Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

What is a bond? The first two definitions offered by the Merriam-Webster dictionary give us some idea: “something that binds or restrains” (fetter) and “a binding agreement” (covenant).  A government bond possesses both characteristics.  First, a bond is a covenant by the government to the holders of its debt to pay them back.  Second, a bond ties the hands of government to manage its money in ways we will discuss later.  At its basest level, however, a bond is nothing more than a loan.

How does a bond differ from a stock? If you own a stock, you have an ownership interest in the seller; if you own a bond, you do not.  The private sector can raise money by selling stocks or bonds, but the public sector theoretically is limited to taxes and bonds because it cannot transfer an ownership interest in itself to another person.  (This assumes, of course, that you do not believe political contributions are the equivalent of public sector stock transfers in which contributors buy ownership interests in their favorite elected officials – “a rose by any other name” as Shakespeare would say.)

How does a bond differ from a deficit? The West Virginia Constitution provides that the Legislature may not amend a budget bill “so as to create a deficit.”  If the West Virginia Legislature approves a $100 million bond, does it not owe $100 million to bondholders and hasn’t it thereby created a budget deficit?  Of course, it has.  But just as we have been happy to construe public approval of a lottery as public approval for slot machines and table games, our political officials have been happy to ignore this inconvenient truth.

How does a bond differ from a loan? It does not.  There is a borrower – the government, a lender – the bondholder, an interest rate – the coupon, a payback period – maturity, and even collateral.

A bonding transaction may be simple, but bonding’s rich cast of characters, as intriguing (double meaning intended) as any who inhabit Shakespeare’s Hamletonian world, are not.  Tomorrow we will begin with an essential character in any bonding story: the lovely, fair-haired Ophelia.

 

To bond or not to bond

To bond, or not to bond: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler for the State to suffer
The slings and arrows of daily misfortune,
Or to take on debt to fight a sea of troubles.

Bonding has been much in the news lately.  On the one hand, West Virginia School Building Authority executive director Mark Manchin has proposed a “bond anticipation sale” to generate funds for public school building construction and renovations. Otherwise, the School Building Authority will not be able to dole out its usual largesse because none of its current bonds mature before 2014.  On the other hand, the West Virginia Parkways Authority is struggling to structure a bond deal to complete the new four-lane U.S. Route 35 to West Virginia’s border with Ohio and in the process establish a toll road.

Bonding is one of the most important things a government can do; yet I have never seen a thoughtful and thorough-going discussion of the topic outside of Robert Caro’s non-fiction masterpiece The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. One reason: People think bonding (like technology) is far more complicated than it really is.  Another reason: Certain powerful individuals and organizations have little incentive to educate you about bonding and its mega-winners and losers.

Fortunately for you, I was never bamboozled by the man behind the bonding curtain, nor am I financially dependent upon any of bonding’s mega-winners.  (This has not always been the case.)  So let’s set sail for a sea of troubles….

 

Heed their rising voices

[H]eed their rising voices, for they will be heard.

New York Times editorial
Saturday, March 19, 1960

In 1960 the New York Times published a full-page advertisement titled “Heed Their Rising Voices” that sought to raise funds to defend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment.  The advertisement, which contained several inaccuracies, was critical of the Montgomery, Alabama, police.

The New York Times soon was sued by Montgomery public safety commissioner L.B. Sullivan, who obtained a $500,000 defamation judgment against the Times and others.  Mr. Sullivan’s lawsuit was part of a larger effort to drive the New York Times and other newspapers, which were providing favorable coverage of the Civil Rights movement, out of the South and out of business.

Mr. Sullivan and his ilk might have succeeded, too, were it not for the United States Supreme Court.  In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court threw out Mr. Sullivan’s verdict and set an extremely high bar, “actual malice,” for proving defamation against public officials. In his opinion for the Court, Justice William Brennan cited

a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

Last fall, a voice largely fell silent concerning some important public issues for reasons that will be described in greater detail in due time.  It is time for that voice and other voices to rise again.

 

The Charleston Gazette is leading with breaking news that the Environmental Protection Agency has denied the Spruce Mine mountaintop removal permit.  The Charleston Daily Mail is leading with breaking news that James Taylor has scheduled a concert in Charleston.

 

This weekend saw the publication of possibly the most significant leak of U.S. military documents in history. Wikileaks shared hundreds of thousands of pages of documents about the Iraq War – first with major media outlets like the New York Times and then with the rest of us.  If reports are to be believed, the documents confirm a lot more deaths than originally reported, raise questions about our use of contractors to fight wars, and show that we were losing the war more badly than reported in 2006.

The latest set of WikiLeaks harken back to a similar event in 1971 when Daniel Ellsburg leaked a report commissioned by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to the New York Times and other publications.  Unlike the Obama Administration, the Nixon Administration raced to court to stop continued publication of the papers by the New York Times, Washington Post, and ultimately others.  Although the Nixon Administration raised concerns about the threat to military operations, the U.S. Supreme Court did not find them sufficiently grave to restrain the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

The landmark case stands for the proposition that there will be no prior restraints of the press in the absence of the most grave of threats to national security – and possibly not even then.  (Importantly, the case does not stand for the proposition that a person may not be subsequently punished for violating the law in the publication process, assuming that law is constitutional.)

Does this leak put people – including U.S. soldiers – in harm’s way?  Possibly, but that’s not yet certain, even though current Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that an earlier leak of Afghan War documents put Afghanis at risk even if it did not reveal any important secrets.

Wikileaks’ release of U.S. military documents raises difficult questions.  Without people like Daniel Ellsburg and Julian Assange, about whom the New York Times ran a very interesting profile over the weekend, we likely would not know important truths about wars that went/have gone on for years – about whether we truly were winning or losing and about abuses that otherwise would have been covered up.  But their leaks do risk collateral damage to our soldiers, our allies, and our image abroad.

I am struck by the relevance of a quotation by Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak that I stumbled upon this weekend.  It technically is about the war on terror, but its words, as taken from a speech by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, resonate here.

[It] is the fate of a democracy [that] not all means are acceptable to it, . . . not all methods employed by its enemies are open to it. Sometimes, a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Nonetheless, it has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitute an important component of [a democracy's] understanding of security. At the end of the day, [those values buoy up] its spirit and strength [and its capacity to] overcome [the] difficulties.

Page 2 of 4112345678910203040...Last »
CONTACT

DCT Advisors LLC
3288 Winfield Road
Post Office Box 224
Winfield, West Virginia 25213
Phone: 304.541.0332
Fax: 866.783.0511
Email: dct@dctadvisors.com

text

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT. DCT Advisors performs exclusively non-legal work. The materials on this website have been prepared for informational purposes and are not legal advice, nor do they create a lawyer-client relationship.