jim4silver
Silver Member
- Apr 15, 2008
- 3,662
- 495
As most of you all probably know, it has been announced that three different California cities have announced plans to file for bankruptcy protection, all in just a few weeks time of one another. I am willing to bet that there will be more in the future, and not just in California. For years everyone thought muni bonds were ultra safe investments, but maybe that is not the case anymore?
Back in late 2010, a financial/banking analyst named Meredith Whitney made a call that there would be a bunch (as in 50 to 100) of cities and counties with muni bond defaults coming in 2011. If any of you watch CNBC you have probably seen her before (good-looking blonde gal who seems real smart). Her call didn't materialize as she predicted and many pundits were coming out of the wood work saying she was off base and wrong (some as recent as this past spring). I believe many of her critics were happy to call her out, in part due to the fact she gained much recognition back in 2008 for predicting problems in some of the major banks before all of that SHTF.
But when we have three municipalities filing for bankruptcy in less than a month, something tells me her call was spot on, but just too early. I don't know the specifics exactly, but if a municipality files under Chapter 9, I would imagine that the bondholders wind up with far less than what they would have received had the municipality not gone bankrupt. There are different kinds of muni bonds (general obligation vs. special, etc) and they receive different treatment in the bankruptcy, but in any event it does not sound like it would be fun holding a muni's bonds when they decide to file bankruptcy.
For now, states are not allowed to file for bankruptcy but that could be changed by Congress if they decided to do that from what I understand. I would not be surprised to see that happen down the road if things keep going as they are.
In any event, these bankruptcies are daily reminders of the benefits of holding at least some (or most) of one's net wealth in physical PMs instead of some paper asset that is dependent on a third party in some way to make good on it (also known as counter party risk).
All just my opinion.
Jim
Back in late 2010, a financial/banking analyst named Meredith Whitney made a call that there would be a bunch (as in 50 to 100) of cities and counties with muni bond defaults coming in 2011. If any of you watch CNBC you have probably seen her before (good-looking blonde gal who seems real smart). Her call didn't materialize as she predicted and many pundits were coming out of the wood work saying she was off base and wrong (some as recent as this past spring). I believe many of her critics were happy to call her out, in part due to the fact she gained much recognition back in 2008 for predicting problems in some of the major banks before all of that SHTF.
But when we have three municipalities filing for bankruptcy in less than a month, something tells me her call was spot on, but just too early. I don't know the specifics exactly, but if a municipality files under Chapter 9, I would imagine that the bondholders wind up with far less than what they would have received had the municipality not gone bankrupt. There are different kinds of muni bonds (general obligation vs. special, etc) and they receive different treatment in the bankruptcy, but in any event it does not sound like it would be fun holding a muni's bonds when they decide to file bankruptcy.
For now, states are not allowed to file for bankruptcy but that could be changed by Congress if they decided to do that from what I understand. I would not be surprised to see that happen down the road if things keep going as they are.
In any event, these bankruptcies are daily reminders of the benefits of holding at least some (or most) of one's net wealth in physical PMs instead of some paper asset that is dependent on a third party in some way to make good on it (also known as counter party risk).
All just my opinion.
Jim