PRUDENTIAL FIXED INCOME
Build America Bonds: High Quality in Long Maturities
Build America Bonds One Year Later:
High Quality in Long Maturities
Susan M. Courtney
Managing Director and Head of
Municipal Bond Team
Prudential Fixed Income
March 2010
April 2010
After the impressive performance from the fixed income market in 2009, a
common concern among many plan sponsors is how to continue to generate yield
and total return potential in their fixed income allocations, now that spreads are
at narrower levels. One part of the solution may be an allocation to Build
America Bonds (BABs), a fairly new type of taxable municipal bond authorized by
the US Government as part of the economic stimulus package in February 2009.
Build America Bonds have many of the same qualities as investment grade
corporate bonds, but often trade at more generous spreads over US Treasuries.
For these reasons, they may be a good diversifier to existing corporate credit risk
in Core or Core Plus, Corporate, or Long Duration portfolios.
The Origin of Build America Bonds
The $2.8 trillion municipal market, like other credit-related fixed income markets,
endured a highly dysfunctional period during the fourth quarter of 2008 following
the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The flight to US Treasuries during that time,
at the expense of virtually all securities carrying any kind of credit risk, hurt the
US municipal market as well. Yields on tax-exempt municipal bonds, which
typically trade well below yields on taxable US Treasury bonds of similar
durations, surged above US Treasury yields during the crisis. The disruption was
further exacerbated by the demise of the leading municipal bond insurers, which
collectively had insured approximately half of all new municipal issuance.
Municipal
Bond
Perspectives
For more information contact:
Miguel Thames
Prudential Investment Management
2 Gateway Center, 4th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102-5096
973.367.9203
[email protected]
The graph below shows the five-year history of the 30-year municipal/US
Treasury ratio, which is the 30-year municipal yield as a percentage of the 30-year
US Treasury yield. The most recent five-year average for this ratio has been
100%. Longer term, it has been closer to 95%. In December 2008, the ratio
exceeded 200%. At the ratio’s peak, the 30-year AAA municipal yield was 5.31%
while the 30-year Treasury was at 2.52%. Investors were demanding more than
twice as much tax-exempt yield to own a high quality municipal bond over a US
Treasury bond.
Figure 1
30-Year Municipal/Treasury Ratio
Over Past Five Years
March 31, 2005 – March 31, 2010
210%
190%
170%
150%
130%
110%
90%
70%
50%
30 Yr Muni/Treasury
Average
Rich
Cheap
Source of data: Municipal Market Data, Bloomberg. As of March 31, 2010.
Not surprisingly, municipalities had an extremely difficult time accessing the capital markets to issue new bonds
in this environment: new issue municipal volume in the fourth quarter of 2008 declined 24% over the prior
quarter. Given the necessity of such issuance by municipalities, cities, and states to fund essential and ongoing
services such as road improvements, school construction, and water and sewer projects, the sudden inability to
issue new municipal bonds posed a real threat to the US economy.
Out of this dysfunction a new sector of the municipal market was born: Build America Bonds. The Build America
Bonds* program was created by the US Government as part of the massive economic stimulus package enacted in
February 2009. The goal of the Build America Bonds program was to help municipal issuers more efficiently
access the capital markets by broadening the attractiveness of municipal bonds to more investors. Historically, of
course, municipal bond buyers have been almost exclusively individual retail investors seeking tax-exempt
interest income. Institutions such as pension funds, life insurance companies, and non-US investors derived no
benefit from tax-exempt interest income and thus had no reason to invest in an asset class that offered yields well
below comparable taxable bonds.
What are Build America Bonds?
The Build America Bonds program changes this dynamic. Under the Build America Bonds program, certain
municipalities can issue taxable bonds at prevailing market-based taxable yields. The municipality receives a
direct subsidy from the federal government equal to 35% of the interest payments on those bonds, so its net
interest expense declines post-subsidy. There is no cap on the amount of Build America Bonds that a municipality
can issue, but the bond proceeds must be used for capital expenditures, as opposed to refunding higher coupon
outstanding debt or raising cash to meet general operating expenses. These higher taxable yields make Build
America Bonds an attractive component of the universe of fixed income securities now available to institutional
investors.
Approximately 44% of the Build America Bonds issued to date have been general obligation (GO) credits. That
means the state or locality issuing the bond has the power to impose or raise taxes to cover the interest and
principal payments on the debt, despite how politically unpopular that may be. This ability to tax provides a
measure of safety to general obligation bonds. Still, these credits must be carefully analyzed. Factors such as the
income levels and the economic base of the population, as well as the debt levels and financial and budgetary
management practices of the issuer, are a key component of the credit analysis of general obligation bonds.
The remainder of Build America Bonds – the other 56% issued to date – have largely been revenue bonds, such as
transportation, water, sewer, power, and dedicated tax bonds. In contrast to general obligation bonds, a municipal
entity issuing a revenue bond must rely solely on the revenue generated from the system or dedicated tax to make
debt service payments on the bond. For this reason, some investors have a preference for general obligation bonds
over revenue bonds.
However, we believe there is value to be found in revenue bonds as well as general obligation credits. Many
revenue bond issuers are the sole providers of essential services such as water, sewer, and power in a given
region, and have independent rate-setting ability. Because of the necessity of these services and the ability to set
rates, the providers of these services generally enjoy steady income from the users of the services, and a customer
base usually diversified across both residential and commercial customers. In addition to the dedicated revenue
stream securing the bonds, further support is provided by various covenants in the bond indentures. Finally,
because they often provide essential services, revenue bond issuers (unlike issuers of general obligation bonds)
can generally operate away from the often-harsh political environment of state and local governments during
difficult times.
*This paper addresses direct subsidy Build America Bonds vs. tax-credit Build America Bonds.
2
Build America Bonds Are Becoming Increasingly Important to the US Fixed Income Market
Build America Bonds are becoming increasingly important to the US fixed income market, particularly in the
long duration segment.
Taxable municipal bonds have been around for years, with municipal entities issuing them for financings not
intended for general public benefit. They have been included in the Barclays US Aggregate Index since 2003,
when several states issued pension obligation bonds. At that point, (October 1, 2003) taxable municipal bonds
comprised only 0.20% of the Barclays US Aggregate Index and only 0.72% of the Barclays US Credit Index.
The Build America Bond program has spurred rapid growth in the taxable municipal universe. By late April 2010,
taxable municipal bonds (Build America Bonds, as well as other taxable municipal bonds) comprised 0.55% of
the Barclays US Aggregate Index and 2.5% of the Barclays US Credit Index. It is estimated that by the end of
2010, there will be over $200 billion in Build America Bonds outstanding. Taxable municipal bonds, which
include Build America Bonds, are estimated to grow to 4.1% of the US Credit Index by the end of this year.
(Estimates are not guaranteed and actual results may vary)
In fact, Build America Bonds have become so influential to the US fixed income market that the major index
providers have begun introducing indices comprised exclusively of Build America Bonds. The Barclays Build
America Bonds Index, for example, was introduced in October 2009. At the end of April 2010, it contained more
than 80 issues. Its duration was 12.5 years, with an average credit quality of Aa3/A1 (Moody’s). Similar to other
credits entering Barclays’ credit-related indices, Build America Bonds must have at least one year to maturity and
an initial issue size of $250 million to be index-eligible.
The following table summarizes the characteristics of the Barclays BAB Index along with other indices:
Table 1
Characteristics of Barclays BAB Index vs. US Credit Indices
BAB Index
Market Value ($billions)
Average Coupon (%)
Average Yield (%)
Average Maturity (yrs)
Duration (yrs)
Ratings
OAS vs Treasuries (bps)
Muni-Taxable
$48
6.49
6.21
30 yrs
12.5 yrs
Aa3/A1
164
$82
5.80
5.95
24 yrs
10.7 yrs
As3/A1
174
US Credit
$3,261
5.73
4.21
10 yrs
6.3 yrs
A2/A3
128
US Long Credit
$802
6.66
6.04
24 yrs
12.1 yrs
A2/A3
157
Source of data: Barclays Capital. As of April 23, 2010.
