Markets won’t force California’s budget hand

November 16, 2010

The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.

When Ireland and Greece run big budget deficits, debt investors get angry. But when California says it will need more than $20 billion to balance its budget, bond buyers stay cool. The state is marketing $10 billion of short-term debt that matures next year to big and small investors at interest rates that would make Dublin or Athens green with envy.

The Golden State hopes to pay just 1 to 1.5 percent on its new notes, roughly matching what it coughed up on similar debt last year. Demand isn’t as robust as then, but considering the state legislature’s dithering over the last budget — they blew the deadline by 100 days — it’s remarkable that investors haven’t been more demanding. After all, California’s fiscal woes are far from over. California’s Legislative Analysts Office projects a $25.4 billion shortfall this year and next and chronic $20 billion gaps through 2016.

Rising borrowing costs can snap legislators out of any complacency, but investors in California debt aren’t showing any sign of forcing yields sharply higher. That’s partly because there’s little reason to believe the state will default. The constitution mandates that investors in its long-term debt are paid before almost everyone else, the exception being the education system. It also has built-in flexibility to honor its short-term commitments. With debt service costs expected to peak below 10 percent of revenue, California shouldn’t have to stretch to stay current on its interest payments.

That means buy-and-hold investors — a good portion of municipal bond buyers — can feel comfortable donning their ear plugs when the scaremongering of bankruptcy and default inevitably reemerges around budget negotiations. Investors in local municipal debt, however, can’t afford to be so sanguine. Counties, for example, are heavily dependent on state funding. Any cuts from Californian legislators in Sacramento could put them on shakier ground.

There are limits to investors’ patience, however. If California were to lose its top notch ratings for short-term debt, for example, money market funds — big buyers of such debt — would have to stop loading up. For now though, voters and taxpayers will have to whip Sacramento into shape. The bond market isn’t likely to help them much.

Comments

Tough paying the bills with most employees on minimum wage, while the good paying technical and manufacturing jobs are getting off shored to some where else. Unfortunately that’s the course Chamber of Commerce and the GOP think we should be going, and when ends don”t meet blame it on the democrats and welfare. Good plan for the short term power grab, bad plan for America and the middle class.

Posted by RayGunsmess | Report as abusive
 

I’m about half way through Liaquat Ahamed’s “Lords of Finance”, and pondering not merely how very little things change over time, but also, somewhat, financial mess inevitability.

We are financially screwed right now. Big deficits, high unemployment, our exports not competitive enough. Characteristically the way governments have dealt with big deficits, coupled with high unemployment, and lack of competitiveness was to debase the currency. The Fed really has no new tools, it just has more computers to track things. It believes that that is enough. The major point though, is that being off things like the Gold Standard (and I am NOT advocating going back to gold) requires GREATER monetary discipline, especially because inevitably tightening the screws back down is going to gore some significant oxen.

As regards California, people shouldn’t be concerned about default, they should be concerned about erosion. Printing billions and dumping it on the economy is going to cause erosion. How soon, can’t say, but I’m betting against Bernanke being able to soak up the rain fast enough to avoid a problem. Especially when the government, especially politically important state governments, have an incentive in letting it run to deal with their outstanding debt. My bet is they plan on accepting an inflation rate in the 5% to 8% range for at least three years. Given they really thought they could keep unemployment under 8%, not giving them real good marks for planning capability.

Posted by ARJTurgot | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/