Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

People who sell their house with a mortgage on it are also "defaulting" on their mortgage covenants, yet this happens all the time? How? By paying the lender/bond holder to exit the bond early. It's not a default then, IF the bond allows early exit.

The “expert on county debt” is posting in bad faith. It takes about 10 minutes of research to figure out what can be paid off early and what can’t. It’s not without cost, though. Some people who read this board have worked on deals far more complex than government liquor revenue bonds.

Okay. Please do share your research. Time for show and tell.

Here you go. You’re an expert so I’m sure you can find the relevant portions on your own. And please also tell us where the official statement identities policy changes as a repayment risk, because it does.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/BONDS/Resources/Files/2021_montgomerycounty_bonds_os.pdf

You are the one that claimed that “it takes 10 minutes of research to figure out what can be paid early”. So please do show exactly where it says that the bonds can be paid early. I am eagerly waiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

People who sell their house with a mortgage on it are also "defaulting" on their mortgage covenants, yet this happens all the time? How? By paying the lender/bond holder to exit the bond early. It's not a default then, IF the bond allows early exit.

The “expert on county debt” is posting in bad faith. It takes about 10 minutes of research to figure out what can be paid off early and what can’t. It’s not without cost, though. Some people who read this board have worked on deals far more complex than government liquor revenue bonds.

Okay. Please do share your research. Time for show and tell.

Here you go. You’re an expert so I’m sure you can find the relevant portions on your own. And please also tell us where the official statement identities policy changes as a repayment risk, because it does.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/BONDS/Resources/Files/2021_montgomerycounty_bonds_os.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

People who sell their house with a mortgage on it are also "defaulting" on their mortgage covenants, yet this happens all the time? How? By paying the lender/bond holder to exit the bond early. It's not a default then, IF the bond allows early exit.

The “expert on county debt” is posting in bad faith. It takes about 10 minutes of research to figure out what can be paid off early and what can’t. It’s not without cost, though. Some people who read this board have worked on deals far more complex than government liquor revenue bonds.

Okay. Please do share your research. Time for show and tell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

People who sell their house with a mortgage on it are also "defaulting" on their mortgage covenants, yet this happens all the time? How? By paying the lender/bond holder to exit the bond early. It's not a default then, IF the bond allows early exit.

Early repayment of a mortgage is not an event of default if there is no prepayment penalty and such penalties or fees are illegal in the state of Maryland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

People who sell their house with a mortgage on it are also "defaulting" on their mortgage covenants, yet this happens all the time? How? By paying the lender/bond holder to exit the bond early. It's not a default then, IF the bond allows early exit.

The “expert on county debt” is posting in bad faith. It takes about 10 minutes of research to figure out what can be paid off early and what can’t. It’s not without cost, though. Some people who read this board have worked on deals far more complex than government liquor revenue bonds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

People who sell their house with a mortgage on it are also "defaulting" on their mortgage covenants, yet this happens all the time? How? By paying the lender/bond holder to exit the bond early. It's not a default then, IF the bond allows early exit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

Yes, which is why you need to retire those bonds first. Whose immoral idea was it to try to tie future council’s hands on a controversial policy issue through debit issuance?

You cannot retire the bonds through early repayment. It’s also not controversial to issue bonds backed by specific income streams. County parking garage revenue is also bonded, for example. That means that they cannot privatize the parking lots. No one complains about that “tying hands of future councils” though.

They privatized the county parking garage on Woodmont Ave in Bethesda as part of a deal to lure Marriott to place their HQ there:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2022/09/23/some-bethesda-business-owners-unhappy-with-new-woodmont-avenue-parking-garage-restrictions/

Isn't it crazy that out of MD, VA and DC, DC has the most sane liquor laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

Yes, which is why you need to retire those bonds first. Whose immoral idea was it to try to tie future council’s hands on a controversial policy issue through debit issuance?

You cannot retire the bonds through early repayment. It’s also not controversial to issue bonds backed by specific income streams. County parking garage revenue is also bonded, for example. That means that they cannot privatize the parking lots. No one complains about that “tying hands of future councils” though.

Read the official statements. The bonds with the shortest tenors do not allow early payoff. The bonds with longer tenors do. The county is clear with buyers up front that the county can redeem early and they’ve availed themselves of that option in the past. The bonds are hardly a show stopper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

Yes, which is why you need to retire those bonds first. Whose immoral idea was it to try to tie future council’s hands on a controversial policy issue through debit issuance?

You cannot retire the bonds through early repayment. It’s also not controversial to issue bonds backed by specific income streams. County parking garage revenue is also bonded, for example. That means that they cannot privatize the parking lots. No one complains about that “tying hands of future councils” though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

Which which money?

The county has a $6.3 billion operating budget this year, which was a $300 million increase over last year. The idea that bonds have bound us to ABS is nonsense, but I can see why an executive who likes the current arrangement (and MCGEO) would try to use debit issuance as a poison pill to try to kill reform.

What do you suggest cutting from the operating budget? The money has to come from somewhere.

It would be a major one-time outlay that would likely cause recasting cuts across the budget. About half of the county budget is education and cannot be touched by state law. Do they cut fire, police, transportation, parks? They won’t ever say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

That’s not how secured bonds work. Privatizing ABS would result in a condition of default which would lead to an obligation to immediately repay bond holders. The default would then affect the county’s credit rating.

Please learn something before sharing bad ideas. Thanks.

Yes, which is why you need to retire those bonds first. Whose immoral idea was it to try to tie future council’s hands on a controversial policy issue through debit issuance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

Which which money?

The county has a $6.3 billion operating budget this year, which was a $300 million increase over last year. The idea that bonds have bound us to ABS is nonsense, but I can see why an executive who likes the current arrangement (and MCGEO) would try to use debit issuance as a poison pill to try to kill reform.

You really should know more about things before “contributing”. Because you’re just wrong. The bonds are issued with a commitment that the coupons are repaid with ABS revenue. This “security” provides confidence to investors and lowers boring costs. Because it’s part of the covenants, removing the underlying revenue will be an event of default because the investors bought a bond backed by ABS revenue with proceeds used for CIP and not a bond backed by general revenues. A bond backed only by general revenues would have been priced differently. The result of the default would mean that the county would be on the hook to immediately repay the principal plus any damages. People that buy such bonds could easily claim damages because they seek duration and predictability. The outcome of all of this unpredictable behavior would certainly be a downgrade of the county’s credit rating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

Which which money?

The county has a $6.3 billion operating budget this year, which was a $300 million increase over last year. The idea that bonds have bound us to ABS is nonsense, but I can see why an executive who likes the current arrangement (and MCGEO) would try to use debit issuance as a poison pill to try to kill reform.

What do you suggest cutting from the operating budget? The money has to come from somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revenue can be replaced and they had a massive windfall this year because they got voters to revoke the property tax cap. The real reason is that they prefer MCGEO to whatever union would represent private sector warehouse workers and drivers.

I understand the problem in your lack of understanding is because you don’t understand how bonds work.

They can retire that debt, refinance it, or a combination.

Which which money?

The county has a $6.3 billion operating budget this year, which was a $300 million increase over last year. The idea that bonds have bound us to ABS is nonsense, but I can see why an executive who likes the current arrangement (and MCGEO) would try to use debit issuance as a poison pill to try to kill reform.