Biggest Impact Seen in Long Duration Segment of Market
The most influential impact of Build America Bonds is seen in the long duration segment of the fixed income
market. Taxable municipal bonds comprised 2.91% of the Barclays Long US Credit Index in 2003 and today
comprise 8.9% of this Index (As of March 31, 2010). They are estimated to grow to 16.7% of the Barclays Long
US Credit Index by the end of 2010. The Long US Credit Index is being used increasingly by corporate pension
plans to better match their assets with their liabilities.
3
Why Build America Bonds Are Attractive to Issuers
Build America Bonds provide two primary advantages to issuers:
1) Economic Advantage
The first advantage of Build America Bonds to an issuer is an economic one. Simply put, Build America Bonds
present municipalities with another financing alternative. And, like most things, the introduction of alternatives
often leads to more competitive results. Depending on the purpose of the financing, municipal issuers can now
price their new issue as either tax-exempt or taxable, choosing the most economically advantageous path for the
given issue. Factors such as the prevailing term structure of interest rates at time of issuance, maturity of the issue,
and demand factors influencing tax-exempt yields all help determine the economically superior option at the
given time. Part of the issuer’s decision-making criteria will also include flexibility regarding desired structural
features such as call provisions. Municipal issuers may have to forgo certain call options to appeal to investors
accustomed to buying non-callable corporate bonds.
Because Build America Bonds often provide cheaper financing for the issuer for the life of the outstanding debt, it
has made longer-dated issuance particularly attractive. Through the end of April 2010, 77% of Index-eligible
Build America Bond issuance has been 25 years and longer. This is a noteworthy divergence from the US
investment grade corporate bond market, where, despite record new issuance in 2009, the majority of the supply
was concentrated in maturities of 10 years or less.
To date, Build America Bond issuance has generated significant savings for states and local municipalities
relative to the cost of issuing comparable maturity tax-exempt debt. The table below illustrates this in detail:
Table 2
Savings Realized By Issuing 30-Year BABs Instead of
Similar Maturity Tax-Exempt Bonds
Issuer
BAB
Coupon
Maturity
Ratings
Moody’s/
S&P
Taxable
BAB
Yield
Post-Subsidy
Cost To
Issuer for
BAB1
Approx
TaxExempt
Cost
Net
Savings
From
BAB
Los Angeles Unified
School District
6.758%
2034
Aa3/AA-
6.76%2
4.39%
4.84%2
+45 bps
NYC Water
6.01%
2042
Aa2/AA+
6.01%3
3.90%
4.45%3
+55 bps
University of MA
Building Authority
6.573%
2039
Aa3/A+
6.57%4
4.27%
4.73%4
+46 bps
State of California GO
7.625%
2040
A1/A-
7.48%5
4.96%
5.65%5
+69 bps
Source: Prudential Fixed Income, Bloomberg.
1
Based on 35% subsidy.
2
Based on new issue pricing of tax-exempt and BAB deals in mid-February 2010.
3
Based on new issue BAB deal from March 2010.
4
Based on new issue pricing of tax-exempt and BAB deals in mid-October 2009.
5
Based on new issue pricing of tax-exempt and BAB deals in March 2010.
2) “Access” Advantage
The second important advantage Build America Bonds provide municipal issuers is access to a new and much
broader investor base. Large states and municipalities with significant financing needs are extremely sensitive to
financing costs and liquidity. Accordingly, they require an ongoing and diverse source of buyers to prevent
investor saturation and to keep financing costs competitive.
4
The State of California, for example, is the largest issuer in the tax-exempt municipal market today, representing
approximately 4.5% of the Barclays Municipal Bond Index. California, currently rated A1/A-/A- by the three
major credit rating agencies, has issued more than $10 billion in BABs since the Build America Bond program
launched in April 2009. It is expected to continue to issue frequently given its significant financing needs.
Why Build America Bonds Are Attractive to Investors
The Build America Bonds program provides a clear incentive to municipal issuers, but what about investors?
There are a number of benefits to investors:
1) High Quality
Headlines on state budget deficits notwithstanding, most municipal issuers are high quality credits. A default
study by Moody’s dated February 2010 (“US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries, 1970-2009”) notes that
more than 85% of municipal issuers are currently rated single A or higher. This is in contrast to the global
investment grade corporate market, where only 37% of issuers are rated single A or higher.
