- Federal stimulus has historically supported credit quality of governments and municipal enterprises in recessions.
- The record amount of stimulus year-to-date is notable, but ultimately the timing to the recipients and depth of the recession will determine effectiveness.
- The bill provides unprecedented support for the municipal market, which we believe will be important for recovery efforts.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act is the third, and largest to date, stimulus bill to come out of Washington in an effort to slow the spread of the virus and offset the losses from the accompanying recession. The bill contains several provisions that S&P Global Ratings views as credit supportive for entities in U.S. public finance, including programs to address the needs of state, local government, transportation, health care, housing and higher education credits. All the provisions in the bill are designed to help provide liquidity and stabilize operations, but the credit risk remains that these measures may be exhausted too soon and more federal actions or more severe budget cuts could be needed. The monies in the CARES Act will start to flow to the sector in late April.
In this report we will answer some of the high-level credit questions.
Even with the CARES Act monies just beginning to reach the target users, there is discussion in Congress of a possible fourth stimulus bill. S&P Global Economics is forecasting that this recession will be more severe than the Great Recession, although shorter in duration. The stimulus to date has already exceeded the stimulus during the Great Recession. The first federal measure to address the growing pandemic was the $8.3 billion in public health support bill passed on March 4, which allocated money to vaccine research, small business loans, foreign aid, public health programs, and personal protective equipment purchases. The focus of this first act was on preparedness and response. The first, though, was soon followed by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act on March 18, which extended sick and family medical leave and also supported state credit by extending the federal Medicaid reimbursement rate by an additional 6.2 percentage points. As health care costs related to fighting COVID-19 continue to grow, this reimbursement increase will aid in buffeting the states' outlays for Medicaid, although those costs do continue to grow, putting more liquidity pressure on some.
|Summary of U.S. Public Finance Provisions In The CARES Act|
|Amount (bil. $)||Program||Sector||Description|
|454||Treasury Exchange Stabilization Fund||States, Local Govt||To provide loans and guarantees to the Federal Reserve to support lending and liquidity programs for businesses, states, and municipalities; estimated to generate more than $4 trillion in loans and liquidity.|
|Municipal Liquidity Facility||States, Local Govt||Seeded from monies in the CARES Act, this program will provide liquidity (up to $500 bil.) through the purchase of notes from eligible participants.|
|150||Coronavirus Relief Fund||States||To make payments to states, tribal governments, and territories.|
|100||Public Health Emergency and Social Services Fund||Health Care||Provides reimbursements to eligible health care providers for health care related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirus.|
|14||Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund||Higher Ed||Funding will be allocated to “each institution of higher learning” by series of formulas.|
|13||Elementary And Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund||GO School & Charter School||Will support elementary and secondary school emergency relief grants to each state educational agency by series of formulas.|
|3||Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund||States||Can be used to provide emergency support through grants to local educational agencies and institutions of higher education.|
|25||Transit agency grants||Transporation||Payments to transit agencies to cover operating expenses related to coronavirus response, reimbursement for operating costs to maintain service and lost revenue due to the coronavirus.|
|10||Grants-in-aid for airports||Transporation||Payment to airports to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.|
Programs That Support Government Credit Quality
Although all of the provisions in the CARES Act are supportive of the broader economy, and thus credit supportive, the three funds within the act directly supporting state and local government credit and the municipal market are the $454 billion Treasury Exchange Stabilization Fund, the $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund, and the $3 billion Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund.
The largest allocation in the act, a significant addition of funds for the Treasury Exchange Stabilization Fund, is not a municipal-only source of funds, as it is intended to provide liquidity support for corporate entities as well. The Exchange Stabilization Fund has already been used to support several of the credit market facilities announced in March. However, the CARES Act provided a significant infusion of federal money for this fund and also expanded authorities for the types of programs that can be supported. Following passage of the CARES Act, the New York Federal Reserve announced four new programs to be financed through the Stabilization Fund, which received a significant infusion of funds from the CARES Act.
