articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/230710-u-s-state-debt-lower-for-now-12783874 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

U.S. State Debt: Lower For Now

COMMENTS

U.S. Municipal Water And Sewer Utilities Rating Actions, Third Quarter 2024

COMMENTS

U.S. States' Fiscal 2023 Liabilities: Stable Debt, With Pension And OPEB Funding Trending Favorably

COMMENTS

U.S. Local Governments Credit Brief: California School Districts Means And Medians

COMMENTS

U.S. Not-For-Profit Health Care Outstanding Ratings and Outlooks as of Sept. 30, 2024


U.S. State Debt: Lower For Now

Total state tax-supported debt levels remained relatively flat in fiscal 2022 compared with 2021, declining a modest 0.2%. The decline is attributed to quickly rising borrowing costs and record reserves, coupled with federal COVID-19-relief stimulus, allowing state governments to leverage pay-as-you-go financing.

The Federal Reserve began raising its benchmark rate in March 2022 and has continued with increases to temper higher-than-desired inflation--its target range is currently between 5.00%-5.25%, following a 25-basis-point increase in May and a pause in rate hikes during its June meeting. At higher rates, finding significant savings through refinancings has become challenging, but some opportunities still exist as issuers can accept the higher costs as long as a minimum level of savings is still available. New sale issuances could moderate, as states balance the costs of issuing debt in the comparatively higher-interest-rate environment against drawing down reserves and cash-financing projects while, at the same time, forecasting slower growth or, in some cases, declines in revenue. So far, revenue trends have largely remained stable, although monthly reports are starting to indicate some weaknesses in certain areas.

Inflation, which to date has had a greater positive impact on revenues than a negative effect on costs, has started to moderate partially due to the Fed's actions. However, project costs have often increased well above inflation, with some issuers reporting they revised project estimates upwards by more than 30%. States have not made significant adjustments to their capital plans in general and, where possible, have leveraged American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds that will continue to flow into the economy over the next several years. ARP dollars must be obligated by December 2024 and spent by the end of December 2026. The IIJA, which authorized $1.2 trillion for transportation and infrastructure spending, requires that $550 billion must be spent before 2026.

image

Debt burdens have remained relatively stable for more than a decade

When evaluating a state's debt burden, S&P Global Ratings generally begins with a review of historical data. The trend of historical results and our understanding of the reasons for those trends inform our view of whether the debt burden will go up or down. We also consider a state's economic environment, our expectations for economic growth, and its likely impact on the debt burden in the future. The chart below shows that since 2010, the median state's debt burden has modestly decreased by most measures, including debt to personal income, debt as a percent of expenditures, and debt to gross state product (GSP). On average, tax-supported debt per capita has not changed significantly over the same period. However, it might increase over time if capital plans are not appropriately scaled as some states' population growth slows or declines.

We consider current debt levels sustainable for most states, with median debt to governmental expenditures and debt per capita viewed as moderate within our criteria and median debt to personal income and debt to GSP viewed as low. The five states with the most debt outstanding are California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois, which hold approximately 38% of state-tax-supported debt outstanding (and about 26% of the U.S. population).

image

The economic expansion following the Great Recession (2010-2020), fueled by a historically low-interest-rate environment and subsequent strong growth in personal incomes and GSPs, has helped states maintain stable debt metrics, even as nominal debt outstanding has increased over the same period.

While S&P Global Economics' most recent forecast projects a slowing economy (See "Economic Outlook U.S. Q3 2023: A Sticky Slowdown Means Higher For Longer," published June 26, 2023, on RatingsDirect), a lower level of debt issuance due to higher borrowing costs and a high availability of cash to fund capital will likely mitigate the negative impact that a shallow recession could otherwise have on debt metrics. Therefore, we generally expect ratios will remain stable over the near-to-medium term. Sophisticated debt management strategies and affordability requirements adhered to by many states further support our forward-looking view of stability when looking at median state debt burdens. We view a state's debt capacity and ability to pay debt service as correlated to its economic output, as taxes and fees generated by economic activity are the primary source to pay debt service. If recent trends reverse and debt burdens grow faster than the incomes servicing them, it could suggest fiscal stress and a decreasing capacity to service debt--this is not our near-term expectation but something that we constantly monitor.

Rating scale and debt burden: one component of our analysis

States with high fixed costs, including debt and other liability payments, typically have less flexibility to make necessary budget adjustments during periods of financial stress. We generally rate states with higher debt burdens lower, but debt and liabilities represent only one component within our rating analysis. Therefore, we could have states with comparatively higher debt burdens that also have a higher overall credit rating. We also expect states with more rapid economic growth that have greater capital needs can generally support higher debt levels.

Table 1

U.S. states' debt medians by rating category
AAA AA A
Tax-supported debt per capita ($): 832 1,661 2,238
Tax-supported debt as a % of personal income 1.31 2.52 3.25
Tax-supported debt as a % of GSP 1.09 2.24 2.95
Debt service as a % of government spending: 3.12 3.78 5.63

Some states have increased debt burdens because they provide higher support for programs and projects that generally receive a greater proportion of funding from local governments. Hawaii, for example, directly runs the public school, university, and community college systems, and Connecticut, in our view, generally provides a higher level of support to local needs resulting in a lower debt profile at the city and county level. Many states also have either constitutional or statutory requirements, or court-mandated minimums to provide adequate educational funding, which can also lead to higher debt burdens as it can be challenging for many states to reduce funding for these programs.

