Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Philly
10,220 posts, read 16,725,214 times
Reputation: 2971

Advertisements

Quote:
Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's blueprint for saving the city's pension account just might get it to the crucial half-funded level by the end of next year -- if the city's assumptions of robust investment returns, a big windfall from a parking garage lease, and very slow payroll growth are true, a state pension official said today.
The mayor wants time to get the fund up from 31 percent of its ideal funding level to above 50 percent, and plans to do that by raising at least $200 million through a long-term lease of parking garages and by plunking $60 million a year into the account.
Mr. Allen said that if the city can raise the $200 million, and if it can consistently earn 8 percent on its investments, and if its overall salaries grow at a very slow rate that he questions, and if the cost of managing the fund drops rather dramatically, then the city could hit its target.
PMRS only assumes a 6 percent return on its investments, and under legislation awaiting a possible Tuesday House vote the city would only be allowed to assume 7.5 percent earnings. Mr. Allen would not say whether 8 percent is reasonable. "This is a question of reasonableness that we're not going to get into."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09247/995603-100.stm#ixzz0Q9d0VwTA
is leasing the garage and ploughing the proceeds into the pension fund the best use of money? The assumptions seem rather dubious. Yes, 8% is historical return but it's entirely possible that they won't be achieved withint the period of time in question. Since the city of Pittsburgh is also heavily in debt, would it be better to plought the proceeds into retiring debt which is a guaranteed return? this should allow the city to afford greater contributions to shore up its pension, though it would likely mean that the pension is "seized" by the state but is that a better option for citizens?


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09247/995603-100.stm#ixzz0Q9cvZjNH


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09247/995603-100.stm#ixzz0Q9csNuW8
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:39 AM
 
43,011 posts, read 107,614,039 times
Reputation: 30709
I can't make sense of what the parking garage lease means. The article is too vague. It could mean anything to someone who knows nothing about this. I'm one of those people.

On one hand, it seems they mean to raise funds through monthly leasing out of parking spaces. On the other hand, it seems to mean that there is one huge lease for multiple parking garages. Is this a plan to lease all city owned parking garages to a management company (or a different management company for a better rate if the garages are already leased out that way) which would in essence sublease spaces for profit? That's what this seems to me.

Regardless, it's never good when a pension fund is raided for other purposes. And I think that's your main question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:52 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,864,150 times
Reputation: 2910
I just looked up Pittsburgh bonds, and they are priced to yield well under 5%. That doesn't seem like a particularly good investment to me--you should be able to do better with a diversified portfolio designed to match the projected liabilities, as indicated by the range of expected returns cited in the article (e.g., even the low estimate, 6%, is much higher).

By the way, my bigger question is why they are leasing rather than just selling the parking assets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2009, 11:55 AM
 
43,011 posts, read 107,614,039 times
Reputation: 30709
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
By the way, my bigger question is why they are leasing rather than just selling the parking assets.
Perhaps to maintain some control of city parking via the lease.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:34 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,864,150 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes View Post
Perhaps to maintain some control of city parking via the lease.
Maybe, but that would make the lease less valuable, which means the City gets less money.

I'm hoping it is more that they really think they can get a better deal that way. And hoping they are right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Philly
10,220 posts, read 16,725,214 times
Reputation: 2971
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
I just looked up Pittsburgh bonds, and they are priced to yield well under 5%. That doesn't seem like a particularly good investment to me--you should be able to do better with a diversified portfolio designed to match the projected liabilities, as indicated by the range of expected returns cited in the article (e.g., even the low estimate, 6%, is much higher).

By the way, my bigger question is why they are leasing rather than just selling the parking assets.
Debt reduction is a riskless investment though, is it not? It also frees up cash for things like pension payments, transit services, schools, or tax cuts. I'm assuming though, by "well under" you mean it's 3 or 4% though. OTOH, if the mayor's pension scheme doesn't pan out, you could end up with the city's current debt problems, a pension fund that is seized, and be forced to make extra payments into pension fund...so there is a risk even if you get 6%, it may not be enough. it's a bit more complicated than just comparing returns, especially without consideration of risk and potential outcomes. It's my understanding that 6% returns would result in the above scenario.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2009, 02:15 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,864,150 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman View Post
Debt reduction is a riskless investment though, is it not?
Yes and no. It is riskless in terms of the future cash flows, but those cash flows could end up being worth more or less depending on things like future inflation and interest rates.

