On April 30, Chicago’s finance department unveiled a request for qualifications (RFQ) for underwriting services, signaling a pivotal moment for the city’s fiscal management. While on the surface, this strategic move appears to be a step towards accountability and financial prudence, it is crucial to question whether the city is genuinely innovating or merely treading old ground. By requiring even seasoned firms that participated in previous RFQs to reapply, the city may inadvertently discourage proven entities from engaging, leaving an opportunity for subpar firms to step in, which could expose taxpayers to unnecessary risks.
Echoes of Past Mistakes
The reality is that the financial landscape has seen significant shifts since the last RFQ in August 2021. With notable firms like Citi and UBS retreating from municipal underwriting, the city now faces reduced competition among its prospective underwriters. This shift raises an alarm about the depth of expertise and options available to Chicago in a time when strong financial backing is paramount. Could the exodus of these major players signify an underlying instability within the municipal sector? Perhaps, but the city’s insistence on reinvigorating pools regardless of market conditions hints at a lack of adaptability.
Challenging the Economics of Underwriting
The rationale provided by Citi for exiting the municipal market—“the economics were no longer viable”—is a red flag not just for the firm, but also for the city itself. The real question here is whether Chicago is prepared to operate within a financially viable framework amid dwindling options. The RFQ’s design may opt for short-term appearances of competition while neglecting the fundamental need for enhanced services that reliable, experienced firms provide. Instead of fostering a healthy environment for expert underwriting, such practices may deliver mediocre services at a greater cost to taxpayers.
The Illusion of Choice
The city plans to create a senior manager pool and a co-manager pool to oversee bond issuances, thereby shaping the financial future of critical assets like O’Hare and Midway Airports and various utilities. But the RFQ conspicuously notes that acceptance into either pool doesn’t guarantee participation in transactions. Essentially, this creates an illusion of choice without actual commitment, allowing firms to ingratiate themselves into the system without any onus to perform. The Mayor and finance officials tout this as a strategy for efficiency, but it begs the question: are these measures purely cosmetic?
Taxpayers Deserve Better
If we’re to be truly pragmatic about Chicago’s RFQ approach, there must be evident mechanisms in place ensuring that firms are not only qualified but also tested by the difficult waters of municipal financing. The historical precedent shows us that neglecting due diligence leads to costly blunders that unfairly burden taxpayers. As such, the stakes are alarmingly high, and a lack of oversight can lead to long-lasting repercussions for all Chicagoans.
In a world where public trust is already fraying, Chicago’s finance department would do well to remember that fostering relationships with top-tier underwriting firms—not just any firm willing to enter the ring—is the key to unlocking better financial outcomes. Rather than simply recycling old strategies born out of necessity, it’s time for the city to chart a bold new course that prioritizes competence, transparency, and genuine public benefit.
Leave a Reply