Bond Disclosures and Sea Level Rise

As I was reading yesterday's WSJ article about coastal cities decrying the impending sea level rise on one hand and essentially ignoring the risk in their municipal bond disclosures, I flashed on the B'game bayfront and the bonds we are about to issue for the Rec Center rebuild.  The Journal article notes

The Government Accountability Institute undertook a yearlong study of 40 major cities to find out if mayors’ apocalyptic projections about climate risks are factored into the interest rates on the municipal bonds their cities issue. The results revealed a gulf between the words municipal leaders speak and the disclosures cities make. There was no statistically significant difference in the interest rates for bonds issued by cities in high-risk locations for climate-change devastation versus those issued by low-risk cities.

The study also found scant mention of climate change in bond disclosure documents. The disclosure statements of the 20 at-risk cities totaled 4,361 pages. Phrases like “climate change” and “sea-level rise” appeared fewer than 100 times across all 20 at-risk cities in the context of the issues addressed in this study. Further, 12 out of the 20 disclosures for at-risk cities did not mention climate language in the same context.

When they got to discussing Oakland, it felt very close to home indeed since our sea level is their sea level

Worse, “by 2050, a ‘100-year flood’ in the Oakland vicinity is expected to occur on average once every 2.3 years and by 2100 to occur 44 times per year or almost once per week.” The lawsuit added that “Oakland is projected to have up to 66 inches of sea level rise by 2100.” The city alleged this would “imminently threaten Oakland’s sewer system” and harm property with a “total replacement cost of between $22 and $38 billion.”

Contrast that detailed, dramatic language with Oakland’s bland, measured 2017 bond risk disclosure to investors: “The City is unable to predict when seismic events, fires or other natural events, such as sea rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm, could occur, when they may occur, and, if any such events occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”

That looks like an "oopsy" to me.  Which is it?  Is Oakland 30 years from disaster on a semi-annual basis which for a major port city would be a financial Titanic or are they unable to predict any of this?  We will have to have our local bond expert(s) weigh in on the B'game disclosures of same.

Comments

[Joe]

Here are the details on the difference in interest rates for all of the numbers junkies:

The study compiled 100 bond issuances for 20 cities at risk of climate-induced sea-level rises such as New York and New Orleans, as well as 100 issuances for 20 low-risk, inland cities such as Chicago and Kansas City. Greater risk to investors should produce a higher bond interest rate, or “coupon rate.” But the average rate for at-risk cities was 4.21% versus 3.99% for low-risk cities, and our analysis found that this difference of 22 basis points was not statistically significant. The study controlled for factors like type of bond, maturity and purpose, which also affect interest-rate variation.

[Peter Garrison]

Easy solution: Chop up all the cement poured between the cities of Rats Breath and Drain for HSR, truck it to the Bay Front and dump it.

This seal level rise thing is the new shiny object for the City.

Why don’t we send some school kids in an annual outing to measure the high tide mark and when it gets consistently above 4 inches, then we can start to worry.

Consultants, engineers and pollsters are paid to find the problem the people who pay them are hoping they’ll find: The critical need for a Roundabout, etc...

[David]

I attended a recent study session that the Council had on sea level rise, and I have to commend the city for balancing current fiscal realities with future impacts on our children's generation and that of their children. One official I spoke said it was worth comparing our current planning for sea level rise with what previous councils did for pension funding - which was little to nothing. Look where that got us. If anyone is curious about what sea level rise may look like for coastal areas of Asia in a generation or two, check out the NY Times story on 10/29 "Rising seas will erase more cities by 2050, new research shows." That's 30 years away. It could be a defining reality for kids who are now in elementary, middle and high school.

[[email protected]]

When the latest Rec& Park Director was hired, she developed a Multi Million Dollar Plan to build a "Multi Use Park" to be installed at the current Bayside near the Golf Course.
"On the Water."
A few Hundred Thousand Dollars was spent on R&D. It was a Poor idea then, still is.
What happened to that Rec.& Park Project?

[Bella Donna per favore]

These Sky is Falling tactics rarely benefit anyone other than the small group of consultants who constantly try to separate us from our wallets.

Sea Level Rise wont happen in my lifetime, why should I have to pay for it? Show me one square foot of wet property in Burlingame that was dry the day the City was incorporated and I'll get on Obummers bandwagon and be silent.

[[email protected]]

BDPF's comment is Basic Human Nature.

That selfish POV is the #1 reason this country is divided.
"Only I Matter." "F every one else."
I feel so sorry for such small people, I want to cry for them.

[Bruce Dickinson]

Joe, while your observation of the contradictions are interesting, Bruce Dickinson would be remiss if he didn't say that it's not really surprising.

A city's goal is to maximize assets and minimize liabilities. Is it really any surprise that the cities are trying to extract the most money from private companies (lawsuits) while at the same time attempt to borrow money at the cheapest possible rates? Viewed though this lens, it completely makes sense that cities would angle for getting more money by highlighting one risk, but minimize the disclosure of that very same risk when they have to pay out.

Classic having your cake and eating it too kind of mentality so prevalent in organizations!

[resident]

Bruce, enlighten us on the correct regulator for this. SEC? Some nameless state drone?