Quote:
I'm assuming though, by "well under" you mean it's 3 or 4% though.
All the debt was somewhere in the 4s, but of course when you are talking about enough years, even a few basis points can add up with compounding.

Quote:
OTOH, if the mayor's pension scheme doesn't pan out, you could end up with the city's current debt problems, a pension fund that is seized, and be forced to make extra payments into pension fund...so there is a risk even if you get 6%, it may not be enough. it's a bit more complicated than just comparing returns, especially without consideration of risk and potential outcomes. It's my understanding that 6% returns would result in the above scenario.
If you invest all your available capital and only get a return in the 4s, you are still running the risk (in fact likelihood) of having an even greater shortfall, of having the pension seized, and of needing to make even higher contributions.

Basically, there is no way around the problem of not having enough capital to invest in the fund to bring it up to the requisite funding levels. And investing your capital in a way that brings in lower-than-necessary returns just makes that problem worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2009, 02:33 PM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,864,150 times
Reputation: 2910
By the way, it may be worth reviewing why those bond yields are so low. Interest from municipal bonds is typically exempt from federal income tax as well as state income tax in the state of issue. That tax break is financially equivalent to federal and state subsidies of the return on those bonds. In turn, investors share those subsidies with the municipality by paying a higher price for the bonds, which is what results in low yields. This is all quite intentional: these tax exemptions are designed to lower borrowing costs for municipalities.

OK, but that means when a municipality buys back its bonds, it essentially has to pay back its chunk of the federal and state subsidies it got when originally selling the bond. So when you are looking at this as an investment, it starts deep in the hole because of the capital that went to paying back the subsidies. And so that is why it isn't going to be a very competitive investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Philly
10,220 posts, read 16,725,214 times
Reputation: 2971
After thinking about it, I think this is a bad deal. Parking rates will go up making downtown less competitive. the proceeds will go into the pension fund but there's no guarantee that the extra money Pitt would theoretically have would go into improving transportation. I think I could. support it if the proceeds went into a fund that went to pay for transit improvements, like, say, the spine line or some BRT projects that makes getting downtown without a car easier and faster (and hence more competitively). or late night service, more frequent service off peak, etc. If the projects help Pit attract residents they will, in an indirect way, help address the pension problem. of course it seems that cutting pension costs is going to have to be part of the solution. thoughts?
Quote:
He added he did not believe that rates would rise dramatically under any deal, noting the city authority controls only about 25 percent of all parking Downtown.
The city is looking at privatization in hopes of generating $200 million for its ailing pension fund. It has concerns that setting limits on rate increases could reduce the money it needs from a long-term lease.
[LEFT]


Read more: Parking: Consultants warn that privatizing lots could raise rates

of course, if they control the cheapest 25% it could have an outsize impact. don't know if they do or not
Quote:
There have been estimates, he said, that Chicago lost $1.3 billion to $2.1 billion in revenue by agreeing to a 75-year deal rather than a shorter one of 25 to 30 years that would have allowed city officials to rebid earlier.
[LEFT]
Read more: Parking: Consultants warn that privatizing lots could raise rates
[/LEFT]


[/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 10:55 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,864,150 times
Reputation: 2910
Whether or not it privatizes its parking, I think the City should be charging market rates. So in my view the rates should end up the same either way, and the question should just be what makes the most sense for the City financially.

Edit: Oh, and a shorter lease might make sense. You'd have to run the specific numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if a private operator would have a significantly higher discount rate for revenues past 25-30 years than the City, which means they wouldn't be willing to pay as much today for the right to those revenues as the City would value them at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top