- Municipal Liquidity Facility
- Main Street New Loan Facility
- Main Street Expanded Loan Facility
- Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility
Announced in March:
- Commercial Paper Funding Facility
- Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility
- Primary Dealer Credit Facility
- Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility
- Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility
- Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility
Seven provide corporate support, thus strengthening the companies active within the local economy, and two of the programs announced in March, the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility and the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, helped stabilize the short lending markets that many public finance entities rely on. However, the Municipal Liquidity Facility will have the greatest direct impact on rated governmental entities.
Municipal Liquidity Facility
The Municipal Liquidity Facility, funded by the Department of the Treasury using $35 billion in funds in the CARES Act, authorizes the Federal Reserve Bank to purchase up to $500 billion in eligible notes to support all 50 states, the District of Columbia, counties with populations over two million and cities with populations over one million. The eligible notes will be short-term, with a maximum maturity of 24 months. The notes are expected to be in the form of bond anticipation notes, tax anticipation notes, and tax and revenue anticipation notes, or the like. The note purchases will be made through Sept. 30, 2020, unless Congress votes an extension. We see this as one possible tool states can use to help manage liquidity as revenues are expected to decline precipitously due to the sudden-stop economic condition induced by measures intended to slow the spread of the virus. Additionally, the liquidity pressures created by matching the adjusted federal tax filing date can be alleviated with this facility. The shift by most states will cause revenues originally included in one fiscal year to be received in the subsequent fiscal period (although, with accrual periods, in the end most states will still record the funds in the current, originally planned, fiscal year).
Access to the facility is limited to 20% of the general revenue from the borrower's own sources based on fiscal year 2017 actual, but states are able to exceed this limit to support political subdivisions and instrumentalities not eligible to apply on their own. As we are hearing that many counties, cities and towns, regardless of size, are expecting revenue shortfalls, should states avail themselves of this optional program, this could support local government credit. As there is no clear playbook for setting up such programs, and in some cases legal questions remain, we do not yet know when, or even if, the funds will flow to local governments. While this program is clearly supportive of credit quality overall, we note that the two-year maximum term could create risk if government receipts have not recovered sufficiently by the time repayment is due.
The Coronavirus Relief Fund
The CARES Act provides a $150 billion carve-out for state and local governments to supplement direct expenditures stemming from the pandemic. The act requires outlays to be deposited no later than 30 days from enactment, so states should see the monies by April 26. Of the total, $139 billion is earmarked for states while the remainder allocated to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the other territories, and tribal governments.
States are eligible for no less than $1.25 billion in support with local government entities with populations of at least 500,000 eligible for direct support from the Treasury. A state's allocation of the $139 billion is proportional to its population and a local government's share of the direct aid would come from the total available to the state. Accordingly, California, Texas, Florida, and New York are estimated to be eligible for the greatest share of the total at roughly 30.5%. Currently, 14 states do not have a local entity whose population exceeds 500,000.
While guidance on how resources will be disbursed is forthcoming, the act outlines eligible purposes for how states can utilize funds (section 5001[d]):
- Are necessary public health expenditures due to COVID-19;
- Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved for the state or local government; and
- Were incurred March 1, 2020 through Dec. 30, 2020.
Notably, in the event an expense is deemed ineligible by the inspector general of Treasury Department, the resources would be treated as debt owed to federal government.
In our view, given disbursed funds cannot be used to offset indirect costs, namely revenues that would otherwise have been generated absent restriction on economic activity, the efficiency of funds may be low for some states and local governments. In that sense, other targeted measures provided in the act including supplemental aid to health care programs and public education could provide stronger budgetary support.
Programs That Support Health Care Credit Quality
Our not-for-profit acute health care sector will see some relief from the CARES Act. We note these provisions provide short-term benefits for direct support as well as liquidity due to COVID-19 and the related investment market dislocation but are not a panacea for the continued cash flow and liquidity challenges facing many providers as they manage increases in expenses as they relate to capacity, supplies, and equipment, and experience decreased revenues due to the deferral of non-emergent procedures, outpatient visits, ancillary services, and imaging. The value of the programs vary by hospital and health system but should be helpful in offsetting a portion of the operating losses as well as providing liquidity.
