Overview
U.S. state credit enhancement programs provide additional security to bondholders for certain bonds that are also secured by an underlying municipal obligor, such as a school district, municipality, charter school, or higher-education institution. In addition to the intended payment source that program participants pledge to debt service, the state commits itself to paying timely debt service on behalf of the participant, should these revenues fall short.
These credit enhancement programs take a variety of forms, such as general fund pledges, appropriation pledges, state aid withholdings and intercepts, moral obligations, permanent funds, and guarantees.
Chart 1
When rating these programs, S&P Global Ratings bases its criteria application on the legal features and linkages to each state's general creditworthiness. Most state credit enhancement programs that are linked to the state's general creditworthiness are within scope of the "Issue Credit Ratings Linked To U.S. Public Finance Obligors’ Creditworthiness" (RLOC) criteria, published Nov. 20, 2019, on RatingsDirect. For state guarantees that are unconditional obligations, such as a pledge of the state's full faith and credit, and meet certain standards, we apply our "Guarantee Criteria," published Oct. 21, 2016. Finally, state permanent fund enhancements are rated under our "U.S. Public Finance Long-Term Municipal Pools: Methodology And Assumptions" criteria, published March 19, 2012.
We monitor to see if a participant meets state requirements for eligibility for the credit enhancement. Otherwise, aspects that determine what may be in the scope of our criteria are included in greater detail within our criteria and are not program-specific.
Components of enhancement programs rated with RLOC
The majority of state credit enhancement programs are rated using our RLOC criteria. To be in scope of our RLOC criteria, the state program and underlying issues must meet all of the following features:
- The program is authorized by state statute or constitution;
- Bond documents, state statutes, and state policy (or what we view as equivalent) are in place and clearly detail the approval process, outlining the parties involved in receipt, transfer, and disbursement of state aid and specifying the steps necessary to transfer revenues to the paying agent to ensure timely debt service;
- The flow of funds from the state is directly to the paying agent (there is no commingling of funds with program participants' operating funds);
- The state is aware of who is participating in the program and the respective debt service associated with each participant; and
- The timing of payment occurs prior to debt service, and if applicable, includes advance notification to the state of a potential participant default by an independent paying agent.
Relationship with the state and underlying ratings within a program
Credit enhancements that fall within the scope of the RLOC criteria may be notched off of, and typically move in tandem with, the state rating. However, the notching differential varies based on several characteristics and may differ among issues within a given program. If a rating is capped due to features such as weak coverage, the rating might not move in tandem with the rating on the state. Based on our assessment of the additional risks, we could rate the issue lower. We may differentiate ratings among issues based on the proximity of debt service due dates to the beginning of the state fiscal year.
S&P Global Ratings rates credit enhancements for school districts, municipal governments, charter schools, health care institutions, and higher-education institutions. Our criteria allow us to differentiate by sector if we observe different industry risks or issue-specific risks; for example, we might view political or funding risks as elevated for charter schools in a given state.
We might rate state permanent funds enhancing obligations higher than our rating on the state, as they are not linked to the state rating and do not move in tandem with a state's general creditworthiness. These ratings reflect a combination of the program's enterprise and financial risks, including the assessment of loss coverage, operating performance, and financial policies and practices. State credit enhancement guarantee programs (i.e., those where the state's full faith and credit secures the obligation) are equivalent to the state rating.
While state programs might have requirements included in state statutes or constitutional provisions to be considered for eligibility of the enhancement, our analysis of ratings includes a review of issue-level qualification for participation in the program, as well as related bond documents, and examination of factors that might exceed state requirements. We evaluate features such as state support, timing and administrative risks, and coverage as applicable. States generally structure the enhancements to have similar characteristics across program participants, but we also take into account credit-specific attributes such as state support, coverage, timing, or adequacy of a debt service reserve. For example, we might differentiate notching below the state based on coverage or cap a rating below that on the state to reflect our view of an unmitigated appropriation risk.
Chart 2
Looking Ahead
An important characteristic of these programs is that, while they are frequently used by local issuers, states have rarely had to step in and cover obligations. Some states even have financial monitoring in place to monitor local issuers' financial status, a characteristic that could help prevent the usage of state programs. However, as long as these program obligations are outstanding, we would expect a state to fulfill its commitment.
These programs generally have minimal changes over time, and new broad-based state credit enhancement programs are not common. We anticipate few changes other than to strengthen or clarify program features, as the tenure of these programs and their effectiveness in supporting market access at lower costs for local issuers is an appealing opportunity for states to provide backing. However, in the unlikely event that there is a change in program mechanics, it may affect our ratings within the program.
