On the contrary, the "cost" is quite clear[1][2]. It's the "benefit" part which requires a highly dynamic analysis. Bottom-line: A Loan makes sense for the

On the contrary, the "cost" is quite clear[1][2]. It's the "benefit" part which requires a highly dynamic analysis. Bottom-line: A Loan makes sense for the borrower when the return on loan proceeds exceeds the cost of the loan. Since the reporting completely left this out[3], if anyone is aware of models used to measure return on such public investments, your insight would be extremely beneficial to those of us commenting on this article. [1] CABs are fixed rate. http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/glossary/view_def.asp?param=capitalappreciationbond http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/glossary/view_def.asp?param=capita... [2] See 16731.5 (a)(3). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=16001-17000&file=16730-16737 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&#3... [3] The public is genuinely harmed by this type of reporting and it drives me nuts. How can anyone draw a rational conclusion to these difficult policy issues without a best effort cost-benefit analysis of the transaction?