municipal bonds
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:08 am
municipal bonds
I have read in recent days in the Wall Street Journal that this is perhaps the best time in our lifetime to invest in municipal bonds. I also read about Wilbur Ross investing one billion dollars in municipal bonds and making a 300-million dollar profit in just three days this week.
Should I be jumping to take advantage of this opportunity.?
If so,, which Vanguard municipal bond fund should I invest in?
Should I do so in my IRA or my taxable account.?
I already have a significant 6 figure sum in the Ma Tax Free fund in a non-IRA account but since I live in Massachusetts it is tax free federal and state....it just makes me vulnerable to the dreaded AMT.
Should I be jumping to take advantage of this opportunity.?
If so,, which Vanguard municipal bond fund should I invest in?
Should I do so in my IRA or my taxable account.?
I already have a significant 6 figure sum in the Ma Tax Free fund in a non-IRA account but since I live in Massachusetts it is tax free federal and state....it just makes me vulnerable to the dreaded AMT.
Re: municipal bonds
Definitely in a taxable account. Vanguard's policy is now to run their muni bond funds with zero to minimal AMT exposure. There are one or two funds that are exceptions. The Ma fund is not one of the exceptions. Here's a link:BostonBogle wrote:I have read in recent days in the Wall Street Journal that this is perhaps the best time in our lifetime to invest in municipal bonds. I also read about Wilbur Ross investing one billion dollars in municipal bonds and making a 300-million dollar profit in just three days this week.
Should I be jumping to take advantage of this opportunity.?
If so,, which Vanguard municipal bond fund should I invest in?
Should I do so in my IRA or my taxable account.?
I already have a significant 6 figure sum in the Ma Tax Free fund in a non-IRA account but since I live in Massachusetts it is tax free federal and state....it just makes me vulnerable to the dreaded AMT.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/ ... IntExt=INT
cheers
grok
Only if it is already part of your well though out investment plan.Should I be jumping to take advantage of this opportunity.?
Depends on your time horizon, current income needs, risk tolerance and federal/state tax bracketsIf so,, which Vanguard municipal bond fund should I invest in?
Locating muni bonds in an IRA never makes sense given that they are already tax exemptShould I do so in my IRA or my taxable account.?
Too late
It's just about too late to take advantage of the muncipal bond 'panic'. For example, the Vanguard Ca LT Bond fund (VCITX) dropped by about 5% between Feb 13 and Feb 29 but has recovered by nearly 4%. Thus there isn't a lot of near-term movement in the NAV that should be expected. The yield of 4.11% is not that much greater than the no-risk Cal MMF (2.995). Long-term interest rates should start increasing this year so principle is at risk. The intermediate fund also has risk to the NAV in the long-term as evidenced by its large drop and recovery also in the past few weeks.
If you are brave enough to venture into individual munis you can get 20-year insured bonds issued by rock solid entities that will pay over 5% - no principal risk if you hold to maturity.
If you are brave enough to venture into individual munis you can get 20-year insured bonds issued by rock solid entities that will pay over 5% - no principal risk if you hold to maturity.
-
- Posts: 49024
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Too late
Who are the rock solid insurers?duhmel1 wrote:
If you are brave enough to venture into individual munis you can get 20-year insured bonds issued by rock solid entities that will pay over 5% - no principal risk if you hold to maturity.
Not the market leaders: MBIA and Ambac.
Who?
Re: Too late
Rock solid bond issuers, not rock solid insurers. The liklihood of a most bonds failing are much less than the insurers failing. For example, the state of California will not go into bankruptancy, no matter what the rating.Valuethinker wrote:Who are the rock solid insurers?duhmel1 wrote:
If you are brave enough to venture into individual munis you can get 20-year insured bonds issued by rock solid entities that will pay over 5% - no principal risk if you hold to maturity.
Not the market leaders: MBIA and Ambac.
Who?
There is a point which needs repeating. Insurers' credit rating is not the same as issuer credit rating. An insurer failing should not prevent an otherwise solvent municipality from paying debt.
A less than "rock solid" issuer can have their credit rating increased by MBIA. But, munis have intrinsic default rates which are orders of magnitude less than corporates. Most munis are not rated.
http://www.publicbonds.org/public_fin/default.htm
n 1999 Fitch Ratings published its first study of municipal defaults, which was updated in 2003.2 The latter study covered 2,339 cases of municipal defaults worth $32.8 billion between 1980 and 2002. It found that the cumulative default rate on bonds issued through 1986 (as they approached or reached maturity) was 1.5 percent, while the cumulative default rate on bonds issued between 1987 and 1994 was 0.63 percent.
A less than "rock solid" issuer can have their credit rating increased by MBIA. But, munis have intrinsic default rates which are orders of magnitude less than corporates. Most munis are not rated.
http://www.publicbonds.org/public_fin/default.htm
n 1999 Fitch Ratings published its first study of municipal defaults, which was updated in 2003.2 The latter study covered 2,339 cases of municipal defaults worth $32.8 billion between 1980 and 2002. It found that the cumulative default rate on bonds issued through 1986 (as they approached or reached maturity) was 1.5 percent, while the cumulative default rate on bonds issued between 1987 and 1994 was 0.63 percent.
In addition most of the municipal bonds that do default are ones that are unrated. Muni bonds must have issuer ratings of at least BBB or MBIA will not insure them. At this rating, there is virtually no default unless there is an unforeseen occurrence such as the Orange County debacle 10 yrears ago.
Thus we have the Catch-22 - if a bond is insured it is solid enough by itself to not really need insurance. If it is risky, the insurance companies (except for ACA) would not insure it. This is why there has been a dramatic drop in bonds being insured during the past 3 months.
Thus we have the Catch-22 - if a bond is insured it is solid enough by itself to not really need insurance. If it is risky, the insurance companies (except for ACA) would not insure it. This is why there has been a dramatic drop in bonds being insured during the past 3 months.
-
- Posts: 49024
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Too late
Sorry I misread 'issuers' as 'insurers'.duhmel1 wrote:Rock solid bond issuers, not rock solid insurers. The liklihood of a most bonds failing are much less than the insurers failing. For example, the state of California will not go into bankruptancy, no matter what the rating.Valuethinker wrote:Who are the rock solid insurers?duhmel1 wrote:
If you are brave enough to venture into individual munis you can get 20-year insured bonds issued by rock solid entities that will pay over 5% - no principal risk if you hold to maturity.
Not the market leaders: MBIA and Ambac.
Who?
My understanding is that one must parse quite carefully. CA bonds will be rock solid, General Obligation bonds will be rock solid. Some types of muni bonds tied to particular projects or purposes, even in CA, will not be rock solid.
There is this county in Alabama that is going bust with $3bn owing?
-
- Posts: 1015
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:16 am
My take on this buying opportunity of a lifetime is that the people who are saying that are comparing munis to Treasuries. If you compare munis to highly rated corporates, the story isn't compelling.
It's more likely that this is the selling opportunity of a lifetime for Treasuries, IMO.
It's important to note that the bond market disagrees with me, however.
They must feel that 1) we are headed for deep doo-doo, with rising risk of defaults in highly rated corporates, and 2) they are not too worried about inflation.
The Treasury market is HUGE. It definitely is saying something.
It's more likely that this is the selling opportunity of a lifetime for Treasuries, IMO.
It's important to note that the bond market disagrees with me, however.
They must feel that 1) we are headed for deep doo-doo, with rising risk of defaults in highly rated corporates, and 2) they are not too worried about inflation.
The Treasury market is HUGE. It definitely is saying something.