Many health care systems had built up their unrestricted reserves over the last several years and with the disruption in the markets as well as the recent cash flow challenges, health care providers have been trying to shore up liquidity. Some key features of the recent act aim to support this effort, including the Medicare accelerated payment program that provides a six-month lump sum payment with a payment-free period of 120 days (after which claims are offset to recoup the payment). The loan is interest-free for 12 months, after which the outstanding balance will begin to accrue interest of 10.25%. We note that this program is significant for many of our hospitals and is akin to a short-term interest-free loan that will help with the short-term cash flow challenges. While some credits may be able to solely rely on this for cash flow needs, we believe others will still need additional forms of liquidity to carry them through this period. We understand that funds from this program are beginning to flow quickly, which we view favorably given the significant cash flow challenges that started for many providers beginning in March with the deferral of non-emergent cases.
Another area of liquidity support through the CARES Act is the ability for providers to delay their payroll tax payments from March 27, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, although we view this as incremental. Hospitals will have to begin paying those in 2021 and 2022, but this is another short-term reduction in required cash payments that can aid them.
Support for operations
The act also includes some direct funding for hospitals--$100 billion for hospital and health care provider COVID-19 related expenses and forgone revenue. We believe this provides some short-term flexibility for care. Approximately $30 billion of the $100 billion of funding will be distributed based on Medicare fee-for-service payments in 2019 and that money has begun to flow to hospitals as of April 10. How the remaining $70 billion will be distributed to hospitals has not been specified, but the administration has identified priority areas particularly affected by COVID-19 including rural providers, providers of services with lower shares of Medicare reimbursement, or who serve primarily Medicaid population, and providers treating uninsured Americans as well as potentially those providers in locations that have been more affected by COVID-19 cases.
Several other components help to support operations, including the 2% Medicare sequestration from May 1 through the end of the calendar year, and delayed disproportionate share fund cuts to begin Dec. 1, 2020, instead of May 22. The act also increases Medicare reimbursement rates for COVID-19 hospitalizations by 20%, which offsets some, though not all, of the expense increases.
Legislation updates beyond the CARES Act
There are changes beyond the CARES Act that we view as incremental positives for the not-for-profit health care sector, including the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which included a temporary increase of 6.2 percentage points in the Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage from Jan. 1, 2020, through the emergency period. However, this increase does not apply to adults who were part of the Affordable Care Act expansion. The act also provides a state option to cover COVID-19 testing and testing-related services at a 100% federal match for uninsured individuals during the emergency period. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has also expanded payments for telehealth services that help hospitals and physicians continue providing care through the 1135 waiver authority Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Programs That Support Higher Education Credit Quality
The CARES Act established a Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund to provide $14 billion in relief funds directly to institutions of higher education, which we believe will partially offset the adverse credit impacts of the COVID-19 response, though statutory requirements on funding may limit usefulness of funds in some cases.
The law requires that 90% of the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, or roughly $12.6 billion, be provided to "each institution of higher education" with 75% apportioned by relative share of full-time Pell Grant recipients and 25% by relative share of non-Pell Grant full-time student. We believe the statutory formula-driven allocation will help expedite delivery or funds.
Notably, the law requires that recipients use at least half of this allocation (about $6.3 billion) to provide emergency financial aid grants directly to students. The other portion of this 90% allocation may only be used to offset costs associated with changes to remote instruction delivery due to coronavirus, with some exclusions. Higher education institutions are still seeking clarity on whether these relief funds can be used to cover room and board refunds, as these revenue losses are for the most part much more material than new costs from coronavirus.
The remaining 10%, or $1.4 billion, of the Higher Education Relief Fund has much more flexible eligible uses, including maintaining operations and continuing to employ existing staff, and we believe will provide the most efficient means of operating relief. Of this $1.4 billion, 7.5% will be allocated according to proportions in existing federal grants, with the remaining 2.5% reserved for grants to be awarded according to "greatest unmet need related to coronavirus."
|Top 25 CARES Act Allocations To Higher Education Institutions|
|Rank||School||Allocation (mil. $)||Minimum for emergency financial aid (mil. $)|
|1||Arizona State University||63.5||31.8|
|2||Pennsylvania State University (The)||55.0||27.5|
|3||Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey||54.2||27.1|
|4||University Of Central Florida||51.1||25.5|
|5||California State University, Northridge||44.7||22.3|
|6||Ohio State University (The)||42.9||21.4|
|7||California State University, Long Beach||41.7||20.9|
|8||California State University, Fullerton||41.0||20.5|
|9||Texas A&M University||39.8||19.9|
|10||University of Washington||39.7||19.9|
|11||Florida International University||38.3||19.2|
|12||California State University, Los Angeles||37.9||19.0|
|13||University Of California, Irvine||36.7||18.4|
|14||University Of Houston||36.7||18.4|
|15||University Of California, Los Angeles||35.9||18.0|
|16||California State University - Sacramento||35.7||17.9|
|17||University Of California, San Diego||34.9||17.4|
|18||University Of South Florida||34.8||17.4|
|19||University Of Texas - Rio Grande Valley||34.3||17.2|
|20||University Of California, Davis||33.9||16.9|
|21||California State University, Fresno||32.8||16.4|
|22||University Of Texas At Austin||31.5||15.7|
|23||University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign||31.4||15.7|
|24||University Of Florida||31.0||15.5|
|25||University of Arizona||31.0||15.5|
Programs That Support Transportation Credit Quality
Transit agency operating support
The CARES Act provides $25 billion in additional funds to transit agencies, with $22.7 billion apportioned to large and small urban areas and $2.2 billion to rural areas. Funding will be provided at a 100% federal share, with no local match required, which we believe will enable rapid utilization of the funds. Notably, the eligible uses of funds are some of the most flexible for programs targeted to municipal issuers and will be available to support lost revenue and operating expenses beginning Jan. 20, 2020, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. The law required that these funds be made available for obligation by the Federal Transit Administration seven days after enactment of the CARES Act and so should flow to transit agencies quickly. In our view, both the flexibility of eligible uses and requirements for rapid, formula-driven allocation will help stabilize transit agency operations for a few months, supporting credit quality.
We believe that the transit sector is at a high risk of depressed revenue collection for an extended time and so could face significant operating losses after this relief is exhausted. However we believe this funding will support liquidity and operations in the next few months, thus freeing internal resources to help meet debt service payments
|Five Largest Urban Area Transit Agency Operating Allocations|
|Urbanized Area||Amount (mil. $)|
|New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT||5,437|
|Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA||1,216|
|Requirement: "Designated recipients shall continue to sub-allocate funds allocated to an urbanized area based on a locally determined process, consistent with Section 5307 statutory requirements."|
Grants-in-aid to airports
The CARES Act provided nearly $10 billion to almost all commercial service airports to keep the system in service to the aviation industry and to support the economy. The funding, expected to begin flowing in April on an expedited basis, comes in the form of grants from the Treasury and not from existing Federal Aviation Administration grant programs. As with most airport grant programs, there are the standard strings attached (monies must be used for FAA-approved purposes, Buy American, prevailing wage requirements) including workforce retention requirements for large, medium, and small hub airports, and importantly can be used to pay debt service requirements. The CARES Act divides the $10 billion into four groups, each having a separate allocation formula with the bulk of the amount (approximately $9.4 billion) allocated to commercial service airports and primary commercial service airports (generally larger hub airports) on a formula basis taking into consideration passengers levels and financial metrics. Table 4 shows those airports eligible to receive $100 million or greater based on the allocation formulas.
Clearly, these grants are a critical liquidity lifeline for airport operators who are experiencing passenger demand levels up to 95% lower than at this time last year while still operating, albeit at reduced schedules that are expected to be further reduced. Airlines--also recipients of federal aid--will be better positioned to pay their airport landing fees and terminal rentals, though we anticipate airport operators will provide rate relief to airlines and other tenants in various forms, which is allowable under FAA rules.
|CARES Act Grants To Airports Greater Than $100 Mil.|
|Rank||State||City||Airport||ID||Total (mil. $)|
|1||GA||Atlanta||Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta Intl||ATL||338.5|
|2||CA||Los Angeles||Los Angeles Intl||LAX||323.6|
|3||TX||Fort Worth||Dallas-Fort Worth Intl||DFW||299.2|
|4||IL||Chicago||Chicago O'Hare Intl||ORD||294.4|
|6||CA||San Francisco Intl Airport||San Francisco Intl||SFO||254.8|
|8||NV||Las Vegas||McCarran Intl||LAS||195.5|
|9||NY||New York||John F Kennedy Intl||JFK||193.4|
|12||TX||Houston||George Bush Intercontinental/Houston||IAH||149.2|
|13||AZ||Phoenix||Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl||PHX||147.9|
|14||NJ||Newark||Newark Liberty Intl||EWR||147.5|
|15||VA||Dulles||Washington Dulles Intl||IAD||143.4|
|16||MI||Detroit||Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County||DTW||141.9|
|17||MA||Boston||General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl||BOS||141.3|
|19||FL||Fort Lauderdale||Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl||FLL||135.0|
|20||MN||Minneapolis||Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Cham||MSP||125.2|
Programs That Support Housing Credit Quality
Several provisions of the CARES Act, which are meant to keep both tenants and homeowners in their homes, have the capacity to create pressure on the credit quality of housing finance agencies (HFAs). The provisions allow homeowners to request forbearance of mortgage payments for up to one year, which could increase delinquencies in resolutions that contain whole loans and will require HFAs that service mortgage-backed securities to advance payments during the forbearance period. Depending on the severity and duration of the pandemic's economic fallout, HFAs should generally have sufficient resources to absorb these credit losses and advances.
In contrast, the act contains substantial funding for public housing authorities (PHAs) through $1.25 billion for tenant-based rental assistance to "prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, including to provide additional funds…to maintain normal operations and take other necessary actions…". This includes $850 million for administrative and other expenses for PHAs' section 8 programs, and $685 million to help PHAs maintain normal operations; the latter will remain available until Sept. 30, 2021. This financial support should sustain PHA rating stability in the near term.
Programs That Support K-12 Education Credit Quality
The Elementary And Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) and the Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund (Governor's) combined will provide roughly $16 billion to K-12 education, charter schools and, to some extent, higher education. The monies in the Governor's program are distributed as a block grant at the state level and then allocated out, whereas the ESSER is an application program with state allocation limits. California and Texas will receive the most at $2 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively, with Vermont receiving the least with a $35 million allocation. The social distancing measures implemented to curtail the spread of the virus has closed schools across the country, requiring many to continue through online learning. This comes at a cost that is yet to be calculated. As states and school districts adopt budgets for the fiscal 2021 school year, we will monitor the sufficiency of these funds and what long-term impact the COVID-19 response will have on local education funding.
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analysts:||Geoffrey E Buswick, Boston (1) 617-530-8311;|
|Benjamin P Geare, New York + 1 (415) 371 5047;|
|Oscar Padilla, Farmers Branch (1) 214-871-1405;|
|Suzie R Desai, Chicago (1) 312-233-7046;|
|Marian Zucker, New York (1) 212-438-2150;|
|Secondary Contacts:||Jessica L Wood, Chicago (1) 312-233-7004;|
|Kurt E Forsgren, Boston (1) 617-530-8308;|
|Anne E Cosgrove, New York (1) 212-438-8202;|
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 acknowledgment 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 non-public 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.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.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.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.