The higher quality has historically translated into lower defaults and higher recoveries for municipal bonds. The
Moody’s default study notes that the 10-year cumulative default rate for investment grade municipal bonds was a
minor 0.06%. In contrast, the 10-year cumulative default rate for investment grade corporate bonds during the
same period was 2.50%. Not only have municipal bond default rates been lower than those of corporate bonds,
but their recoveries after default have been higher as well. The Moody’s study notes that the average recovery rate
on defaulted municipal bonds during the period was 67% of par, compared to 37.5% of par for defaulted
corporate bonds.
For fixed income allocations that are heavily exposed to investment grade corporate credit, Build America Bonds
can potentially provide another high quality credit alternative, further diversifying portfolios.
2) Plentiful Supply in Long Maturities
Build America Bonds tend to be issued with long maturities. Of the $82.9 billion in new taxable municipal bonds
issued in 2009, $64.8 billion, or 78%, were in maturities 13 years or longer. This is a very different profile than
the investment grade corporate bond market, where approximately 10% of new issuance in 2009 was in maturities
13 years or longer. (Source: Barclays Capital.) Of course, overall issuance volume in the US investment grade
corporate bond market remains significantly higher than in the taxable municipal market.
This predominance of long maturities is reflected in the duration of the Barclays Build America Bonds Index. In
April of this year, that Index’s duration stood at 12.5 years, a full six years longer than the 6.3 year duration of the
Barclays US Credit Index.
We cannot underestimate the importance of this long maturity focus in the current environment. As has been welldocumented, demand for high quality, long duration corporate bonds has soared since the advent of the Pension
Protection Act. It is becoming increasingly challenging to purchase long duration corporate bonds in size at
attractive spreads.
5
Figure 2
2009 New Issuance, By Maturity
Taxable Municipals and Investment Grade Corporates
1-12 Yrs
13+ Yrs
2.3%
Investment Grade Corp
Taxable Municipals
46.3%
53.7%
97.7%
Excludes Government-guaranteed debt.
Source of data: Barclays Capital. As of December 31, 2009.
3) Sufficient Market Liquidity
Trading liquidity was far from assured when the first Build America Bond was issued in April 2009. The program
was new and an active secondary market had yet to be established. Institutional buyers were unfamiliar with the
fledgling Build America Bond program and indeed with municipal bonds in general.
To attract investor interest, the early Build America Bond deals were priced at significant concessions to
comparably-rated corporate bonds. These early concessions were so attractive that most early deals were
oversubscribed. One of the earliest deals, for example, was the $1.4 billion New Jersey Turnpike Authority deal,
rated A3/A+/A, which was priced at issue in April 2009 at +370 bps spread to the 30-year Treasury. Since then,
through late April 2010, spreads have tightened approximately 235 bps for this credit. By comparison, an
indicative spread for a mid-single A corporate industrial bond at that time was approximately +235 bps to the 30year Treasury, and has since tightened 145 bps.
Thousands of municipal entities have subsequently issued Build America Bonds, with close to $100 billion in
total issuance through late April 2010. The volume of issuance has added to the depth of the taxable municipal
market, leading to tighter concessions and improved liquidity. Not surprisingly, liquidity is highest in the larger,
index-eligible deals, although we believe value can be found in certain non-index eligible deals, provided careful
research is conducted.
We have also observed that the depth of the investor base has broadened with the passage of time, with an
increasing number of investors now participating in the larger Build America Bond deals. The Federal Reserve
Board’s Flow of Funds report sheds light on the holders of municipal debt. Between 2008 and 2009, foreign
investors increased their holdings of municipal debt to $60.6 billion (from roughly $41 billion), presumably from
participation in Build America Bond deals. (Report released in March 2010.) In fact, approximately 30% of a
recent California G.O. Build America Bond deal was purchased by non-US investors.
4) Good Total Return Opportunities, Particularly in the Long Duration Segment
Despite the spread tightening in 2009, Build America Bonds generally remain cheaper than comparably-rated
corporate industrial bonds. Perhaps the biggest reason is the simplest one: familiarity. Build America Bonds are
only a year old, and most institutions are still more comfortable investing in corporate bonds. In addition, despite
historically low default rates and generally higher quality ratings, current fiscal pressures among state and local
6
governments cannot be ignored. Build America Bond issues need to be carefully researched, and not all
institutions have been able to commit the resources required to analyze these credits. Finally, while liquidity in the
Build America Bond market has clearly improved, it remains less liquid than the larger and more established
corporate bond market.
