Bond quality ratings continue to be an area of focus across the credit
markets with extra focus on the volatility in the corporate high yield markets.
Questions are being asked about how to gauge which municipal bonds to
invest in, and how big of a factor the credit quality of a fund really is. Below
Michael Walls, the Portfolio Manager for the Ivy Municipal High Income Fund,
discusses how a rating is determined, how he views ratings and his outlook
for the municipal bond market.
When reviewing the holdings of funds with a municipal bond
component, one thing most people will look for early on is the
credit ratings of the underlying investments in the fund.
And this would seem to make sense. You can gauge the
potential risk of any fund based on the level of bonds rated at
various levels. Any investments listed as “junk bonds” could
bring higher returns – but also carry a higher level of risk. A
municipal bond issuance that isn’t rated at all should then be
considered the riskiest of investments, right? Not so fast.
A bond can be considered unrated for various reasons,
not all of which are related to the risk or return associated
with the issuance.
Depending on what ratings companies the fund works with,
they may simply not know the rating for certain bonds. There
are three main companies that supply ratings for municipal
bond offerings: Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch’s. Each
company charges for a bond to be reviewed and a rating
issued. Many issuers may only pay for one or two companies
to rate their bonds. When that happens, if you subscribe to
the third company, that bond will show as "unrated."
Here is an example. City A wants to issue some general
obligation bonds. They contract with Moody’s to review and
rate their offering. Moody’s gives them an AA rating. If an
investor looks at the information for this issuance on the
website for any rating company except Moody’s, this will not
show as an AA rating, however – it will show as unrated. The
same holds true when that bond is part of a larger fund.
Because it costs to be reviewed and rated, some municipal
bonds choose not to be rated at all. Examples of this would
be issues from schools, hospitals and smaller governments.
For many smaller issuances, it can be deemed not fiscally
responsible to pay for a rating.
In addition, some purchases would be for land deals. Because
the actual investment is undeveloped land, there would be no
rating available. So why buy these bonds? Because the belief is
that, someday, that land will be slated for development. When
that happens, the bonds will be “pre-refunded,” which will
potentially result in an enhanced credit quality and improved
valuation, due to escrowed Triple-A U.S. Treasury securities
that secure the pre-refunded bonds.
As portfolio manager for the Ivy Municipal High Income
Fund, I believe strongly in investing in issuances that make
sense in the long run. With the current market offering few
new opportunities that aren’t overpriced, it is even more
important now to stick with offerings we know and include a
cash component in case of a market downturn for municipal
bonds. I see the current market as an issuers market, with no
truly attractive large deals available right now. Although we
have always included non-rated issuances in the Fund, this fact
is a large part of why we have looked to the non-rated market for
recent purchases. While many funds have bought high-quality
municipal bonds that they lever up using a line of credit or
inverse floaters, we don’t feel the market is attractive enough to
do that right now. The demand for what is available is so strong
that these offerings are being broken up into small allotments
and the rates decreased because of the demand. While it can be
considered standard practice to leverage investments in order
to show a credit rating, the Fund does not do that. We feel there
is more transparency for the investor if we simply show what we
have invested in, rated or not.
So where have we put our focus? Not in all the typical places.
We’re underweight against our benchmark in hospitals
and healthcare because we are waiting for the results of the
movement to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and
how that could affect bonds in this arena. We don’t have a
concentration in any one area of the country. We have put the
majority of the bonds we own in revenue-specific projects that
are not tied to a specific state.
Is this the correct approach? None of us have a crystal ball, but
I believe it’s the right path given the opportunities we see in the
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The opinions expressed are those of the Fund’s manager and are not meant as investment advice or to predict or project the future performance of any investment
product. The opinions are current through August 2017, and are subject to change due to market conditions or other factors and no forecasts can be guaranteed. The information is being provided as a general source of
information and is not intended as a recommendation to purchase, sell, or hold any specific security or to engage in any investment strategy. Investment decisions should always be made based on an investor’s specific
objectives, financial needs, risk tolerance, and time horizon.
Risk factors: The value of the Fund’s shares will change, and you could lose money on your investment. Fixed income securities are subject to interest rate risk and, as such, the net asset value of the Fund may fall as
interest rates rise. Investing in below investment grade securities may carry a greater risk of nonpayment of interest or principal than higher-rated bonds. The Fund may include a significant portion of its investments
that will pay interest that is taxable under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Exempt-interest dividends the Fund pays may be subject to state and local income taxes. The portion of the dividends the Fund pays that
is attributable to interest earned on U.S. government securities generally is not subject to those taxes, although distributions by the Fund to its shareholders of net realized gains on the sale of those securities are fully
subject to those taxes. The municipal securities market generally, or certain municipal securities in particular, may be significantly affected by adverse political, legislative or regulatory changes or litigation at the Federal
or state level. These and other risks are more fully described in the Fund’s prospectus.
Quality: Our preference is to always use ratings obtained from Standard & Poor’s. For securities not rated by Standard & Poor’s, ratings are obtained from Moody’s. We do not evaluate these ratings, but simply assign
them to the appropriate credit quality category as determined by the rating agency.