Upload
guggenheim-partners
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Municipal bonds posted strong returns in the first quarter of 2014 and look set for a strong year thanks to tight supply amid an improving macroeconomic environment and expectations that the refinancing wave is over for now.
Citation preview
1Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
Investment Professionals
B. Scott Minerd
Global Chief Investment Officer
Anne B. Walsh, CFA
Assistant Chief Investment Officer, Fixed Income
James Pass
Senior Managing Director,
Portfolio Manager
Allen Li, CFA
Managing Director, Portfolio Manager
Chris Randall
Vice President, Trader
David A. Stone
Analyst, Credit Research
Perry Hollowell, CFA, CMT, CAIA
Vice President, Investment Research
May 2014
Municipal Market OutlookRelative Value and Tight Supply
The Barclays Municipal Bond Index posted strong returns of 3.32 percent in the first quarter
of 2014, outperforming the Credit Suisse High Yield Index, the Institutional Leveraged Loan
Index and even some equity indices, such as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Underpinning
this solid municipal bond performance has been improving fundamentals at state and local
governments, which have made progress fixing structural problems like pension shortfalls that
have plagued issuers and curtailed market returns.
Despite these returns, municipal bond funds recorded an outflow of $1.2 billion in the first
quarter. However, demand from investors should return just as supply constraints may restrict
annual issuance. We expect municipal bond issuance will fall to $280-$300 billion in 2014.
That would be the lowest issuance volume in a decade as annual volume has averaged over
$350 billion since 2000.
We expect prices of municipals to rise further in 2014 as a result of the improved state
macroeconomic outlook combined with reduced supply of municipal bonds. Some investors
have avoided municipal bonds because of negative attention surrounding troubled issuers
such as Puerto Rico, Illinois and Detroit. Nevertheless, we believe there is still relative value
to be found in this supply-constrained environment. We find particular value in the often
neglected 10- to 15-year mid-range maturity for municipal bonds.
Report Highlights§ Improving economic growth does not translate into more bond issuance: Improving
economic fundamentals are unlikely to translate into additional municipal bond issuance.
A combination of structural, political and technical forces will conspire to keep the overall
volume of new and refunding issuance low. This should be a tailwind for prices.
§ States are reluctant to issue new debt: Most major spending by state and local governments,
such as Medicaid and pensions, is mandatory and has increased in recent years. As a result,
states have less flexibility to meet new interest payments and have become more reluctant to
issue new bonds.
§ The wave of refinancing is past: Refunding high-interest debt with low-interest debt is
a critical supply component of the municipal bond market. Because many of the typical
candidates have been refunded already, we do not expect refunding volume to represent a
significant portion of annual issuance this year.
2Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
Municipal Market Scorecard As of Month End
Tax-Exempt Municipals
Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14Spread Yield Spread Yield Spread Yield Spread Yield
10-year AAA GO (30) 2.77% (26) 2.53% (37) 2.40% (35) 2.49%
10-year A GO 50 3.57% 47 3.26% 29 3.06% 33 3.17%
30-year AAA GO 28 4.19% 25 3.85% 14 3.72% 11 3.65%
30-year A GO 109 5.00% 101 4.61% 86 4.44% 84 4.38%
Taxable Municipals
Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14Spread Yield Spread Yield Spread Yield Spread Yield
10-year AAA GO 70 3.71% 76 3.41% 79 3.45% 79 3.51%
10-year A GO 143 4.44% 137 4.02% 135 4.01% 135 4.07%
30-year AAA GO 84 4.78% 71 4.31% 61 4.20% 66 4.22%
30-year A GO 138 5.32% 131 4.91% 129 4.88% 132 4.88%
Source: Barclays. Data as of March 31, 2014.
Barclays Municipal Bond Index Returns by Type Barclays Municipal Bond Index Returns by Ratings
Source: Thomson Reuters. Spreads relative to Treasuries for taxable municipals, and Libor for tax-exempt municipals. Data as of March 31, 2014.
-6%
-8%
-4%
-2%
2%
0%
8%
6%
4%
General Obligation Revenue Build America Bonds(BABs)
2014 YTD 2013
3.06%
-2.33%
6.57%
-2.91%
3.61%
-5.56%
6%
4%
-6%
-8%
8%
-2%
-4%
2%
0%
AAA AA A BBB
2014 YTD 2013
2.22% 2.95%
3.91%
-2.12% -2.56%
-7.17%
-1.61%
5.52%
Source: Barclays. Data as of March 31, 2014.
3Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
The Fundamental Outlook for Municipalities Increased Revenues and Reduced Expenditures Abound
State tax collections have grown for 15 consecutive quarters and are now above their
pre-recession peak, with 14 states experiencing double-digit, year-over-year increases in
tax revenues for the second half of 2013. An in-depth look at the Statement of Activities
– the income statement for states – shows a net positive improvement for a majority of
U.S. states for fiscal year 2013. Most U.S. states now have surplus revenues, allowing for
the replenishment of “rainy-day” funds. There has also been a shift from public to private
employment that helps states. Overall, government employment fell by 3.7 percent from
October 2008 to January 2013.
Among local governments, the economies of all but seven of 363 metropolitan areas will grow
this year, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Cities are forecasting their first revenue
increases since 2006, according to the National League of Cities survey, and a continued
housing recovery should continue to bolster local revenues.
Improving fundamentals are reflected in reduced issuance of short-term notes. In 2013,
municipalities issued $46 billion of short-term, fixed-rate notes maturing in 18 months or less,
the lowest level since 2006. Municipalities typically issue notes to bridge cash shortfalls or as
temporary project funding ahead of issuing longer-dated bonds. The reduction in short-term
note sales suggests an improving cash flow at state and local governments.
Source: Moody’s, Bloomberg. Data as of March 31, 2014. Except for New Mexico and Puerto Rico where 2012 data was used.
CA
NV
AZ
UT
IDOR
WA MT
WY
CO
NM
AK
TX
OK
KS
NE
SD
NDMN
IA
MO
AR
LAMS AL
HI
FL
GA
TN
KY
IL
WI MI
IN OH
WV
SC
NC
VA
PA
NY
VTNH
ME
MARI
CTNJ
DEMD
PR
-$500M or more -$500M to $0M $0M to $500M +$500M or more
Fiscal Surplus/De�cits (Fiscal year-end 2013)
In the majority of U.S. states, the performance of the General Fund for fiscal year 2013 improved due to increases in revenues and a reduction of expenses.
The Improving U.S. Fiscal Situation is Broad Based
4Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
The Problem ChildrenThe strength of the Puerto Rico general obligation offering showed an appetite for below investment grade municipal bonds. The March 11 deal was increased by $700 million to $3.5 billion and was still oversubscribed by more than three times. In addition, the offering was priced to yield 8.727 percent, about 15 basis points tighter than Puerto Rico GO issues yielded at the start of the year.
Source: Moody’s, Bloomberg. Data as of March 12, 2014.
• The city’s original Plan of Adjustment treated pensioners as superior to most bondholders, a surprise that triggered concerns over the validity and strength of bond covenants.
• For the city to exit bankruptcy, counterparties must agree to the Plan of Adjustment. If the court approves a proposed swap counterparty settlement, it would be a significant first step.
• After a successful general obligation financing, attention should shift to the health of the economy.
• Public corporations, however, still face challenges as the Commonwealth considers different reform measures to provide funding to corporations.
• Despite weak economic performance, General Fund Revenues (tax receipts) have exceeded expectations through the first six months of FY 2014.
• Pension reform challenges and the upcoming gubernatorial primaries are dominating media coverage.
• Spreads on Illinois general obligation bonds and Build Illinois Bonds continue to tighten, indicating the market’s approval of pension reform and improving confidence in Illinois.
• Outstanding unpaid bills in FY 2014 exceed $4.8 billion, down $2.5 billion from February 2013 — a sign of progress that also highlights the structural imbalances facing the state.
DETROIT, MICHIGAN PUERTO RICO ILLINOIS
Problem Children New Developments for Detroit, Puerto Rico and Illinois
While the fundamental economic outlook for municipals is improving, sector performance
and capital flows are vulnerable to headline risks from a few troubled issuers. Puerto Rico
has been one such case, but its successful sale in March of $3.5 billion of general obligation
bonds at 93 cents on the dollar brought much-needed liquidity to the Caribbean island.
The improvement in Puerto Rico’s fiscal situation does not mean the negative attention
is over for the entire sector. Investors’ attention will likely now focus on Detroit and its
various restructuring proposals, which should keep it in the headlines and should add
to market volatility.
Supply Headwinds Constraints on Municipalities Hinder Annual Issuance
U.S. states are still recovering slowly from the 2007-2009 recession, which according to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) caused the greatest ever recorded decline in
state tax revenues. Now, despite improving economies and recovering tax revenues, states
remain reluctant borrowers, and so, municipal bond issuance this year may still be anemic.
Issuance comprises new debt and refunding. Notwithstanding the improved economic
outlook and healthier state budgets, new issuance may be constrained by uncertainty
over federal government funding, increasing state revenue volatility, crowding out of debt
servicing by ongoing spending, and a reluctance to issue new debt ahead of upcoming
gubernatorial elections. Refunding will likely be lower because low interest rates in recent
years led to a surge in refinancing and also because interest rates are expected to trend
higher so refunding will be unattractive at higher interest rates.
5Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
New Issuance SubduedCrowding Out Effects U.S. state and local governments face skyrocketing pension and healthcare costs for
teachers, firefighters, police and other public sector employees. With the cost of many of
these ongoing expenditures effectively on autopilot – locked in place by laws or union
contracts – and expected to grow, the ability for municipalities to fund other projects is
severely hampered. According to the State Budget Crisis Task Force, “Pension funds for state
and local government workers are underfunded by approximately a trillion dollars according
to their actuaries and by as much as $3 trillion or more if more conservative investment
assumptions are used.”
In addition to pension and public sector employee healthcare costs, Medicaid – the fastest
growing expense for states – is consuming a larger portion of state funds. The State Budget
Crisis Task Force noted that: “Medicaid programs are growing rapidly because of increased
enrollments, escalating healthcare costs and difficulty in implementing cost reduction
proposals. At recent rates of growth, state Medicaid costs will outstrip revenue growth by a
wide margin.” Medicaid spending accounted for 23.7 percent of total state spending in fiscal
2012, the single largest component of total state expenditures, and is expected to grow to
24.4 percent in fiscal 2013. The annual average growth rate of Medicaid expenditures from
2012 to 2021 is projected to be 6.4 percent, according to the 2012 Actuarial Report on the
Financial Outlook for Medicaid.
Just as Medicaid expense is increasing for states, federal support to states is decreasing.
On two occasions the U.S. Congress has passed temporary increases to Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments. The most recent increase occurred in 2009 as part
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The increased federal funds were
a significant source of fiscal relief for states resulting in declines in state Medicaid spending
in 2009 and 2010 for the first time in the program’s history. The absence of federal support
led to a sharp increase in state Medicaid spending in 2011 and 2012. A strong recovery in
revenues and a reduction in the unemployment rate for states moderated the effect in 2013;
however, the absence of federal support will ultimately exacerbate the Medicaid funding
problem for states in the coming years.
State Spending for Medicaid Declines in 2009 and 2010 Due to the ARRAIncreased federal funds were a significant source of fiscal relief for states, resulting in declines in state Medicaid spending in 2009 and 2010 for the first time. However, the absence of federal support will ultimately exacerbate the Medicaid funding problem for states in the future.
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.
20%
25%
30%
15%
0%
5%
-15%
-10%
10%
-5%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
5.5% 4.9%
10.1%
5.7%
-10.9%
-4.9%
16.1%
23.6%
3.1%4.0%3.0%
Enhanced FMAP / Federal Fiscal Relief
(2003-2005)
ARRA Enhanced FMAP(2009-2011)
Expiration of ARRAEnhanced FMAP
6Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
Ongoing expenses such as pension contributions, public sector healthcare and Medicaid
cannot be financed by issuing tax-exempt debt, which is used to fund capital expenditures,
such as public transport, schools and hospitals. The majority of debt issued by states to fund
capital expenditures has fixed-rate coupons. As the share of ongoing expenditures increases,
the capacity to service new debt for capital expenditures is crowded out.
Municipal issuers that are budget-constrained could use alternative forms of financing
to fund capital expenditures, such as capital appreciation bonds (CABs). Unlike fixed-rate
bonds, CABs do not make interest or principal payments until maturity, reducing the
cash flow burden on the issuer. For example, CABs can be used to fund new schools in
anticipation of future population growth and additional tax revenues. CABs, however,
are politically unpopular because interest is not paid during the life of the bond, instead
compounding and ultimately increasing total borrowing costs for the issuer. States such as
California and Texas have proposed legislation to limit the use of CABs because they are
seen as kicking the can down the road to future taxpayers.
Uncertainty of Federal Government Transfers to States Puts More Pressure on State Revenues
Federal funding for many state and local services is on track to hit its lowest level in
decades. Federal funding represents about 25 percent of state revenues, but battles over
the federal budget and the U.S. debt ceiling in 2013 have had spillover effects on state and
local governments, leading to sharp cuts in federal funding for schools and other grants.
Additional cuts in federal funding and potential changes to the federal tax code are possible
and could materially impact states’ spending. Legislators may be reticent to increase
borrowing in the face of uncertainty regarding federal funding or matching grants.
