Summary
Since the mid-1980s, the securitization of future flow receivables has grown in importance as a financing alternative for the public sector. In a world of perfect capital markets, there appears to be little rationale-in terms of reducing the average cost of public sector financing-to resort to secured borrowing. However, for many developing countries, financial markets are far from perfect. In particular, there may be an important role for secured financing where increased uncertainty or financial market volatility leads to credit rationing driven by information asymmetries. Secured financing, however, does not provide a free lunch. Such arrangements subordinate existing and future creditors and, as a result, may raise the cost of future borrowing. In addition, high transaction costs, the thin market in secured instruments, the risk of legal challenges, and reduced budget and debt management flexibility may offset the cost advantage of public sector securitization.
Subject: Credit ratings, Debt service, Economic sectors, External debt, Financial services, Legal support in revenue administration, Money, Public sector, Revenue administration, Securitization
Keywords: coverage ratio, credit rating, Credit ratings, credit rationing, debt covenant, debt issue, Debt service, financing cost, financing need, Fiscal policy, flow receivables, future receivables, international finance, Legal support in revenue administration, North America, Public sector, receivables generation, receivables generation risk, reserve account, revenue flow, securitization, securitization arrangement, securitized financing, ticket receivables, WP