Bad Ideas Tried Again: Pension Plans Borrow Money at a Record Pace to Invest

Pension obligation bonds contributed to the chapter 9 bankruptcies of Detroit, Stockton, Calif., and San Bernardino, Calif. 

Nonetheless, expanding bubbled have lured government bodies into repeating past mistakes, this time at a new record pace.

Hooray! We broke the pace of 2008.

Main Street Pensions Take Wall Street Gamble

Please consider Main Street Pensions Take Wall Street Gamble

State and local governments have borrowed about $10 billion for pension funding this year through the end of August, more than in any of the previous 15 full calendar years, according to an analysis of Bloomberg data by Municipal Market Analytics. The number of individual municipalities borrowing for pensions soared to 72 from a 15-year average of 25.

Among those considering what is known as pension obligation borrowing is Norwich, a city in southeastern Connecticut with a population of 40,000. Its yearly payment toward its old pension debts has climbed to $11 million in 2022—four times the annual retirement contribution for current workers and 8% of the city’s budget. The city will vote in November on whether to sell $145 million in 25-year bonds to cover the pensions of retired police officers, firefighters, city workers and school employees.

Comptroller Josh Pothier said that spread helped him overcome his initial hesitation. “It’s pretty scary; it’s kind of like buying on margin,” he said he thought to himself. “But we’ve had a long run of interest rates being extraordinarily low,” he added.

Here is how a pension obligation bond works: A city or county issues a bond for all or a portion of its missed pension payments and dumps the proceeds into its pension coffers to be invested. If the returns on pension investments are higher than the bond rate, the additional investment income will translate into lower pension contributions for the city or county over time. (The $10 billion in pension borrowing captured by the Municipal Market Analytics analysis also included some money used directly for pension benefits, rather than being invested, and at least one borrower directed some bond proceeds to other uses.)

Take a Chance on Me! 

The higher the market goes, the less likely the maneuver is going to work.

I drew a dotted line in the lead chart at the place where I firmly believe the stock market will revisit at a future date. 

That line holds no matter what the stock market does in the next few years. 

And that is a likely best case scenario, not a worst case one. 

Musical Tribute

Two-Way Bet

This is the most insanely overvalued market in history.   

But bear in mind that it’s a two-way bet. 

To Ways to Win

  1. The stock market keeps rising forever or at least long enough to cover the borrowing costs without a huge drawdown. 
  2. These maneuvers and a stock market plunge inspire Congress to bail out the boomers, the cities, and the states.

Care to take a chance?

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Carl_R
Carl_R
2 years ago
I have no problem with a governmental entity borrowing to fund a pension, so long at the payments on the bond come directly out of the governmental entity, and not out of the pension. So, say a city’s pension is $10 million underfunded. Rather than then coughing up a few hundred thousand “when they have extra money left” (which will never get the pension caught up), if they were to borrow the$10 million, and put it into the pension, and then agree to the bond issuer to pay $390k a year, the process of issuing the bond forces fiscal discipline on the city, because the bond holder has to be paid.
On the other hand, if it is the pension that has to make the payments, as Mish says, it is a nothing more than a gamble, and craziness.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
Suburban Residents Risk Losing Homes Over Rising Pension Costs
 By Amy Korte of link to illinoispolicy.org
Knight
Knight
2 years ago

So, local governments and municipalities issue debt which is then purchased by the Fed Municipal Lending Facility (MLF).  Those funds are then injected by the municipality into the stock market.   Does anyone really think that the Fed will not continue to inflate and re-inflate the market?  There have been many, on this thread, who have been bears for the past 10 years on the market and betting against the Fed.  How’s that working for you??

