SWAP, revisited
An 8-1 vote should be explained – especially if you’re the “1”. In the spirit of “a mathematician does not understand his work until he can explain it to the first man he meets in the street”, it’s clear that I need to take another run at this.
The Board’s intent, with Monday’s resolution to terminate our Interest Rate Swap agreement if it the cost drops to $5.5 million, was an attempt to minimize financial loss to the district.
The reason a resolution could be valuable is that interest rates tend to be volatile. (In particular, 10-year Treasury rates, which appear to have an inverse relationship to the cost of ending the SWAP agreement) Since the board only meets twice a month, having the resolution in place allows the administration to act quickly should a pre-determined trigger point be reached.
The question is: at what point should that trigger be set?
Everything is a “gamble”. If we do nothing between now and the end of the year, we’re “gambling” that interest rates won’t decrease, which would add to the cost of ending the agreement, perhaps significantly. On the other hand, were we to decide to end the agreement right now, we would be “gambling” that rates won’t increase – with the result that we would have spent more than necessary. The resolution is an attempt to balance those risks.
What’s going to happen? Of course, nobody knows. What’s likely to happen? Well, again, nobody really knows. But we have some educated guesses from the 60 financial firms that were surveyed by Bloomburg. Of course, these educated guesses are all over the map, but on average they project that the 10-year Treasury rate will rise to 4.15% by the end of the year. Under that assumption - not very solid, but that’s the information we have - the cost of ending the SWAP agreement at that point would be about $5 million..
So how does one decide where to set the trigger? From a strictly mathematical perspective, you would start with the $5 million figure – the point at which the risk of “spending more than necessary to get out early” exactly balances the probability of “waiting too long”, and then pick a number that’s slightly lower.
(Why, lower? Volatility. If the expectation is that rates will reach a certain number, there’s a good chance that you’ll reach a slightly higher peak at some point along the way, and you want to catch that if you can. Keep in mind that without volatility – if the swap termination value moved smoothly - there’d be no reason to have the resolution at all; you could just wait until interest rates plateaued.) *
But here’s the problem with this analysis – we don’t make decisions from a strictly mathematical perspective, and for good reason. Here’s an example.
Say that a person you know to be trustworthy (and rich) offers you the following deal: flip a coin, heads – you pay him $10, tails – he pays you $15. A pretty good deal, and one that you’re likely to take. But suppose the numbers are $10,000 and $15,000, respectively. Unless you’re pretty well off – or desperate - you’re not going to take that deal. The reason is quite rational: a $10,000 loss has a greater “value” to most of us than a $15,000 gain. (This is why you should never play high-stakes poker with a wealthy person; they value risk differently.)
There have been a number of studies demonstrating that human beings place a higher “value” on what they stand to lose than on what they might gain, even if when the extrinsic values are exactly the same.
The danger lies in applying this thinking to an organization as large as the school district, where the value of “losing $500,000” and “failing to save $500,000” are exactly the same, particularly when the entire amount will be amortized over ten or twenty years.
I said I’d take another run at it. Persuasive or not, there it is.
*p.s. Particularly astute readers will recognize that termination agreement such as this is useful primarily in a volatile, flat market. If interest rates are projected to go down, you should get out now. If they're projected to go up (as is the present case) you should hold tight for a while longer.
- schoolboardblogger hutch153's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Thoughts from a particularly astute reader
Mr. Hutchinson,
Thank you so much for providing the rationale, complete with mathematical example, for your recent vote on the SWAP issue. Interesting as that may be, I think the “man in the street” would be far more interested understanding the rationale for your original vote in favor of entering into this financial arrangement, which your own math shows will cost the tax payers a minimum of $5,000,000.
If you feel you must gamble, I would strongly prefer it if you would go to Las Vegas and use your own money. Your track record as a steward of the school district’s tax revenue is truly appalling.
AD
Apparently you folk didn't vote him off, tho
Sometimes the dating details of when these offices come up for election elude me, but for some reason my memory is telling me that hutch was up for re-election last fall? Or am I just totally off?
Anyway, that leads to this question - what is the schedule of school board elections? Is there a page somewhere that officially lists the school board election dates, a state college school board election website with all the details of candidates, past votes, etc?
Surely the CDT asked about the reasoning behind the original vote?
Hutch, any time you want to write about the reasoning behind that original vote, that would be very interesting.
fallacy
School board director "Hutch" Hutchinson has a Master of Business Administration degree from Pennsylvania State University. That is disconcerting. Hutchinson omits an explanation of how the last school board unanimously got itself into the "gamble." Aristotle understands how doctor's wives and Ph Ds got into this mess. Aristotle does not understand how someone with the professional training of an MBA voted to approve a hedge with school district funds? Aside from contracting a swap in the first place why, withHutchinson 's professional judgment available, did the school board not terminate the swap obligation immediately after the high school project termination? It is a rhetorical question -- arrogance, they did not trust a public referendum. Using Hutchinson 's personal probability analysis, explained above, why did he not suggest the "trigger" at $106, 000 or $350,000 or available at that time? Hutchinson has consistently demonstrated a lack of fiscal responsibility with school district funds. Here is what Hutchinson missed about the resolution establishing the new swap termination point. Hutchinson explains that the terms of the swap and the forecast and assessment attributed to Bloomburg [economic analysts] and other experts established a mathematical probability that lowest risk for this swap occurs at $5 to 5.5 million. However, Hutchinson , using a mathematics example that would make Euclid apoplectic creates a fallacy responsible for the initial stupidity. The indices on which the swap are based may indeed go higher or lower based on market irrationality, but the lowest risk is based on the mathematical model that Hutchinson does not understand.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />