Fixed Income
9 Mar 2023
5 min read
Portfolio Manager & Managing Director John Bonnell argues that the true risk-return profile of GO versus revenue bonds may surprise some investors.
Not all investors know that municipal bonds are debt instruments issued by states, cities and counties to fund various projects: for instance, construction of roads, schools, hospitals, sewage facilities, water lines and much more. Muni bonds are typically classified into two camps — general obligation and revenue bonds. In this article, we provide an overview on the main differences between the two and clarify misconceptions that can lead investors to miscalculate the risk-return potential of these bonds.
What’s the Difference?
General obligation (or GO) bonds are issued by state and local governments and are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer, which in turn uses its taxing authority — that is, collection of income, property and sales tax — to repay the bond obligation. In other words, a GO issuer can repay its debt using any funds that are legally available to it. That includes, for example, money from a municipality’s “general fund,” which may be sourced from a variety of taxes and fees that it has collected.
Revenue bonds, on the other hand, are backed by a dedicated revenue stream produced by a specific project that the bond was issued for. For example, a utility authority might issue a revenue bond in order to obtain the capital needed to build or expand an electric utility plant or water treatment facility. The revenues collected from these projects (e.g., from users electric or water bills) are then used to support the revenue bond. Other projects supported by revenue bond issuance might also include hospitals, toll bridges and roads, or housing projects.
The Great Fallacy of GO Bonds vs. Revenue Bonds
Many investors believe GO bonds tend to have lower credit risk than revenue bonds do, as GO bond payments are funded by much broader and more diversified sources of potential income streams than revenue bonds. This is a common myth, and we believe it can lead investors astray when they are evaluating the true risks of GO vs. revenue bonds. There have been a number of instances in the past where municipalities or governments have filed for bankruptcy and defaulted on their GO bonds, even as they remained willing and able to pay their revenue bond debt. The following are two recent such cases:
Lessons from Detroit’s Bankruptcy
The Detroit bankruptcy story serves as an invaluable lesson for municipal bond market participants. In July 2013, Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, defaulting on several hundred million dollars of its GO bonds. Not only was the city skipping on these bond payments, but they were also unable to sufficiently pay their pension debt holders. Throughout this same period, the city continued to keep essential services running and was able to make 100% of its payments on water and sewer revenue bonds. The resulting payout structure helps disprove the long-held belief that GO bonds are the safest municipal security out there.
Lessons from Puerto Rico’s Default
The Puerto Rico debt crisis serves as another example when payment to GO bond holders are not as certain as one thinks. In 2016, the Puerto Rico government decidedly told its creditors it would not fulfill its GO debt obligations of roughly $800 million, even though these bonds were explicitly backed with a “constitutional priority” when issued. The government believed it instead needed to safeguard the essential needs of its residents and continued to pay its teachers, emergency responders, police officers and so on. In this case, the unfortunate outcome for GO bondholders was significant haircuts in their recovery.
Both of these recent examples demonstrate that when governments are faced with insolvency and hard choices, many will likely choose maintenance of basic services before making bondholder payments, even when there is a strong legal pledge to prioritize the latter. Thus, the differential in risks and income stability between GO and revenue bonds can vary greatly depending on the legal status of what is pledged for repayment, and the values and priorities of those in charge at the time the bond is due. We believe each bond, whether GO or revenue, must be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis with a discriminating eye.
Not All Defaults Create Equal Damage
While GO defaults have been rare historically, when governments do go into bankruptcy, the dollar volume of debt defaulted on can be quite large in comparison to revenue bonds. The table below reveals a sharp difference between the “default count” and the “dollar volume” of all the municipal defaults from 1970 to 2020. Based on this Moody’s study, while the competitive enterprises (i.e., revenue bonds) made up over 75% of defaults, the underlying projects that issued these revenue bonds were relatively small, resulting in a much smaller default volume than that of GO bonds. In contrast, while GO bonds only comprised 25% of the total defaults, they accounted for approximately 75% of the total default volume.
In other words, although GO bonds tend to have higher credit ratings and default less, when they do default, the damage is far greater than that of revenue bonds. Revenue bonds are not without their risks as they make up the larger percent of defaults. However, despite their higher frequency of default, the total default loss is usually less severe.
Frequency versus severity of municipal bond defaults, 1970–2020
SECTOR | DEFAULT COUNT | DEFAULT VOLUME | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
COUNT | SHARE | MLN USD | SHARE | |
General Governments | Total:29 | 25.5% | $53,455 | 72.5% |
City GO | 5 | 4.4% | $916 | 1.3% |
City Lease | 3 | 2.6% | $1,767 | 2.5% |
County GO | 3 | 2.6% | $326 | 0.5% |
County Lease | 2 | 1.8% | $117 | 0.2% |
K-12 GO School District | 2 | 1.8% | $10 | <0.1% |
Special District | 2 | 1.8% | $48 | 0.1% |
State Governments | 11 | 9.6% | $50,220 | 69.6% |
Tax Increment | 1 | 0.9% | $51 | 0.1% |
Municipal Utilities | Total:8 | 7.1% | $15,107 | 20.9% |
Electric Utility | 3 | 2.6% | $11,343 | 15.7% |
Mass Transit | 1 | 0.9% | $439 | 0.6% |
Toll Facility | 2 | 1.8% | $216 | 0.3% |
Water/Sewer Utility | 2 | 1.8% | $3,109 | 4.3% |
Competitive Enterprises | Total:77 | 67.8% | $3,564 | 4.9% |
Charter School | 2 | 1.8% | $28 | <0.1% |
Higher Education | 1 | 0.9% | $47 | 0.1% |
Hospitals & Health Service Providers | 23 | 20.2% | $2,455 | 3.4% |
Hotel | 2 | 1.8% | $139 | 0.2% |
Housing | 45 | 39.5% | $764 | 1.1% |
Not-for- Profit | 2 | 1.8% | $86 | 0.1% |
Private Colleges & Universities | 1 | 0.9% | $35 | <0.1% |
Private K-12 | 1 | 0.9% | $10 | <0.1% |
Source: Moody’s Investor Service
Putting it all together, the municipal bond market is a highly complex and heavily nuanced space in which there is often more than meets the eye — so investors cannot solely rely on credit ratings in their decision-making. Given what has transpired in Detroit, Puerto Rico and other cases, we believe successful municipal bond investing requires a discerning bottom-up research process in an effort to select both GO and revenue bonds that will yield durable income and returns for investors over the longer term.