Scooot
Scooot
2 years ago
Reply to  Knight
Private companies could do the same, issue debt to fund their losses, the Fed then buys it. People wouldn’t really need to work for a living, work life balance would be perfect, all paid for by the Fed. Lots of Government spending, funded by unlimited debt of course, no need for taxes. Maybe they’d be a little bit of transitory inflation but the Fed would manage that. What could possibly go wrong? 
kiers
kiers
2 years ago
I say we take up a federal level petition:  Force all Federal Reserve employees to put their own pensions exclusively in AMC, Gamestop, ARK fund etfs (all of em), and if these should ever need bailing, then they can borrow to invest in bitcoin.  Let the Fed put their personal money where their QE is.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Nobody ever mentions the ‘Ponzi Scheme’ concept  recently , although this is exactly what we are building these days in a way NEVER  seen before in modern history !   Wtf, as long as we re vaxxed and CBs keep rates at below 0 nothing can go wrong….technically speaking that is… 
One-armed Economist
One-armed Economist
2 years ago
This should be banned. It’s a gamblers losing bet to leverage for a “Hail Mary’; which almost by definition if one could not be solvent without it they won’t be solvent because of it. “Gamblers Anonymous calls this the “Desperation Stage”. That it is.
Scooot
Scooot
2 years ago
Another reason why they’d be keen on inflation, their debts would devalue over time. 
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Your “two ways” are one and the same. It’s been nothing but bailouts, with money stolen from productive people, for 50 years. Whether the bailout is performed by robbing productives to pump up the leeches’ “portfolios” in exchange for the leeches doing nothing useful at all, or by robbing said productives more directly and then handing the loot to the leeches, is 100%, completely irrelevant. It literally makes not one lick of difference whatsoever. It’s nothing but simple, crass theft either way.
The leeching classes will keep stealing for as long as they at all can.  The only two ways out, are:
1) the designated patsies, aka productive people, get tired enough of being robbed to keep idiots in splendor, that they bother to learn how to read, then use their newfound edumecation to Stop the Steal, as Trump put it. Which means stop the mechanisms by which The Steal is perpetrated. Which means ending the Fed, activity taxes, arbitrary court shakedowns, mandates, bans etc., etc. The basics of any society aspiring to anything even remotely resembling freedom, IOW.
Or, baring that, 2) sacking from the outside, civil war, or enough Americans becoming sufficiently grown up to join The Tablian, so too they can be part of something greater and less dysfunctional than current day, 100% purely kleptocratic, America.
Either way is a vast improvement over anything involving a central bank. But 1) would likely still be preferable to most. 1) does require that some Americans bother to learn how to read, though. Which is seemingly a very big ask, these days.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
What happens if the market tanks and they get a margin call ? 
Cocoa
Cocoa
2 years ago
Typo on “To ways to win”. 
Otherwise, what a dumb thing to do. Pay pensions with borrowed AND invested money
anoop
anoop
2 years ago
this is the moral hazard created by the fed with zirp since 2008 and deeply negative real rates now.  traditional investing is dead and pension funds are now forced to play the casino.  and i think moving forwarding, just being long in the market won’t keep up with inflation.  you will actually need to lever up with options.  this market cannot go down.  this is why i think burry is right.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
2 years ago
Reply to  anoop
Yes, Burry is right.
Hyperinflation is the eventual outcome and it is not that far away. Stocks will continue to rise, but offer negative real returns.
Confidence in the “system” is eroding day by day. Then, all at once it will vanish completely. Interest rates cannot be raised hardly at all with all the leverage that has been built up over the past 30 years. There will be a mad rush out of dollars and into anything else of “value” at that point.
kiers
kiers
2 years ago
Reply to  Bam_Man
huge misallocation of capital in favor of the asset flipping industry:  link to imgur.com
read and weep.  it’s a consequence, not of QE (which started only in 08) directly (surprisingly), rather Glass Steagall and ever lower rates for asset flippers. (econ 101: asset flipping is NOT gdp accretive)
thimk
thimk
2 years ago
But ,but , but,  isn’t borrowing to cover pension costs/increase yields maybe slightly better than raising property taxes ? Talk amongst yourselves.  
Great illustrative tune find . Hard to believe that was 40 years ago
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Used to be a time when pension funds would buy bonds in order to generate income.   Now, it is pension funds *selling* bonds so they can take the proceeds of the sale to Vegas.   Astounding!
kiers
kiers
2 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
rates are too low, who wants to do real economy stuff anymore. much better to play wall street casino with borrowed money!
amigator
amigator
2 years ago
Good stuff I do think that behind all this is one goal of wall street to help in any way with the pension crisis. If these blow up then the people may actually wake up.  Your analysis is great however we are now to the point of a trillion or two rescue package is not even blinked at by the typical voting citizen.  That will grow by a factor of 10 and they will support this market to keep their system in place. When the spigot of money turns off there will be no bottom 2000 will be very optimistic however that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Don’t you think that the world banks are coordinating?  Isn’t essentially all the central banks into very easy money policies?
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Mish, curious why you picked ~1900 as your line that you believe the market will revisit and not a higher or lower number.
Also as you have mentioned many times, every dollar must he held at all times by someone. The money supply (M2) has almost doubled since 2015 (approximately where your 1900ish line is on the chart) and the S&P has just more than doubled (4500ish vs 1900ish). If you view stock prices vs money supply things are more or less in line.
If the market does collapse by 50%, that money must go somewhere else and will simply create another monster bubble in another asset (real estate, collectibles, precious metals, crypto’s etc) that suddenly comes into favor as the stock market goes out of favor. Nimble small investors will be able to see this trend and take advantage of it even if pension funds or HODLers don’t.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
The money that sellers of stock receive does not have to push up prices of other asset classes.  If investor psychology switches from greed to fear across most asset classes, then prices of financial risk assets generally will decline, as occurred in 2008 despite loose monetary policies (including QE) at that time.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
My support line is actually 2000 – I did not want to draw it through numbers 
There is also support  at 2500 and 2250
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Then it must simply sit in bank accounts. With essentially 0% interest paid and inflation running at 5+% how long do you think people will let it sit there losing value?
