The municipal bond market has shown more resilience than expected, with defaults lower than predicted. While bond issuance declined in 2011, secondary trading volumes remained steady, showing investor confidence. The investor base has shifted, with more trading accounts and individual investors replacing some mutual funds. Additionally, major banks have increased muni staff levels in recent years, indicating they believe defaults will remain relatively low.
1 of 3
Download to read offline
More Related Content
Tricumen Muni Market 23 Jan12 Public
1. Market Update: Muni Market
Muni Market Resilience:why the sell side headcount matters
The muni market is under pressure, but the wave of defaults has not materialised.
Three key trends suggest the outlook is cautiously positive: (1) the resilient secondary trading
volumes; (2) evolution in the investor mix; and crucially - (3) muni staffing levels.
In the not-too-distant past, various market observers predicted a wave of municipal bond defaults in
2011; the famous ex-bank analyst Meredith Whitney went further than most, expecting hundreds of
billions of dollars worth [of defaults] in the past year. This, of course, would have caused a seismic
shock to a market already struggling with the current global macro crises.
On the face of it, there were valid reasons for concern: the notional volume of overall primary
issuance plummeted by 30% y/y in 2011, and by 35% in the more profitable negotiated deals.
Bond notional issued by US Municipalities(US$bn)
500
450
3
400 3
4
350
300 7
250 357
334 349
200
232
150
100
50
53 58 73 61
0
2008 2009 2010 2011
Competitive Negotiated Private Placement
Source: SIFMA
The banks competing in this market most of whom have a front-row view of the credit worthiness of
municipalities did not share this pessimistic view. Nor, it seems, did investors, as 30-day average
secondary trading volumes decreased by mere 10% in three years to end-2011.
30 Day Average Customer Notional Traded (US$m)
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
Jan 09 Apr 09 Jul 09 Oct 09 Jan 10 Apr 10 Jul 10 Oct 10 Jan 11 Apr 11 Jul 11 Oct 11 Jan 12
Source: SIFMA
1/3 23 January 2012
2. Market Update: Muni Market
This investor base is somewhat different to that of a few years ago. Our research has found that the
number of Muni-focused mutual funds has declined, while trading accounts, insurers and individual
investors have grown in importance as buyers of muni securities. The growth of the retail investor
base has been particularly useful for sell-side firms, as the bid-offer spreads that banks can charge
retail clients partly offsets the decline in trading volumes. As a result, a number of investment banks
have agreed distribution deals with brokers and private banks.
A typical high yield municipal new issue might now see the distribution to investors as follows:
Typical distribution for a high yield municipal new issue (mid-2011)
Trading
Accounts, 15%
Retail, 35%
Insurers, 25%
Mutual
Funds, 25%
Source: Tricumen
Finally, and in our view crucially, our analysis of Muni departments staffing levels suggests that banks
are cautiously optimistic regarding the outlook. From the end of 2008 to date, the average headcount
at Barclays Capital, Citigroup, JPM and Morgan Stanley actually grew; the increase was modest, but in
stark contrast to 5-20% overall headcount reduction seen in other areas. We also note the steady
growth of origination and banking headcount over the past three years: to us, this indicates that the
investment banks closest to municipalities view the odds of imminent market collapse as being very
remote indeed.
Average Front Office Producer Headcount (excludes research staff)
800
700
600 222 234 230
217
500
400
300
487 471 488 497
200
100
0
2008 2009 2010 2011
Banking Syndicate Sales & Trading
Source: Tricumen. Figures based on the average headcount at Barclays, Citigroup, J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley. Goldman Sachs
and Bank of America were excluded, for reasons of client confidentiality)
2/3 23 January 2012
3. Market Update: Muni Market
Notes & Caveats
Tricumen Limited has used all reasonable care in writing, editing and presenting the information found in this report. All
reasonable effort has been made to ensure the information supplied is accurate and not misleading. For the purposes of cross-
market comparison, all numerical data is normalised in accordance to Tricumens proprietary product classification and may
contain +/-10% margin of error.
The report has been compiled for purposes of information supply only. We recommend that independent advice and enquiries
should be sought before acting upon it.
Tricumen Limited makes no representation, guarantee or warranty as to the suitability, accuracy, completeness of the report or
the information therein. Tricumen Limited assumes no responsibility for information contained in this report and disclaims all
liability arising from negligence or otherwise in respect of such information.
Tricumen Limited is not liable for any damages arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use this
report or any material contained in it, or from any action or decision taken as a result of using the report.
3/3 23 January 2012