Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T03:00:32.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of the New York City Fiscal Crisis on the Interest Cost of New Issue Municipal Bonds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

David S. Kidwell  and
Charles A. Trzcinka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The default of a major corporation or municipality generates debate over the impact these failures have on the borrowing cost of other issuers. Theory suggests that in efficient markets individual failures by themselves should not increase the level of interest rates in a market unless the default provides unanticipated information about other issuers. The default of New York City in the summer of 1975 was believed by many to have provided information that increased the perceived risk of investors and consequently increased new issue borrowing costs in the municipal bond market. Empirical research by Forbes and Peterson [2] and Gramlich [3] supports this contention, reporting that borrowers paid as much as 119 basis points more because of the New York City crisis. A study by Hoffland [6] suggests that the impact of the default was not just temporary, but was felt long after 1975. Though less scientific, others note that during 1975 municipal borrowing costs rose to record high levels with most issues carrying their interest cost during the summer of 1975.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 381 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Brown, R. L.; Durbin, J.; and Evans, J. M.. “Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships over Time.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, (1975), pp. 149–163.Google Scholar
[2]Forbes, R. L., and Peterson, J. E.. “Costs of Credit Erosion in the Municipal Bond Market.” Municipal Finance Officers Association (1975).Google Scholar
[3]Gramlich, E. M. “New York: Ripple or Tidal Wave.” American Economic Review, Vol. 66 (05 1976), pp. 415–429.Google Scholar
[4]Hempel, G. “An Evaluation of Municipal Bankruptcy Laws and Proceedings.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 27 (12 1972), pp. 1339–1351.Google Scholar
[5]Hendershott, P. H., and Kidwell, D. S.. “The Impact of Relative Security Supplies: A Test with Data from a Regional Tax-Exempt Market.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 10 (08 1978), pp. 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Hoffland, D. L. “The New York City Effect in the Municipal Bond Market.” Financial Analyst Journal, Vol. 33 (03/04 1977), pp. 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Hopewell, M., and Kaufman, G.. “Commercial Bank Bidding on Municipal Revenue Bonds.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 32 (12 1977), pp. 1647–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Kessel, R. “A Study of the Effects of Competition on the Tax-Exempt Bond Market.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 79 (07/08 1971), pp. 706–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Kidwell, D. S., and Trzcinka, C. A.. “The Risk Structure of Interest Rates and the Penn-Central Crisis,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 34 (06 1979), pp. 751–760.Google Scholar
[10]Kidwell, D. S., and Trzcinka, C. A.. “Municipal Bond Pricing and the New York City Fiscal Crisis.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 37 (12 1982), pp. 1239–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Tanner, J. E. “The Determinants of Interest Cost on New Municipal Bonds: A Re-evaluation.” Journal of Business, Vol. 48 (01 1975), pp. 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar