• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Morgan Stanley's $11 Billion Makes Chicago Taxpayers Cry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaborn

Member
Chicago drivers will pay a Morgan Stanley-led partnership at least $11.6 billion to park at city meters over the next 75 years, 10 times what Mayor Richard Daley got when he leased the system to investors in 2008.

Morgan Stanley, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Allianz Capital Partners may earn a profit of $9.58 billion before interest, taxes and depreciation, according to documents for a $500 million private note sale by their Chicago Parking Meters LLC venture. That is equivalent to 80 cents per dollar of projected revenue. Standard Parking Corp., which runs 30,000 spaces at the city’s O’Hare and Midway airports, earned 4.84 cents on that basis last year, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The deal illustrates how Wall Street banks, recipients of more than $300 billion in taxpayer bailouts in the worst credit collapse since the Great Depression, are profiting from helping states and cities close record recession-induced deficits by selling bonds and leasing public properties. Chicago gave up billions of dollars in revenue when it announced in 2008 that it leased Morgan Stanley its 36,000 parking meters, the third- largest U.S. system, for $1.15 billion to balance its budget, said Alderman Scott Waguespack.

While Chicago has the right to “repossess and assume operational control” of the meters if the Morgan Stanley partners default on their obligations, the bond document says, the contract doesn’t expire until 2084. “The next couple of generations will pay the price,” said Waguespack, 40, a Democrat from the 32nd Ward.

“It’s despicable, the way it went down,” said Waguespack, one of only five aldermen among 50 who voted against the lease.

Midway Airport

Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and other cities may follow Chicago in selling future parking revenue for cash to help fill budget holes, according to the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based researcher that advocates public-private partnerships. Chicago may also lease Midway International Airport, a regional hub 10 miles from downtown.

When Daley, a 68-year-old Democrat who took office in 1989, announced the parking deal on Dec. 2, 2008, two days before the council’s vote, Waguespack’s staff estimated the city would give up $4 billion to $5 billion of revenue in exchange for the upfront sum. Last month, the private partners’ debt-sale memorandum projected revenue over the 75-year lease would be $11.6 billion.

“These deals are rarely done under the bright light of public scrutiny,” said Richard Little, director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “Often the facts come out long after the deal is done.”

Sale Postponed

The private note sale, scheduled for last month to help cover costs of acquiring the contract, was postponed due to market conditions, said Alyson Barnes, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman in New York. She wouldn’t comment on profit or revenue projections.

Christian Kroos, a spokesman for Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE, Europe’s biggest insurer and parent of Allianz Capital, declined to comment in an e-mail. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“The concession agreement was absolutely the best deal for Chicagoans,” Gene Saffold, Chicago’s chief financial officer, said in an Aug. 5 e-mail.

While profit estimates in the bond-offering documents were “fairly optimistic,” they were also “relatively in line with our projections when we valued the system’s current value of between $700 million and $1.1 billion,” Saffold said.

“The net present value of $11.6 billion in revenue over the life of the 75-year agreement is consistent with $1.15 billion the city received,” he said.

Montreal Port

Morgan Stanley’s infrastructure unit, which owns 50.1 percent of the parking partnership, has about $4 billion of equity investments under management, according to a press release. It has announced projects in the Middle East and Africa, with the Port of Montreal and for power generation in India.

Daley, son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley, who served from 1955 to 1976, spent about $792 million of the lease money in the last three years to balance budgets and for other needs, according to city reports including one from Saffold. That would leave $353 million of the upfront payment to put toward the 2011 budget, which is expected to have a $654.7 million deficit, according to estimates issued July 30.

Filling budget holes “is probably not the best use of these revenues,” said Little of the Keston Institute. Chicago officials will “have these budget problems again down the road, and they won’t have the parking meters to sell.”

Ratings Reduced

Fitch Ratings cited budget gaps when it cut the rating on $6.8 billion of Chicago general-obligation bonds on Aug. 5 by one level to AA, its third-highest rank. It said unemployment, exposure to subprime mortgages and above-average home foreclosures have curtailed tax revenue. Moody’s Investors Service lowered the debt a day later, to Aa3, its fourth-highest level, from Aa2.

Morgan Stanley’s partnership raised parking rates twice since the lease began, and more are planned, the debt document says. Fees at some central business district meters rose to $4.25 an hour from $3 since January 2009 and will go to $6.25 in 2013. In midtown Manhattan, hourly rates are as much as $2.50, according to the New York City Department of Transportation.