Revenue Volatility Focuses States on Building Reserve Funds
Although state tax revenues have rebounded, the share of state revenue from economically
sensitive and volatile sources such as personal income, sales and corporate income taxes
has increased from 38 percent in 1950 to 71 percent today. The volatility of this revenue
stream is higher because income tax receipts have become increasingly driven by the
highest earners, whose incomes are highly correlated to financial markets because of
capital gains. The increasing reliance on economically sensitive tax receipts makes states
even more vulnerable to budget gaps. According to the State Budget Crisis Task Force,
tax revenues declined by more than 12 percent between the 2008 and 2010 fiscal years
– a far greater decline than in any past recession. As a result, issuing new fixed-rate debt
to finance capital expenditures will likely take a backseat to building up reserve funds to
manage revenue volatility.
7Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
Gubernatorial Elections Reduce Appetite of Legislators to Increase Borrowing
There will be 36 gubernatorial elections in 2014, including the nine largest states by
population. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act and pension reform is likely to be at
the forefront of the political debate. Democrats and Republicans are under pressure to cut
spending, lower taxes and replenish “rainy-day” funds. Although many states are projecting
2014 budget surpluses helped by higher-than-expected tax revenues, the upcoming
gubernatorial elections may diminish the appetite of governors and legislators to issue new
debt to fund projects.
2014 Gubernatorial Elections
Source: National Governors Association.
The Bulk of Refunding Has Already OccurredRefunding high coupon-yield debt with low coupon-yield debt is an important component of
the municipal market. Without the supply from such refinancing of bonds, there would be a
significant imbalance between investor demand and annual issuance. The typical refunding
candidates are new money bonds sold with a 10-year call provision that are five to six years
into the life of the bond with a few years remaining until the first call date. In the situation
where interest rates have declined but the bonds are not yet callable, issuers can conduct an
advance refunding by issuing refunding bonds and putting proceeds in an escrow account of
U.S. Treasury debt until the bonds can be called. The period of low interest rates over the past
five years has accelerated refunding. The proportion of refunding issuance to total annual
issuance has steadily increased from 14 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2013.
CA
NV
AZ
UT
IDOR
WA MT
WY
CO
NM
AK
TX
OK
KS
NE
SD
NDMN
IA
MO
AR
LAMS AL
HI
FL
GA
TN
KY
IL
WI MI
IN OH
WV
SC
NC
VA
PA
NY
VTNH
ME
MARI
CTNJ
DEMD
Term limit or retiring Democrat (4): Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island
Incumbent Democrat (10): Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York
Term limit or retiring Republican (3): Arizona, Nebraska, Texas
Incumbent Republican (19): Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Wyoming
8Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
A Case of Disappearing BondsFive years of low interest rates has accelerated refunding. For the remainder of 2014, the bulk of bonds that could have been refunded has already been refunded. For the majority of Build America Bonds issued in 2009 and 2010, refunding is not an attractive option because benefits to the issuer are limited.
Source: Bond Buyer. Data as of February 24, 2014.
For the remainder of 2014, the bulk of bonds that could be refunded has already been
refunded. In the case of the majority of Build America Bonds issued in 2009 and 2010 (that
were designed to reduce borrowing costs for state and local governments), refunding is not
an attractive option because benefits to the issuer are limited. Thus, even though no Build
America Bonds have been sold since 2010, the program is still influencing the municipal
bond market. As a result of fewer typical refunding candidates, we do not expect refunding
volume to represent a significant portion of annual issuance this year.
Investment Implications
Credit Analysis is Still Most Important
Low historical default rates for municipal bonds present a compelling case compared to corporate default rates for bonds with similar credit ratings. However, the problems
of Detroit, Puerto Rico and Illinois are a poignant reminder of the idiosyncrasies of the
municipal market. One of the core principles of the municipal market – the full faith and
credit pledge – is being debated as Detroit’s bankruptcy case moves through the courts,
so while the macroeconomic tailwinds for municipals are improving, the importance of
performing credit analysis remains just as vital as ever.
Positive Fundamentals Should Remain Positive
State revenues have increased for 15 consecutive quarters, and we believe they will continue
to improve next quarter supported by strong tax receipts. The improving economic
landscape, however, does not mean more bond issuance. We expect modest refunding
volume as many of the typical refunding candidates have already taken advantage of five
years of low interest rates. In addition as we discussed in this report, we expect new issuance
to remain low. The positive fundamental outlook combined with an imbalance between supply and demand should produce a solid year of performance for municipal bonds.
Nom
inal
Issu
ance
($Bn
)
$200
$100
$400
$300
$0
$600
$500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Est.