The metrics below represent what we view as a high level of debt and indicate the thresholds for what we would score weakest under our criteria. We would likely consider additional adjustments, either positive or negative, if we felt the score did not reflect the magnitude of the debt burden and the budgetary stress it could cause, or, if we felt debt metrics were likely to sustainably change due to debt paydowns, debt expectations, or economic conditions.

image

New accounting standard does not materially affect debt metrics

The Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) statement 87, which applies to fiscal years after June 15, 2021, and therefore affects most states' fiscal 2022 audited financial results, requires that most leases, whether operating or capital, be capitalized and recorded on the balance sheet. We reviewed state transactions and found that the implementation of GASB 87 has only minimally increased most states' debt burdens. Wyoming recognized the largest increase in reported debt levels due to GASB 87, however, overall debt ratios remained low by most measures and the rating was not affected.

Debt Metrics

Table 2

State tax-supported debt statistics for fiscal 2022
State Fiscal 2022 (Mil. $) Rank Per capita ($) Rank As a % of personal income Rank As a % of GSP Rank Debt service as a % of general spending Rank
Alabama 5,805 22 1,143 24 2.26 18 2.09 17 4.15 21
Alaska 912 41 1,243 21 1.8 24 1.43 26 1.89 35
Arizona 2,325 31 315 42 0.56 42 0.51 42 0.82 45
Arkansas 1,014 40 333 41 0.64 38 0.61 38 2.91 27
California 80,973 1 2,075 12 2.68 16 2.25 16 3.5 23
Colorado 4,355 25 745 29 1.01 33 0.9 32 2.02 34
Connecticut 25,739 6 7,098 1 8.35 2 8 2 14.11 1
Delaware 2,477 28 2,428 9 3.96 8 2.83 12 6.09 8
Florida 13,492 10 605 35 0.95 35 0.97 31 4.7 17
Georgia 10,778 13 986 26 1.73 25 1.43 27 5.57 11
Hawaii 9,289 17 6,453 2 10.54 1 9.46 1 12.78 2
Idaho 385 47 198 48 0.36 47 0.35 46 0.57 47
Illinois 35,103 4 2,792 6 4.05 7 3.4 6 6.21 7
Indiana 1,458 38 213 46 0.37 46 0.32 47 0.92 43
Iowa 543 44 170 49 0.29 48 0.23 49 0.99 42
Kansas 4,187 26 1,425 18 2.37 17 1.99 21 2.44 32
Kentucky 5,226 24 1,158 23 2.22 21 2.01 19 2.6 31
Louisiana 7,225 19 1,575 15 2.88 13 2.57 15 4.96 14
Maine 1,296 39 935 27 1.57 27 1.53 25 2.62 30
Maryland 15,198 9 2,466 8 3.49 11 3.23 7 5.86 9
Massachusetts 41,570 3 5,955 3 7.01 3 6.04 3 6.5 5
Michigan 6,857 20 683 31 1.2 30 1.1 29 0.8 46
Minnesota 7,922 18 1,385 20 2.04 23 1.77 23 2.99 26
Mississippi 5,650 23 1,922 13 4.16 5 4.07 5 6.83 4
Missouri 2,124 32 344 39 0.61 40 0.54 40 3.02 25
Montana 297 48 264 45 0.46 45 0.46 43 0.85 44
Nebraska 33 50 17 50 0.03 50 0.02 50 0.19 48
Nevada 1,927 35 605 34 0.99 34 0.89 34 2.2 33
New Hampshire 641 43 459 38 0.61 39 0.61 39 2.81 28
New Jersey 32,802 5 3,542 4 4.5 4 4.4 4 9.04 3
New Mexico 2,450 29 1,159 22 2.25 19 2.01 20 4.84 15
New York 62,468 2 3,177 5 4.07 6 3.04 10 4.49 19
North Carolina 6,535 21 610 33 1.06 31 0.9 33 1.88 36
North Dakota 532 45 683 32 1.03 32 0.73 36 0.17 49
Ohio 10,532 14 896 28 1.55 28 1.28 28 4.59 18
Oklahoma 1,975 33 491 36 0.89 36 0.82 35 1.29 41
Oregon 9,459 16 2,232 10 3.55 9 3.16 8 5.07 13
Pennsylvania 18,904 8 1,458 16 2.24 20 2.05 18 4.73 16
Rhode Island 1,927 34 1,763 14 2.7 15 2.7 13 5.69 10
South Carolina 1,584 37 299 43 0.56 41 0.54 41 1.5 40
South Dakota 438 46 480 37 0.73 37 0.65 37 1.7 38
Tennessee 1,913 36 271 44 0.47 44 0.4 45 1.78 37
Texas 10,134 15 337 40 0.54 43 0.43 44 2.65 29
Utah 2,429 30 718 30 1.24 29 0.98 30 4.32 20
Vermont 663 42 1,025 25 1.62 26 1.63 24 1.66 39
Virginia 12,646 11 1,456 17 2.13 22 1.95 22 4.05 22
Washington 20,602 7 2,644 7 3.5 10 2.84 11 6.38 6
West Virginia 2,504 27 1,411 19 2.87 14 2.62 14 3.17 24
Wisconsin 12,238 12 2,076 11 3.39 12 3.05 9 5.5 12
Wyoming 119 49 205 47 0.29 49 0.25 48 0.12 50
GSP--Gross state product.

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst:Rob M Marker, Denver + 1 (303) 721 4264;
Rob.Marker@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Geoffrey E Buswick, Boston + 1 (617) 530 8311;
geoffrey.buswick@spglobal.com
Sussan S Corson, New York + 1 (212) 438 2014;
sussan.corson@spglobal.com
Research Contributor:Nisha Gujaran, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai

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 acknowledgement 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 nonpublic 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.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.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.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in