Municipal Bond Forum

I have a question about municipal bonds selling at a premium: If I buy, for example, a 10-year face-value muni bond with a 5% coupon for $1,000 par and pay a 10% premium over par, I pay $1,100 to buy the bond. When the bond matures, I get back $1,000 and earn the stated yield-to-maturity when I purchased the bond. Assume that I can roll over a maturing $1,000 bond and use the proceeds to obtain a new bond selling at $1,100. To obtain the $100 premium, assume I go into my checking account.

Isn’t the upfront $100 premium simply returned to me over the life of the bond in the form of a slice of each coupon interest payment? That is, isn’t repayment of the $100 premium simply a return of my investment ($100), not a return on my investment ($100)?

J.B.

I can sign up for Medicare soon and just learned that my rate for Part B could be double the minimum most others pay because the government will go back and refigure my taxes and add my tax-exempt interest to my income. This is very unfair. Has your company, and others that sell bonds, been contacting our representatives and trying to get this changed?

R.L., Missouri

I live in a retirement community where the chief financial officer is a volunteer and not educated in investments. We have a $2 million bond portfolio that she manages. She buys all five-year, high yield (4.00% to 5.00% in today’s 1.00% market) munis with stiff premiums. A recent purchase was a $50,000 par value 4.90% California muni with a five-year maturity (we live in CA) for which she paid over $58,000. The whole portfolio is like that. Please explain why she shouldn’t buy premium bonds; she won’t listen to me. Or call me crazy and tell me it’s OK to rack up $80,000 in premiums in this portfolio.

C.G., California

In your article, “The One Issue Politicians Aren’t Fighting About,” you talk about attempts to limit the tax exemption on muni bond interest. What is the limit predicated on?

M.G., Florida

I’m surprised by your article, “House Votes To Treat Munis As ‘High Quality’ In Bank Rule.” Munis mainly trade by appointment only, and based on my own experience during the 2007-2008 crisis, there was a lack of liquidity in munis, with prices taking a beating.

Now, don’t get me wrong, as I bought into the distress we were experiencing back then and wound up with very profitable positions in the end.

But given how few munis trade in any size, other than maybe “AAA” and “AA” bonds issued by states, I’d hardly call munis a highly liquid class of instruments.

I think the House bill is ill informed. In the past, you’ve said munis are bought mainly to buy and hold until maturity by retail investors, so why would those types of investments now be considered good sources of liquidity for big banks during times of stress?

Seems a bit disingenuous to me, given all your past postings.

C.N.

In your interesting article, “Just How Smart is the ‘Intelligent Investor’?” you seem to avoid considering inflation. While it’s low now, historically, it can be quite high. Thus, a 4.00% real yield for a long-term bond can be eaten by inflation down to almost nothing or worse by the end of its term. In addition, though the risk of default is small, it is no longer as small as it was in the past. I’ve had several bonds default in whole or in part. In addition, if for any reason you need to sell the bonds and the interest rate has moved up, as it most likely will, you will lose capital. For those reasons, long-term-munis are not as attractive as you present them. But I bet you knew all that! I’ve been in and out of munis for more than 30 years.

G.H., California

I read both the Wall Street Journal article and your response, “Just How Smart is the ‘Intelligent Investor’?” I think the WSJ article really was saying that some muni bonds and dealers state the “distribution yield” to their clients, in addition to the yield to worst and yield to maturity. Many clients probably don’t bother to understand what they mean and falsely interpret distribution yield as if it is a meaningful number. In my opinion, and hopefully yours, it is an irrelevant and meaningless number. I recognized that when I bought my first muni bond, but I am a highly analytical type. I would venture to say that most muni bond buyers are not so mathematically inclined. Probably “distribution yield” should never even be mentioned because the mere mention of it conveys the impression that it has some relevance. That was my takeaway from the WSJ article, and I agreed with that message because I’d already reached the same conclusion.

S.M., Pennsylvania

Your “Just How Smart is the ‘Intelligent Investor’?” article should be required reading for anyone who buys individual municipal bonds. Family members for whom I help manage some their assets, including significant holdings in municipal bonds, think of bonds as trading mechanisms, not holding securities.

J.B., Illinois

Do the worst case yields cited by your firm account for an adjustment of principal in the return? In a recent Wall Street Journal article, the columnist advised bond buyers to ask this very important question.

V.A., Nevada

A recent column in the Wall Street Journal said brokers overstate the yield on municipal bonds and that 4.00% returns on a bond are an illusion. On my bond purchases from FMSbonds, I always know the yield to maturity and yield to call. I have enjoyed purchasing many bonds from FMSbonds in 2015 that pay over 4.00% and, in a few cases over 5.00%. Can you address this please?

B.A., Indiana