VII. STANDING COMMITTEES F 9 B. Finance and Asset Management Committee Debt Management Annual Report INFORMATION The Board of Regents is charged with adopting the University s Debt Management Policy, establishing the University s credit standards, adopting the Annual Bond Resolution allowing for issuance of external debt, and approving the use of the Internal Lending Program to fund capital projects. In addition, the Board is responsible for oversight of University debt outstanding, credit ratings, and compliance with bond covenants and IRS regulations. The Debt Management Annual Report provides the Board with a broad overview of the debt portfolio, the macro challenges, capital needs and interest rate environment that could affect the University s credit rating, a summary of the Internal Lending Program, and recent accomplishments and future plans. The Debt Management Annual Report does not require Regental action and is presented to provide the Board with information and context to allow the Board to make informed decisions about the University s debt and internal lending activities. Attachment Debt Management Annual Report F 9/206-14
University of Washington Debt Management Annual Report BOARD OF REGENTS FINANCE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE June 12, 2014 ATTACHMENT
WHAT IS THE BOARD OF REGENTS ROLE IN DEBT MANAGEMENT? The debt management annual report informs the Board in its oversight role The Board of Regents are responsible for the following: Adopting the debt management policy Establishing University credit standards Overseeing debt outstanding, credit ratings, and compliance with bond covenants and IRS regulations Adopting bond resolutions to allow for issuance of external debt Approving use of the Internal Lending Program to fund capital projects Management Phases Board Information Board Action Policy Portfolio Project Plan Review Debt Capacity Adopt Debt Policies Portfolio Structure Review Portfolio Performance Authorize Issuance of Debt Issue Review Quarterly Activity Signed Project Agreement Service External Debt Analyze Review Funding Plan Approve Debt Funding Fund Service Internal Loans 2
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION? Credit UW is Aaa rated and will likely drop to Aa1 with planned debt issuances. What does this mean for the UW s borrowing costs, and is the Board comfortable with a potential credit rating downgrade? Portfolio Should UW make variable rate debt a permanent part of the portfolio? Internal Lending Does the rate stabilization account offer an adequate level of protection against rising interest rates? 3
WHAT IS THE UW S DEBT PROFILE FOR 2014? (in millions as of April 30, 2014) **Excludes Commercial Paper 4
WHAT IS THE OUTLOOK FOR UW? All of public higher education face financial challenges, but prudent capital investments can help UW manage these uncertainties into the future Macro challenges are similar to those faced by other large state research schools Uncertainty surrounding the amount and timing of federal funding, including Medicare and Medicaid, Pell Grants, research funding, and sequestration Challenging outlook for State capital support, but State operating support has stabilized over the last year Future financial flexibility limited by higher tuition levels challenging students ability to pay Effectively developing on line learning capabilities Modernizing IT infrastructure Funding deferred maintenance The University has an ambitious capital plan $6 billion through 2024 with $2 billion coming from debt Increasing amount of debt has pressured credit ratings and could increase borrowing cost Higher fixed costs reduce financial flexibility and ability to withstand shocks Thoughtful capital planning and careful debt management are positive factors Recent approval of the Capital Assets Pool increased funding capacity Interest rates are attractive for high grade issuers like UW Long and short term rates remain near historic lows The difference between short term and long term rates is wide The addition of variable rate debt can blend down the cost of debt 5
HOW FINANCIALLY HEALTHY IS THE UW? The UW has maintained its Aaa rating with stable financial ratios and growing revenues University of Washington = Aaa Other institutions in Aaa rating category: Indiana University, Purdue University, Texas A&M University System, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, University of Texas System, and University of Virginia Measures the coverage of direct debt by financial resources that are ultimately expendable Measures actual margin of protection for annual debt service payments from annual operations Measures total debt as a percentage of operating revenues *see page 14 for peer group 6
WHAT HAS BEEN THE COST OF UW DEBT OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS? Since 2009, the UW has issued debt at historically low interest rates 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% Jul 09 Issued $76M in BABs with interest cost of 3.97%* Total Debt Issued 2009 14 = $1.4 billion Weighted Average Rate = 3.6% Dec 09 Issued $78M in BABs with interest cost of 3.63%* Dec 10 Issued $165M in taxable/babs with interest cost of 3.97%* Oct 10 Issued $150M in taxexempt/babs with interest cost of 3.22%* Jul 11 Issued $211M in taxexempt with interest cost of 3.88% Mar 12 Issued $268M in taxable / tax exempt with interest cost of 3.67% Dec 12 Issued $300M in tax exempt with interest cost of 3.02% Long Term Borrowing Rate Short Term Borrowing Rate Build America Bonds Rate Sep 13 Issued $146M in tax exempt with interest cost of 4.47% Jan 14 Issued $29M in tax exempt with interest cost of 3.87% 0.0% Jul 09 Oct 09 Jan 10 Apr 10 Jul 10 Oct 10 Jan 11 Apr 11 Jul 11 Oct 11 Jan 12 Apr 12 Jul 12 Oct 12 Jan 13 Apr 13 Jul 13 Oct 13 Jan 14 Apr 14 *Sequestration decreased the Build America Bonds subsidy by 7.2% in 2014, resulting in increased interest payments of approximately $617,000. The federal government has implemented the cuts through 2023 at a decreasing rate. 7
