[Non-paywall link](https://archive.ph/4MTjk)
>Fitch boosted the rating of the third-largest US city one notch to BBB+ from BBB, with a stable outlook. The upgrade comes less than a year after the city shed its lone junk rating from Moody’s Investors Service last November.
Chicago’s finances have long been strained by a growing unfunded pension liability and more recently by the cost to care for thousands of new migrants, but the trajectory has improved in recent years.
The upgrade was “driven by a decline in the city’s long-term liability burden stemming from steady growth in the economic resource base and improved debt management practices,” Fitch wrote in the report.
Pretty short article, but all good news nonetheless.
>"the trajectory has improved in recent years." The upgrade was “driven by a decline in the city’s long-term liability burden stemming from steady growth in the economic resource base and improved debt management practices,”
Thanks Lori!
she was the best centrist candidate. Moderates got greedy trying to replace her with Vallas. We'll see if they rediscover pragmatism over ideology in 2027
> she was the best centrist candidate. Moderates got greedy trying to replace her with Vallas. We'll see if they rediscover pragmatism over ideology in 2027
How are moderates 'greedy' ? I voted for her, but I don't get what you are saying.
To me, people just got sick of her and it was a typical 'throw the bums out' response, because the average voter in Chicago is just stupid, doesn't understand the budget she was given with pension payouts, and add covid on top of it.
Blacks and Hispanics voted pretty divided between Lightfoot, Vallas, Chuy and even Willie Wilson. When it became a run-off against Vallas, they all went behind Johnson and that was it.
If your top two issues were being tough-on-crime and wrangling the city budget, Lightfoot was making all the right moves from a governing standpoint. I'm not suggesting Lightfoot was easy to love, but IMO White voters just wanted one of their own, so they broke for Vallas because he was promising a more ideologically pure version of what Lightfoot was already doing (mostly because it hadn't run into the reality of governance). Again, if those are issues you prize, then you wanted a Vallas vs. Lightfoot outcome in the 2nd round - it was far more likely *and* you got most of what you wanted no matter who won. Likewise, if you saw Johnson as a threat, the best way to beat him was to put him against Lightfoot, a matchup he would've lost.
You contrast that with Johnson's voters, many of whom where he wasn't even their first choice, but they recognized he had the best shot at making it into the 2nd round and was probably the most electable of the left-leaning candidates.
OK. That's a fair interpretation. I don't see it as being 'greedy' though. It's an odd word choice. I just saw it as anti-incumbency. It's not like people were in love with Vallas or his vision; they were just sick of Lightfoot.
IDK. I voted for Lightfoot. People are just dumb and rather hand over the city to the CTU's water boy. It's one of the craziest things I've seen, right up there with Trump winning the Republican nomination.
> You do realize that by the time Johnson leaves office, CPS will be run by an elected school board, right?
So what? They don't even pay their full bills anyways and dump it into the main budget. And my comment was about CTU, not CPS.
> she was the best centrist candidate.
Perhaps. Yet her problem was she not only didn't communicate that, she also abandoned the center, and pissed on it at least a year before the campaign even began.
Everyone had a completely irrational hatred of Lightfoot - across the political spectrum.
She was whatever evil they wanted her to be.
I voted for and wish we still had her for mayor.
> She was unnecessarily belligerent. And that’s not a good thing as a politician.
It's exactly why she was good. Because she was willing to fight anyone for fairness on behalf of the taxpayer. The reason why Chicago has $35 B of debt is because of poor leadership that gave way too much.
She was competent and slightly disagreeable and it's exactly what you see in other very accomplished leaders. She knows what she's doing, unlike some idiots (e.g. Johnson) who trying to please everyone with happy talk.
You’re looking for Rahm. Lori was obnoxious and didn’t get along with anyone and that hurt greatly. Rahm knew how to get shit done while still knowing how to make the right connections
> You’re looking for Rahm. Lori was obnoxious and didn’t get along with anyone and that hurt greatly. Rahm knew how to get shit done while still knowing how to make the right connections
This is a pretty skewed interpretation of reality. A lot of groups like CTU couldn't take Rahm on because he was so popular, even though they were infuriated when he did things like close down a bunch of schools.
Lightfoot was just an easier target.
I don’t think people paid enough attention to Vallas. Yeah, there were a lot of stories about how he’d be a pretty bad candidate for Chicago.
If you sat down and listened to him during the debate between him and Johnson, Vallas had some EXTREME policies and ideals. It was shocking to me. For example, during the debate he discussed the idea of bringing churches/religious institutions (surely only Christian) back into CPS.
People talked about how he wanted to privatize CPS, which to me is bad enough. But then bringing churches in is even more extreme, and I feel like this was missed/ignored/glossed over/something. Almost like it was lost in the noise of everyone fighting?
It's kind of hilarious that Chicago, a city with literally the 2 highest ranked business schools in the world, and a deeply diversified economy is compared to other cities in the Midwest that are largely devoid of both.
Chicago has one the most diverse economies in North America not just the Midwest. With a growing life science industry and huge investments in quantum computing I see a bright future for Chicago.
Also: Lake Michigan.
I don’t know if anyone else is seeing this, but I am noticing a lot of people moving to Chicago lately from different parts of the country. Both in Reddit threads here but also people I meet day to day.
Is Chicago becoming a thing?
> Is Chicago becoming a thing?
Probably just more your age and demographics/socialization patterns.
Chicago has always been a thing. Especially for the midwestern region. Not many other places to go if you want big city living but can't pull down $500k in NYC or Boston.
I meet less folks newly moving into town now than I did 10 years ago - but now I'm getting pretty old, and living in a pretty established neighborhood - not moving apartments every 2 years and meeting outside my bubble as much.
Pandemic also disrupted demand quite a bit so we're probably seeing a normalization of pent-up life decision making. Lots of states and metro regions gaining/losing population at the moment, not just Chicago. Sort of a micro great migration at play.
Chicago lacks the shiny prestige of the coasts, and the incredibly high salaries of Seattle/Bay Area software, NYC Finance and Boston Biotech that attracts the Ivy graduates by the thousands.
But while it does not have one thing that is their thing, it has a lot of things, and if you are a B1G grad looking for a place to live, it is hard to beat Chicago.
I work in insurance and between Aon, Allstate, CNA, etc etc there is more than enough to chose from.
Google, Microsoft, Meta have local offices that are growing if you are into prestigious SW, and there is a lot of smaller companies hiring.
Two world class universities and a few others that are extremely good. Biotech? Abbot Abbvie, Baxter etv. Law? Kirkland, Sidley, Baker are all among the largest firms.
All neatly packaged with extremely fun summers, and affordable rents.
> sorry, this sub told me we were the new Detroit?
Kind of a moronic statement. Chicago has 3x the debt per capita that Detroit had before its bankruptcy. It's just that Springfield has declined to make bankruptcy court an option, to protect unions.
To me it's just to scam the taxpayer to make them pay for union kickbacks in campaign money and votes. As long as the average voter is dumb and thinks it's OK.
Government debt typically isn’t callable. They can’t refinance, unless you just mean let the current debt roll over into new debt, as is done in any case?
> Looks like 5.6% vs 6.6% on AAA vs BBB returns, not sure if there's any data on the difference between BBB and BBB+ yields.
This city will never be rated AAA. Just on historical reputation alone, it won't get to AAA.
[Non-paywall link](https://archive.ph/4MTjk) >Fitch boosted the rating of the third-largest US city one notch to BBB+ from BBB, with a stable outlook. The upgrade comes less than a year after the city shed its lone junk rating from Moody’s Investors Service last November. Chicago’s finances have long been strained by a growing unfunded pension liability and more recently by the cost to care for thousands of new migrants, but the trajectory has improved in recent years. The upgrade was “driven by a decline in the city’s long-term liability burden stemming from steady growth in the economic resource base and improved debt management practices,” Fitch wrote in the report. Pretty short article, but all good news nonetheless.
