Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Lunchtime Notes: Questionable Logic At Council
by Tom Bozzo
And this:
In any event, the recall effort is even more clearly misdirected than it's been to date. I would happily recall any alder who was reassured by the investment advisor's reported presenation.
From the Daily Page account of last night's Madison city council session on the Overture refinancing deals, a couple things caught my attention:
- Andrew Taylor, the director of the MBA program at the UW Business School for arts administration, spoke as a privae citizen to the proposal. He said that "the financial exposure to the city has been underplayed," stating that it "is almost a guarantee" that there will be an additional $1 million in annual costs for Overture operations and maintenance than the $1.6 million per annum figure that is currently projected.
And this:
- Up next was an investment advisor and associate who asked alders to open a pamphlet that he provided to each of them prior to the meeting. Specifically, he directed them to look at a chart tacking the growth of the stock market since the Great Depression. He said that recent stasis in investments were simply poor years, and said he offered this piece to give confidence to those concerned about the risks of refinancing.
In any event, the recall effort is even more clearly misdirected than it's been to date. I would happily recall any alder who was reassured by the investment advisor's reported presenation.
Comments:
<< Home
With regards to to the second point, Zach Brandon basically made the exact same argument as you do when he spoke against the refinancing plan, even pointing out the small print ("historical performance...") in the graph.
# posted by 
: Wed Oct 19, 04:54:00 PM
: Wed Oct 19, 04:54:00 PM
what is up with austin king? he knows mayor dave's stance, votes for the other plan, but then says if mayor dave decides to veto, he won't vote to overturn the veto. What kind of logic is that?
# posted by : Wed Oct 19, 11:37:00 PM
: Wed Oct 19, 11:37:00 PM
Anon: Thanks for the info.
Bryan: It can be a way of expressing a weak preference; King as much as said he was the marginal vote for the plan. It can also be a way of handling votes where, for political or personal reasons, you want to side with the majority but not necessarily get your way. (Happens a fair amount at the state level as some Dems will join Republican majorities on matters in the state assembly but then vote to sustain the Doyle veto.)
Bryan: It can be a way of expressing a weak preference; King as much as said he was the marginal vote for the plan. It can also be a way of handling votes where, for political or personal reasons, you want to side with the majority but not necessarily get your way. (Happens a fair amount at the state level as some Dems will join Republican majorities on matters in the state assembly but then vote to sustain the Doyle veto.)
Note also that although the Overture endowment had to weather several down years, they also underperformed their own benchmarks.
# posted by : Thu Oct 20, 09:31:00 AM
: Thu Oct 20, 09:31:00 AM
Tom, there is one piece of information that people so far have, to my knowledge, failed to notice: there are triggers in the bond issuance from the banks that require a move to cash positions if the endowment slips to a certain level. This means that if, say, there is one bad year and the total endowment slips to a certain level, the banks will force conversion out of equities and into cash. Thus, it is literally impossible for the endowment to "make up" a bad year in certain circumstances.
# posted by : Thu Oct 20, 03:18:00 PM
: Thu Oct 20, 03:18:00 PM
Anon: Interesting point. In some cursory searches, I haven't been able to find much out about the trust fund's finances. You wouldn't happen to know of any readily accessible sources, would you?
Ah, documentation you say...I'll see what I can find for you. I believe the trigger is around $90 million. Note also this little understood fact: the endowment has already fallen such that were the bonds to be called and the building paid out, there would exist a significant shortfall. That is, someone would have to make that up no matter what.
# posted by : Fri Oct 21, 08:48:00 AM
: Fri Oct 21, 08:48:00 AM
Anon, sorry to have assigned blog homework -- thanks for the info, and thanks in advance for anything further.
It was my understanding that the current shortfall is in the $5-10 million range -- not huge in the grander scheme, but lots if anyone (other than Mr. Frautschi, maybe) has to come up with it quickly.
It was my understanding that the current shortfall is in the $5-10 million range -- not huge in the grander scheme, but lots if anyone (other than Mr. Frautschi, maybe) has to come up with it quickly.
You are correct in your estimation, although it is at the high end. Presumably, the city would not be on the hook for the shortfall at the time the postions were unwound. Instead, it would be the benefactor. Given that fact, it is an open question why that same benefactor does not offer to bring back the endowment to the original level (i.e. the level needed to pay off the bonds) so as to give the endowment a fighting chance in the markets in the case of refinancing. That proposal has been described as a non-starter. Given the trigger however, and the current hole the endowment must work from, the refinancing option begins to look very risky indeed.
Post a Comment
# posted by : Fri Oct 21, 10:58:00 AM
: Fri Oct 21, 10:58:00 AM << Home
