Tag Archives: investment

Tax Free Income From Municipal Bond Closed End Funds

Summary Municipal bond CEFs offer attractive income free from federal taxes. In this article I explore the current muni-bond CEF space. Top funds for key metrics are discussed. Two funds that stand out on the basis of discount and NAV distribution yield are called out as particularly attractive at this time. Life changes and market changes: Both loom on my horizon. The first is unstoppable; the second is uncertain. And taken together they are exerting impacts on my portfolio. Regarding market changes: My view of macro events has led me to re-position my portfolio to a more defensive stance. One consequence is that I’m finding myself with more uninvested cash than I’m comfortable with, especially in my taxable income account where I have been trading out of high-risk, high-yield holdings. Life changes are also having an effect. These speak to my own case as an individual. But all my life I’ve been only a step or two ahead of a demographic tsunami, so I know many others will soon be dealing with similar issues. I’ll soon be putting another zero-birthday up on the scoreboard. This time a seven comes in front of the zero, a milestone that carries major tax consequences. First, my income will jump as I begin to draw social security retirement benefits, which I’ve put off as long as I could. This is a welcome addition and means I can comfortably give up some ground on income yield from my investments. But it also means more taxable income. In addition, in 2016 I will have to begin taking required minimum distributions – RMDs – from my tax-deferred accounts. This adds yet another increment to my taxable income. So, tax efficiency has become an important consideration. High yields are fine, but not if they come with a tax bill of staggering proportions. One outcome of these two pressures is that I continue to increase my allocation to tax-free municipal bonds in my income portfolio. There are other strategic moves underway, but for today’s topic I want to cover the muni bond space. I plan to follow up with a review of other tax-efficient income investments by early next week. As regular readers are aware, my strong preference for tax-free income is to invest in muni-bond closed-end funds. Tax-equivalent income from the CEFs is quite favorable compared to many other fixed-income sources. And it is much better than can be earned from holding individual municipal bonds or other municipal bond funds (EFTs or mutual funds). That attractive income comes, unsurprisingly, with risks. The high yields are partially generated by employing leverage, so it comes with the risk that leverage carries. In choosing funds I try to moderate some of that risk by looking for funds that are experiencing sharp downward moves in their premium/discount status. My assumption is that P/D status often tends to revert to mean values over time, so buying funds at an outsized discount (relative to the fund’s individual history) can help cushion some of the leverage risk. Of course there is often a very good reason for a sharp change in P/D status. In such cases, any confidence in mean reversion must be tempered by the full situation. In addition to leverage risk, muni bonds, like all fixed-income investments, are subject to interest rate risk. But the fact that many of these funds can sell at hefty discounts to their net asset values can help to moderate this risk to some extent. Interest rate fears tend to drive prices down, often well out of sync with interest-rate driven declines for NAVs. This creates deeper discounts. Keeping in mind all the usual caveats about the impossibilities in timing markets, an awareness of changes in P/D status as a reflection of investor psychology can often help moderate interest rate risk by opening opportunities to purchase a fund at a bargain rate. For example, ten months ago (Oct. 2014) I looked at muni bond CEFs here and noted that the space looked to be marked by extreme over-selling, likely a result of interest-rate anxieties. I considered those interest-rate fears overblown and came to a conclusion that bargains were common. I picked out five funds I particularly liked at the time. When I next wrote about muni bond CEFs 4 months later (Feb, 2015) those five funds had returned an average of 7.62% vs. 1.38% for the largest muni bond ETF, the iShares S&P National AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: MUB ), much of it due to discount compression as interest-rate