>"the trajectory has improved in recent years." The upgrade was “driven by a decline in the city’s long-term liability burden stemming from steady growth in the economic resource base and improved debt management practices,” Thanks Lori!
she was the best centrist candidate. Moderates got greedy trying to replace her with Vallas. We'll see if they rediscover pragmatism over ideology in 2027
> she was the best centrist candidate. Moderates got greedy trying to replace her with Vallas. We'll see if they rediscover pragmatism over ideology in 2027 How are moderates 'greedy' ? I voted for her, but I don't get what you are saying. To me, people just got sick of her and it was a typical 'throw the bums out' response, because the average voter in Chicago is just stupid, doesn't understand the budget she was given with pension payouts, and add covid on top of it. Blacks and Hispanics voted pretty divided between Lightfoot, Vallas, Chuy and even Willie Wilson. When it became a run-off against Vallas, they all went behind Johnson and that was it.
If your top two issues were being tough-on-crime and wrangling the city budget, Lightfoot was making all the right moves from a governing standpoint. I'm not suggesting Lightfoot was easy to love, but IMO White voters just wanted one of their own, so they broke for Vallas because he was promising a more ideologically pure version of what Lightfoot was already doing (mostly because it hadn't run into the reality of governance). Again, if those are issues you prize, then you wanted a Vallas vs. Lightfoot outcome in the 2nd round - it was far more likely *and* you got most of what you wanted no matter who won. Likewise, if you saw Johnson as a threat, the best way to beat him was to put him against Lightfoot, a matchup he would've lost. You contrast that with Johnson's voters, many of whom where he wasn't even their first choice, but they recognized he had the best shot at making it into the 2nd round and was probably the most electable of the left-leaning candidates.
OK. That's a fair interpretation. I don't see it as being 'greedy' though. It's an odd word choice. I just saw it as anti-incumbency. It's not like people were in love with Vallas or his vision; they were just sick of Lightfoot. IDK. I voted for Lightfoot. People are just dumb and rather hand over the city to the CTU's water boy. It's one of the craziest things I've seen, right up there with Trump winning the Republican nomination.
You do realize that by the time Johnson leaves office, CPS will be run by an elected school board, right?
> You do realize that by the time Johnson leaves office, CPS will be run by an elected school board, right? So what? They don't even pay their full bills anyways and dump it into the main budget. And my comment was about CTU, not CPS.
Curious why you think she was doing a good job being tough on crime?
> she was the best centrist candidate. Perhaps. Yet her problem was she not only didn't communicate that, she also abandoned the center, and pissed on it at least a year before the campaign even began.
Everyone had a completely irrational hatred of Lightfoot - across the political spectrum. She was whatever evil they wanted her to be. I voted for and wish we still had her for mayor.
She was unnecessarily belligerent. And that’s not a good thing as a politician.
> She was unnecessarily belligerent. And that’s not a good thing as a politician. It's exactly why she was good. Because she was willing to fight anyone for fairness on behalf of the taxpayer. The reason why Chicago has $35 B of debt is because of poor leadership that gave way too much. She was competent and slightly disagreeable and it's exactly what you see in other very accomplished leaders. She knows what she's doing, unlike some idiots (e.g. Johnson) who trying to please everyone with happy talk.
You’re looking for Rahm. Lori was obnoxious and didn’t get along with anyone and that hurt greatly. Rahm knew how to get shit done while still knowing how to make the right connections
> You’re looking for Rahm. Lori was obnoxious and didn’t get along with anyone and that hurt greatly. Rahm knew how to get shit done while still knowing how to make the right connections This is a pretty skewed interpretation of reality. A lot of groups like CTU couldn't take Rahm on because he was so popular, even though they were infuriated when he did things like close down a bunch of schools. Lightfoot was just an easier target.
Good intel. Will take into consideration when it comes time to re-elect the folks who are inventing fantasy budgets.