Officials in the country’s third most-populous city should have managed finances better to prevent the fee increases, said Laura Hunter, 39, as she paid with a credit card at a parking kiosk on South Wacker Drive in downtown.

‘Budget Hole’

“The city did have a budget hole to fill, but parking- meter fees aren’t normally predicated on balancing a budget,” said Hunter, a political consultant who lives in Chicago.

The spokeswoman for Chicago Parking Meters, Avis LaVelle of A. LaVelle Consulting Services LLC in Chicago, referred a request for comment to Morgan Stanley’s Barnes.

The Morgan Stanley partners invested $40 million in the parking system, which will “greatly improve” operations and “enhance customer convenience,” Saffold said in his e-mail. The outlay was “something the city would not have been able to accomplish given other more-pressing capital needs,” he said.

In addition to boosting rates, Chicago Parking Meters plans to increase revenue by fitting more cars into spaces by eliminating marking lines, raising the number of metered slots and adding to the hours requiring fees, according to the debt- sale filing.

Long-Term Consequences

“We could have done that ourselves,” said Waguespack. “I don’t think the aldermen understood the long-term consequences of what they did.”

Chicago Parking Meters’ revenue rose 48 percent to $18.3 million in the quarter ended June 30 from the same period a year earlier, the debt-sale documents say.

The $11.6 billion in revenue foreseen over the lease’s life is based on $47 million generated in 2009, $1.43 billion projected from 2010 through 2020 and $10.14 billion over the rest of the contract, the debt document shows. The number could go higher because of rate increases tied to the Consumer Price Index, according to the filing.

The document’s estimate for profit excludes interest, taxes and depreciation, a common method of measuring earnings of companies with assets that need to be written down over long periods.

The deal was “dubious” for Chicago, its Office of the Inspector General said last year, because the city’s chief financial officer, who negotiated the agreement, failed to calculate how much the system would be worth over 75 years. The present value of the contract was $2.13 billion, more than the $1.15 billion the city received, it said.

‘Financial Benefit’

William Blair & Co., an adviser for Chicago on the parking lease, told the inspector general in a June 30, 2009, response that the city estimated revenue over the life of the contract and applied a discount rate to determine an amount it would accept. It said the $1.15 billion it got exceeded the minimum by more than 15 percent.

“There is substantial potential financial benefit to Chicago taxpayers and residents,” Blair said in the response. It said the agreement also shields Chicago from economic uncertainties, such as reduced parking revenue if drivers switch to mass transit.

“All substantial risks have been transferred to the concessionaire,” Blair wrote. Thomas Lanctot, a William Blair principal who handled the contract, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail messages seeking additional comments.

Jon Davey, a spokesman for the inspector general’s office, said in a July e-mail that Chicago’s experience may help in evaluating future public-private partnerships.

Of the parking lease, he said: “Nothing can be done to fix that deal at this juncture.”

Story Here

They LEASED all of the parking meters for 75 YEARS? Really?
 

Gaborn

Member
Ignis Fatuus said:
Aren't you happy that they're in private hands now?

Private enterprise can do wonderful things. From a good governance standpoint this was a horrible decision though. Just like a private tax firm might be more efficient at collecting revenue but you don't get 10% of the value of all tax dollars for the next 75 years and surrender that revenue source for that length of time just to pay your bills TODAY.
 

suaveric

Member
This came about because the city leased off a toll bridge a few year back. That lease was for 99 years. So 75 years probably seemed like a steal!
 

Cyan

Banned
“The net present value of $11.6 billion in revenue over the life of the 75-year agreement is consistent with $1.15 billion the city received,” he said.
Quick and dirty calculation suggests an IRR of 13.5%, though that doesn't include any ongoing costs, which would lower it.

So yeah, the price isn't great, but isn't absurdly terrible or anything. The lease term is, though. Jebus.
 

numble

Member
I remember when this happened, and it was actually my first guess when I saw the thread title. Didn't think that they would make so much money though...

Kind of silly though--they can't raise meter rates because "Raising taxes are evil," but people seem to stomach it more when it's coming from a private corporation.
 

JGS

Banned
Smart move for Morgan Stanley. However, a lot of it is overstating the benefits. Chicago could have also collected the amount plus they would have had to deal with the management of the system which would inevitably include bloat. Now, as the article mentioned, they can compete with the parking system.
 

Gaborn

Member
numble said:
I remember when this happened, and it was actually my first guess when I saw the thread title. Didn't think that they would make so much money though...

