The downgrading of Puerto Rico’s sovereign rating to below investment grade by the three major agencies merely confirms the perceptions of market investors. A financial crisis is not imminent, just as it wasn’t in October last year, when there was widespread comment in the mainstream media about the government’s financial problems. In essence, the government’s funding costs have risen – and it is increasingly being supported by High Yield, rather than US Municipal Bond investors. The main problem remains stagnation in an economy that has enjoyed only one year of growth since 2006.
In the first half of February 2014 the three major ratings agencies – Standard & Poor’s (S&P), Moody’s Investor Service and Fitch Ratings – all downgraded the general obligations (GOs) of the government of Puerto Rico, and related securities, to below investment grade. In some cases, securities were downgraded by two notches.
The box below summarises how the agencies explained their decisions. The financial position of the government of Puerto Rico has been deteriorating for some time, principally because of the general stagnation of the economy since 2006. The latest data in this respect is uninspiring: the Economic Activity Index (EAI) published by the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico (GDB) fell by 1% month-on-month and 5.2% year-on year in December 2013. Further, the government has less access than previously to funding from the GDB. This is at a time that its ability to raise money by issuing bonds has been reduced – thanks in part to the assessments of the agencies themselves.
Puerto Rico is an unincorporated US territory. Accordingly, the government and its agencies could readily sell bonds into the US$3.7trn US municipal bond market, not least because their interest payments were exempt from federal, state and local taxes. In mid-October 2013, there was widespread commentary about the government’s financial problems. This was partly because the GOs had fallen in price by around a fifth since the beginning of 2013, and were trading on yields normally associated with High Yield (i.e. sub-investment grade, or junk) bonds. This meant that they had grossly underperformed other municipal bonds. It was also because of the publicity surrounding the mid-July filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy by the City of Detroit. For its part, the government published a comprehensive ‘Update on Fiscal and Economic Progress’ on 15 October.
In the October 2013 edition of Latin American Economy & Business, we argued that a financial crisis was not, in fact, imminent. This was partly because the outstanding debt of the government and its agencies, which amounted to around US$70bn, was manageable in relation to public sector budgets of around US$29bn annually, if high relative to GDP of around US$100bn. It was partly because the government and its agencies did not have to access to capital markets for the remainder of the fiscal year to the end of June. In any event, the government could borrow from the GDB. At the time, the GDB had about US$2.8bn in liquid and high quality securities (e.g. US treasury bonds, agencies, and mortgage-backed securities). In theory, the GDB’s balance sheet could also have been boosted by the transfer of public sector deposits with private sector banks, and by other measures.
As the agencies have indicated, there have been a number of positive developments in the recent past. The administration of Governor Alejandro García Padilla has undertaken necessary reforms of the pension systems for public servants and teachers (and in face of industrial action by the latter). The administration has increased the Sales and Use Tax (SUT) from 2.75% to 3.50%. As highlighted by S&P, the “administration [has] just announced an intention … to reduce the current year deficit and to introduce a balanced budget in April for fiscal 2015, which would be the first balanced budget in many years”. Crucially, the US economy has continued to strengthen.
In the meantime, the fall in the price of the GOs (and other related bonds) through the first three quarters of 2013 indicates that investors, collectively, have made allowances for the risks and problems. On 12 February 2014, Fitch noted that, over the last seven months of 2013, single-state municipal bond mutual funds had reduced their average exposure to Puerto Rico securities from 4.7% to 1.5%. Municipal Bond funds investing across the US had cut their exposures from 2.0% to 0.8%. Fitch thinks that the municipal bond funds that had retained exposure to Puerto Rico securities had tended to reduce their exposure by selling bonds of COFINA – an agency of the GDB through which SUT revenues are channelled: this was because the COFINA bonds were more highly rated than the GOs and losses realised on sales would have been less.