fears faded. But, by Feb 2015 the market had corrected the anomaly of a few months previous and bargains were scarce. It was, as I noted, not a good time to be a buyer in the muni-bond CEF market. I did select three funds at that time despite the paucity of attractive buys, but those three have lost 2.31% while MUB has only dropped -0.95%. This illustrates the importance of timely entry into this market when investor fears outweigh the actual risks. I’m not sure we are quite at that state now, but I expect it’s not far off. In any case, today’s muni bond fund market is, to my mind, much more buyer-friendly than it was in February. The muni-bond CEF space is large. There are at least 99 national muni CEFs and dozens more single-state funds. I’ll restrict my thoughts here to the 99 national funds covered by cefanalyzer . Those of us who live in high-tax states are likely to generate better after-tax returns with a state fund. For my own portfolio, I am invested in California state muni-bond CEFs. Tax-Equivalent Yield One of the things I like to do when discussing muni bonds is to present an overview of tax-equivalent distributions for marginal tax rates to make it easier for readers to determine what the yields mean to them. Most summaries of muni-bonds report tax-equivalent returns based on the highest marginal rates. Few of us qualify for those rates, so it’s important to consider one’s unique situation in deciding if a muni bond investment is appropriate. (click to enlarge) There are good taxable equivalent rate calculators on-line. My favorite is from Eaton-Vance ( found here ). It incorporates state income tax rates and the state-to-state variation in how muni bond income is handled. Distribution Yields Let’s start with a look at current distributions for the universe of national muni-bond CEFs. Distribution rates range from a low of 3.24% to a high of 7.38% (median = 6.18%). The full range for distribution rates looks like this: The top five funds for distribution at Market Price are: Distribution Price Distribution Price Discount Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust (NYSE: MAV ) 7.50% 5.00% Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: EVN ) 7.00% 1.42% Dreyfus Municipal Income Inc (NYSEMKT: DMF ) 6.98% -5.01% Pimco Municipal Income Fund (NYSE: PMF ) 6.96% 8.95% Invesco Advantage Municipal Income Trust Ii (NYSEMKT: VKI ) 6.96% -9.38% And, the top five for distribution at Net Asset Value are: Distribution NAV Distribution NAV Discount Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust MAV 7.88% 5.00% Pimco Municipal Income Fund PMF 7.58% 8.95% Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust EVN 7.10% 1.42% Pimco Municipal Income Fund Iii (NYSE: PMX ) 6.95% 2.51% Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund (NYSEMKT: NMZ ) 6.73% -1.33% I’ve included Discount(/Premium) in the distribution tables because there is a strong message in the relationships. Note that funds with high distributions on NAV tend to sell at a premium. This is a widely seen phenomenon in closed end funds, where investors focus strongly on income and distribution rates. That focus tends to adjust premium/discount status in the direction of an equilibrium distribution on price. Thus funds with low to modest NAV distributions tend to get priced down; they will sell at deep to modest discounts. This does, of course, increase the distribution rate bringing them more in line with funds that have high NAV distributions. At the same time, the high NAV-distribution funds tend to get priced up into premium ranges thereby reducing their distribution rate from the NAV value. MAV, which holds top positions in both distribution metrics illustrates this. Its 7.88% NAV distribution drops to 7.5% after the 5.0% premium takes its bite. VKI, by contrast, lags well behind MAV on NAV distribution at 6.31% (which ranks a respectable 12th of the 99 funds). But its -9.38% discount drives the distribution on price to 6.96% pushing it into the top five for market yield. MAV is an interesting case to illustrate the downside of being too focused on high yield when selecting a fund. MAV had been selling at an outsize premium (approaching 25%) as recently as May of this year. But, as should have been clear to investors, that premium was generated by an unsustainably high distribution rate. In May the distribution was cut from $0.095 to $0.08/share, a drop of -15.7% and the premium fell from a high of 24.48% to near par (0.08%) late in July. As seen in