Kind of silly though--they can't raise meter rates because "Raising taxes are evil," but people seem to stomach it more when it's coming from a private corporation.

and you know, the thing is... if this actually caused a major city like Chicago to tighten it's belt and CUT THE FUCK BACK on spending I'd be great with it, I'm all for starving the beast. The problem is I don't think there's any possibility of them ACTUALLY DOING IT. They're insanely addicted to spending and all this will do is lead to higher taxes on people that live there. This is just really sad.

Although yes, as others have said VERY smart deal for Morgan Stanley.
 
Everyone here knew that was a stupid idea except the people who actually had the power to vote on it. Good thing I'm on CTA for the time being...
 

quaere

Member
Doesn't seem like a sure thing for either party. How could anyone possibly predict the value of parking meters in Chicago in 2050?
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
numble said:
I remember when this happened, and it was actually my first guess when I saw the thread title. Didn't think that they would make so much money though...

Kind of silly though--they can't raise meter rates because "Raising taxes are evil," but people seem to stomach it more when it's coming from a private corporation.

University of Maryland Department of Transportation raises meter rates all the time, and technically it's a state-run institution and part of the bureaucracy. I think you only get 8 minutes out of a quarter now :lol
 

Gaborn

Member
thekad said:
My narrow worldview requires me to take the side of the corporation. Go Morgan Stanley! Hike those prices!

Wait... you think this is about the price of the parking meters? Really? That's... not the point here.
 

loosus

Banned
Some things just don't need to be privatized -- sorry.

I mean, don't get me wrong; governments are setting rates too high, too. Parking at a university near my house costs out the wazoo just to park an hour. On the other hand, at least the government -- and by extension, taxpayers -- still have control over it and could possibly fix it.
 

Gaborn

Member
loosus said:
Some things just don't need to be privatized -- sorry.

I mean, don't get me wrong; governments are setting rates too high, too. Parking at a university near my house costs out the wazoo just to park an hour. On the other hand, at least the government -- and by extension, taxpayers -- still have control over it and could possibly fix it.

again... what? They're not just hiring MS to collect the revenue and give it to the city. This is actively cutting off a source of revenue for the city with a very large lump sum payment. The price of the meter is... just about completely irrelavent.
 

Cyan

Banned
loosus said:
Some things just don't need to be privatized -- sorry.

I mean, don't get me wrong; governments are setting rates too high, too. Parking at a university near my house costs out the wazoo just to park an hour. On the other hand, at least the government -- and by extension, taxpayers -- still have control over it and could possibly fix it.
My favorite is privatized red light cameras.

Gee, no way that will be abused in a manner that decreases public safety...
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Cyan said:
Quick and dirty calculation suggests an IRR of 13.5%, though that doesn't include any ongoing costs, which would lower it.

So yeah, the price isn't great, but isn't absurdly terrible or anything. The lease term is, though. Jebus.

Yeah, it isn't an insanely bad deal for the city, especially given the cities dire straights. It sounds bad to people that don't understand the time value of money though.

and they were able to do it without debt financing.

Which means this thread will be full of "lulz stupid city".

30 years from now they will probably wish they had that income though :lol
 

loosus

Banned
Gaborn said:
again... what? They're not just hiring MS to collect the revenue and give it to the city. This is actively cutting off a source of revenue for the city with a very large lump sum payment. The price of the meter is... just about completely irrelavent.
Two different ways of looking at it. Tell the people who pay the fees that it's "just about completely irrelavent [sic]."
 

Gaborn

Member
loosus said:
Two different ways of looking at it. Tell the people who pay the fees that it's "just about completely irrelavent [sic]."

ok, sure, the fees for the parking meters matter individually. The bigger question though is what does it mean for the city as a whole? How significant a revenue stream were the parking meters for Chicago, and now that they're no longer available how are they planning on making up the loss in future budgets? Are they cutting spending or raising taxes as a result? Or both? Is Chicago fiscally sound?
 

loosus

Banned
Gaborn said:
ok, sure, the fees for the parking meters matter individually. The bigger question though is what does it mean for the city as a whole? How significant a revenue stream were the parking meters for Chicago, and now that they're no longer available how are they planning on making up the loss in future budgets? Are they cutting spending or raising taxes as a result? Or both? Is Chicago fiscally sound?
Obviously not if they're selling the cow to get the milk. :lol
 

Tarazet

Member
Of course this is a great deal for Morgan Stanley. You think they're going to make unwise and financially sketchy investment decisions? Oh wait.