WHAT ARE UW S PLANS FOR VARIABLE RATE DEBT? (as of April 30, 2014) Issuance of variable rate debt with a target of 10% of total debt outstanding may be used to reduce the overall cost of debt (policy maximum is 20%) 14% 12% 10% Background Since 2006, variable rate debt (commercial paper) has been used to manage project cash flows between long term bond issues The debt policy provides for up to 20% of variable rate debt in the debt portfolio Each July, staff recommend fixed and variable rate issuance to the Board Current Market Conditions Long term and short term rates are near historical lows The difference between short term and long term interest rates is near historical highs (steep yield curve) 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 02 05 08 11 14 Fixed Rate Variable Rate Variable Rate Average: 2.85% St Dev: 2.37% Fixed Rate Average: 5.47% St Dev: 2.21% Risks and Benefits Variable rate debt allows for issuing debt in a rising rate environment Rate volatility presents the risk that interest rates will rise such that it would have been cheaper to issue fixed rate debt Historically, short term debt has been 260 basis points lower than long term debt at a point in time For every $100 million in outstanding debt, the UW would pay $185,000 less in annual debt service with a 10% allocation to variable rate debt (based on historical averages) 8
HOW HAVE THE UW S DEBT AUTHORITIES AND FUNDING STRATEGIES EVOLVED? Since the inception of the Internal Lending Program (ILP) in 2008, the UW has funded capital projects based on the cash flow needs of all authorized projects (portfolio management), instead of a single project s needs Prior to 2003 63 20 financing Auxiliary revenue bonds 2003 General Revenue Bond (GRB) financing authority for research GRB platform established SLU 1 financed 2007 Expanded GRB financing authority for any University purpose Safeco Tower purchased Commercial Paper program established Internal Lending Program established 2009 Expanded GRB financing authority for Building Fee Bonds Molecular Engineering Building financed 9 *excludes future issuance
HOW DOES THE INTERNAL LENDING PROGRAM WORK? The ILP was created to provide a stable, long term interest rate to campus borrowers The difference between external borrowing costs and interest collected contributes to the Rate Stabilization Account (RSA) The RSA balance is used to maintain a stable internal rate as external borrowing rates increase RSA was used to manage a reduction in Build America Bond subsidy during sequestration, with no impact on individual borrowers The Capital Assets Pool was approved by the Board of Regents in May 2014 10
WHAT IS THE INTERNAL RATE ASSESSMENT? The Board of Regents established ILP rate is 5.5%; the Treasury Office recommends no changes to this rate Weighted average borrowing rate in the ILP portfolio as of March 2014 is 3.6% Recent low interest rates have contributed to the Rate Stabilization Account balance, but continued need for debt funding in a rising rate environment puts pressure on the RSA Future borrowing of $335 million for Board authorized projects through 2018 creates risk to the ILP rate Approval of the Capital Assets Pool in April 2014 will likely reduce external borrowing 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 103 *authorized projects only ILP Projected Annual Funding Needs* ($ in millions) 150 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 72 10 11
IS THE RATE STABILIZATION ACCOUNT SUFFICIENT? The Rate Stabilization Account balance at June 2014 will be $37 million, which offers rate stability for about 6 years The role of the Rate Stabilization Account (RSA) is to protect the University against rising interest rates. The larger the RSA balance, the more protection against having to raise the ILP rate Sufficiency is the amount needed in the RSA today to hold the ILP rate stable for a period of time. It is calculated for 5, 10 and 30 years Each year, the RSA sufficiency is recalculated based on shock case interest rate scenarios and borrowing plans The shock case is based on interest rates from 1978 1982, which was the most rapid increase in market rates over a 5 year period in the past 40 years Length of Stable ILP Rate Sufficiency Balance Required Today Assumptions*: Today $0 Underfunded 5 Year 10 Year 30 Year Sufficiency Range $23M $130M Overfunded Years 1 5 Years 6 10 Years 11 30 Borrowing Rates: 5.5% 10.2% Borrowing Rates: 10.2% 6.1% Borrowing Rate: 6.1% Additional Borrowing: $1.1B Additional Borrowing: $295M Additional Borrowing: $2.3B $845M * Borrow to One Capital Plan through year 5. Years 6 30 reflect debt capacity recapture due to repayments. 12