the table above, the premium has picked up a bit in the past three weeks. NAV Yield, Discount/Premium, and The Move Toward Equilibrium Eli Mintz has documented the relationship between NAV yield and Discount/Premium status in an excellent article ( here ). He argues that the relationship between NAV distribution rate and Discount/Premium is a primary factor to be considered in evaluating municipal bond CEFs. Following his lead, I’ve plotted the current values with a linear trendline for these metrics for the 99 funds under consideration. (click to enlarge) Mr. Mintz advocates choosing among funds that fall well under the trend line, so I’ve narrowed the chart to show those funds posting discounts below -5.00%. (click to enlarge) Selection from the lower thresholds of this distribution produces several that look worth exploring on the basis of this metric. But, as we can see in the next table, some are paying out distributions that exceed their actual net investment income (NII Yield). NII calculations are done on a market price basis for the table. On this basis, CMU and MFM look particularly attractive. CMU has a discount below 10%. Its NAV distribution of 6.03% generates 6.73% for its current market rate. And with an excess NII yield of 71bps above distribution, the yield appears secure. MFM sports a discount just shy of -13% and a NAV distribution at 5.44% which generates 6.25% distribution yield. It, too, appears to be earning that distribution with net investment income 48 bps above its distribution yield. This is illustrated in the heat map distribution seen in the next table: Leverage and Duration I’ve included two indicators of risk here, average portfolio maturity and percent leverage. CMU’s leverage (35.56%) is about the middle of the pack for the muni bond CEF space, ranking 55 of the 99 funds. MFM carries less leverage. Its 30.04% leverage ranks 25th in the space. Maturity can provide some indication of interest rate risk. Duration adjusted for leverage would be preferred but this is not a metric that is available through the screeners I use. The average maturities of the CMU and MFM portfolios both stand at 18.6 years, ranking 66 of 99. For this set of funds, the Nuveen offerings (NMA, NMO, NQS, NXZ and NZF) might appear to be better positioned for interest rate risk on the basis of portfolio maturity. But, when portfolio duration is calculated this is not supported. Fund Duration (Unadjusted) Duration (Leverage Adjusted) CMU 6.56 10.20 MFM 7.00 10.00 NMA 7.10 10.85 NMO 7.72 12.10 NQS 7.76 12.32 NXZ 7.47 11.31 Summarizing Other Metrics I’ll close with a summary of the top five funds for some other metrics for readers who may be interested in exploring funds leading for these categories. Along with the ranking metric, I include discount, distribution rates, NII yield and NII excess. The top five funds for discount: Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Nuveen Quality Municipal Fund Inc (NYSE: NQI ) -13.62% 4.61% 5.34% 5.55% 0.21% Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Fund 2 NXZ -13.07% 5.25% 6.04% 5.62% -0.42% Nuveen Municipal Market Opportunity Fund Inc NMO -13.02% 5.08% 5.84% 5.92% 0.08% MFS Municipal Income Trust MFM -12.91% 5.44% 6.25% 6.73% 0.48% Nuveen Dividend Advantage Municipal Income Fund (NYSEMKT: NVG ) -12.82% 4.77% 5.47% 5.66% 0.19% Top five for Total Return (Price) for one year: TR Price 1Y Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Western Asset Managed Municipals Fund Inc. MMU 11.92% -1.03% 5.52% 5.57% 5.55% -0.02% Western Asset Municipal Defined Opportunity Trust Inc. (NYSE: MTT ) 11.85% 6.49% 4.47% 4.19% 4.40% 0.21% Mfs Investment Grade Municipal Trust (NYSE: CXH ) 10.77% -7.45% 4.90% 5.29% 5.63% 0.33% Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund NMZ 10.25% -1.33% 6.73% 6.82% 6.93% 0.11% Blackrock Muniassets Fund, Inc. (NYSE: MUA ) 10.21% -1.65% 5.38% 5.47% 5.35% -0.12% Top five ranked for Total Return for one year: TR NAV 1Y Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Delaware Investments National Municipal Income Fund (NYSEMKT: VFL ) 11.15% -11.32% 5.35% 6.03% 5.50% -0.53% Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust EVN 9.10% 1.42% 7.10% 7.00% 6.89% -0.11% Western Asset Municipal Partners Fund Inc. (NYSE: MNP ) 8.13% -9.59% 5.24% 5.80% 5.53% -0.27% Western Asset Managed Municipals Fund Inc. (NYSE: MMU ) 7.77% -1.03% 5.52% 5.57% 5.55% -0.02% Pimco Municipal Income Fund Iii PMX 7.07% 2.51% 6.95% 6.78% 6.98% 0.20% Top five for one-year Z-Scores, a measure of the extent to which the current discount/premium varies from the average discount/premium for the past year. Readers unfamiliar with Z-Scores can read about the metric here . Z-Score 1Y Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess MFS Municipal Income Trust MFM -2.00 -12.91% 5.44% 6.25% 6.73% 0.48% Nuveen Municipal Income Fund Inc (NYSE: NMI ) -1.80 -6.06% 4.38% 4.66% 4.77% 0.11% Nuveen Municipal Market Opportunity Fund Inc NMO -1.63 -13.02% 5.08% 5.84% 5.92% 0.08% Western Asset Intermediate Muni Fund Inc. (NYSEMKT: SBI ) -1.63 -7.12% 4.61% 4.96% 4.46% -0.50% Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust MAV -1.56 5.00% 7.88% 7.50% 7.43% -0.08% I’ll add the following chart which shows the distribution of 1-yr Z-Scores for all funds considered here. It provides a useful touchstone to compare with similar charts from previous articles to compare trends in the municipal bond CEF universe. I’ll close with the seven funds having the shortest average portfolio maturities. But keep in mind, as noted above, this is not a stand-in for leverage-adjusted duration, the preferred metric for evaluating interest-rate risk. Leverage-adjusted duration can usually be found on the sponsor’s web pages for a fund. I do not know of a screening tool that uses this metric. If any reader is aware of one, I would certainly appreciate your sharing that information. Maturity Discount Dist Dist (Price) NII yield Excess Blackrock Municipal 2018 Term Trust (NYSE: BPK ) 5.4 -0.65% 3.64% 3.66% 3.99% 0.33% Nuveen Select Maturities Municipal Fund (NYSE: NIM ) 5.7 -2.78% 3.16% 3.25% 3.35% 0.10% Deutsche Strategic Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: KSM ) 5.9 -0.23% 6.55% 6.57% 6.41% -0.16% Deutsche Municipal Income Trust (NYSE: KTF ) 6.2 -4.67% 6.28% 6.59% 6.44% -0.14% Alliance Bernstein National Municipal Income Fund (NYSE: AFB ) 6.3 -7.81% 5.48% 5.94% 6.20% 0.25% Eaton Vance Municipal Bond Fund Ii (NYSEMKT: EIV ) 6.3 -7.78% 5.41% 5.87% 5.86% 0.00% Putnam Municipal Opportunities Trust (NYSE: PMO ) 6.3 -10.08% 5.41% 6.02% 6.35% 0.33% Additional disclosure: I do not hold any of the funds discussed above. My municipal bond holdings are all in California state bond funds at this time. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Today’s Strong Competitive Wealth-Builder ETF Investment: IYG

Summary From a population of some 350 actively-traded, substantial, and growing ETFs this is a currently attractive addition to a portfolio whose principal objective is wealth accumulation by active investing. We daily evaluate future near-term price gain prospects for quality, market-seasoned ETFs, based on the expectations of market-makers [MMs], drawing on their insights from client order-flows. The analysis of our subject ETF’s price prospects is reinforced by parallel MM forecasts for each of the ETF’s ten largest holdings. Qualitative appraisals of the forecasts are derived from how well the MMs have foreseen subsequent price behaviors following prior forecasts similar to today’s. Size of prospective gains, odds of winning transactions, worst-case price drawdowns, and marketability measures are all taken into account. Today’s most attractive ETF Is the iShares US Financial Services ETF (NYSEARCA: IYG ) . The investment seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of U.S. equities in the financial services sector. The fund generally invests at least 90% of its assets in securities of the underlying index and in depositary receipts representing securities of the underlying index. It seeks to track the investment results of the Dow Jones U.S. Financial Services Index (the “underlying index”), which measures the performance of the financial services sector of the U.S. equity market. It is a subset of the Dow Jones U.S. Financials Index. The fund is non-diversified. (from Yahoo.Finance.ETF.Profile) The fund currently holds assets of $774 million and has had a YTD price return of +5.49%. Its average daily trading volume of 107,208 produces a complete asset turnover calculation in 75 days at its current price of $95.95. Behavioral analysis of market-maker hedging actions while providing market liquidity for volume block trades in the ETF by interested major investment funds has produced the recent past (6 month) daily history of implied price range forecasts pictured in Figure 1. Figure 1 (used with permission) The vertical lines of Figure 1 are a visual history of forward-looking expectations of coming prices for the subject ETF. They are NOT a