In all seriousness, though, anything that can be done by a private entity will be done more efficiently than if it was done by the government. Any increase in meter rates would most likely be offset by a lower tax burden. The difference in projected profitability between the city and MS should make it abundantly clear that the city was not making good use of its revenue.
 
This has actually been one of the worst reported news stories ever.

And that says a lot.

Protip: See what happens when your local city council tried to raise parking rates by 25 cents.

It takes months of bitter complaints and half the time gets reversed back.

Meanwhile MS was able to immediately change rates from $1 an hour to $3.50 an hour.

So the city didnt actually lose anything if you go by the traditional standard that they wouldnt have been able to raise rates anyway.

It's like saying California loses $2 billion a day because they don't charge people for the use of the sun.



Of course making a 75 year contract with no escape clause is pure idiocy.
 

Cyan

Banned
jamesinclair said:
This has actually been one of the worst reported news stories ever.

And that says a lot.

Protip: See what happens when your local city council tried to raise parking rates by 25 cents.

It takes months of bitter complaints and half the time gets reversed back.

Meanwhile MS was able to immediately change rates from $1 an hour to $3.50 an hour.

So the city didnt actually lose anything if you go by the traditional standard that they wouldnt have been able to raise rates anyway.

It's like saying California loses $2 billion a day because they don't charge people for the use of the sun.



Of course making a 75 year contract with no escape clause is pure idiocy.
The smart move would've been to lease the meters for two or three years. Get them back once the public's used to the new, higher rates.
 
117xrpz.jpg

75 years?
 

Gaborn

Member
Tarazet said:
Of course this is a great deal for Morgan Stanley. You think they're going to make unwise and financially sketchy investment decisions? Oh wait.

In all seriousness, though, anything that can be done by a private entity will be done more efficiently than if it was done by the government. Any increase in meter rates would most likely be offset by a lower tax burden. The difference in projected profitability between the city and MS should make it abundantly clear that the city was not making good use of its revenue.

Huh? It doesn't matter what the meter rate is for the next 75 years. Chicago took a lump sum payment for those projected rates. I don't understand how you think an increase in the meter rate now is going to lower the tax burden on anyone.
 

numble

Member
Tarazet said:
Of course this is a great deal for Morgan Stanley. You think they're going to make unwise and financially sketchy investment decisions? Oh wait.

In all seriousness, though, anything that can be done by a private entity will be done more efficiently than if it was done by the government. Any increase in meter rates would most likely be offset by a lower tax burden. The difference in projected profitability between the city and MS should make it abundantly clear that the city was not making good use of its revenue.
MS is keeping the money it earns from the meters, I don't see how it is going to create a lower tax burden.
 

Slavik81

Member
Yeah. They really screwed up on the parking deal. The other leases they did were pretty good, though. They leased away things they didn't really want to run themselves anyways and they got a good price for them.

On the parking deal, they got a ridiculously small payment, and then they used it to finance regular operations. They've already spent most of the lump sum they got, when it should have lasted 75 years.

They should roast the mayor for making such a stupid deal and wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money, but he's already gone.
 
Cyan said:
The smart move would've been to lease the meters for two or three years. Get them back once the public's used to the new, higher rates.

Yup. Maybe 5 years.

75 is just the peak of idiocy.



But the idea is good in theory.

Basically, right now cities are losing BILLIONS by subsidizing cheap parking for the wealthy.

Notice how in big cities, private garages will charge $4-6 an HOUR while the meter outside is charging $.75-$1.50*?

That's madness. It's a political giveaway, pure pandering.

It's like if the city set up a stand outside the grocery store and charged $.50 for a gallon of milk.

And not only is it a huge give away, but it's bad policy. You know what happens when people expect to find parking for $1 an hour? They drive instead of paying $2 for the subway.

One study found that 15% of traffic in a city.....is not traveling! They're just looking for parking by circling the block! Even though the garages have space, people spend 20 minutes looking for a cheaper city one.

Again, 15% of traffic downtown could disappear if parking meters were priced at market rates.

And yet city politicians are too cowardly to try and make the change.



*San Francisco is one of the few cities experimenting with market rate parking, so SF GAF need not apply, I know the meters downtown run at $3.50 an hour.
 
Meier said:
I can't believe it's still only $2.50 an hour in Manhattan!

It's actually free in large portions of Manhattan, on the side streets. And .75 in the upper areas.

Who owns cars in Manhattan? The uber rich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom