|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, January 25, 2013
The good thing is, at least they got that home run display to show for it.
Miami-Dade will use hotel-tax revenue to pay off the bonds. But payments don’t kick in until 2026. Once they do, they get very costly very quickly. The first payment, for example, totals $260,000. The fifth jumps to almost $8 million and the 10th tops $20 million. Payment No. 18 brings the big hit: $118 million comes due in 2042 alone.
The high interest comes from the penalty Miami-Dade must pay in exchange for a repayment plan that lets the county delay by 15 years making it first debt-service payment to the Wall Street lenders who bought the bonds.
“It’s an expensive way to borrow money,’’ said Frank Hinton, head of the county’s bond program. “You’ve got $1.2 billion to pay back. It is a lot of money.”
Because Miami-Dade couldn’t afford a straight-line paydown of the loan — like a home mortgage — the finance team had to be more creative in borrowing the money on Wall Street. Unlike most bonds, these can’t be repaid back early either.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Mariners sending Jesus Montero to Triple-A (59 - 9:13pm, May 23)Last: andrewbergNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4260 - 9:12pm, May 23)Last: Howie MenckelNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 23, 2013 (67 - 9:12pm, May 23)Last: Mike EmeighNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1120 - 9:08pm, May 23)Last: puckNewsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (122 - 9:03pm, May 23)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: Leyland breaks his own rule, lets Verlander get win after delay (26 - 9:01pm, May 23)Last: the Hugh Jorgan returnsNewsblog: Mets’ Ike Davis On Struggles: ‘I Can’t Do Any Worse’ (16 - 8:57pm, May 23)Last: Bill LimingNewsblog: Daugherty: Brandon Phillips has been Reds' MVP so far (18 - 8:14pm, May 23)Last: TJNewsblog: Mitchell: Pedroia, Cano and Magical Thinking (23 - 8:03pm, May 23)Last: Robert in Manhattan BeachHall of Merit: 2014 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (86 - 8:02pm, May 23)Last: Ivan Grushenko of Hong KongNewsblog: FanGraphs: Cameron: The 2013 Cubs: Better Than We Think (17 - 7:42pm, May 23)Last: What did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face?Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-23-2013 (12 - 7:26pm, May 23)Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants toNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1213 - 7:13pm, May 23)Last: Crispix Attacks 2: Swag AirlinesNewsblog: Demystifying Red Sox Ownership - What Do They Do? (WEEI) (26 - 6:49pm, May 23)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: Astros vendor brings snow cones into bathroom stall, gets fired (20 - 6:05pm, May 23)Last: BurlyBuehrle
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Tripon Posted: January 25, 2013 at 07:53 PM (#4355191)$91M loan; total paid is $1.18B over 40 years. Excel says ~6.62%?
The cumulative effects of QE1 + QE2 + QE3 + QE"n" are already destroying the dollar,
and will continue to do so. The price of gold has doubled since this deal was signed.
Too bad for the lenders it wasn't denominated in ounces of gold!
We'll be very lucky if we don't suffer total societal collapse long before Miami
has to worry about making $114M/yr payments with what will most assuredly be US dollars
at a tenth, or a hundredth (or god forbid, a thousandth or millionth) of their current value.
I find your idea intriguing and would very much like to subscribe to your newsletter :-)
I wouldn't lend Dade County money for 40 years, with no coupon for 15 years, at 6.6%. Hell, I wouldn't lend the Federal Gov't money at 6.6% for 40 years, with no coupon for 15 years.
We'll be very lucky if we don't suffer total societal collapse long before Miami
has to worry about making $114M/yr payments with what will most assuredly be US dollars
at a tenth, or a hundredth (or god forbid, a thousandth or millionth) of their current value.
This is way over the top, but it is fairly likely that inflation over the next 20 years averages more like 5-7% rather than 2-3%, and that yield starts looking really crappy.
Reichsmarks in wheelbarrows!! Billion dollar loaves of bread!!
What, you never heard of debit cards?
Not sure if this was done on purpose, but made me chuckle...
so long
Heck, if it's 4% it's still not very good.
I'm always amused by people who have trouble with nominal vs. real dollars. Even more with the gold bugs.
Debt alone without reference to other factors is a poor predictor of hyperinflation.
n=4? I don't see any ellipses.
So you think the current Federal Reserve will be hit by an asteroid, and the replacements will be all new Keynesianists who aggressively pursue full employment? Inflation hasn't been as high as 3% in 20 years. There is literally no chance that 5-7% inflation is tolerated.
I like how the price of gold is somehow the best measure of inflation.
Gold isn't the best measure of inflation, but food has gone up in price. If not for geological luck in finding lots of gas and oil here, their prices would be going up as well. $3.80 pump gas is pretty high, too.
Unless it's in asset prices, where for 20+ years it's been not only tolerated but encouraged. See, e.g., the various bubbles in stock and housing prices.
If Fallout has taught me anything - and it has - it's that the currency of the future is Coca Cola caps.
Inflation is the only way an unsustainable amount of debt can be converted into a managable burden.
No, No, No ... it's because it has intrinsic value!
Does the whole city send their bill to New York, or just the baseball team?
I grew up in Miami, it's an awful place in every respect that doesn't involve nightclubs.
I wouldn't call increased investment in petroleum engineering as a result of higher energy prices "luck".
In that environment, no one will have any stomach for contractionary policy, and inflation will have to be tolerated to prevent falling nominal wages among the bottom 70% of the income dist.
Why? We're* austere!
*) Strictly speaking not me as I live outside the Eurozone, but as my money still goes into the bailout of Greece et al, I feel entitled to speak for it.
Every currency in the world is trying to devalue versus every other currency.
Let me be clear that I don't necessarily disagree that tolerating higher inflation would be better policy (not as high as 7%, but certainly as high as 4%). However, there is absolutely zero chance that our current policy setters would tolerate inflation above 3%. It's taken four years of hysteresis in the unemployment rate for the Fed to state that they are comfortable with 2.5%.
If Bernanke wanted to, we would have had 4% inflation in 2010-2012. That was the time that conditions MOST called for inflation, and it was resisted. It's taken five years for seven members of the Fed Board to be comfortable with 2.5% inflation. I have no idea beyond an asteroid what it would take for them to tolerate 5%.
You're speaking like the Fed is acting with restraint. It's not. It's printing money as fast as any died-in-the-wool Keynesian would dare. The only reason we don't have more inflation is a broken banking system (especially over-concentration of deposits in 5 financially weak, over-regulated, monster-banks), and lack of demand because no one has any confidence in this economy.
Let me be clear that I don't necessarily disagree that tolerating higher inflation would be better policy (not as high as 7%, but certainly as high as 4%). However, there is absolutely zero chance that our current policy setters would tolerate inflation above 3%. It's taken four years of hysteresis in the unemployment rate for the Fed to state that they are comfortable with 2.5%.
If Bernanke wanted to, we would have had 4% inflation in 2010-2012. That was the time that conditions MOST called for inflation, and it was resisted. It's taken five years for seven members of the Fed Board to be comfortable with 2.5% inflation. I have no idea beyond an asteroid what it would take for them to tolerate 5%.
They're printing money like drunken sailors. I don't see what more he could have done to get to 4% inflation.
Frankly, I think the Fed would love higher inflation. They're just talking restrained targets to keep Treasury debt cheap, and keep things from getting out of control.
Bernanke specifically stated during the crisis that there was a 2% inflation target. Markets knew that if inflation significantly outpaced it, the Fed would cease printing money. The Fed has tremendous credibility on inflation built over the last 40 years.
And Ben Bernanke certainly never thought he was out of ammunition.
From his speech: "Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here":
They don't call him "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke for nothing.
And Ben Bernanke certainly never thought he was out of ammunition.
And I think the markets are wrong. I don't think the Fed will induce a recession to keep inflation from going to 4%.
I think a 30-year Tsy at 3.13 is one of the great sucker bets of all time. It's only because the US is so broke that they keep issuing short-maturity debt. If they were smart, the Tsy would be selling 30-year bonds like hotcakes. Hell, I'd introduce 40-year and 50-year bonds and see how dumb yield hungry investors really are.
Basically, the US can't fix it's fiscal issues (democratically) without major inflation over the next 30 years.
They don't call him "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke for nothing.
He clearly wants the market to believe that. It doesn't mean it's true. Japan has been incapable of generating inflation for 20 years.
I emphatically agree with you. If you think 3% is a good deal, I'm willing to issue all kinds of debt at that price. Not too tough to beat inflation with a little elbow grease.
Well, I certainly agree with this.
Def do not agree with this. Operation Twist was designed to increase the amount of short-maturity debt as another means of growing the money supply.
I think this is a severe misread of Bernanke's policies and demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance of the Fed's decision making process. Bernanke took heroic efforts to prevent a second Great Depression, and basically no one gives him any credit.
The maturity of Tsy debt has exactly zero to do with the money supply. Whether the Fed buys $100B of 30-yr bonds or $100B of 1 yr bills it increases the money supply by the same amount.
The only effect is on the shape of the yield curve, and the gov't cost of interest.
You've got to throw lack of supply in there as well (if you're talking about demand for loans). It's been much harder for your average schmoe to get a loan for anything than it was 5 years ago for all the obvious reasons.
But lack of supply is due to the FUBAR banking system. These huge, crippled, banks are hording reserves b/c the regulators are crawling all over them.
If you broke the big-5 banks into 15 well-capitalized regionals (and a handful of global transaction banks/processing companies), you'd see a big uptick in supply.
Bernanke and monetary policy are the only actors on stage, as Congresses and Presidents fail to make necessary and long overdue decisions on fiscal policy. I wouldn't call his actions (or those of NY Fed chair Tim Geithner) heroic unless you are comparing them to the bottom feeders in the House, Senate and White House that have learned far too well (per de Tocqueville) that they can bribe the public with the public's money
Um, okay. That's a different point of view.
In the infrared, sure. If you want a reflector in the visible, use aluminum or silver. Or a dielectric stack.
My problem with what is happening with monetary policy is per snapper that banks are borrowing at zero percent from the Fed and not loaning the money.
Actually, the amount of debt which is in 10yr or greater maturity bonds's has gone up significantly since 2008. So yes, Treasury is locking in a lot of low yields.
YR--if you're still around and feel like answering, why was that? I ask because while I've only been twice, and mostly to Miami Beach, but the climate was so incredible it would make up for a lot of blecch.
I'm obviously not YR, but I've also lived in Miami.
Miami and Miami Beach have long been treated as synonymous, but the two are worlds apart, and that's still true even after the recent building and redevelopment boom (finally) tranformed downtown Miami from flyover country to an actual destination. Despite the glamorous reputation, the city of Miami is one of the poorest and most corrupt major metros in the country. As of a couple years ago, there was an average of $2– or $3 million in Medicare fraud per day in Miami. And a billion-dollar transit tax that was passed about a decade ago has resulted in less mass transit.
By Miami standards, the stadium deal was actually quite good. The city at least got something tangible for the money being spent, rather than the money disappearing into the pockets of various well-connected cronies. (Miami International Airport infamously went years without luggage carts because the commissioners were fighting over who would get the kickbacks.)
I've been hearing some version of this for twelve years, and of course the bleating has been even louder over the last five years. What's weird in this particular instance is that the same person was responsible for this comment:
Okay, it is somewhat reasonable to point out that they're not loaning *enough* money out. But there aren't a ton of people looking for loans either. Interest rates for housing are at a 30 or 40 year low. You can say that there should have been more strings attached re: voluntary writedowns, but that wasn't really the Fed's area. Most of the stagnation there is due to DeMarco, the head of the FHFA, who has been extremely resistant to aggressive writedowns.
You can say that there should have been more strings attached to the money, but the fact that we're arguing about that and not the total collapse of the finance sector is evidence of Bernanke's success.
I've been hearing some version of this for twelve years, and of course the bleating has been even louder over the last five years. What's weird in this particular instance is that the same person was responsible for this comment:
Where's the contradiction?
You can have 1-2% real GDP growth with 5% inflation and then a 3.3% 30-year bond sucks really badly as an investment. Or you can have 3-4% growth with 5% inflation, and a 3.3% 30y yield still sucks. Or 2% growth with 3% inflation, and a 3.3% 30y yield still sucks.
