Fixed-Income Insights
What Do Supply/Demand Trends Signal for the Muni Market?
While investors have plowed more money into municipal bonds and related investments, the pace of issuance has slowed.
Overall, municipal bond investors had a positive experience during the first seven months of 2019, with the broad Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index earning a total return of approximately 6%—a number well beyond forecasts for the year. Against that backdrop, we believe it is important to examine the dynamics affecting the market and where things stand today.
Our focus will be on municipal market-specific dynamics rather than global interest rate changes which have clearly pushed yields lower. With individual investors dominating the municipal bond market, the most important factors to consider are the components of demand and supply, in our view.
On the demand side, the municipal bond market has recently seen record inflows. According to Lipper, municipal bond mutual funds have recorded more than $52 billion of inflows through July 24. This is a record amount for the January-July period since Lipper began calculating flows in 1992. To put this in perspective, through the first nine months of 2018, muni-bond funds saw $12 billion of inflows, which at the time was viewed very positively.
One additional difference between 2018 and 2019 is that investor demand for longer maturities has been strong in the current year, with more than $32 billion going into long-term funds. Last year, more money flowed into short and intermediate funds, reflecting concerns about rising interest rates. This year, individual investors appear much more comfortable with the rate environment.
Mutual-fund flows are only one way to measure retail investor demand, because people also invest money in munis via separately managed accounts (SMAs) and the purchase of individual bonds. While there are no industry statistics for SMAs, through our experience and anecdotal evidence, it is clear that demand appears as strong for SMAs as it is for funds. There is one key difference: SMA holders appear to be more diversified by investing more in intermediate- and short-maturity munis.
A Deeper Dive into Muni-Bond Demand
Additional insights on muni demand can be gained by looking into the composition of the universe of bondholders. The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) publishes quarterly data outlining the categories of municipal bond holders, and the most recent information, published in May, detailed holdings at the end of the first quarter of 2019. As of March 31, 2019, there was $3.815 trillion in municipal bonds outstanding. At the end of 2017 there was $3.878 trillion outstanding, a decrease of more than $60 billion over the past year and a half. This means that new bond issuance is lagging the amount of bonds that are maturing. One big factor here was the U.S. tax bill enacted in late 2017, which eliminated the ability of municipal bond issuers to advance refund outstanding bonds.1 These types of bonds used to typically represent approximately 20% of new bond issuance.
Another interesting statistic in the data is that the amount of municipals owned by mutual funds has been increasing. This has been a trend for a number of years. For example, at the end of 2015, mutual funds held $604 billion of municipal bonds and that number has now increased to $739 billion. According to Fed data cited in a July 24 Wall Street Journal report, municipal bond mutual fund holdings have increased by more than 50% since 2009.2 There are many reasons for this increase such as one primary factor being the decision by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) to require more detailed disclosure of the mark-ups on sales of individual municipal bonds to individuals. This created more incentives for financial advisors to avoid these complications by putting clients into mutual funds instead of individual bonds.
The other major source of individual investor holdings is what the Fed refers to as holdings by “households and nonprofit organizations.” This is a complicated number to analyze because it includes both SMAs and individual bond holdings in brokerage accounts. Since the end of 2015, this number has decreased from $1.885 trillion to $1.875 trillion. It actually dropped to $1.819 trillion at the end of the third quarter of 2018 and has risen since then. The interesting factor here is that we know that there has been a dramatic increase in SMA assets over this time even though the amount in this category has decreased. Therefore, this means that individual bond holdings have been falling at a much faster pace while SMA and fund assets have been increasing.
According to data from Lipper, there are a lot of mutual fund complexes which offer municipal bond funds, but only a small number of them have been receiving the strongest flows. Fortunately, Lord Abbett is well into the positive category (as of August 5, 2019) but some peers have seen outflows despite the record pace of inflows.
At the high end, a handful of fund complexes have been receiving the largest inflows. According to a recent Bloomberg article, the largest firm has received approximately 32% of the inflows year to date through July 23.3 While this may seem impressive, that firm’s inflows of about $13 billion have had to be invested into a market where the total amount of new bonds issued was only $166 billion as of the end of June. This means that the leader would have needed to buy almost 10% of all new bonds if it was relying solely on the primary market to invest new money. In reality, the necessity of reinvesting proceeds of maturing bonds, and coupon payments from its funds, meant that this firm had additional money to invest, so it probably would have needed to buy more than 10% of the new issues. While they might also use the secondary market, large investors may need to make adjustments in their selection process when making new investments in order to get fully invested given the large volumes of money they need to put into the market. There are a couple of other firms with outsized inflows in specific categories such as high yield municipals which might face similar challenges. Investors should consider these market dynamics, and each firm’s ability to scale their security selection process, as they choose a muni manager.
What’s Keeping a Lid on Muni-Bond Supply?
On the supply side, the amount of new bonds being issued is well behind the pace of prior years, in part because of the 2017 tax bill. With $166 billion issued this year through June, this is well behind the $211 billion issued during the first half of 2017 according to The Bond Buyer. At $45 billion less, this means that there have been almost $2 billion less per week in new issues.
Many people keep mentioning that more municipal financing is necessary because the United States has significant infrastructure needs, but through the first six months of the year, new money issuance, which is for new projects, is down 3.6% from last year. This reduction is occurring despite tax receipts coming in much higher than previous years, creating surpluses in many states such as California, New Jersey, and New York. Instead of increasing borrowing, these states have been depositing excess proceeds into rainy-day funds to prepare for times when the economy might slow down.
There are some other supply constraints that municipal bond investors should be aware of, especially those looking for state-specific or state-preferential investments. In California, new issue supply is down about 6% from 2018. That might not sound like a lot, but considering how much higher demand is because of the impact of the SALT cap, this has created more of an imbalance. In New York, supply is down 19% compared to last year. Among other notable state issuers, supply is down 27% in Georgia, 34% in New Jersey, and 15% in Connecticut. Many other states have lower issuance too. On the positive side, Michigan is up 71%, Arizona is up 100%, Florida is up 120%, Indiana is up 200% and Maryland and Wisconsin are both up 30%. (All issuance data herein are from The Bond Buyer.) Still, many of the states with the biggest increases in demand due to the SALT cap are seeing reduced supply.
Summing Up
The municipal bond market had a very strong seven months to start 2019. All parts of the market have been performing positively while overall credit quality has remained robust. Demand has been strong from individual investors, and shifts in the way they are investing have created some very interesting dynamics in the muni market. The tax bill has increased demand while also reducing supply, which we believe creates positive market dynamics now and into the foreseeable future. On the state level, many which typically have the highest demand from individual investors are seeing the largest supply challenges.
Even as market conditions change, the benefits from the tax exemption of municipal bond interest have remained constant, and the positive performance in the sector has greatly benefited investors. We believe the factors mentioned above are likely to continue to provide solid support for the municipal bond market.
1Advance refunding refers to when one bond issuance is used to pay off another outstanding bond. The issue of the new bond is at a lower interest rate than the older, unpaid obligation. Advance refunding was a common feature of the municipal bond market until it was eliminated under the 2017 U.S. tax bill.
2Heather Gillers and Gunjan Banerj, “The Municipal-Bond Market Is Now Controlled by Just a Few Firms,” The Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2019.
3Danielle Moran, “Vanguard, Nuveen, Goldman Win the Fight for Cash Flooding Muni Funds,” Bloomberg, July 23, 2019.
A Note about Risk: The value of an investment in fixed-income securities will change as interest rates fluctuate and in response to market movements. As interest rates fall, the prices of debt securities tend to rise. As rates rise, prices tend to fall. Investing in the bond market is subject to risks, including market, interest rate, issuer, credit, inflation risk, and liquidity risk. The municipal bond market may be impacted by unfavorable legislative or political developments and adverse changes in the financial conditions of state and municipal issuers or the federal government in case it provides financial support to the municipality. Income from the municipal bonds held could be declared taxable because of changes in tax laws. Certain sectors of the municipal bond market have special risks that can affect them more significantly than the market as a whole. Because many municipal instruments are issued to finance similar projects, conditions in these industries can significantly affect an investment. Income from municipal bonds may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Federal, state and local taxes may apply. High-yield, lower-rated securities involve greater risk than higher-rated securities; portfolios that invest in them may be subject to greater levels of credit and liquidity risk than portfolios that do not. Lower-rated investments may be subject to greater price volatility than higher-rated investments. A portion of the income derived from a municipal bond may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Any capital gains realized may be subject to taxation. Federal, state, and local taxes may apply. There is a risk that a bond issued as tax-exempt may be reclassified by the IRS as taxable, creating taxable rather than tax-exempt income. Bonds may also be subject to other types of risk, such as call, credit, liquidity, interest-rate, and general market risks. Investments in Puerto Rico and other territories, commonwealths, and possessions may be affected by local, state, and regional factors. These may include, for example, economic or political developments, erosion of the tax base, and the possibility of credit problems.
The information provided is for general informational purposes only. References to any specific securities, sectors or investment themes are for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice, and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. This is not a representation of any securities Lord Abbett purchased or would have purchased or that an investment in any securities of such issuers would be profitable. Statements concerning financial market trends are based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate. There is no guarantee that markets will perform in a similar manner under similar conditions in the future. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.
This commentary may contain assumptions that are “forward-looking statements,” which are based on certain assumptions of future events. Actual events are difficult to predict and may differ from those assumed. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will materialize or that actual returns or results will not be materially different from those described here.
The Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index a rules-based, market-value-weighted index engineered for the long-term tax-exempt bond market. Bonds must be rated investment-grade (Baa3/BBB- or higher) by at least two ratings agencies. They must have an outstanding par value of at least $7 million and be issued as part of a transaction of at least $75 million. The bonds must be fixed rate, have a dated-date after December 31, 1990, and must be at least one year from their maturity date.
Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect the deduction of fees or expenses, and are not available for direct investment.
The credit quality of the securities in a portfolio is assigned by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO), such as Standard & Poor's, Moody's, or Fitch, as an indication of an issuer's creditworthiness. Ratings range from ‘AAA’ (highest) to ‘D’ (lowest). Bonds rated ‘BBB’ or above are considered investment grade. Credit ratings ‘BB’ and below are lower-rated securities (junk bonds). High-yielding, non-investment-grade bonds (junk bonds) involve higher risks than investment-grade bonds. Adverse conditions may affect the issuer's ability to pay interest and principal on these securities.
The information provided is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information about Lord Abbett’s products and services and to otherwise provide general investment education. None of the information provided should be regarded as a suggestion to engage in or refrain from any investment-related course of action as neither Lord Abbett nor its affiliates are undertaking to provide impartial investment advice, act as an impartial adviser, or give advice in a fiduciary capacity. If you are an individual retirement investor, contact your financial advisor or other fiduciary about whether any given investment idea, strategy, product or service may be appropriate for your circumstances.
The opinions in the preceding commentary are as of the date of publication and subject to change based on subsequent developments and may not reflect the views of the firm as a whole. This material is not intended to be legal or tax advice and is not to be relied upon as a forecast, or research or investment advice regarding a particular investment or the markets in general, nor is it intended to predict or depict performance of any investment. Investors should not assume that investments in the securities and/or sectors described were or will be profitable. This document is prepared based on information Lord Abbett deems reliable; however, Lord Abbett does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information. Investors should consult with a financial advisor prior to making an investment decision.