The Guarantors

The Insurers

There has been considerable attention devoted to the Sub-Prime Mortgage crisis and the exposure of insurers such as MBIA, AMBAC, FGIC, and XLCA to this sector. The stocks of these companies have been hit particularly hard during the recent flight to quality rally in the treasury market. The chart below shows the price activity for MBIA during the last year.

Click on the picture for a larger view.

The stock is down roughly 50% during the last month. The stocks of AMBAC and XLCA are down even more during this same time period. The negative news surrounding these firms due to the large losses they have taken and their large Sub-Prime exposure are causing investors to question the value of insurance and the ability of these firms to cover potential losses.

Muni Bond Insurance

The insurers play a major role in the Muni market. Over 50% of all financings come with credit enhancement such as insurance. Most retail investors have come to rely upon insurance when investing in tax-free bonds. The large scale deterioration in the credits of the insurers is causing investor anxiety and raising questions as to the quality of each insurer and their ability to pay. This problem is exacerbated by falling confidence in the rating agencies to properly rate these firms.

Rating Agency Review

Fitch released a special report on 9/2/2007 which outlined the current state of the insurers. In early November, they announced a further review of the guarantors’ ability to withstand the stress of continued deterioration in the Sub-Prime market. This study should be completed in about a month. The September study showed the Capital Adequacy Ratio for each of the major insurers. These ratios need to be met to maintain the AAA rating. The chart below shows these ratios. The only company that does not meet the minimum in this chart is Radian, which is already rated AA. Fitch and Moody’s are both doing additional reviews which will

Click on the picture for a larger view.

include further analysis of the insurers’ exposure to the weakening Sub-Prime market. The table below shows their preliminary findings of the likelihood that an insurer will need to raise additional capital or use reinsurance to reduce their exposure. CIFG and FGIC show a high likelihood of needing more capital to maintain their AAA rating. If it is determined that an insurer needs more capital, Fitch will give them 30 days to comply before downgrading them to AA.

Click on the picture for a larger view.

Click here for a PDF of this article

Munis: Kentucky vs. Davis Part 2

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear arguments concerning the Davis v. Department of Revenue of Kentucky next week on 11/05/2007, with a ruling expected in late spring of 2008. The Davis’s have challenged the existing system of preference given by the State of Kentucky to the ownership of in-state municipal securities whose interest is not taxed, while taxing the interest earned on out-of-state municipal bonds. The Davis argument is that the current practice of offering preference to in-state securities is discriminatory, and is a violation of the dormant commerce clause, which gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The Kentucky appellate court agreed with the Davis’s.

Supporting Opinion For Davis

Alan D. Viard from the American Enterprise Institute recently wrote an amicus brief in support of the Davis’s. This brief is an excellent example of the case in favor of the Davis’s. Mr. Viard’s brief is entitled, “The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Balkanization of The Municipal Bond Market”. We have provided a link to his paper for your convenience. The primary legal argument for the Davis position is that the tax is discriminatory because it favors within-state sales over interstate sales. Several cases are mentioned that support this argument. Each case quoted dealt with a corporation that was being taxed unfairly which impeded their ability to compete in a state. The trading of securities is a form of commerce, and since muni bonds are securities they should be subject to the dormant commerce clause. Since only Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, the current system of taxing muni interest in Kentucky is unfair and should be changed. Mr. Viard also attempts to make an economic case against the current tax treatment of municipal bond interest in this same amicus brief and concludes that “the U.S. Supreme Court can strike a decisive blow for free interstate trade in the nation’s financial markets”.

The Argument Is Flawed

The very title of the brief refers to the “Balkanization” of the municipal bond market. One normally thinks of Balkanization as the creation of a fragmented group of hostile or non-cooperative states. This is most certainly not the case here. In a coordinated effort, every state petitioned the court to overturn the Davis ruling. Even states that have no state income tax are in favor of maintaining the status quo with each state offering preferential treatment to bond interest earned from in-state muni securities. This case is not about a company being unable to compete in Kentucky because of unfair tax practices and, thus, suffering economic loss as an injured party. Rather, this case is about taxes, and the right of a state to tax bonds differently. One could say that the injured parties from Kentucky’s current practice are the other states. But these states claim no injury and support the current system. States exist to further the public interest of their region. They have taxing power and create laws to further the public interest. Taxes are inherently often discriminatory. For example, does it seem fair that single people pay higher tax rates than married people? We feel that this is also a case about the rate of interest paid on a local security. Most states encourage investment in local muni bonds, because this investment strengthens communities and benefits the public interest. Encouraging investors through economic incentives helps to lower the net interest cost paid by local borrowers.

Conclusion

It is always risky to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case, because it is impossible to know how the court will rule. We believe states should have the right to tax their residents, and it is not the Supreme Court’s job to rewrite our existing tax system. Next week the oral arguments begin. Will the Supreme Court agree with us? We will find out by next summer.

Click here for a PDF of this article