Skip directly to Accessibility Notice
  • Muni Nation

    Something is Rotten in the State of Illinois

    Jim Colby ,Portfolio Manager
    March 30, 2017

    My apologies, Mr. Shakespeare! But it certainly seems to me that there is.

    The state of Illinois could very well lose its investment grade rating, sooner rather than later. Nearly two years without a budget, unfunded pension obligations, and a backlog of bills do not presage an easy future for the state's finances.

    Another Year without a Budget

    Illinois may not be another Detroit. Or another Puerto Rico. But it has all the characteristics of a disaster just waiting to happen.

    As midnight struck on December 31, 2016, Illinois had not had a budget for nearly two years. And its deficit was in the billions ($11 billion of unpaid bills). Now, in mid-March, little has changed: there is still no budget and the deficit deepens at the rate of $11 million a day.1 On March 28, with unpaid bills of $12,389,967,202.802 the state looks as if it could soon lose its investment grade rating.

    Hopes of a "grand bargain" between Democrats and Republicans, with votes in the state's senate on tax increases, school funding reform, and other measures, evaporated on March 1, when Governor Rauner involved himself in the process and Republican support vaporized.

    The standoff between the legislature (controlled by the Democrats) and Governor Rauner (a Republican) grows ever more rancorous, ever more insoluble, and a credit down grade ever more likely.

    A Matter of Property Taxes

    One of the most, if not the most, intractable problem remains Rauner's refusal to budge on freezing property taxes. To Rauner's thinking, freezing property taxes will lead to an increase in economic activity, induce more business formation, and, possibly, entice companies to re-locate to Illinois. Well, it hasn't happened. And the deficit has mushroomed.

    Two constituencies to have been hit particularly hard are schools (particularly in Chicago) and state municipalities. In addition, both service providers and vendors remain unpaid. Matters have come to such an impasse that, on February 14, the Chicago Public Schools (the third largest public school system in the U.S.) sued the state, calling its funding "discriminatory."3

    How the Mighty Have Fallen

    Perhaps reflective of both its robust general obligation repayment statute and its sovereign powers over revenues and spending, the state has been able to maintain a solid credit profile. In 2016, not only was Illinois (together with its agencies and its cities) the fifth largest issuer of municipal bonds, but also, at the end of the year, only three states – California, New York, and Texas – had more municipal bonds outstanding.

    U.S. State and Territory Municipal Bonds Outstanding – Top Ten
    December 31, 2016

    State/Territory U.S. $ Billion
    California 602.2
    New York 410.6
    Texas 362.1
    Illinois 172.7
    Florida 154.5
    Pennsylvania 137.7
    New Jersey 127.6
    Ohio 112.1
    Massachusetts 110.9
    Puerto Rico 101.8
    Source: Bank of America Merrill Lynch


    U.S. State and Territory Municipal Bonds Issuance in 2016 – Top Ten
    December 31, 2016

    State/Territory U.S. $ Billion
    California 65.0
    Texas 52.6
    New York 44.3
    Pennsylvania 20.4
    Illinois 20.2
    Florida 18.7
    Massachusetts 15.5
    Michigan 13.2
    New Jersey 12.8
    Ohio 11.4
    Source: Bank of America Merrill Lynch

    Now, however, despite its obvious economic strength, the state is currently the lowest rated in the country, with Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's rating it either BBB or Baa2. This is the lowest for a state since Massachusetts in 1992.4 (Massachusetts is now one of the higher rated states in the U.S.)

    While Illinois is on negative watch at Fitch Ratings, both S&P and Moody's Investors Service have assigned it a negative outlook. Should no budget deal be struck by July 1 this year, the start of the 2018 fiscal year, the likelihood of downgrades from S&P and/or Fitch is strong. When, on February 1, Fitch downgraded $25.9 billion in outstanding general obligation bonds to 'BBB' from 'BBB+', it noted: "Fitch expects to resolve the Rating Watch within the next six months based on an assessment of the state's fiscal trajectory as it starts fiscal year 2018. If the state continues on the current path, a further downgrade would be warranted."5

    Speculative Territory – Only a Couple of Notches Away

    While it would take a couple of downgrade notches for Illinois' general obligation debt to become speculative, a single downgrade for its moral obligation and appropriation-based debt would take it into speculative territory. According to all three rating agencies, not in recent memory has any state's debt been rated as speculative.6

    The Consequences?


    The indexes which govern the construction of the entire suite of municipal ETFs at VanEck have, as might be expected, exposure to the State of Illinois, and its political subdivisions, in proportion to the rules governing each index, as well as the issuances which come to market. Should a downgrade occur, not only will the cost of capital rise for the state, but the allocation of bonds amongst the VanEck ETFs will likely shift to the speculative part of the marketplace and possibly cause the geographic profiles to change for all ETFs.


    This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed on this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction.

    VanEck does not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. Investors should discuss their individual circumstances with appropriate professionals before making any decisions. This information should not be construed as sales or marketing material or an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, product or service.

    Please note this represents the views of the author and these views may change at any time and from time to time. MUNI NATION is not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Current market conditions may not continue. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck. MUNI NATION is a trademark of Van Eck Associates Corporation.

    All indices listed are unmanaged indices and do not reflect the payment of transaction costs, advisory fees or expenses that are associated with an investment in a fund. Certain indices may take into account withholding taxes. An index’s performance is not illustrative of a fund’s performance. Indices are not securities in which investments can be made.

    The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index is considered representative of the broad market for investment grade, tax-exempt municipal bonds with a maturity of at least one year. The AAA and BBB indices are sub-sets of this broader index.

    Municipal bonds are subject to risks related to litigation, legislation, political change, conditions in underlying sectors or in local business communities and economies, bankruptcy or other changes in the issuer’s financial condition, and/or the discontinuance of taxes supporting the project or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. Bonds and bond funds will decrease in value as interest rates rise. Additional risks include credit, interest rate, call, reinvestment, tax, market and lease obligation risk. High-yield municipal bonds are subject to greater risk of loss of income and principal than higher-rated securities, and are likely to be more sensitive to adverse economic changes or individual municipal developments than those of higher-rated securities. Municipal bonds may be less liquid than taxable bonds.

    The income generated from some types of municipal bonds may be subject to state and local taxes as well as to federal taxes on capital gains and may also be subject to alternative minimum tax.

    Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss.

    Investing involves substantial risk and high volatility, including possible loss of principal. Bonds and bond funds will decrease in value as interest rates rise. An investor should consider the investment objective, risks, charges and expenses of a fund carefully before investing. To obtain a prospectus and summary prospectus, which contain this and other information, call 800.826.2333 or visit Please read the prospectus and summary prospectus carefully before investing.