Intuitive Analytics

Intuitive Analytics frees public finance analysts and decision makers from the limitations of available software.

Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Browse by Tag

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Issuers BEWARE: Tax risk is NOT in LIBOR Swaps!

  
  
  
  
  

The other day I was perusing the swap notes in the financial statements of a big city I won’t name. In it I found a statement in the section on swaps:

“(6) Tax Risk. The swap exposes the City to tax risk or a permanent mismatch (shortfall) between the floating rate received on the swap and the variable rate paid on the underlying variable-rate bonds due to tax law changes such that the federal or state tax exemption of municipal debt is eliminated or its value reduced.” 

I couldn’t disagree more and I’m not just being disagreeable – this is flat out wrong and it’s screwing up the issuer’s financials and potentially exposing them to legal liability. The City’s LIBOR swaps absolutely do NOT expose the City to any new tax risk. The tax risk sits in the VRDBs irrespective of whether the interest rate risk is hedged with a LIBOR swap or not. Here’s an easy example that proves it…

Say there’s a tax-exempt variable rate demand bond (VRDB)No confusion
trading at 3% with zero support costs. Let’s further assume LIBOR is at 5% which means this VRDB is trading at 60% of LIBOR. If we look at an environment where the US moves to a value added tax and the preference for tax-exempt income goes to zero, ceteris paribus (my Latin teacher would be so proud), those VRDBs will start trading at 100% of LIBOR or 5%. This is a 2% increase in cost

Now, let’s say these same VRDBs had a 60% LIBOR swap in place with the issuer paying 4% fixed. Before the value added tax change, the issuer was paying a net 4% (3% VRDB rate minus 3% floating leg of swap plus 4% fixed rate). After the event, the issuer pays 6% (5% VRDB rate minus 3% floating leg of swap plus 4% fixed rate), a 2% increase in cost.

Notice that each situation both with and without the swap show a 2% increase in cost! So can someone please explain how the “swap exposes the City” to something called “tax risk”? Of course it doesn’t. The VRDBs have the risk; the swap is utterly irrelevant.  

If there’s going to be a note on tax risk, the revised and corrected version should be:

“(6) Tax Risk. The interest paid on variable-rate bonds issued by the City is impacted, in part, by investor preference for income that is exempt from federal or state tax. Therefore a change in tax law that eliminates or reduces the value of this exemption may increase the interest expense paid by the City on these bonds.” 

Frankly what these financials succeed in accomplishing is exposing the City to legal liability due to poor and inadequate disclosure. As we can see, the reality is that all VRDBs contain “tax risk.” So the fact that this disclosure is limited to only swapped VRDBs is flat out wrong and actually understates the possible impact of a tax law change because it ignores the City’s other bonds.  With the SEC making noise about municipal disclosure quality, auditors better start understanding what they’re doing and issuer’s must beware of this type of inaccuracy. 

Comments

Sir: Suppose I pay a counterparty a fixed rate of 5% and he pays me SIFMA. I pay my Bondholders SIFMA (a short term muni Index). 
 
 
 
The US goes to a flat tax. SIFMA goes to a taxable rate which means I pay bondholders a higher (taxable) rate.  
 
 
 
However, my swap counterparty pays me the new taxable SIFMA Rate. My cost is then still 5%. The risk of loss of tax-exemption was borne and is now realized by my counterparty. 
 
 
 
If however, I have a LIBOR swap, I'll get a better swap rate for taking on the tax risk. I receive a percentage of LIBOR intended to match what I pay to Bondholders; say 60% of 3 mo LIBOR and I pay a fixed rate to the Counter party of say 4.70%. Assuming 60% of three month LIBOR is a good match for what I pay my bondholders; SIFMA- my costs are 4.7%. 
 
 
 
This is fine until the US goes to a Flat tax; at that point I'll be paying my bondholders SIFMA which is now at higher taxable rates; I'll receive 60% of three month LIBOR which will be unchanged--thus it will not longer match my payment—and I as the Issuer will have to make up that difference-plus I’ll have the 4.70% fixed to swap counterparty. This means that the cost of this arrangement just went up for me, no doubt for the life of the agreement. 
 
 
 
This is why one gets a more aggressive swap rate with a LIBOR swap. The Issuer does indeed bear the risk on tax law change to flat tax with a LIBOR swap and the swap counterparty bears the risk with a SIFMA and or cost of funds swap: CETERIS PARIBUS 
 
Posted @ Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:07 PM by cstjames
Agree 100% with your analysis - however, the exact same analysis applies WITHOUT the LIBOR swap which is my original point. The tax risk resides in the tax-exempt (SIFMA) floaters, not the swap. As you note, if you enter a SIFMA fixed payor swap this risk is shifted to the counterparty. If a LIBOR swap, the risk is retained by the issuer.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:54 AM by Peter Orr
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

*Various products, solutions, methodologies, processes and techniques presented and/or described on this website are proprietary to Intuitive Analytics LLC, and are multiple patents pending.