The table below illustrates the spread differentials more clearly:
Table 3
Good Total Return Opportunities
Issuer
Chicago Metropolitan Water
University of California
Missouri Highway
New York City Water Authority
New York City GO
Bay Area Toll Authority
Los Angeles Unified School District GO
Illinois Highway
NJ Turnpike
North Texas Tollway
State of California GO
Deal
Size
($mm)
$600
$758
$280
$375
$800
$1,300
$1,250
$280
$1,370
$825
$1,250
Ratings
Moody’s/S&P/
Fitch
Aaa/AAA/AAA
Aa1/AA/NR
Aa1/AA+/AAAa2/AA+/AA+
Aa2/AA/AAAa3/AA/AAAa2/AA-/NRAa3/AA-/AAA3/A+/A
A2/A-/NR
A1/A-/A-
Spread to 30-Yr
Treasury*
(bps)
+81
+125
+90
+103
+118
+145
+153
+126
+135
+158
+222
Comparative Trading
Spreads for Corporate
Industrial Credits*
“AA” rated = T + 73
“A” rated = T + 90
“A-” rated = T + 110
“BBB” rated = T + 157
Source: Prudential Fixed Income. Shown for illustrative purposes only. Estimates are not guaranteed and actual results may vary.
* Indicative spreads are as of April 26, 2010 and represent estimates only.
Despite Low Defaults Historically, are Municipal Bonds Safe Today?
The deep US economic recession we are emerging from has certainly had a negative impact on municipalities
across the country. In general, most states and localities have had to cut expenditures significantly and implement
revenue-raising actions where possible to balance their budgets. While the states received aid from the US
government as part of the economic stimulus package enacted last year, this aid is scheduled to expire at the end
of 2010. In the meantime, many states are still struggling to close budget gaps. We believe the majority of states
and municipalities will continue to make the difficult, unpopular decisions required to balance their budgets. We
also expect that municipalities that avoid taking the required and responsible actions to balance their budgets will
see their debt ratings downgraded by the credit rating agencies.
As has been widely noted in headlines across the country, there are increasing concerns questioning the ability of
certain municipal issuers to repay their debt. Despite these recognized challenges, the majority of investment
grade municipal issuers are not high default risks, in our view. Discussions surrounding rising defaults in the US
municipal market are centered primarily around high yield municipal credits, which, like high yield corporate
bonds, are rated below the BBB rating category. The Barclays Municipal Bond Index had a market value of $1.23
trillion on March 31, 2010, while the Barclays Municipal High Yield Index had a market value of $54.5 billion. If
we use these indices as proxies for the overall municipal market, we see that approximately 96% of the municipal
market is considered investment grade. Certain municipal high yield sectors that have experienced increased
levels of distress in recent years have been special assessment district deals (which are directly supported by real
estate development projects) and senior living facilities.
Outlook for Build America Bonds
Under current legislation, municipal issuers have the ability to issue Build America Bonds through the end of
2010. As part of President Obama’s 2011 budget proposal, he has recommended that the program be made
7
permanent, although at a reduced subsidy of 28% instead of the current 35%. The proposal also calls for
expansion of the program to include other municipal issuers as well as broaden the purpose beyond capital
expenditures. Highlighting the success and importance of the program, the House Ways and Means Committee
subsequently passed a bill that includes a provision to extend the Build America Bonds program a few years,
gradually reducing the subsidy from 35% to 30% by 2013. This bill is currently under consideration in the Senate.
While a final decision on the future of the program is still months away, we believe it highly likely that the Build
America Bond program will be either extended or made permanent later this year.
Such moves will further improve the liquidity of Build America Bonds, as the investor base expands to include
participants who may not have been willing to dedicate resources to a program scheduled to end in 2010. Until a
final decision is made regarding the future of the program, we believe municipal entities will continue to take
advantage of the 35% federal subsidy by issuing Build America Bonds, especially on the long end, in increasing
numbers. In fact, as noted earlier, it is estimated that by the end of 2010 there will be over $200 billion in Build
America Bonds outstanding.