ARE THE UW AND CAMPUS BORROWERS IN COMPLIANCE? The University is in compliance with all IRS and bondholder requirements, and all internal borrowers are up to date on their required disclosures Ongoing Disclosure for Internal Loans and External Debt Internal disclosure requirements Larger issuers report to the Board using Semi Annual Borrower Reports (SABREs). Small loans are reviewed internally by Treasury Office All internal borrowers are in compliance with ILP covenants External (Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board) continuing disclosure obligations are met through filing of the Bondholders Report * and audited financial statements Tax Compliance for Tax exempt Bonds Completed first private use study since 2006. The University is in compliance with IRS private use regulations Underwent audit on a $28 million bond issue for the Brotman Building at South Lake Union. The audit was successfully completed with no IRS findings Arbitrage rebate reports are prepared annually to ensure compliance with tax exempt bond rules. The University owes no arbitrage to the IRS * http://f2.washington.edu/treasury/sites/default/files/2013%20uw%20bondholders%20report%20 %20FINAL.pdf 13
WHAT ARE SOME RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS? Issuance Sold $146 million of General Revenue Bonds in August 2013 at an interest rate of 4.48%. The University was put on positive outlook from Standard & Poor s as part of this bond issue Realized savings of $2.4 million by refinancing lease backed bonds at South Lake Union Financed four small lease / line of credit transactions totaling $18 million Debt Portfolio / Internal Lending Program Developed method to estimate sufficiency of the rate stabilization account Disclosure Added Leading Indicators section to the Semi Annual Borrower Reports Program Development Implemented Capital Assets Pool to use institutional reserves to fund Board approved projects Lean initiatives were undertaken to: Improve the bond disclosure process, shortening the time for updating disclosure by one week Develop a more efficient method for financing short lived assets; expect to fund loans up to 60 days sooner 14
WHAT BENEFIT COMES FROM USING GENERAL REVENUE BONDS? Issuing General Revenue Bonds instead of Auxiliary Revenue Bonds has saved the UW $26 million since 2003 and is projected to save another $117 million over the next 30 years The creation of the GRB credit has allowed the University to borrow at a much lower cost, not only creating greater financial flexibility, but also creating opportunity for projects that would have otherwise proven too expensive or impossible to finance on a stand alone basis The Treasury Office performed an analysis to calculate how much money the University has saved since the creation of the General Revenue Bond (GRB) credit in 2003 The analysis compared interest costs to fund capital projects under the old stand alone project financing method versus current portfolio funding method under the GRB credit To date, the University has saved about $26 million by issuing under the GRB credit In today s dollars, over the next 30 years, the University is expected to save an additional $117 million for debt already issued. 15 *excludes future issuance
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT INITIATIVES? Implement a program to finance short term assets, such as equipment Reduce need for one off lease financings Better match useful life of asset to borrowing costs Provide money to borrower faster Centralize oversight of short term loans Simplify current process Eliminate collateralizing of university assets during financing term Manage Debt Capacity Integrate One Capital Plan with debt capacity analysis Use peer group minimums to determine debt capacity Link project plans to institutional impacts using financial forecasting tool Debt Issuance Consider use of commercial paper program to add variable rate exposure Seek refunding opportunities 16
17 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
KEY STATISTICS AND RATIOS UW (Aaa) Moody's 2012 Medians 2012 2013 Aaa Aa1 Key Financial Statistics Total Direct Debt ($, in millions) 1,821 2,090 1,592 863 Comprehensive Debt ($, in millions) 1,996 2,278 1,766 863 Unrestricted Financial Resources ($, in millions) 1,351 1,599 1,589 727 Expendable Financial Resources ($, in millions) 2,727 2,528 3,649 1,697 Total Financial Resources ($, in millions) 3,628 4,127 4,927 2,324 Total Cash & Investments ($, in millions) 3,957 4,275 3,944 1,798 Total Revenues ($, in millions) 3,927 4,194 3,133 1,965 Total Expenses ($, in millions) 3,844 4,037 2,987 1,912 Student Enrollment and Ratios Total Enrollment FTE (#) 51,400 53,380 56,632 42,497 Freshman Matriculation (%) 39% 37% 40% 38% Freshman Selectivity (%) 59% 58% 60% 67% Net tuition per student ($) 12,288 13,868 11,855 11,201 State appropriation per student ($) 4,321 4,244 6,630 7,498 Educational expenses per student ($) 37,699 40,428 37,418 28,846 Capital Ratios Expendable financial resources to direct debt (x) 1.5 1.2 2.0 1.8 Debt Service to Operations (%) 2.7% 2.6% 3.9% 3.4% Direct debt to total revenues (x) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 Balance Sheet Ratios Expendable financial resources to operations (x) 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.7 Operating Ratios Actual debt service coverage (x) 3.5 4.7 3.8 3.9 Average actual debt service coverage (x) 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.9 Source: Moody s median data for fiscal year 2012 for Aaa and Aa1 rated public institutions of higher education 18
PEER GROUP Comprised of 13 institutions with the following criteria: All public universities rated Aa2 or higher by Moody s Patient care revenue greater than 10% of total revenues Total revenue greater than $1 billion No state wide systems Schools in UW s Peer Group Ohio State University Pennsylvania State University University of Iowa University of Alabama at Birmingham University of Arkansas University of Colorado University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Nebraska University of New Mexico University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Utah University of Virginia University of Washington 19