Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Sorry, 2031 is the latest maturity for the series A bonds that cannot be redeemed early. Still not a long time given everything that needs to be happen. The bottom line is the debt is hardly the set straight jacket that you make it out to be.

LOL. Look at your trying to claim faux expertise. Not only do you now admit that outside of set early redemption dates the bond cannot be repaid early, you fail to mention the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out which is that removing ABS revenue through privatization would default the bonds. The reps are quite clear that the payments come only from ABS revenues in excess of working capital and are not a duty or obligation of the county. So thank you for doing your 10 minutes of research to coming around to the point of agreeing with me that due to these bonds, ABS cannot be privatized until they are repaid. However, and here is the funny part. The proceeds from this bond issuance was to pay off early redemption from 2011 ABS revenue bonds, which then kicked any potential privatization date down the road even further. In two years I expect they will do the same with the 2013 series. I am sorry to inform you that ABS isn’t going anywhere.

I’m glad to see you concede that that 2011 bonds were redeemed early, so early redemption for certain bonds IS possible after all.

There are multiple people posting here. I never suggested switching revenue streams and I clearly said above you can’t sunset ABS before the non-redeemable bonds retire (though the 2021As make up a small portion of the overall debt so you could theoretically start winding down provided that you redeemed the others and structured wind down such that ABS generated enough revenue until retirement of the 2021As).

The county should be careful about rolling over the 2013 issue as-is for exactly the reasons you stated above. If they agree to rollover, then anyone in favor is not serious about privatizing liquor sales. It’s something that sounds boring so probably won’t get much attention but in fact binds the county to current liquor policy for a certain period of time.

The council backdoored big tax increases through Friedson’s 2020 charter amendment until at least 2023 because of increasing property tax assessments so they have enough fiscal headroom to finance operations and capital spending like a normal government assuming they are even slightly responsible.

Hans Riemer repeatedly promised privatization while he was running for executive so add that to his list of misleading statements.

The council always votes unanimously. In order to issue these 2021 ABS revenue bonds, Hans Riemer had to have supported it. So yes, he’s an obvious and bad liar and hopefully we will have seen the last of him around county politics.

Notably, they did not need to issue new ABS revenue bonds to pay off the 2011 early redemptions. They chose to for the obvious reason that they did not want to have to find $46 million of cuts in the general budget. Suffice to say, I don’t think any council will never be able to find majority support on the council to pay off an early redemption of an ABS bond through general revenues or even a GO bond issuance. That puts any potential privatization as decades off and doesn’t even factor in the potential for a current or future council to go back to the well and issue more ABS revenue bonds iwhen economic hard times inevitably return.

I also think that arguments in favor of privatization as “paying for itself” don’t make sense as it would require a level of future liquor sales that would be unhealthy to the population to recoup the lost revenue. The job creation aspect of it also does not make sense because the idea that the county needs more service jobs is a joke. We need more high wage salary jobs not more minimum wage service jobs and ABS privatization will do nothing to address.

I personally don’t care if ABS is privatized or not, however the case for privatization really just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

OP here. These all seem like fair points. To be honest, hearing from restaurateurs (a group I don't normally sympathize with) made the whole ABS system sound crazy. It would be nice to be able to drink craft beverages more easily at MoCo restaurants. But maybe it's not that big of a deal if you're just a consumer and not a restaurant entrepreneur. Of course it sucks more for consumers up county who can't as easily venture into DC or elsewhere.

ABS was badly broken a few years ago (pre-COVID) and even missed a lot of orders at the end of the year. Since then, they’ve done much better and I don’t hear the restaurant owners complaining much now. Credit to Elrich for turning that around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Sorry, 2031 is the latest maturity for the series A bonds that cannot be redeemed early. Still not a long time given everything that needs to be happen. The bottom line is the debt is hardly the set straight jacket that you make it out to be.

LOL. Look at your trying to claim faux expertise. Not only do you now admit that outside of set early redemption dates the bond cannot be repaid early, you fail to mention the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out which is that removing ABS revenue through privatization would default the bonds. The reps are quite clear that the payments come only from ABS revenues in excess of working capital and are not a duty or obligation of the county. So thank you for doing your 10 minutes of research to coming around to the point of agreeing with me that due to these bonds, ABS cannot be privatized until they are repaid. However, and here is the funny part. The proceeds from this bond issuance was to pay off early redemption from 2011 ABS revenue bonds, which then kicked any potential privatization date down the road even further. In two years I expect they will do the same with the 2013 series. I am sorry to inform you that ABS isn’t going anywhere.

