Confirm

Are you sure?

Comfirm Cancel

Login http://www.becomegorgeous.com/users/auth/facebook

Or Login using BecomeGorgeous

Register

Please fill the form below and follow the further instructions.

By registering, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions.
We will not sell, rent or give your email to anyone so don't worry about spam.

Recommended

http://www.becomegorgeous.com/users/auth/facebook
Password Recovery

You are about to receive a email from us please make sure to check your spam or junk folder and add our email [email protected] to your contact list.

Thank you!

Judith J. Francis

Large

Status

General
Unknown

  • 11534 Rank

  • 0 Points

Published on: 25 Mar 2017 by francisjud

Capital group intermediaries consultants Hong Kong: Municipal and Global Bonds


Revenue bonds tend to offer higher yields and entail risks that are typically
more straightforward than general obligation bonds (GOs) for research-driven
investors to analyze.

 


Local government issuers face practical constraints on raising revenue, while
large pension liabilities put a heavy strain on their balance sheets. These
represent significant and sometimes difficult-to-assess risks for investors in
local GOs.

 

 • This has led yields offered by local GOs to
now often match or exceed those of the broader municipal bond market — a sea
change in muni bond pricing.

 

The
muni market seemed to take Donald Trump’s victory in stride in the days
following the November 8 presidential election. We’ll see what happens down the
road, but the president-elect’s agenda for tax reform and infrastructure — by
itself — appear unlikely to have a dramatic nearterm impact on munis.
Understandably, the focus on how the environment for munis may develop under
the next president is quite intense. However, today’s spotlight on possible
longer term changes makes it all the more surprising that a recent structural
change has received little fanfare. Not so long ago, general obligation bonds
were viewed as the “safer” part of the U.S. muni market. Because of a state or
local government issuer’s ability to increase revenues by raising taxes or
fees, the argument went, many bond investors assumed that there would be little
problem for these issuers to make coupon payments and return bond principal.
For many years, investors were willing to receive about 10% less income,
because they viewed local GOs as less risky than most other comparably rated
muni bonds. From the end of 2008 to the start of 2014, for example, the average
yield for investment-grade (rated BBB/Baa and above) local GOs was about 2.8% —
roughly 30 basis points below the broader investment-grade muni market.

 

What
a Difference Two Years Make Gradually, this benign perception has given way to
a harsher reality. Starting in 2014, the market began to question whether local
GOs actually entailed more risk than previously thought. Recent concerns over
Chicago’s stability and bankruptcies associated with Detroit and Puerto Rico have helped crystallize a more unforgiving view. As a
result, the yield discount of local GOs to the broader market has largely
disappeared. What explains the dramatic repricing of local GOs, which account
for 17% of the total issues and about 58% of the GOs in the investment-grade
Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Index? Investors may be demanding greater return
potential from local GOs, because they have recognized that local governments
have:

 


Potentially limited flexibility to increase revenues

 


Large fixed costs

 


Insufficient political will to address substantial and growing pension
liabilities

 

For
Local Governments, Reality Bites Although these risk factors have become more
widely appreciated and better reflected in bond prices, they are not actually
new. The extent to which specific issuers suffer these vulnerabilities also
varies widely. For example, cost cutting may prove difficult to implement due
to contractual arrangements and fixed costs in some municipalities, while others
may face far fewer impediments. Similarly, the ability of local governments to
increase revenues in a challenging fiscal environment may be severely limited
in some cases but not others. Flexibility is dependent on the overall health of
the local economy and the nature of the revenue sources in place. Additionally,
the political will to seek greater revenues through taxation or fees may be
lacking — particularly in challenging times when increasing the financial
burden on individuals and businesses could prove highly contentious. Many local
governments also have to clear another major political and legal hurdle, in
that they must first gain state approval before enacting any changes.

 

Pensions
Are the Elephant in the Room For muni bond investors, local government pension
liabilities are a major risk that shouldn’t be ignored. Pensions for municipal
workers are often the largest liabilities on local government balance sheets,
and the health of many plans has deteriorated over the past decade. At the end
of 2015, local and state governments had an overall funding gap of 28%.
Depending on the discount rates used, recent estimates suggest US$1 trillion to
US$3 trillion in unfunded commitments need to be addressed (through additional
contributions and investment returns) in order for these plans to meet their
financial obligations to current and future retirees.

 

Forward
investment return expectations play a critical role in determining whether or
not a plan has a funding gap. Therefore, it’s important to note that many local
and state pension plans still assume investment returns in excess of 7%, but
are likely to moderate those expectations over time. As a consequence, lower
return expectations could cause widespread increases in pension funding gaps
among local and state governments.