backward-in-time look at actual daily price ranges, but the heavy dot in each range is the ending market quote of the day the forecast was made. What is important in the picture is the balance of upside prospects in comparison to downside concerns. That ratio is expressed in the Range Index [RI], whose number tells what percentage of the whole range lies below the then current price. Today’s Range Index is used to evaluate how well prior forecasts of similar RIs for this ETF have previously worked out. The size of that historic sample is given near the right-hand end of the data line below the picture. The current RI’s size in relation to all available RIs of the past 5 years is indicated in the small blue thumbnail distribution at the bottom of Figure 1. The first items in the data line are current information: The current high and low of the forecast range, and the percent change from the market quote to the top of the range, as a sell target. The Range Index is of the current forecast. Other items of data are all derived from the history of prior forecasts. They stem from applying a T ime- E fficient R isk M anagement D iscipline to hypothetical holdings initiated by the MM forecasts. That discipline requires a next-day closing price cost position be held no longer than 63 market days (3 months) unless first encountered by a market close equal to or above the sell target. The net payoffs are the cumulative average simple percent gains of all such forecast positions, including losses. Days held are average market rather than calendar days held in the sample positions. Drawdown exposure indicates the typical worst-case price experience during those holding periods. Win odds tells what percentage proportion of the sample recovered from the drawdowns to produce a gain. The cred(ibility) ratio compares the sell target prospect with the historic net payoff experiences. Figure 2 provides a longer-time perspective by drawing a once-a week look from the Figure 1 source forecasts, back over two years. Figure 2 (used with permission) What does this ETF hold, causing such price expectations? Figure 3 is a list of securities held by the subject ETF, indicating its concentration in the top ten largest holdings, and their percentage of the ETF’s total value. Figure 3 Source: Yahoo Finance IYG Concentrates 60% of its assets in its top ten commitments. This provides a responsive measure of the action of market prices of stocks in this essential sector. The major holdings are all established, dominant participants in the financial services industry. Figure 4 is a table of data lines similar to that contained in Figure 1, for each of the top ten holdings of IYG. For convenience, the IYG data itself is included. Figure 4 (click to enlarge) Column (5) contains the upside price change forecasts between current market prices (4) and the upper limit of prices (2), regarded by MMs as being worth paying for protection from adverse price change. The average of +7.2% of the top ten IYG holdings is well above the market-average proxy of SPY of +5.3%. Diversification of IYG’s other 40% of holdings damps its overall upside (as MMs see it) to only +4.4%. But in the same stroke the risk side of the equation in (6) for IYG is brought down to worst-case price drawdowns of -2.8%, below the defensive market-tracking ETF SPY norm of -3.2%. In an environment many consider imbued with high market risk, IYG may provide a very attractive balance. The ability of IYG holdings to recover from those worst-case drawdowns and achieve profits (8) occurred in 93% of experiences. The equity population only recovered less than two thirds of the time, and while the SPY experiences were more consistent, the achieved gains were much smaller. SPY has had only +3.5% gains previously from like forecasts of +5.3%. Another qualitative consideration is the credibility of IYG after previous forecasts like today’s. Its net average price change gain (column 9) has been 1.1 times the size of the upside forecast average, +4.8% compared to +4.4%. The equity population’s actual price gain achievement, net of losses has been a pitiful +3.2% compared to promises of 13.5%. Conclusion IYG provides attractive forecast price gains, supported by its equally appealing largest holdings. Both the ETF and many of its major holdings offer very attractive prospects in near-term price behaviors, demonstrated by previous experiences following prior similar forecasts by market makers. But it may be considered a defensive commitment