Munis/S&L tax exempt

Highlights Muni Credit Cycle: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. Issuance: State & local government investment spending will increase in 2017, as will muni issuance for new capital. Pensions: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. Election: Muni/Treasury yield ratios have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Feature The financial crisis marked a major inflection point in the municipal bond market. Not only did the economic fall-out from the housing crash lead to historically large state & local government budget gaps, but the end of bond insurance and a growing realization that municipal default is possible have focused investor attention on credit quality more than ever before. In this Special Report we zero-in on the Municipal/Treasury (M/T) yield ratio.1 We identify its major short-run and long-run drivers, and assess where it is headed in the context of the municipal bond credit cycle. The Longer-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios An important input to our understanding of the municipal credit cycle is our Muni Health Monitor (MHM). The MHM is a composite of eight indicators of state & local government budget health. Full details of the indicator and its components can be found in the Appendix to this report. The MHM has an excellent track record of signaling the major inflection points in muni ratings migration (Chart 1). We observe that the MHM bottomed in 2006, one year before the previous trough in ratings migration. The MHM also crossed into "deteriorating health" territory six months before municipal downgrades started to outpace upgrades in 2008. More recently, the MHM crossed back into "improving health" territory in Q4 2012. Muni ratings migration also peaked in Q4 2012 and upgrades began outpacing downgrades in Q4 2014. Chart 1The Municipal Health Monitor Leads Ratings bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c1 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c1 We pay attention to the trends in muni ratings because ratings and state & local government net borrowing explain more than 50% of the variation in the average M/T yield ratio since 1997 (Chart 2). Further, increased investor focus on the creditworthiness of municipal issues has made the yield ratio even more responsive to ratings and net borrowing since the Great Recession. So where are we currently situated in the muni credit cycle? The MHM remains in "improving health" territory, but appears to have entered an extended bottoming-out phase. Given the re-leveraging that has already occurred in the corporate sector, it would be extremely unusual for the MHM to improve further during this cycle. In fact, our Corporate Health Monitor tends to lead the MHM by about two years (Chart 3). This squares with what we know about the behavior of state & local governments throughout the economic cycle. Chart 2The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated I bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c2 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c2 Chart 3The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II Typically, the corporate sector will increase debt loads when times are good and will then be forced to de-lever when the economy enters recession, profits contract and those debt loads become unsustainable. State & local government budget gaps, on the other hand, will tend to narrow during an economic recovery as rapid income growth translates into increased tax revenue. It is only during a recession that state & local government budget gaps widen, since tax revenue plummets while expenditure growth - particularly for social benefits - remains firm. The end result is that the municipal credit cycle tends to lag the corporate credit cycle. This is also apparent in the ratings data (Chart 3, bottom panel), which suggest that we should expect to see muni downgrades (and hence yield ratios) head higher near the end of next year. The typical lag between the corporate credit cycle and the municipal credit cycle suggests that M/T yield ratios should remain well behaved until late-2017, and then begin to move higher. However, the extraordinary length of the current economic recovery gives us some cause to believe that the lags in this cycle may be somewhat longer. We turn to a macro analysis of net state & local government borrowing to shed some further light on this issue. Net borrowing is simply the difference between revenues and expenditures. On the revenue side of the ledger, state & local governments have already seen a significant deceleration in tax receipts during the past year (Chart 4). Every source of tax revenue - except for property taxes - has slowed alongside what has been disappointing overall economic growth so far in 2016. While a return to the 10% revenue growth that was seen in the mid-2000s is unlikely, we expect most of the recent deceleration will soon be reversed. Aggregate weekly hours bounced sharply in September (Chart 5), and federal income tax withholdings also continue to grow rapidly. Both indicators suggest that income growth will be stronger during the next few months, which will support state & local tax receipts. On the expenditures side, while spending on social benefit programs has increased, state & local governments have largely dealt with budget gaps by cutting back severely on discretionary spending (Chart 6). Investment spending has also collapsed and, as a result, gross municipal bond issuance has been dominated by refinancing (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Chart 4S&L Government Revenue S&L Government Revenue S&L Government Revenue Chart 5Income Growth Will Rebound bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c5 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c5 Chart 6S&L Government Expenditures bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c6 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c6 This could all be about to change. Both U.S. Presidential candidates have prioritized infrastructure spending as part of their platforms. Hillary Clinton plans to increase infrastructure spending by $500 billion. This consists of $250 billion of federal infrastructure spending over the next five years and $25 billion of seed money to create a national infrastructure bank. The bank would also accept an additional $225 billion in direct loans. Clinton's plan would also bring back the Build America Bonds (BABs) program. Donald Trump has also expressed a desire to invest heavily in infrastructure, and has floated figures in the range of $1 trillion, although he has been less specific about the details. Historically, about 70% of public investment has occurred at the state & local government level (Chart 7). This suggests that if infrastructure spending became a priority it would lead to a large increase in state & local government investment and hence municipal bond issuance. However, with Clinton's plan it is still unclear whether the bulk of infrastructure spending would be financed through the Treasury market or the muni market. Certainly, to the extent that increased spending is financed through the BABs program, then tax-exempt muni issuance would not be impacted. In our view, state & local government investment spending will head higher in 2017 even without any support from the new President. The need for state & local governments to invest in infrastructure has been evident for some time, but only recently have budgets become healthy enough for governments to consider it. There is a strong correlation between state & local government investment spending and the net percentage of states with a total balance (general fund plus rainy day fund) that exceeds 5% of expenditures (Chart 8). This figure has just recently moved into positive territory and, not coincidentally, more than $200 billion worth of infrastructure spending will be on ballots requesting voter approval in November.2 Chart 7State & Local Government ##br##Drives Investment bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c7 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c7 Chart 8Healthy Enough##br## To Invest bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c8 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c8 The combination of resilient, but not surging, revenue growth and increased investment spending in 2017 is consistent with the idea that the muni credit cycle will follow the lead of the corporate cycle and start to turn near the end of next year. Bottom Line: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. The Pension Problem Of course, the elephant in the room with regards to the long-run outlook for municipal credit quality is pensions. So far pensions have only entered our discussion of the muni credit cycle tangentially, since the pension funded ratio is a component of the MHM (see Appendix). However, large unfunded pension liabilities - should they persist - have the potential to be severely destabilizing for the muni market at some point in the future. According to the U.S. National Accounts, aggregate defined benefit pension entitlements at the state & local government level total $5.6 trillion, only 65% of which are currently funded by assets. However, this aggregate figure masks large divergences between a few municipalities with unsustainable pension liabilities and the majority of municipalities where pension liabilities are probably manageable. Chart 9Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions In a recent report,3 the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that 36 states should be able to fund their existing liabilities by making annual payments that total less than 15% of revenue. However, five states - Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Kentucky - require annual payments in excess of 25% of revenue. The breakdown is found to be similar at the city level, where pension costs were found to be manageable for the majority of cities, although Chicago, Detroit, San Jose, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Wichita and Portland all face annual pension costs that exceed 40% of revenue. Unfortunately, while the pension situations of most municipalities are currently manageable, they are only likely to get worse. Changes in the aggregate pension funded ratio closely track returns from a portfolio that is 50% invested in the S&P 500 and 50% invested in the Barclays Treasury index (Chart 9). Based on current equity valuations, it is probably only reasonable to expect 6% annual nominal returns from the equity market during the next 10 years,4 and the 10-year Treasury yield suggests that 1.8% is a reasonable expectation for annual nominal Treasury returns. Taken together, annual nominal investment returns from a 50/50 portfolio during the next decade could be close to 4%, far below the historical average of 8.9% and also below the 7.6% average return assumed by state & local pension plans in 2014. The two main points are that: The pension problem is likely to get worse, not better Given that large under-funded pensions are concentrated in only a few states, inter-state muni allocations are very important On this second point, we observe that states with lower pension funded ratios have higher General Obligation (GO) bond yields (Chart 10), and also that not all of the difference is reflected in credit ratings. We ran a cross-sectional regression of GO bond yields against credit rating and found that a correlation remains between the residual from that regression and the pension funded ratio (Chart 11). In other words, credit rating does not adequately control for the risk presented by under-funded pensions. Chart 10Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Chart 11Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios: Controlling For Credit Rating Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Bottom Line: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. The Short-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios So far we have discussed the muni credit cycle and noted that M/T yield ratios should begin to move higher on a sustained basis at some point near the end of 2017. However, the near-term drivers of M/T yield ratios suggest that an overweight allocation to municipal bonds remains appropriate for the time being. We have found that the bulk of near-term volatility in M/T ratios can be explained by four factors (Chart 12): The Global Policy Uncertainty Index5 Gross municipal bond issuance Net municipal mutual fund flows Ratings migration The Brexit shock to policy uncertainty has now mostly been reversed. Meanwhile, our Muni Excess Supply Indicator (Chart 12, panel 4) shows that gross issuance has been outpacing fund inflows of late. This should put upward pressure on yield ratios, although this pressure has been largely offset by still supportive ratings migration (Chart 12, bottom panel). Considering all factors, this short-term model shows that the average M/T yield ratio is close to fair value. A reading close to fair value is consistent with muni returns that should exceed those from duration-equivalent Treasuries most of the time (Table 1), even before adjusting for the muni tax advantage. In fact, Table 1 shows that the odds of muni underperformance only really increase once the M/T ratio appears more than one half standard deviation expensive on our model. Chart 12A Short-Term Muni Model A Short-Term Muni Model A Short-Term Muni Model Table 1Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle The other near-term factor that supports a continued overweight allocation to municipal debt is the prospect of a Clinton victory in next month's election. Since the beginning of the year, the average M/T ratio has closely tracked the probability of a Trump election victory (Chart 13). The reasoning is entirely logical. Trump has promised large tax cuts for the highest earners. Such tax cuts would significantly de-value the tax advantage of municipal bonds and pressure yield ratios higher. In contrast, Clinton promises to raise taxes on high income individuals. This would make the tax advantage of municipal debt more valuable, and pressure yield ratios lower. Chart 13Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios The average M/T yield ratio has not yet discounted Trump's recent plunge in the polls. This argues for the maintenance of an overweight allocation to municipal debt in the near term. Bottom Line: M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued in the near-term, and have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The BCA Municipal Health Monitor The BCA Municipal Health Monitor is an equal-weighted composite of eight indicators meant to quantify trends in state & local government budget gaps and debt service capability. The components consist entirely of data that are publicly available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Association of State Budget Officers. The eight components are described below, and shown graphically in Charts A1 & A2. Chart A1Muni Health Monitor Components I Muni Health Monitor Components I Muni Health Monitor Components I Chart A2Muni Health Monitor Components II bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c15 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c15 Leverage: The ratio of total state & local government liabilities (excluding unfunded pension liabilities) to total financial assets. Interest Coverage: State & local government current budget surplus (excluding interest expenditures) divided by interest expenditures. The current surplus is calculated as the difference between current revenues and current expenditures (i.e. investment spending is excluded). Pension Funded Ratio: Total assets of state & local government pension funds divided by total pension liabilities. Revenue: State & local government current revenue in nominal terms, as a deviation from its 18-quarter trend. Surplus Margin: State & local government current budget surplus as a % of current revenue. Liquidity: State & local government total financial assets less short-term liabilities, as a % of total financial assets. Employment Growth: Year-over-year % change in state and local government employment. Total Balance: Aggregate state government total year-end balance. The total balance is the general fund balance plus the rainy day fund, as a % of total expenditures. 1 The average M/T yield ratio shown in this report is calculated by taking an equal-weighted average of M/T yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. For each maturity point the yield ratio is calculated as the ratio between the Bloomberg Fair Value Aaa Municipal bond yield and the Federal Reserve's constant maturity Treasury yield. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/mega-deals-lead-ballo… 3 http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/will-pensions-and-opebs-break-state-and-local-… 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Valuations: Risks And Opportunities", dated July 1, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The index was created by Professors Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis and is driven by the number of times terms related to economic and policy uncertainty are found in newspaper articles. Full details of the methodology are available at www.policyuncertainty.com

There are two key risks that could derail a bear-flattening of the yield curve. The first is a Trump election victory, the second is a flaring of stress in the non-U.S. banking sector.

It's hard to make a case for attractive returns from any asset class over the next year. We dial down risk a bit but ending our overweight on junk bonds. Investors should pick up yield where they can but without taking excessive risk.

With recent comments strongly hinting that the Fed is on track for a rate hike in December, the dy-namics of the Fed Policy Loop make spread product appear extremely vulnerable.

Eventually the easing of financial conditions will strengthen the Fed's resolve to lift rates. Rate hike probabilities will rise and risk assets will struggle to cope with higher Treasury yields.

A spike in economic uncertainty explains the recent move lower in Treasury yields. Given the resilience of global growth, we expect yields to rise as uncertainty ebbs in the coming months.

Some near-term upside in Treasury yields is very likely as flight to safety flows begin to unwind. However, given that global growth divergences remain in place, we will continue to look for an opportunity to increase duration on any meaningful back-up in yields.

Assuming last month's weak employment report is not the start of a trend, the market is still discounting too low a probability that the Fed will lift rates this year. This means the Treasury curve should bear-flatten in the coming months, providing an opportunity to move to above-benchmark duration.

Financial conditions will continue to ease during the next few months, and the Fed will use its June statement to prepare the markets for a rate hike in September.

Treasuries appear overbought in the near-term, especially given evidence of a rebound in global manufacturing, but we would need to see evidence of a sustained re-synchronization of global growth before advocating a shift to below benchmark duration on a 6-12 month horizon.