I’m glad to see you concede that that 2011 bonds were redeemed early, so early redemption for certain bonds IS possible after all.

There are multiple people posting here. I never suggested switching revenue streams and I clearly said above you can’t sunset ABS before the non-redeemable bonds retire (though the 2021As make up a small portion of the overall debt so you could theoretically start winding down provided that you redeemed the others and structured wind down such that ABS generated enough revenue until retirement of the 2021As).

The county should be careful about rolling over the 2013 issue as-is for exactly the reasons you stated above. If they agree to rollover, then anyone in favor is not serious about privatizing liquor sales. It’s something that sounds boring so probably won’t get much attention but in fact binds the county to current liquor policy for a certain period of time.

The council backdoored big tax increases through Friedson’s 2020 charter amendment until at least 2023 because of increasing property tax assessments so they have enough fiscal headroom to finance operations and capital spending like a normal government assuming they are even slightly responsible.

Hans Riemer repeatedly promised privatization while he was running for executive so add that to his list of misleading statements.

The council always votes unanimously. In order to issue these 2021 ABS revenue bonds, Hans Riemer had to have supported it. So yes, he’s an obvious and bad liar and hopefully we will have seen the last of him around county politics.

Notably, they did not need to issue new ABS revenue bonds to pay off the 2011 early redemptions. They chose to for the obvious reason that they did not want to have to find $46 million of cuts in the general budget. Suffice to say, I don’t think any council will never be able to find majority support on the council to pay off an early redemption of an ABS bond through general revenues or even a GO bond issuance. That puts any potential privatization as decades off and doesn’t even factor in the potential for a current or future council to go back to the well and issue more ABS revenue bonds iwhen economic hard times inevitably return.

I also think that arguments in favor of privatization as “paying for itself” don’t make sense as it would require a level of future liquor sales that would be unhealthy to the population to recoup the lost revenue. The job creation aspect of it also does not make sense because the idea that the county needs more service jobs is a joke. We need more high wage salary jobs not more minimum wage service jobs and ABS privatization will do nothing to address.

I personally don’t care if ABS is privatized or not, however the case for privatization really just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

OP here. These all seem like fair points. To be honest, hearing from restaurateurs (a group I don't normally sympathize with) made the whole ABS system sound crazy. It would be nice to be able to drink craft beverages more easily at MoCo restaurants. But maybe it's not that big of a deal if you're just a consumer and not a restaurant entrepreneur. Of course it sucks more for consumers up county who can't as easily venture into DC or elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:If this was on the ballot it would pass with an 80% vote.

Just like when Leggett tried to make a transit commission, MCGEO put an end to that and they will not let this happen. MCGEO runs the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Sorry, 2031 is the latest maturity for the series A bonds that cannot be redeemed early. Still not a long time given everything that needs to be happen. The bottom line is the debt is hardly the set straight jacket that you make it out to be.

LOL. Look at your trying to claim faux expertise. Not only do you now admit that outside of set early redemption dates the bond cannot be repaid early, you fail to mention the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out which is that removing ABS revenue through privatization would default the bonds. The reps are quite clear that the payments come only from ABS revenues in excess of working capital and are not a duty or obligation of the county. So thank you for doing your 10 minutes of research to coming around to the point of agreeing with me that due to these bonds, ABS cannot be privatized until they are repaid. However, and here is the funny part. The proceeds from this bond issuance was to pay off early redemption from 2011 ABS revenue bonds, which then kicked any potential privatization date down the road even further. In two years I expect they will do the same with the 2013 series. I am sorry to inform you that ABS isn’t going anywhere.

I’m glad to see you concede that that 2011 bonds were redeemed early, so early redemption for certain bonds IS possible after all.

There are multiple people posting here. I never suggested switching revenue streams and I clearly said above you can’t sunset ABS before the non-redeemable bonds retire (though the 2021As make up a small portion of the overall debt so you could theoretically start winding down provided that you redeemed the others and structured wind down such that ABS generated enough revenue until retirement of the 2021As).

The county should be careful about rolling over the 2013 issue as-is for exactly the reasons you stated above. If they agree to rollover, then anyone in favor is not serious about privatizing liquor sales. It’s something that sounds boring so probably won’t get much attention but in fact binds the county to current liquor policy for a certain period of time.

The council backdoored big tax increases through Friedson’s 2020 charter amendment until at least 2023 because of increasing property tax assessments so they have enough fiscal headroom to finance operations and capital spending like a normal government assuming they are even slightly responsible.

Hans Riemer repeatedly promised privatization while he was running for executive so add that to his list of misleading statements.

