On Friday, I said that there's a strong case to be made for the existence of municipal bond insurance, "since these bonds are generally bought by retail investors who can't be expected to do sophisticated credit analysis". Commenter efranco then asked a good question: what happens if and when the municipalities start getting triple-A ratings, as Moody's has indicated is going to happen? Bloomberg's Michael McDonald says there's a good chance that demand for bond insurance will plunge, and even the insurers seem to agree:

"If rating agencies level the playing field in terms of how they rate municipal versus corporate obligations, there will be little need for a financial guaranty insurance marketplace as we know it,'' Ajit Jain, head of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp., said at a congressional hearing in March.

If this is true, then there shouldn't be a market for bond insurance. Bond insurance, if there's any point to it at all, is an insurance product, not a ratings enhancer: issuers buy it because investors are reassured by it, and can sleep safely at night in the knowledge that their bond coupons will be paid in full and on time - by someone.

After all, there's a world of difference between a credit rating, on the one hand - which is simply an opinion regarding probabilities - and a monoline wrap, on the other - which is a hard-cash guarantee that you'll get your money back.

And these days the money-back guarantee should be even more valuable than a triple-A rating than it was in the past, seeing as how the ratings agencies seem to have been very good at handing out triple-A ratings where they weren't deserved.

But there's a problem, of course. If you thought banks and hedge funds got highly leveraged, just wait until you look at insurance companies, whose claims-paying abilities are a minuscule fraction of their total potential claims. If municipalities for some reason started behaving a bit like the housing market and all defaulted at once, no monoline, not even Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), could come up with the money it needed.

So municipal bond insurance is insurance against any given municipality defaulting; it's much weaker as insurance against municipalities in general facing enormous difficulties which end up forcing them into default.

All the same, it's a useful thing to have, for one big reason: the monolines are much more involved and engaged in municipal finances than the ratings agencies are. When a municipality goes to a monoline to be wrapped, the monoline will make certain demands, similar to covenants on loans, which actively make the municipality more creditworthy. And if the municipality still ends up running into fiscal difficulties, the monoline has both the ability and the desire to step in early and force actions to avert default. Ratings agencies, by contrast, can do none of that, and certainly don't keep a close eye on municipalities after they've been rated, if they're not issuing anything new.

Municipal defaults are often caused by treasurers getting out of their depth in terms of derivatives they don't understand (Orange County, Jefferson County). If the deal with the monoline precludes such activity, then the county's bonds will become that much less risky. So it's a useful thing for investors to have.

On the other hand, if municipal bond insurance is really just a ratings arbitrage masquerading as an insurance product, then it deserves to die.

The irony here is that municipalities are finally getting their long-coveted triple-A ratings just as those ratings have never been less valuable. Maybe investors, used to having a contractual guarantee of repayment, rather than just a ratings-agency stamp of approval, will continue to pay a premium for wrapped bonds, even if the municipality in question has a triple-A rating. But in order for that to happen, they're going to need to rekindle their faith in the monolines first.

Felix Salmon

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article

This article has 7 comments:

  •  
    Jun 16 08:36 AM
    in respect Ambac and MBIA, they need to keep and save their cash that they have already collected and will collect from existing businesses, deleverage from annoying debts, obligations, and bad bets, stop paying dividends to increase their BOOK VALUE and once the BOOK VALUE is adequate and sound reinstate their triple A ratings again to start writing down new government bonds insurance only in low risk areas of the market. This strategie is simple to execute and the key is in the DELEVERAGING of liabilities at this point. MBIA already is in the right track announcing that it will save the cash, so just now is a matter of deleveraging and time for the book value to come up to adequate levels for a triple A reinstatement.
  •  
    Jun 16 09:50 AM
    Bond "insurance" has a fundamentally flawed business model - even more so than P&C insurance in general.

    When bond "insurance" was more of a service to muni issuers, like title insurance for example, it may have been worth a few bps.

    When bond insurers began to take all the credit risk for half the credit spread in corporates, that was the end.
  •  
    Jun 16 10:03 AM
    You are right but now saving the cash and deleveraging gradually quarter by quarter from those risky CDO's or obligations, is the key strategy to reassume triple A status and write new low risk public bond insurance business.
  •  
    Jun 16 11:10 AM
    the irony in my mind, is that the things that brought problems to MBIA etc. was a failure in correlation products such as CDOs. MBIA itself is a correlation bet that is structured to fail. The occasional muni default wouldn't pose a threat to MBIA, but defualt coverage when needed by the most people will correlate and will cause a payment failure to cover. MBIA itself is the uber structured correlation asset with most exposure in one asset class (US municipal securities). Many purchasers of insurance will likely discover they own the equivalent of the equity tranche of a structured product at a most inopportune time.
  •  
    Jun 16 11:31 AM
    you are right, deleveraging gradually from those CDO's is key, because they already have decided to keep and save the cash. Most of the risky CDO's are backed by the housing market, that means those excessive housing inventories have to clear up first, the builders need to die for a while till those inventories cleared up, and by default the risk status of those CDO's will diminish, obviously that will upgrade the book value of the bond insurers.
  •  
    Jun 17 11:46 AM
    This is a decent article on Abk. I found the phrase, "Municipal defaults are often caused by treasurers getting out of their depth in terms of derivatives they don't understand" most relevant to predicting the future of this industry/company. There is no way serious bond investors are ever going to invest in something that is not insured because Mr. Solomon's point in the above quote is now clearer than ever. And, as stated in the final paragraph , AAA "ratings have never been less valuable"-therefo... it is not the monlines that need to have faith re-kindled, but I suggest the ratings agencies themselves.
  •  
    Jun 17 12:56 PM
    "MBIA Inc said in a statement in January that all remaining assets of Hudson-Thames had been sold and all of its senior liabilities were fully paid. In December 2007, Hudson-Thames ceased operations, MBIA said." This means they have already starting deleveraging slowly but surely since the last year, so now is a matter of time for book revaluation in the next quarters to come.

ETFs In Focus

  • Long Ideas

  • Short Ideas

  • Cramer's Picks