in the face of widespread anticipation of further market weakness. A more constructive strategy would be to seek out individual stock opportunities offering odds-on achievement of low double-digit price gains where past similar forecasts encountered only small worst-case price drawdowns during their relatively short holding periods en route to sell targets. The blue summary row of Figure 3 labeled “20 best odds forecasts” tells what the current top-ranked wealth-building opportunities are offering, as a comparative competitive norm. YTD in 2015, 2062 of these 20-a-day list members have reached closeouts in an average of 2-month holding periods, providing a +30% annual rate of average price-change gains. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Add These Investment-Grade Bond Funds To Your Portfolio

Bonds are assigned ratings based on credit quality. Bond rating firms, like Standard & Poor’s, assign the ratings using upper- and lower-case letters. Usually, “AAA” and “AA” (high credit quality) and “A” and “BBB” (medium credit quality) are the investment-grade bonds. Government bonds, or Treasuries, are not assigned any rating. They generally qualify as the highest credit-quality bonds. A downgrade of a company’s bonds from “BBB” to “BB” reclassifies the debt to “junk” from investment-grade. These can negatively affect bond prices, and the effect of even a one-step drop in quality is problematic for the issuer. Bond funds, however, are a good investment during a low-rate environment. Below, we will share with you 5 buy-ranked Investment-Grade Bond mutual funds. These may be Investment-Grade Bond – Long, Investment-Grade Bond – Intermediate, Investment-Grade Bond – Miscellaneous or Investment-Grade Bond – Short. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #2 (Buy) , as we expect these mutual funds to outperform their peers in the future. Putnam Absolute Return 700 Fund Inst (MUTF: PDMYX ) seeks to earn 700 basis points, or 7% higher return than U.S. Treasury bills. This higher return of 7% is on an annualized basis, generally over a minimum of 3 years under any market condition. PDMYX combines beta strategy and alpha strategy to seek consistent absolute return. The beta independent investment strategy provides exposure to the investment markets, while the alpha strategy pursues returns from active trading. PDMYX has a 3-year annualized return of 5.3%. The annual expense ratio for Putnam Absolute Return 700 Y is 0.99%, lower than the category average of 1.70%. John Hancock Funds Strategic Income Opportunities Fund C (MUTF: JIPCX ) invests a minimum of 80% of its assets – foreign government and corporate debt securities, U.S. government and agency securities, domestic high-yield bonds, and investment-grade corporate bonds and currency instruments. These may be foreign currency- or US dollar-denominated. JIPCX has a 3-year annualized return of 3.4%. Daniel Janis is the fund manager and has managed JIPCX since 2006. American Funds Intermediate Bond Fund of America Retirement (MUTF: RBOGX ) seeks current income in tune with the quality and maturity standards mentioned in its prospectus. The fund mostly invests in bonds and other debt securities having ratings of A- or better or A3 or better. The bonds, debt securities and money market instruments will have dollar-weighted average effective maturity of at least three years and a maximum of five years. RBOGX has a 3-year annualized return of 1.1%. As of June 2015, RBOGX held 510 issues, with 1.36% of its total assets invested in Canada Govt. 1.5%. Vanguard Intermediate-Term Investment Grade Fund Inv (MUTF: VFICX ) invests a majority of its assets in fixed-income securities of high quality. A large proportion of the securities held are short- and intermediate-term securities rated investment-grade. The average maturity period of the fund ranges from five to ten years. VFICX has a 3-year annualized return of 2.6%. The annual expense ratio for Vanguard Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade is 0.20%, lower than the category average of 0.87% Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund Inst (MUTF: OPBYX ) seeks total return. It invests a large chunk of its assets in investment-grade debt securities. A maximum of 20% of OPBYX’s assets may be invested in junk bonds. Not more than 20% of assets will be invested in foreign debt securities. The fund has a 3-year annualized return of 3.4%. Krishna K. Memani is the fund manager and has managed OPBYX since 2009. Original Post