The council always votes unanimously. In order to issue these 2021 ABS revenue bonds, Hans Riemer had to have supported it. So yes, he’s an obvious and bad liar and hopefully we will have seen the last of him around county politics.

Notably, they did not need to issue new ABS revenue bonds to pay off the 2011 early redemptions. They chose to for the obvious reason that they did not want to have to find $46 million of cuts in the general budget. Suffice to say, I don’t think any council will never be able to find majority support on the council to pay off an early redemption of an ABS bond through general revenues or even a GO bond issuance. That puts any potential privatization as decades off and doesn’t even factor in the potential for a current or future council to go back to the well and issue more ABS revenue bonds iwhen economic hard times inevitably return.

I also think that arguments in favor of privatization as “paying for itself” don’t make sense as it would require a level of future liquor sales that would be unhealthy to the population to recoup the lost revenue. The job creation aspect of it also does not make sense because the idea that the county needs more service jobs is a joke. We need more high wage salary jobs not more minimum wage service jobs and ABS privatization will do nothing to address.

I personally don’t care if ABS is privatized or not, however the case for privatization really just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Sorry, 2031 is the latest maturity for the series A bonds that cannot be redeemed early. Still not a long time given everything that needs to be happen. The bottom line is the debt is hardly the set straight jacket that you make it out to be.

LOL. Look at your trying to claim faux expertise. Not only do you now admit that outside of set early redemption dates the bond cannot be repaid early, you fail to mention the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out which is that removing ABS revenue through privatization would default the bonds. The reps are quite clear that the payments come only from ABS revenues in excess of working capital and are not a duty or obligation of the county. So thank you for doing your 10 minutes of research to coming around to the point of agreeing with me that due to these bonds, ABS cannot be privatized until they are repaid. However, and here is the funny part. The proceeds from this bond issuance was to pay off early redemption from 2011 ABS revenue bonds, which then kicked any potential privatization date down the road even further. In two years I expect they will do the same with the 2013 series. I am sorry to inform you that ABS isn’t going anywhere.

I’m glad to see you concede that that 2011 bonds were redeemed early, so early redemption for certain bonds IS possible after all.

There are multiple people posting here. I never suggested switching revenue streams and I clearly said above you can’t sunset ABS before the non-redeemable bonds retire (though the 2021As make up a small portion of the overall debt so you could theoretically start winding down provided that you redeemed the others and structured wind down such that ABS generated enough revenue until retirement of the 2021As).

The county should be careful about rolling over the 2013 issue as-is for exactly the reasons you stated above. If they agree to rollover, then anyone in favor is not serious about privatizing liquor sales. It’s something that sounds boring so probably won’t get much attention but in fact binds the county to current liquor policy for a certain period of time.

The council backdoored big tax increases through Friedson’s 2020 charter amendment until at least 2023 because of increasing property tax assessments so they have enough fiscal headroom to finance operations and capital spending like a normal government assuming they are even slightly responsible.

Hans Riemer repeatedly promised privatization while he was running for executive so add that to his list of misleading statements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Sorry, 2031 is the latest maturity for the series A bonds that cannot be redeemed early. Still not a long time given everything that needs to be happen. The bottom line is the debt is hardly the set straight jacket that you make it out to be.

LOL. Look at your trying to claim faux expertise. Not only do you now admit that outside of set early redemption dates the bond cannot be repaid early, you fail to mention the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out which is that removing ABS revenue through privatization would default the bonds. The reps are quite clear that the payments come only from ABS revenues in excess of working capital and are not a duty or obligation of the county. So thank you for doing your 10 minutes of research to coming around to the point of agreeing with me that due to these bonds, ABS cannot be privatized until they are repaid. However, and here is the funny part. The proceeds from this bond issuance was to pay off early redemption from 2011 ABS revenue bonds, which then kicked any potential privatization date down the road even further. In two years I expect they will do the same with the 2013 series. I am sorry to inform you that ABS isn’t going anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Sorry, 2031 is the latest maturity for the series A bonds that cannot be redeemed early. Still not a long time given everything that needs to be happen. The bottom line is the debt is hardly the set straight jacket that you make it out to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just search for redemption and you’ll see where it specifies which ones can be paid early and which ones can’t. I mistakenly thought you were familiar with this document because you have been so confidently referring to the bonds’ terms and repayment provisions.

Assuming no more bonds are issued or refinanced (and doing the latter would be very expensive because debt markets are different than when this debt was last refinanced), in April we’ll be seven years out from the retirement of bonds that cannot be redeemed early. That’s not a very long time when you consider that a change will require legislation at the county and state levels and there will need to be a wind down time thereafter.

Anonymous wrote:

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.