Important Information
Investments carry risks, including possible loss of principal.
The views expressed are subject to change and do not necessarily reflect the views of Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. This information should not be relied upon as a recommendation or investment advice and is not intended to predict the performance of any investment or market.
Please see our glossary for a definition of terms.
This is not a solicitation or offer for any product or service. Nor is it a complete analysis of every material fact concerning any market, industry, or investment. Data has been obtained from sources considered reliable, but Thornburg makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy of such information and has no obligation to provide updates or changes. Thornburg does not accept any responsibility and cannot be held liable for any person's use of or reliance on the information and opinions contained herein.
This is directed to INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS AND INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ONLY and is not intended for use by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to the laws or regulations applicable to their place of citizenship, domicile or residence.
Thornburg is regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under U.S. laws which may differ materially from laws in other jurisdictions. Any entity or person forwarding this to other parties takes full responsibility for ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws in connection with its distribution.
Outside the United States
For Hong Kong: This article is issued by Thornburg Investment Management (Asia) Limited ("Company"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. The Company is currently licensed with the Hong Kong SFC for Type 1 and Type 9 regulated activity, with the CE No.: BPQ208.
The material is only intended for Individual, Corporate and Institutional Professional Investor Use Only and may not be reproduced or redistributed to any person without the written consent of Thornburg Investment Management (Asia) Limited or its affiliated companies.
The material has not been reviewed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong.
This document is for informational purpose only and should not intended to constitute any tax, accounting, regulatory, legal, insurance or investment advice and does not constitute any offer or solicitation to offer or recommendation of any investment product/service from the Company. The information provided is not intended to predict the performance of any investment or market. Data has been obtained from sources considered reliable. Notwithstanding, the Company makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy of such information or opinion and has no obligation to provide updates or changes. The Company does not accept any responsibility and cannot be held liable for any person’s use of or reliance on the information and opinions contained herein.
Investment involves risks. Past performance is not a guide to future performance and should not be the sole factor of consideration when selecting a product. You should not make investment decision solely based on this general information. If you have any queries, please contact your financial advisor and seek professional advice. All financial investments involve an element of risk.
For Australia: Thornburg holds a foreign AFSL 526689.
Discover more about: Fixed Income
Municipal Bonds
Fixed Income
Municipal Bonds
Stay Connected
Subscribe now to stay up-to-date with Thornburg’s news and insights.
Subscribe
Related Content
Fixed Income
Unlock the Potential of Income
Fixed Income
Municipal Debt and the Changing Landscape of Private Higher Education
Fixed Income
Observations: Market Concentration and the Fed’s Policy Outlook
More Insights
Advising Clients
Will Your Clients Embrace Artificial Intelligence?Not sure how your clients feel about AI? It's time to find out.
By Jan Blakeley Holman, CFP, CIMA, ChFC, CDFA, CFS, GFS
31 May 2024
5 min read
READ
Advising Clients
Bridge the Gap, Deliver Services That Meet Client ExpectationsThe best client relationships are built on clear communication
By Jan Blakeley Holman, CFP, CIMA, ChFC, CDFA, CFS, GFS
24 May 2024
3 min read
READ
Municipal Bonds
Municipal Debt and the Changing Landscape of Private Higher EducationWith demographic declines ahead, municipal bond investors can find opportunities in private higher education debt.
By Todd Wax, CFA
28 May 2024
3 min read
READ
Global Equity
Forget the Magnificent 7 – Why You Should Invest in Europe’s Fantastic 5Europe has its own crop of market-beating growth stocks that are overlooked compared to the Magnificent Seven in the US.
By Nicholas Anderson, CFA
17 May 2024
5 min read
READ
Investor Advice
Should You Opt for an Older or Younger Financial Adviser?Do you want the wisdom that comes with age or the innovation that comes with youth? Maybe you can have both with an advisory team.
By Jan Blakeley Holman, CFP, CIMA, ChFC, CDFA, CFS, GFS
27 Apr 2024
3 min read
READ
Observations: The Value of Dividends and Munis to Stoke Income
Our Co-Heads of Investments make the case for dividend-paying stocks and the tax-free feature of Munis as tax hikes are possible, given our government debt levels.
By Ben Kirby, CFA
30 Apr 2024
5 min watch
WATCH
Our insights. Your inbox.
Sign up to receive timely market commentary and perspectives from our financial experts delivered to your inbox weekly.
Subscribe