, Inc. and/or its licensors and affiliates (collectively, MOODY S ). All rights reserved. CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. ( MIS ) AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY S ( MOODY S PUBLICATIONS ) MAY INCLUDE MOODY S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY S PRIOR WRITTENCONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided AS IS without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process. Under no circumstances shall MOODY S have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of MOODY S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The ratings, financial reporting analysis, projections, and other observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. Each user of the information contained herein must make its own study and evaluation of each security it may consider purchasing, holding or selling. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. MIS, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody s Corporation ( MCO ), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS s ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at under the heading Shareholder Relations Corporate Governance Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy. Any publication into Australia of this document is by MOODY S affiliate, Moody s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN , which holds Australian Financial Services License no This document is intended to be provided only to wholesale clients within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a wholesale client and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to retail clients within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act Notwithstanding the foregoing, credit ratings assigned on and after October 1, 2010 by Moody s Japan K.K. ( MJKK ) are MJKK s current opinions of the relative future credit risk of entities, credit commitments, or debt or debt-like securities. In such a case, MIS in the foregoing statements shall be deemed to be replaced with MJKK. MJKK is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly owned by Moody s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. This credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. It would be dangerous for retail investors to make any investment decision based on this credit rating. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser. 20