> Way back in 2009, Chicago’s inspector general confirmed that the city had sold out for far less than the lease’s value. A report by Bloomberg Business said CPM stood to earn about 10 times what it paid over the life of the contract. Any way you slice it financially, Chicago got taken to the cleaners.
That’s approximately a 3% annualized return on investment (1.03^75 ~= 10). EDIT: Nope. See downthread.
That’s really not bad at all, especially if the vendor has to pay to administer, maintain, and update the meters.
I wonder how the IG got the idea that effectively selling a $10B 75-year taxable bond for $1B (in a year when high-grade muni bonds were yielding over 7%) was remotely a bad deal. Unless I’m missing something, this is a fantastic deal for Chicago and its taxpayers.
That’s approximately a 3% annualized return on investment (1.03^75 ~= 10). EDIT: Nope. See downthread.
That’s really not bad at all, especially if the vendor has to pay to administer, maintain, and update the meters.
I wonder how the IG got the idea that effectively selling a $10B 75-year taxable bond for $1B (in a year when high-grade muni bonds were yielding over 7%) was remotely a bad deal. Unless I’m missing something, this is a fantastic deal for Chicago and its taxpayers.