Rated State Credit Enhancement Programs
Below is a list of state programs; we note that this list may not be exhaustive. For example, we rate several weak-link and long-term municipal pools that have state aid intercept features. Other state credit enhancements apply to only a small number of issuers. We have chosen to highlight broad-based credit enhancement programs to provide comparability.
| Rated state credit enhancement programs | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| For summaries on each program, please see individually published articles in Related Research. | |||
| State | Enhancement program | Pledge | Criteria |
| Arizona | Public School Credit Enhancement Program | Permanent fund | Long-term municipal pools |
| California | Health Facility Construction Loan Insurance Program (Cal-Mortgage) | Guarantee | Guarantee |
| Colorado | State Aid Intercept Program for Higher Education | General fund | RLOC |
| Colorado | State Aid Intercept Program (School Districts) | General fund | RLOC |
| Colorado | Moral Obligation Program for Charter Schools | Moral obligation | RLOC |
| Georgia | State Aid Intercept | Intercept | RLOC |
| Idaho | Idaho Enhancement Program for School District Bonds | Permanent fund | Long-term municipal pools |
| Idaho | School Bond Guaranty | General fund | RLOC |
| Idaho | Moral Obligation Program for Charter Schools | Moral obligation | RLOC |
| Indiana | State Aid Intercept | Intercept | RLOC |
| Kentucky | State Aid Intercept for Universities | Intercept | RLOC |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts Qualified Bond Act | General fund | RLOC |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts State College Building Authority | Appropriation | RLOC |
| Michigan | Local Government Loan Program Revenue Bonds | Intercept/Withholding | RLOC |
| Michigan | Bond Loan Fund | General fund | RLOC |
| Minnesota | State Standing Appropriation for Schools | General fund | RLOC |
| Minnesota | County & City Credit Enhancement | General fund | RLOC |
| Mississippi | Development Bank and Junior College | Intercept | RLOC |
| Missouri | Direct Deposit of State Aid | Withholding | RLOC |
| Nevada | School District Bond Guarantee Program | Permanent fund | Long-term municipal pools |
| New Jersey | Support of Free Public Schools | General fund | RLOC |
| New Jersey | Qualified Bond Program | Withholding | RLOC |
| New York | State Dormitory Authority; School State Program | Appropriation | RLOC |
| North Dakota | State Aid Intercept | Intercept | RLOC |
| Ohio | Market Access Program | General fund | RLOC |
| Ohio | State Aid Intercept | Intercept | RLOC |
| Oregon | School Bond Guaranty Program | Guarantee | Guarantee |
| South Carolina | State Aid Intercept | Appropriation | RLOC |
| South Dakota | Health and Education Facilities Authority State Aid Intercept | Intercept | RLOC |
| Tennessee | State School Bond Authority | Withholding | RLOC |
| Texas | Permanent School Fund | Permanent fund | Long-term municipal pools |
| Utah | School Bond Guarantee Program | Guarantee | Guarantee |
| Utah | Moral Obligation Program for Charter Schools | Moral obligation | RLOC |
| Virginia | Virginia College Building Authority State Intercept | Intercept | RLOC |
| Washington | School Bond Program Guarantee | Guarantee | Guarantee |
| West Virginia | Municipal Bond Commission | General fund | RLOC |
Related Research
- Arizona Public School Credit Enhancement Program, June 2, 2020
- California Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Colorado Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Georgia Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Idaho Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Idaho Enhancement Program for School District Bonds, Sept. 11, 2023
- Indiana Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Kentucky Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Massachusetts Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Michigan Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Minnesota Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Mississippi Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Missouri Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Nevada School District Bond Guarantee Program, July 30, 2021
- New Jersey Credit Enhancement Programs, July 11, 2024
- New York Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- North Dakota Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Ohio Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Oregon Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- South Carolina Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- South Dakota Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Tennessee Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Texas Permanent School Fund, July 3, 2024
- Utah Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Virginia Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- Washington Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
- West Virginia Credit Enhancement Programs, July 10, 2024
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analysts: | Savannah Gilmore, Englewood + 1 (303) 721 4132; savannah.gilmore2@spglobal.com |
| Oscar Padilla, Dallas + 1 (214) 871 1405; oscar.padilla@spglobal.com | |
| Secondary Contacts: | Geoffrey E Buswick, Boston + 1 (617) 530 8311; geoffrey.buswick@spglobal.com |
| Sussan S Corson, New York + 1 (212) 438 2014; sussan.corson@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.