Fitch suggests that the enactment of the 2013 Puerto Rico Investment Company Act (PRICA) could result in further sales of GOs and other government-related securities by Puerto Rico-based mutual funds, which had assets under management (AUM) of over US$11bn at the end of last year. “Mutual funds operating out of Puerto Rico currently invest almost exclusively in Puerto Rico municipal debt. If they adopt the new PRICA, they would be allowed to diversify their portfolios outside of the Commonwealth or into local corporate exposures. Selling municipal bonds could further stress prices of the island’s debt.”
In practice, though, the prices of GOs and other government-related bonds have not been adversely affected by the downgrades. On February 12, Fitch noted that the price of GO pension funding bonds maturing in 2016 had bounced by around 14% from lows in the first week of the month. The price of COFINA SUT bonds had recovered by about 9% from lows in December 2013.
In essence, the latest announcements from the ratings agencies confirm changes that have already taken place. The government’s funding costs have increased. Whereas previously, it was being financed by municipal bond investors, it is now reliant significantly on High Yield bond investors. Although some of the metrics are alarming (such as the US$37bn unfunded actuarial liability in the public servants’, teachers’ and judicial pension schemes identified by S&P), a financial crisis does not appear to be imminent. In the short-term, the government’s planned issue of bonds to refinance GDB borrowings will provide a useful indicator of the views of investors. Over the medium-to-long term (i.e. six to twelve months), the key factor will be the growth trajectory of the US economy. If the recovery is faster than generally expected, perceptions of the GOs of the government of Puerto Rico (and related securities) could improve significantly.
Ratings agencies’ comments
‘The downgrades follow our evaluation of liquidity for the Commonwealth, including what we believe is a reduced capacity to access liquidity from the Government Development Bank (GDB) of Puerto Rico. In a related action, we downgraded the GDB to BB, and the rating remains on CreditWatch with negative implications. We also believe that the Commonwealth’s access to liquidity either through GDB or other means will remain constrained in the medium term, even in the event of a potential issuance of debt planned next month. We believe that these liquidity constraints do not warrant an investment grade rating. … That the rating is not lower is due to the progress the current administration has made in reducing operating deficits, and what we view as recent success with reform of the public employee and teacher pension systems, which had been elusive in recent years. We view the reform as significant and could contribute to a sustainable path to fiscal stability.’ Standard & Poor’s, 4 February 2014.
‘The problems that confront the Commonwealth are many years in the making, and include years of deficit financing, pension underfunding and budgetary imbalance, along with seven years of economic recession. These factors have now put the Commonwealth in a position where its debt load and fixed costs are high, its liquidity is narrow and its market access has become constrained. In the face of these problems, the administration has taken strong and aggressive actions to control spending, reform the retirement systems, reduce debt issuance and promote economic development. Despite these accomplishments, however, in our view the Commonwealth’s credit profile is no longer consistent with investment grade characteristics. While some economic indicators point to a preliminary stabilisation, we do not see evidence of economic growth sufficient to reverse the Commonwealth’s negative financial trends.’ Moody’s Investors Service, 7 February 2014.
‘Fitch placed the general obligation (GO) and related ratings on Negative Watch in November 2013, citing the challenge facing the Commonwealth in maintaining financial flexibility in light of the deterioration in capital markets access. Recent downgrades have triggered new liquidity requirements and lowered expectations for the market available for the Commonwealth’s finances or economy since November. In the context of other credit challenges related to a weak economy and elevated liability levels, Fitch believes that these additional hurdles preclude … an investment grade credit profile. … Fitch believes that the ultimate success of efforts to put the Commonwealth’s finances on a sustainable path will be dictated by the performance of the economy.’ Fitch Ratings, 11 February 2014.
- “In essence, the latest announcements from the ratings agencies confirm changes that have already taken place. The government’s funding costs have increased. Whereas previously, it was being financed by municipal bond investors, it is now reliant significantly on High Yield bond investors. Although some of the metrics are alarming (such as the US$37bn unfunded actuarial liability in the public servants’, teachers’ and judicial pension schemes identified by S&P), a financial crisis does not appear to be imminent.”