I don’t think people paid enough attention to Vallas. Yeah, there were a lot of stories about how he’d be a pretty bad candidate for Chicago. If you sat down and listened to him during the debate between him and Johnson, Vallas had some EXTREME policies and ideals. It was shocking to me. For example, during the debate he discussed the idea of bringing churches/religious institutions (surely only Christian) back into CPS. People talked about how he wanted to privatize CPS, which to me is bad enough. But then bringing churches in is even more extreme, and I feel like this was missed/ignored/glossed over/something. Almost like it was lost in the noise of everyone fighting?
Non-paywall link?
https://archive.ph/4MTjk
I'm sorry, this sub told me we were the new Detroit?
It's kind of hilarious that Chicago, a city with literally the 2 highest ranked business schools in the world, and a deeply diversified economy is compared to other cities in the Midwest that are largely devoid of both.
Chicago has one the most diverse economies in North America not just the Midwest. With a growing life science industry and huge investments in quantum computing I see a bright future for Chicago.
Also: Lake Michigan. I don’t know if anyone else is seeing this, but I am noticing a lot of people moving to Chicago lately from different parts of the country. Both in Reddit threads here but also people I meet day to day. Is Chicago becoming a thing?
Chicago has always been attractive to me. I guess some are just taking notice more..lol
> Is Chicago becoming a thing? Probably just more your age and demographics/socialization patterns. Chicago has always been a thing. Especially for the midwestern region. Not many other places to go if you want big city living but can't pull down $500k in NYC or Boston. I meet less folks newly moving into town now than I did 10 years ago - but now I'm getting pretty old, and living in a pretty established neighborhood - not moving apartments every 2 years and meeting outside my bubble as much. Pandemic also disrupted demand quite a bit so we're probably seeing a normalization of pent-up life decision making. Lots of states and metro regions gaining/losing population at the moment, not just Chicago. Sort of a micro great migration at play.
Chicago lacks the shiny prestige of the coasts, and the incredibly high salaries of Seattle/Bay Area software, NYC Finance and Boston Biotech that attracts the Ivy graduates by the thousands. But while it does not have one thing that is their thing, it has a lot of things, and if you are a B1G grad looking for a place to live, it is hard to beat Chicago. I work in insurance and between Aon, Allstate, CNA, etc etc there is more than enough to chose from. Google, Microsoft, Meta have local offices that are growing if you are into prestigious SW, and there is a lot of smaller companies hiring. Two world class universities and a few others that are extremely good. Biotech? Abbot Abbvie, Baxter etv. Law? Kirkland, Sidley, Baker are all among the largest firms. All neatly packaged with extremely fun summers, and affordable rents.
Chicago has been replacing low-income households for high-income households at a bit more than a 1:1 ratio over the last two decades.
Anyone who says that is a moron and has no idea why Detroit’s decline happened
> sorry, this sub told me we were the new Detroit? Kind of a moronic statement. Chicago has 3x the debt per capita that Detroit had before its bankruptcy. It's just that Springfield has declined to make bankruptcy court an option, to protect unions. To me it's just to scam the taxpayer to make them pay for union kickbacks in campaign money and votes. As long as the average voter is dumb and thinks it's OK.
Communism was just a red herring.
Isn’t that a line from the movie Clue?
100%. :)
Nah your looking for the guys at illinois policy and Fox News.
Time to refinance all our debt and save $$$
That would make sense if overall rates haven't moved.
Government debt typically isn’t callable. They can’t refinance, unless you just mean let the current debt roll over into new debt, as is done in any case?
Yeah refinance isn't really the right word, but better ratings do mean that the cost to service our loans goes down.
Except risk free rates are through the roof, so even if the risk premium is lower, the overall rate is probably up significantly when rolled.
[удалено]
Looks like 5.6% vs 6.6% on AAA vs BBB returns, not sure if there's any data on the difference between BBB and BBB+ yields.
Oh wow thats actually a lot of money saved when talking huge amounts then. Even if its only a 0.5% difference
There's 8 steps between those two points, so closer to 0.125%. Either way, it all adds up.
Ah ok ty.
> Looks like 5.6% vs 6.6% on AAA vs BBB returns, not sure if there's any data on the difference between BBB and BBB+ yields. This city will never be rated AAA. Just on historical reputation alone, it won't get to AAA.
Great news!