About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 22, 2008 10:27 PM. The previous post in this blog was Convention Center hotel scam extended to Christmas. The next post in this blog is Cousin Jim says ix-nay on the ailout-bay. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, September 22, 2008

Nigel Jaquiss, check your facts, please

The current scheme involves the City of Portland using its AAA credit rating to issue debt to finance the project (most recent price tag: $247 million), but... a number of significant challenges remain.
Even the Pulitzer winners repeat bunk sometimes. I am not sure how many times I have to write about this before the mainstream media people "get" it, but here I go again:

Portland's credit rating is not AAA or Aaa. Repeat -- not. Particularly not when it's issuing "urban renewal" bonds or "limited tax revenue" bonds, which is what the Convention Center hotel paper would almost certainly be. Only the city's general obligation bonds have an Aaa rating, and you can be 100 percent sure that the hotel bonds will not be of that variety. For example, the bonds currently outstanding on the 2001 Convention Center expansion are rated Aa1, which is below Aaa. Convention Center-area "urban renewal" bonds are rated Aa3 -- quite a bit below an Aaa rating.

This has all been laid out this blog several times before, but we repeat it here in the hopes that Jaquiss and others in the local Fourth Estate will eventually read and understand it:

The city lists the ratings of all of its bonds here. It has about $100 million of "Aaa" bonds outstanding -- that's the highest rating. But that's $100 million out of nearly $3 billion in outstanding debt (not counting unfunded police and fire pension liability, another $2 billion). All the other bond issues of the City of Portland carry lower ratings. The old PGE Park bonds have a rating of Aa1, which would be very good but not excellent. Some of the city's recent "urban renewal" bonds are at the Aa3 level, which is the low end of very good; other "urban renewal" bonds come in at A3, which would be considered good but not very good. Some of the city's bonds would have even lower ratings were it not for bond insurance, which used to guarantee an Aaa rating but now gets you up only to an Aa3, which is very good bordering on good.
I am glad that Jaquiss sees the folly of the Convention Center hotel project. But if he thinks the city still has AAA credit, or can even buy its way up to that rating with insurance, he's mistaken.

Comments (6)

In Nigel's defense; I am sure he just repeating the half-truths told to him by the City of Portland.

I don't know anything about "bond credit ratings", but I do know this, Mr. Jaquiss is a very studious reporter (better than most), and his error was most likely a result of him being misled by the liars down at City Hall.

Hi Jack—


I'm a little confused when you write "Portland's credit rating is not AAA or Aaa. Repeat -- not."

Because you then write "Only the city's general obligation bonds have an Aaa rating."

I would contend that in common parlance, the meaning of the term "credit rating" as it refers to issuers of government debt is the issuer's general obligation rating.

I agree that the city's non-general obligation debt (such as urban renewal bonds) is rated less than AAA. I realize you know the following, but at the risk of telling your readers something many may already know, the reason that non-general obligation debt is rated lower than general obligation debt is because the cash flows dedicated to pay off such bonds do not come from the general fund. In most cases, non-general obligation funds are therefore inherently more risky.

You have noted in the past that the city buys often buys insurance to enhance the rating of the debt non-general obligation debt. As a taxpayer, I would say that is a prudent decision because it protects the general fund and lowers the interest rate the city pays.

So, to return to your original point: the city does in fact have a AAA credit rating.

http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?c=26617

That AAA grade is a rating agency's assessment of all that it knows about the city's financial health. Since the city's various other debts (including the pension obligation and urban renewal bonds) are a public record, you'd have to presume the ratings agencies factor all other potential liabilities into their assessment. (Although I would obviously acknowledge the agencies have made a lot of mistakes about everything from Enron to exotic mortgage securities).

I agree with you that if the city issues bonds for a convention center hotel, they are unlikely to be general obligation bonds. But a big part of the reason that Metro came to the city in the first place is because credit ratings agencies and investors see the city as a bigger and better credit risk than Metro (because the city has a larger tax base).

And as the city explores issuing bonds for a hotel, one of the key considerations will be the credit rating (i.e the general obligation credit rating) of the issuer. That's why the city's AAA rating for general obligation bonds rating is germane, even though the bonds, if issued probably will not be general obligation.

So I would argue that if the city issues hotel bonds, part of what determines (and lowers) the cost of such debt will be the city's underlying AAA rating.

Certainly, the story I posted about Metro's delaying the decision could have been clearer.

But in summary, I think my reference to the city's having a AAA rating is both accurate and common shorthand for agencies' assessment of general creditworthiness.

Nigel

"... many times I have to write about this before the mainstream media people "get" it ..."

Jack, at some 'enlightenment moment' it dawns on us that the errors and false (mis)representations are intentional, deliberate deception. As in LIARS for Iraq Invasion -- was it 'bad intelligence' or 'incompetence in office'? And while we argue that foisted false dichotomy, they go on purposefully LYING more.

Iraqi official: $9 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds "lost." [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202053.html?hpid=topnews ] WMR -- In another example of how the U.S. is behind the fake "false flag" organization called "Al Qaeda," Iraqi chief investigator said some money diverted to "Al Qaeda in Iraq" accounts in Jordan and elsewhere. ( Al Qaeda -- the Database, by Pierre-Henri Bunel, Global Research, November 20, 2005 -- "In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida [abbrev. for Arabic 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat' ] was a database [of bank customers' names and addresses] located in [a] computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference's secretariat.")

---
Ben Franklin (and then later, H.L. Mencken or someone): "It is impossible to get a man to understand an idea that his job depends on him not understanding."

That's why the city's AAA rating for general obligation bonds rating is germane, even though the bonds, if issued probably will not be general obligation.

So I would argue that if the city issues hotel bonds, part of what determines (and lowers) the cost of such debt will be the city's underlying AAA rating.

That's convoluted in the extreme.

Ah come on Jack, Nigel(Pulitzer)Jaquiss is just trying to find a way to say "well I REALLY was't truly wrong wrong."

Nigel is one of the best, and I admire him. People get the wrong idea about the city's overall credit situation, though. It is not excellent -- far from it.




Clicky Web Analytics