Please Note
We brought you to this page based on your search query. If this isn't what you are looking for, you can continue to Search Results for ""
The maximum number of items you can export is 3,000. Please reduce your list by using the filtering tool to the left.
Close
Close
Email Research
Recipient email addresses will not be used in mailing lists or redistributed.
Recipient's
Email

Use semicolon to separate each address, limit to 20 addresses.
Enter the
characters you see
Close
Email Research
Thank you for your interest in sharing Moody's Research. You have reached the daily limit of Research email sharings.
Close
Thank you!
You have successfully sent the research.
Please note: some research requires a paid subscription in order to access.
Rating Action:

Moody's downgrades Chicago, IL to Ba1, affecting $8.9B of GO, sales, and motor fuel tax debt; outlook negative

Global Credit Research - 12 May 2015

Also downgrades senior and second lien water bonds to Baa1 and Baa2 and downgrades senior and second lien sewer bonds to Baa2 and Baa3, affecting $3.8B; outlook negative

New York, May 12, 2015 -- Moody's Investors Service has downgraded to Ba1 from Baa2 the rating on the City of Chicago, IL's $8.1 billion of outstanding general obligation (GO) debt; $542 million of outstanding sales tax revenue debt; and $268 million of outstanding and authorized motor fuel tax revenue debt.

We have also downgraded the following ratings on debt secured by net revenues of Chicago's water and sewer enterprises: to Baa1 from A2 on $38 million of outstanding senior lien water revenue bonds; to Baa2 from A3 on $2.3 billion of outstanding second lien water revenue bonds; to Baa2 from A3 on $35 million of outstanding senior lien sewer revenue bonds; and to Baa3 from Baa1 on $1.5 billion of outstanding second lien sewer revenue bonds.

We have also downgraded to Ba2 from Baa3 the rating on $6 million of outstanding MetraMarket Certificates of Participation (COPs), Series 2010A, and to Ba3 from Ba1 the rating on $3 million of outstanding Fullerton/Milwaukee COPs, Series 2011A.

Finally, we have affirmed the Speculative Grade (SG) short term rating on $112 million of Chicago's outstanding Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2002.

The outlook on all long term ratings remains negative.

SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE

The Ba1 rating on Chicago's GO debt incorporates expected growth in the city's highly elevated unfunded pension liabilities. Based on the Illinois Supreme Court's May 8 overturning of the statute that governs the State of Illinois' (A3 negative) pensions, we believe that the city's options for curbing growth in its own unfunded pension liabilities have narrowed considerably. Whether or not the current statutes that govern Chicago's pension plans stand, we expect the costs of servicing Chicago's unfunded liabilities will grow, placing significant strain on the city's financial operations absent commensurate growth in revenue and/or reductions in other expenditures. The magnitude of the budget adjustments that will be required of the city are significant. Furthermore, Chicago's tax base is highly leveraged by the debt and unfunded pension obligations of the city, as well as those of overlapping governments. Balanced against the city's many credit challenges are several attributes, the greatest of which is the city's broad legal authority to tap into its large and diverse tax base for increased revenue.

The Ba1 rating on Chicago's sales tax and motor fuel tax debt reflects the absence of legal segregation of pledged revenue from the general operations of the city. This lack of separation caps the ratings at the city's GO rating, despite sound maximum annual debt service (MADS) coverage provided by pledged revenue.

The Baa1 rating on Chicago's senior lien water revenue bonds reflects the water enterprise's large and diverse service area that extends well beyond city boundaries; the Chicago City Council's unlimited rate setting authority; and sound debt service coverage. These credit attributes are balanced against challenges including an elevated debt ratio and the water system's status as an enterprise of the city, a connection which we believe links the system's credit profile to that of the city's GO. The Baa2 rating on the city's second lien water revenue bonds is based on the credit characteristics of the senior lien water revenue bonds and the subordinate lien pledge of net water system revenue. The Baa2 rating on Chicago's senior lien sewer revenue bonds reflects similar credit characteristics as the senior lien water revenue bonds and also incorporates the sewer system's relatively smaller service area, the boundaries of which are conterminous with those of the city. The Baa3 rating on the city's second lien sewer revenue bonds is based on the credit characteristics of the senior lien sewer revenue bonds and the subordinate pledge of net sewer system revenue.

The Ba2 rating on the MetraMarket COPs, Series 2010A, reflects the tax increment financing (TIF) district's moderate equalized assessed valuations (EAV) and sound debt service coverage provided by pledged revenue. The Ba3 rating on the Fullerton/Milwaukee COPs, Series 2011A, reflects the TIF district's small size, negative trend in incremental EAV growth, and the COPs' subordinate lien on pledged TIF revenue, which is first used to pay debt service on certain series of the city's GO debt. The ratings on both series of COPs incorporate the relationship of the TIFs with the city's GO credit profile.

The SG short term rating on the Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2002, is based on the credit fundamentals inherent in the city's Ba1 long term sales tax rating and the conditional liquidity support associated with the bonds.

OUTLOOK

Our negative outlook reflects our expectation that Chicago's credit challenges will continue, both in the near term and in the long term. Immediate credit challenges include potential draws on liquidity associated with rating triggers embedded in the city's letters of credit (LOCs), standby bond purchase agreement (SBPA), lines of credit, direct bank loans, and swaps. The current rating actions give the counterparties of these transactions the option to immediately demand up to $2.2 billion in accelerated principal and accrued interest and associated termination fees. Of this amount, the GO and sales tax revenue rating actions trigger $1.7 billion of potential payments; the second lien water revenue rating action triggers $99 million of potential payments; and the second lien sewer revenue rating action triggers $355 million of potential payments.

