The most visible credit market measure of the fiscal health of a municipality is the credit rating. In this article we ask whether the credit rating fully incorporates the fiscal stresses faced by municipal governments. We utilize state “tax effort” as a measure of the fiscal stress faced by a municipality. The findings suggest that municipalities located in states characterized by poor fiscal health pay higher than average interest costs on their bond issues (holding credit rating constant). State “tax effort” seems to reflect elements of fiscal stress that are not adequately taken into account through the rating process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1973) City Financial Emergencies: The Intergovernmental Dimension.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1982) Tax Capacity of the Fifty States: Methodology and Estimates.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
BAHLR. (1984) Financing State and Local Government in the 1980s.New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
BENSONE. (1979) “The search for information by underwriters and its impact on municipal interest cost.” J. of Finance34 (September): 871-885.
5.
BENSONE., KIDWELLD., KOCHT., and ROGOWSKIR. (1981) “Systematic variation in yield spreads for tax-exempt general obligation bonds.” J. of Financial and Quantitative Analysis16 (December): 685-702.
6.
BENSONE., MARKSB., and RAMANK. (1984) “State regulation of accounting practices and municipal borrowing costs.” J. of Accounting and Public Policy3 (Summer): 107-122.
7.
BENSONE., MARKSB., and RAMANK. (1986a) “The MFOA certificate of conformance and municipal borrowing costs.” Advances in Accounting3: 221-232.
8.
BENSONE., MARKSB., and RAMANK. (1986b) “Municipal borrowing costs and the differential impact of accounting information across rating categories.” Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting2: 261-273.
9.
BRADBURYK. (1982) “Fiscal distress in large U.S. cities.” New England Econ. Rev. (November/December): 33-44.
10.
COOKT. (1982) “Determinants of individual tax-exempt bond yields: a survey of the evidence.” Econ. Rev. of the Federal Reserve Board of Richmond68 (May/June): 14-39.
11.
EPPLED., and SPATTC. (1986) “State restrictions on local debt.” J. of Public Economics29 (March): 199-221.
12.
GUNSTR., and MASONR. (1980) Regression Analysis and Its Application: A Data Oriented Approach.New York: Marcel Dekker.
13.
HENDERSHOTTP., and KIDWELLD. (1979) “The impact of relative security supplies: a test with data from a regional tax-exempt bond market.” J. of Money, Credit, and Banking10 (September): 337-347.
14.
HILLHOUSEA. (1936) Municipal Bonds: A Century of Experience.New York: Prentice-Hall.
15.
INGRAMR., and COPELANDR. (1982) “Municipal market measures and reporting practices: an extension.” J. of Accounting Research20 (Autumn): 766-772.
16.
KESSELR. (1971) “A study of the effects of competition in the tax-exempt bond market.” J. of Pol. Economy79 (July-August): 706-738.
17.
KIDWELLD., and TRZCINKAC. (1982) “Municipal bond pricing and the New York City fiscal crisis.” J. of Finance37 (December): 1239-1246.
18.
KIDWELLD., and TRZCINKAC. (1983) “The impact of the New York City fiscal crisis on the interest cost of new issue municipal bonds.” J. of Financial and Quantitative Analysis18 (September): 381-399.
19.
NETERJ., and WASSERMANW. (1974) Applied Linear Statistical Models.Home-wood, IL: Irwin.
20.
RAMANK. (1982) “Financial reporting and municipal bond ratings.” J. of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance5 (Winter): 144-153.
21.
WALLACEW. (1981) “The association between municipal market measures and selected financial reporting practice.” J. of Accounting Research19 (Autumn): 502-520.
22.
WILSONE., and HOWARDT. (1984) “The association between municipal market measures and selected financial reporting practices: additional evidence.” J. of Accounting Research22 (Spring): 207-224.