 

Another
Good Reason to Focus on Revenue Bonds Clearly, local and state GOs entail some
significant risks, and bond prices have begun to better reflect this reality.
However, in many cases, assessing whether or not a bond investor is being
adequately compensated for these risks can be quite tricky. For GOs, an
issuer’s willingness to repay its debt is a key variable in the investment
decision. On the other hand, the situation with revenue bonds is quite
different. Revenue bonds (which account for 60% of issuers in the
investment-grade muni market) are backed by specific revenue streams from
various entities such as water and sewage plants, toll roads, airports and toll
bridges. Credit research can provide a well informed assessment of what a
revenue stream for a toll bridge could be, whether the project will be
successful and whether the associated bond represents an attractive investment.

 

Revenue
bonds typically offer a yield advantage over local and state GOs, without the aforementioned
funding, political and pension-related vulnerabilities. Assessing the ability
of an issuer to pay on a revenue bond is a straightforward analytical problem
for an experienced, research-driven muni investor like Capital Group. These
factors have often influenced our portfolio managers to steer their
muni-focused investments toward revenue bonds.

 

Global Bonds Can Help Investors Meet
Varying Goals

 


One way to protect purchasing power is through exposure to foreign currencies.


Although the U.S. dollar’s value has risen in recent years, it could be poised
to fall if the U.S. is in the late stage of its economic cycle.


A global bond fund can help investors diversify away from U.S. credit risk, as
well as protect purchasing power through foreign currency exposure.

 

Of
the many objectives investors establish for their portfolios, capital
preservation and protection of purchasing power typically sit alongside
requirements for income and growth of assets. Purchasing power protection
basically means generating returns at least equal to the rate of inflation.
Bonds such as Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) offer a direct
hedge against inflation. Yet a portfolio of TIPS may not address the income and
growth objectives of many investors. Meeting these various goals may be
possible through a more diversified portfolio that includes an exposure to
assets denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Such assets, like
global bonds, not only help to diversify income and returns, but also provide
some protection for purchasing power against currency-related volatility.

 

Why
Exchange Rates Matter When a country’s currency exchange rate rises or falls,
there can be a direct impact on the price of imported goods in that country.
That so-called pass-through rate will vary from country to country, but some
studies indicate that the long-term pass-through rate for the U.S. dollar is
around 40%. That means if the dollar’s value fell by 10%, then prices of
imported goods would broadly rise by about 4%.

 

In
today’s global economy, much of what we consume is produced in whole or in part
in other countries. Our foreign consumption basket might include things as
expensive as a car or as cheap as a T-shirt. If we want to maintain purchasing
power relative to our future consumption basket — the things we expect to buy
in the future — then an allocation to assets denominated in foreign currencies
makes sense.

 

Is
Now the Right Time to Initiate or Add to Non-dollar Holdings? Over the past few
years, the U.S. dollar has strengthened broadly against other currencies and
now looks relatively overvalued. The chart on page 3 looks at the
trade-weighted dollar index, which is the weighted average of the dollar’s
exchange rates with its trading partners, against our internal estimate of its
fair value. Since 2012, we have seen the dollar move from being very cheap to
fair value to expensive. Currencies tend to be volatile and can diverge
significantly from their fair values. However, ultimately they tend to revert
to the mean: as relative valuations become extreme, they tend to move back
toward fair value.

 

Today,
there are indications that the dollar could be poised to turn. Historically, we
have seen turns in the trade-weighted dollar precede turns in the financial
cycle. Momentum loss is driven by a halt in the acceleration of house price
inflation and private credit growth.

 

Financial
cycle models, which are very slow moving, effectively reflect leveraging and
deleveraging stages in the economic cycle. Our model indicates that we are now
seeing late-cycle behavior as house price inflation and private credit growth
are both decelerating. Typically the deleveraging part of the cycle is
characterized by slowing growth, improving external balances and a weaker currency.
If the U.S. cycle loses momentum, the U.S. dollar should fall.

                        

Look
to a Global Bond Fund Whether or not the dollar turns in the near term,
relative valuations suggest that this could be a good time to initiate or add
to non-dollar-denominated assets. Actively managed global bond funds can help.
They enable investors to gain discrete exposure while relying on the fund’s
managers to assess the risk and return opportunities across global bond and
currency markets.

Add a Comment

* Please Add A Comment

Anonymous

Thank you for submission! Your comment will be displayed after getting approval from our administrators.

Connect With
Or Pick a name