Question

Governments typically finance their capital projects with general obligation debt, secured by the “full faith and credit” of the government. A full faith and credit pledge implies that, unless specifically limited, the government will use its full taxing power to ensure that lenders receive timely repayment of principal and interest.

When New York City faced a financial crisis in the mid-1970s, city and state leaders concluded that bankruptcy was out of the question. A combination of belt-tightening and selling secured long-term debt to redeem outstanding short-term debt enabled the city to muddle through. Although it declared a temporary moratorium on repayment, the city ultimately paid all its general obligation debt. But what if a government files for bankruptcy because of legal, financial or economic constraints on its ability to raise taxes? Unfortunately, when a municipality files for bankruptcy, all bets are off; faith in getting repaid isn’t enough.

            When the city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy in 2013, it had approximately $1 billion of outstanding general obligation bonds. Detroit had two types of full faith and credit debt. Its Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) debt had been approved by the citizenry and was secured by a separate property tax levy, as required by state law. Its Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) debt was not approved by the citizenry but was secure by a requirement that the first collection of regular property taxes be set aside each year to pay the debt service. Pertinent portions of sections 701 and 705 of Michigan’s revised municipal finance act, act 34 of 2001 read as follows:

.   .   .   . an officer or official body... Shall include all of the following in the amount of taxes levied each year: (a) An amount such that the estimated collections will be sufficient to promptly pay, when due, the interest on all municipal securities and the portion of the principal falling due...  

(3) If the municipal securities.... were approved by the electors of a municipality, the municipality shall levy the full amount of taxes required... without limitation as to rate or amount... If the municipal securities...   were not approved by the electors of the municipality, the municipality shall set aside each year from the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes... as an obligation for the payment of municipal securities. However, the ad valorem taxes shall be subject to applicable charter, statutory, or constitutional rate limitations.

Debt retirement funds… shall be accounted for separately… and shall be used only to retire the municipal securities of the municipality for which the debt retirement fund was created.

            In his initial “proposal for creditors,” Detroit’s emergency financial manager declared all outstanding general obligation debt to be “unsecured claims,” lumping them together with Detroit’s unfunded obligations for pensions, retiree health insurance, and certain other liabilities. He proposed that all creditors receive a settlement amounting to a few pennies per dollar of debt. Municipal bond insurers, having guaranteed payment of the debt service, argued that the legal requirements and related procedures—Detroit’s pledge, the separate property tax levy that could be used only to repay the UTGO bonds, the set-aside of the first tax collections—were such that all the general obligation debt should have priority over other claims. Several knowledgeable observers believed that the pledge behind the UTGO debt was particularly strong.

            The federal bankruptcy judge urged Detroit and its creditors to negotiate a settlement, holding over their heads the potential that, if he had to make a decision, individual parties might be hurt more than they would under a negotiated agreement. After negotiation, Detroit offered its bondholders (and bond insurers) 74 cents per dollar owed on the UTGO debt, and 34 cents per dollar owed on the LTGO debt. And that’s how the bankruptcy judge finally ruled. The final settlement is better than the original proposal, but it’s much less than the amount owed.

Required:

You live in a New York State municipality and always wanted to buy it’s bonds. Most of the municipality’s tax revenues are obtained from real property taxes and sales taxes. List three significant factors about the municipality (covering financial, economic, and demographic factors) that you would like to know before you make the investment, and state why each will enhance your faith in the city’s ability to pay you back.

Answer 1

• Answer -

Describe three significant factors about the municipality

Three factors are as follows :-

1)- Financial factor -

   It's just like A score card which shows various transactions during the continuation of business.

It also leads to take information from its consideration such as revenue, expenses, capital, cost of goods sold etc.

2)- Economic factor -

  These are the factors which affectes to our economy by the subject matter of law, wages, government activities, policies, intrest rates etc.

These factors have indirect relationship with business and these factors also influence investment value in upcoming future.

3)- Demographic factor -

The factors having characteristics of social and economic also called socioeconomic such as sex, education level, income level, marital status, age, religion, occupation, death rate, birth rate etc of a population which can be expressed with the help of charts diagrams and statistically.

All of these factors of the firm must be strong to create a good faith and it has all the factors strong and good.

    Therefore it enhances the faith in the firm to get the pay back.