The negative outlook also reflects our expectation that Chicago's credit quality will weaken as unfunded liabilities of the Municipal, Laborer, Police, and Fire pension plans grow and exert increased pressure on the city's operating budget. In the near term, Chicago's administration must comply with a 179% contribution increase to its Police and Fire pension plans in 2016.

Developments involving the Municipal and Laborer plans present longer term risks to the city's credit profile. In our opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court's May 8 ruling raises the risk that the statute governing Chicago's Municipal and Laborer pension plans will eventually be overturned. If so, the city's obligation to fund the Municipal and Laborer plans would likely revert to that which existed before the statute took effect in January 2015. Under the prior funding requirements, the city's pension contributions were well below the plans' actuarial requirements. Therefore, if the Municipal and Laborer statute is overturned, and no other adjustments are made to plan revenues and/or expenditures, we believe the plans will continue to extinguish assets to pay annuitants. As the plans move toward insolvency, the city's credit standing will continue to deteriorate, given our view that the state may eventually implement legislation forcing Chicago to pay annuitants directly. Annuitant payments would materially exceed current employer contribution levels. In our view, Chicago's ability and willingness to fund annuitant payments, should they be required of the city, is uncertain.

WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATINGS GO UP (or revise the outlook to stable)

- City or state actions that halt the growth of the city's unfunded pension liabilities

- Revenue growth and/or reductions in other operating expenditures that enable the city to accommodate increased pension costs into annual operating budgets

- Demonstrated legal separation of pledged revenue from the city's general operations (sales tax and motor fuel tax ratings)

WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATINGS GO DOWN

- Determination by a court of law that the current statute governing the city's Municipal and Laborer plans is unconstitutional

- Continued growth in the debt and/or unfunded pension liabilities of the city and/or overlapping governments

- Narrowing of the city's fund balances and liquidity

OBLIGOR PROFILE

The City of Chicago, with a 2010 US Census population of 2.7 million, is the largest city in the State of Illinois and the third most populous city in the US. Chicago's water enterprise serves an estimated population of 5.3 million in northeast Illinois consisting of residents of the city as well as 125 suburban communities. Chicago's sewer enterprise serves 2.7 million city residents.

LEGAL SECURITY

Chicago's GO bonds are secured by a pledge to levy a tax unlimited as to rate and amount to pay debt service. The city's outstanding CP bank bonds are secured by the city's GO full faith and credit pledge but do not benefit from a dedicated levy.

Chicago's sales tax revenue bonds are secured by a senior lien pledge on both receipts of the city's local home rule sales tax revenue and the city's share of state sales tax collections.

Chicago's motor fuel tax revenue bonds are secured by a senior lien pledge on 75% of the city's annual allocation of state motor fuel taxes as well as additional revenues pledged by the city that primarily consist of dock licensing fees collected from tour boats operating on the Chicago River.

Chicago's senior lien water revenue bonds are secured by a senior lien on the net revenue of the city's water enterprise. Chicago's second lien water revenue bonds are secured by a second lien on the net revenue of the city's water enterprise. Chicago's senior lien sewer revenue bonds are secured by a senior lien on the net revenue of the city's sewer enterprise. Chicago's second lien sewer revenue bonds are secured by a second lien on the net revenue of the city's sewer enterprise.

The MetraMarket COPs, Series 2010A, and the Fullerton/Milwaukee COPs, Series 2011A, are secured by a pledge of payments made by the city on developers' notes to finance redevelopment in the respective TIF districts. Neither series of COPs is an obligation of the City of Chicago. The city's payments on the respective development notes have been assigned to the trustees by the developers as security on the COPs.

USE OF PROCEEDS

Not applicable.

PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGIES

The principal methodology used in the general obligation rating was US Local Government General Obligation Debt published in January 2014. The principal methodology used in the special tax rating was US Public Finance Special Tax Methodology published in January 2014. The principal methodology used in the water and sewer revenue debt rating was US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt published in December 2014. The methodologies used in the short-term rating were Variable Rate Instruments Supported by Conditional Liquidity Facilities published in March 2015 and US Public Finance Special Tax Methodology published in January 2014. Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these methodologies.

The tax increment revenue COPs ratings were reviewed by evaluating factors believed to be relevant to the credit profile of the issuer such as i) the business risk and competitive position of the issuer versus others within its industry or sector, ii) the capital structure and financial risk of the issuer, iii) the projected performance of the issuer over the near to intermediate term, iv) the issuer's history of achieving consistent operating performance and meeting budget or financial plan goals, v) the nature of the dedicated revenue stream pledged to the bonds, vi) the debt service coverage provided by such revenue stream, vii) the legal structure that documents the revenue stream and the source of payment, and viii) the issuer's management and governance structure related to payment.

REGULATORY DISCLOSURES

For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.

Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.

Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody's legal entity that has issued the rating.

Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating.

Matthew C Butler
Asst Vice President - Analyst
Public Finance Group
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
100 N Riverside Plaza
Suite 2220
Chicago, IL 60606
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Rachel Cortez
Vice President - Senior Analyst
Public Finance Group
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Releasing Office:
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Moody's downgrades Chicago, IL to Ba1, affecting $8.9B of GO, sales, and motor fuel tax debt; outlook negative
No Related Data.
© 2017 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.

CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND ITS RATINGS AFFILIATES (“MIS”) ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY INCLUDE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.

MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody’s publications.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.

NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS’s ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”

Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors. It would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use MOODY’S credit ratings or publications when making an investment decision. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser.

Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.

MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY200,000 to approximately JPY350,000,000.

MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.