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Historically (especially during late 1960s and 1970s), increasing inflation has been fairly strongly correlated with declining stock prices, especially in real terms, and rising interest rates have not explained most of this relationship.  The catch-up to cumulative inflation has historically been long delayed, as in the 1980s and 1990s US bull market after inflation had been tamed.  Of course in a hyperinflationary environment, stocks beat bonds and cash, but still tend to provide negative real returns and trail real assets such as real estate and precious metals.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Money supply was fixed in the 60’s and early 70’s (gold standard) and not rising like it is today with fiat money. I tend to view with suspicion any historical comparisons in stocks/stock market prior to 73 when we went off the gold standard. Doesn’t mean things won’t turn out like that, but rather it truly was a different monetary world back then with fixed money supply.
In the late 70’s a lot of money went from the stock market into gold/silver (their meteoric bubble rise). Some remained in banks (I can still recall getting a 1 year CD that paid 15% in 1981 and being ecstatic about it even though now I realize I probably lost to inflation even at 15%) and stocks too of course. But what we saw then with massive flows from the stock market to gold/silver makes me think the same would happen now if it goes out of stocks and that it won’t just sit in bank accounts.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Stocks don’t need selling to lose value. They can sometimes fall on their own weight and we see it often in thinly-traded stocks and bonds. Real Estate is the same way. When the buyers disappear the asset loses value because the value is no longer there.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Of course things can lose value, but money itself isn’t destroyed once it’s created.
Lets say you buy a 1 share of stock X for 100 dollars. The money you pay isn’t destroyed, it just gets transferred to another person when you buy the stock. This happens regardless of whether you later sell that 1 share for $50 or $150 or any other amount.
So as M2 rises, that extra money has to go somewhere. Few want to hold it in cash since it pays essentially 0% and inflation eats ~5% or more a year. Thus as more money gets added it continues to push up all asset prices (a rising tide lifts all boats). Some assets are pushed higher than others (like stocks/real estate) obviously. But if people stop buying stocks/real estate they either have to hold their money in cash (losing as mentioned) or buy a different asset class and push that one higher.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
The money is still there but it becomes “dead money” of which there are many types and doesn’t circulate. Eventually it gets back in the game but that could take a long long time. I see what you mean but if M2 rises and people put that money into assets if no new money is pumped in then those assets fall in value unless they can actually give an attractive return. 
JG1170
JG1170
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Of course money gets destroyed. the clearest example to me is in real estate. If my neighbor’s “million dollar” house sells for 500K due to say, a sudden demographic shift and wipes out 500k of equity for each house on the entire block, then that’s 500k x(X) that cannot be borrowed against as it could before the depreciation happened. Some might say that it’s not the same as actual money being destroyed but to me it sure is. Because before, the proceeds from that million dollar sale could have been converted into cars, RVs, property, etc. but now, after being slashed in half, it still can be converted, but into much fewer items. That is totally like money being destroyed to me.
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
2 years ago
Elliott Wave technical analysis classifies the time from the Y2K tech bubble top to the bottom of the housing market crash as a 10 year corrective flat pattern. Since then the market has been in a bull market. The COVID bear market was technically a smaller degree correction. Once this decade+ bull market ends (within the next 2 to 6 months) the ensuing bear market will be as powerful as the market advances since the Great Depression.
From a cycle point of view, the present 60 year interest rate cycle is 40 years old and testing its bottom. Over the next 20 years Interest rates are going to spike, most likely worse than in the 1980’s since the financial system has even more leverage. States and municipalities won’t be able to repay anything.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  Six000mileyear
While I don’t disagree with your outcomes, my ‘problem’ with this is the inherent assumption that the past predicts the future.
Rather than Elliott Waves, I worry about ‘faux debt’, which is created without first having an excess of income over consumption (aka saving). Such collective excess is essentially the basis of all wealth, since it enables investment; not zeros added to a financial statement.
What the Fed and its acolytes (banks, brokers, and Fed Govt) have done is to distort all risk-return relationships; far beyond 2008.  The only question is where is the pin to pop the biggest bubble of all time.
Casual_Observer2020
Casual_Observer2020
2 years ago
Reply to  Six000mileyear
What makes you think we dont end up like Japan and just monetize all debt and hold rates low forever? The market may go down and create more debt but the ability for the Fed to monetize debt is unlimited. 
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
This leveraging  is consistent with accounting standards for state and municipal pension plans., which are allowed to discount future liabilities  (pension payments) and assume future returns at close to the long term return expected on plan investments.  This is unlike private pension plans which more conservatively discount at the (near) current investment grade long term bond rate   Municipal pension plans now typically assume a long term investment return around 7%, which many pension board members consider conservative relative to the roughly 8% return over more than a century of a 60% US stock / 40% investment grade bond mix.  Most municipal plan sponsors give no consideration to current valuation as a predictor of future long term stock returns, on the philosophy that no one can time the market and 100+ years historical average is the best estimate that can be made. (Mish readers can work out the flaw in this logic, but most plan sponsors are not interested in going there)  Although they understand that bond funds yielding 2-3% will lag, they assume that diversifying away from bonds into private equity, hedge funds, real estate, foreign equities and other less liquid assets will offset this headwind.   Taking a more economically rational approach would require the Pension Plans to report a much greater underfunding and much greater required funding from financially strapped governments and agencies, bad news which would be unpleasant to convey.  Actuaries hired by the plan know that if they challenge these assumptions, they will be replaced, while going along will not result in professional discipline. Borrowing to fund equity investments just pushes this optimistic behavior further. 

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.