Interestingly, Moody’s and Fitch recently began the process of recalibrating their municipal rating scales. The
primary driver for this action, according to Moody's, is the market's desire for closer ratings comparability
between municipal and corporate bonds, particularly now that Build America Bonds have expanded the universe
of municipal bond buyers. This recalibration will result in higher published credit ratings for both the outstanding
and future debt issuance of several types of municipal issuers.
Conclusion
Build America Bonds offer fixed income investors high quality, relatively high yields, and long-dated
maturities. Additionally, Build America Bonds also offer valuable sector and credit diversification from an
asset class – municipal bonds – that has had historically low default rates.
As such, we believe high quality, index-eligible Build America Bonds represent excellent value for institutions
seeking exposure to long duration assets while also benefiting from credit and sector diversification.
Institutions gain access to an asset class of high quality securities with high relative yields and long-term
maturities, at attractive valuations.
For these reasons, we have tactically added select Build America Bonds to some of our insurance, corporate,
asset-liability, Core, and Core Plus mandates.
8
NOTES
© Copyright 2010, Prudential Investment Management, Inc. Unless otherwise indicated, Prudential holds the copyright to the
content of the article. Prudential Investment Management is the primary asset management business of Prudential Financial,
Inc. Prudential Fixed Income is Prudential Investment Management’s largest public fixed income asset management unit, and
operates through Prudential Investment Management, Inc. (PIM), a registered investment advisor. Prudential Financial and
the Rock logo are registered service marks of The Prudential Insurance Company of America and its affiliates.
These materials represent the views, opinions and recommendations of the author(s) regarding the economic conditions, asset
classes, securities, issuers or financial instruments referenced herein. Distribution of this information to any person other
than the person to whom it was originally delivered and to such person’s advisers is unauthorized, and any reproduction of
these materials, in whole or in part, or the divulgence of any of the contents hereof, without prior consent of Prudential Fixed
Income is prohibited. Certain information contained herein has been obtained from sources that Prudential Fixed Income
believes to be reliable as of the date presented; however, Prudential Fixed Income cannot guarantee the accuracy of such
information, assure its completeness, or warrant such information will not be changed. The information contained herein is
current as of the date of issuance (or such earlier date as referenced herein) and is subject to change without notice. Prudential
Fixed Income has no obligation to update any or all of such information; nor do we make any express or implied warranties
or representations as to the completeness or accuracy or accept responsibility for errors. These materials are not intended
as an offer or solicitation with respect to the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument or any
investment management services and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Past performance
may not be indicative of future results. No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss (whether direct, indirect, or
consequential) that may arise from any use of the information contained in or derived from this report. Prudential Fixed
Income and its affiliates may make investment decisions that are inconsistent with the recommendations or views expressed
herein, including for proprietary accounts of Prudential Fixed Income or its affiliates.
The opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual client circumstances, objectives, or needs and
are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies to particular clients or
prospects. No determination has been made regarding the suitability of any securities, financial instruments or strategies for
particular clients or prospects. For any securities or financial instruments mentioned herein, the recipient(s) of this report
must make its own independent decisions.
References to specific securities and their issuers are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended and should not be
interpreted as recommendations to purchase or sell such securities. The securities referenced may or may not be held in
portfolios managed by Prudential Fixed Income and if such securities are held, no representation is being made that such
securities will continue to be held.
Conflicts of Interest: Prudential Fixed Income and its affiliates may have investment advisory or other business
relationships with the issuers of securities referenced herein. Prudential Fixed Income and its affiliates, officers, directors
and employees may from time to time have long or short positions in and buy or sell securities or financial instruments
referenced herein. Prudential Fixed Income affiliates may develop and publish research that is independent of, and different
than, the recommendations contained herein. Prudential Fixed Income personnel other than the author(s), such as sales,
marketing and trading personnel, may provide oral or written market commentary or ideas to Prudential Fixed Income’s
clients or prospects or proprietary investment ideas that differ from the views expressed herein. Additional information
regarding actual and potential conflicts of interest is available in Part II of PIM’s Form ADV.
2010-0651
9