There are lots of ways for a 3.3% 30y yield to suck, and very few ways for it to be good. I mean, yields now are lower than during the Great Depression where you had deflation boosting your real i-rate dramatically.
The only strings attached to the expansion of the federal money supply increase are the ones that we are pushing on.
We need writedowns, failures, lawsuits against internal lawyers who papered the crap sandwiches sold as quality securities, end of the community reinvestment act, etc.
And if banks haven't gotten healthy enough on the spreads with zero risk of borrowing from the fed at zero and then buying US government bonds at a 2% + spread over the past few years, they will never make it back. Let 'em crash!
It makes me long for the days my father ran an S&L under regulation Q, minimal SIPC insurance and no multifamily lending.
We need writedowns, failures, lawsuits against internal lawyers who papered the crap sandwiches sold as quality securities, end of the community reinvestment act, etc.
And if banks haven't gotten healthy enough on the spreads with zero risk of borrowing from the fed at zero and then buying US government bonds at a 2% + spread over the past few years, they will never make it back. Let 'em crash!
Amen to that.
Paul Giamatti did a great job playing Bernanke as a humble voice of reason in Too Big To Fail, which did a good job of showing the behind the scenes stuff in 2008. I think I may be the only one who saw it, though.
8 months of summer is fun when you're 12 and want to play baseball all year but I got tired of sweating year-round. The whole area is a huge slab of asphalt. There are crowds everywhere, meaning you're perpetually dealing with hot, cramped, grouchy people, many of whom drive like half-wits, and that isn't even counting all the nonogenerians on the road. People are ####### *rude*. The beach and the club scene are great, really top-notch, and I'd say if you were 25 looking for an amazing few weeks come on down, but I did that scene for years, if you're doing the same crap at 35 you were doing at 25 you've probably screwed up somewhere along the way.
Still better than living in Memphis, but that's not a high bar to clear.
South Beach was a preening freakshow 20 years ago during my hardcore clubbing days and it's exponentially worse now. Don't get me wrong, it was a heap of fun especially if you're a sexy, stylish dancing machine like Young YR, but in terms of family-oriented quality of life I find Dade county in general to be the pits.
Also my favorite dance club was bought by pornographers who shoot movies there now.
Which one? I've fallen a little behind on the South Beach scene over the past couple years.
Are you sure? I thought that building had some sort of landmark status, and it seems like a very expensive property to be used only as a porn set. (It was my favorite as well, so I'll be disappointed if you're right.)
EDIT: Looks like The Cameo is alive and well.
Well, if it wasn't before, it sure is now.
you make it sound like that's a BAD thing
Porn would actually be a step up for many of the places in South Beach, but not the one we're talking about.
Then there's the cognitive dissonance for guys who think of baseball to avoid going over the edge during romantic encounters. Hey, bring the whole family! The mind boggles.
All thanks to the largesse of the taxpayers of Florida. (Yes, the State of Florida kicked in a third(?) of the stadium financing so my money is tied up in there as well.)
I never said it was just a porn set, it's still a club but they shoot porn in the upstairs apartments (you do remember those doors upstairs behind the balconies yes?). Just look at the link you cited - did The Cameo have lap dance days on their schedule back when you attended?
IIRC it was purchased by the same group of smut peddlers that made Kimbo Slice world famous in the fighting world,
Either way, it's not a big deal. I just doubt they could be shooting porn at the Cameo without there being some stories about it. As you know, the clubs in that building were largely responsible for putting South Beach on the map way back when.
(A little trivia for the people bored by this tangent: The Cameo is located next to Ace Ventura's apartment in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, and it made a — ahem — cameo in the movie.)
A good friend from college was from Petoskey. He told me during the summers it was either working at some tourist-based industry or at the plastic bag factory and that was it.
Meh, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, my interest in either pornography or clubbing is enormously attenuated in my dotage. There was an article in the New Times, I think, covering this story in the early-aughts that brought it to my attention but I must have recalled the details incorrectly. Since The Cameo is briefly visible in Ace Ventura (he lived in the apartment complex next door) I've now lost a fine anecdote. Shame on you.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main