• Muni Nation

    Got Credit? Part 2

    Jim Colby, Portfolio Manager
    March 07, 2013

    As I attempted in the first installment, I offer a high level overview to generalize my view on the credit quality of a vast expanse of states, cities and local issuers of municipal bonds. I believe ratings do matter because, not only do they represent a measure of differentiation and separation of value for some 60,000 issuers, but in the long run, they may serve as an affirmation of the soundness and strength of tax-exempt investments.

    Part 1 summarized ratings at the state level. This installment seeks to do the same, but for the broader expanse of issuers. While the downgrades of 2012 outpaced the upgrades by nearly a 5 to 1 margin, this is a recent phenomenon that defines the post-recession years (2009 – 2012). Prior years, going back to 1989, evidenced year-over-year upgrades that consistently outpaced downgrades.

    In a recent report from Moody’s, the attention grabbing headline was that in 2012, “a record of $311 billion of public debt” was downgraded, surpassing the prior record of $194 billion in 2009. I believe that a better metric, however, is assessing the ratings actions that were taken during the year rather than the representative market value. Why? Because if the ratings of one or two very large issuers change, they may skew the overall results. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2012 almost 50% of the downgrades by market value alone were attributable to Puerto Rico issuers.

    In my view, the key figures are: (1) in 2012, when more than 80% of all ratings changes were downgrades, Moody’s only changed ratings on 1,000 of 14,000 issuers it rates; and (2) the number of upgrades in 2012 increased by 50% (187/125) over 2011. By that representation, some municipal bond issuers were able to improve their financial positioning while the great majority (some 13,000) was able to maintain its ratings status. I am not diminishing the significance of the trend, but do think it important to highlight that local governments appear to have acted responsibly and with fiscal restraint, and I believe that we have the potential to continue to benefit in the context of broadly diversified portfolio structures, i.e., ETFs, from this generally high-quality asset class.

    2012 Activity Results Chart





    This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed in this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction.

    VanEck does not provide tax, legal or accounting advice. Investors should discuss their individual circumstances with appropriate professionals before making any decisions. This information should not be construed as sales or marketing material or an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, product or service.

    Please note that MUNI NATION® represents the opinions of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Current market conditions may not continue. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck. MUNI NATION is a trademark of Van Eck Associates Corporation.

    All indices listed are unmanaged indices and do not reflect the payment of transaction costs, advisory fees or expenses that are associated with an investment in a fund. An index’s performance is not illustrative of a fund’s performance. Indices are not securities in which investments can be made.

    Municipal bonds are subject to risks related to litigation, legislation, political change, conditions in underlying sectors or in local business communities and economies, bankruptcy or other changes in the issuer’s financial condition, and/or the discontinuance of taxes supporting the project or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. Additional risks include credit, interest rate, call, reinvestment, tax, market and lease obligation risk. High-yield municipal bonds are subject to greater risk of loss of income and principal than higher-rated securities, and are likely to be more sensitive to adverse economic changes or individual municipal developments than those of higher-rated securities. Municipal bonds may be less liquid than taxable bonds.

    The income generated from some types of municipal bonds may be subject to state and local taxes as well as to federal taxes on capital gains and may also be subject to alternative minimum tax.

    Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss.

    Investing involves substantial risk and high volatility, including possible loss of principal. Bonds and bond funds will decrease in value as interest rates rise. An investor should consider the investment objective, risks, charges and expenses of a fund carefully before investing. To obtain a prospectus and summary prospectus which contain this and other information, call 800.826.2333 or visit vaneck.com. Please read the prospectus and summary prospectus carefully before investing.

    Van Eck Securities Corporation, Distributor
    666 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10017