New Money Issuance Refunding Issuance BAB Average Since 2000
9Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
“Riding the Curve” Enhances Relative Value Opportunities
Typically, individual municipal bond investors prefer debt with maturities of less than
10 years while opportunistic investors tend to focus on bonds maturing in more than
25 years. This barbell of investor demand often leaves debt in the middle of the range
(maturing in the 10- to 15-year horizon) undervalued – in particular for bonds rated in
the A category. The relative value of these bonds can be gauged by looking at the ratio of
municipal yields to U.S. Treasury yields, which currently exceeds historical averages.
Like any other fixed-income investment, as time passes, the maturity date of a municipal
bond gets closer: a 10-year bond at purchase in effect becomes a seven-year bond after
three years and then a six-year bond after four years, and so on. As the investor “rides
the curve” through time, that bond’s relative value should increase compared to a U.S.
Treasury bond with the same maturity.
Revenue
Sector View Sector View
Transportation HealthcareState NEUTRAL Private NEUTRALLocal NEUTRAL Public POSITIVEToll-way POSITIVE Tobacco NEGATIVEAirport POSITIVE Utility (includes Water, Sewer, Electric) POSITIVE
Higher Education HousingPrivatete NEUTRAL Single POSITIVEPublic POSITIVE Multi NEUTRAL
Military POSITIVE
Tax Supported
Sector View
State POSITIVEAppropriation, Lease & Pension NEUTRAL
Local POSITIVEAppropriation, Lease & Pension NEGATIVE
Dedicated Tax POSITIVE
Municipal Market Heat Map
Source: Guggenheim Investments. Data as of March 12, 2014.
10Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
Important Notices and Disclosures
INDEX DEFINITIONS Barclays Municipal Bond Index is a broad market performance benchmark for the tax exempt bond market. The bonds included in this index must have a minimum credit rating of at least Baa. The referenced index is unmanaged and not available for direct investments. Index performance does not reflect transaction costs, fees, or expenses.
RISK CONSIDERATIONS Fixed income investments are subject to credit, liquidity, interest rate and, depending on the instrument, counter party risk. These
risks may be increased to the extent fixed income investments are concentrated in any one issuer, industry, region or country. The market value of fixed income investments generally will fluctuate with, among other things, the financial condition of the obligors on the underlying debt obligations or, with respect to synthetic securities, of the obligors on or issuers of the reference obligations, general economic conditions, the condition of certain financial markets, political events, developments or trends in any particular industry and changes in prevailing interest rates.
The municipal bond market may be impacted by unfavorable legislative or political developments and adverse changes in the financial conditions of state and municipal issuers or the federal government in case it provides financial support to the municipality. Income from the municipal bonds held could be declared taxable because of changes in tax laws. Certain sectors of the municipal bond market have special risks that can affect them more significantly than the market as a whole. Because many municipal instruments are issued to finance similar projects, conditions in these industries can significantly affect an investment.
Municipalities currently experience budget shortfalls, which could cause them to default on their debts. •A bonds market value will change in response to interest rate changes and market conditions, among other factors. In general, bond prices rise when interest rates fall and vice versa.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. There is neither representation nor warranty as to the current accuracy or, nor liability for, decisions based on such information.
This article is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice, a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product or as an offer of solicitation with respect to the purchase or sale of any investment. This article should not be considered research nor is the article intended to provide a sufficient basis on which to make an investment decision.
The article contains opinions of the author but not necessarily those of Guggenheim Partners, LLC its subsidiaries or its affiliates.
The author’s opinions are subject to change without notice. Forward looking statements, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary and non proprietary research and other sources. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed as to accuracy. The value of any financial instruments or markets mentioned in the article can fall as well as rise. Securities mentioned are for illustrative purposes only and are neither a recommendation nor an endorsement.
Individuals and institutions outside of the United States are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions and should consult with their advisors as appropriate.
1Guggenheim Partners’ assets under management figure is updated as of 3.31.2014 and includes consulting services for clients whose assets are valued at approximately $39 billion.2Guggenheim Investments total asset figure is as of 3.31.2014 and includes $12.9bn of leverage for assets under management and $0.4bn of leverage for serviced assets. Total assets include assets from Security Investors, LLC, Guggenheim Partners Investment
Management, LLC, Guggenheim Funds and its affiliated entities, and some business units including Guggenheim Real Estate, LLC, Guggenheim Aviation, GS GAMMA Advisors, LLC, Guggenheim Partners Europe Limited, Transparent Value Advisors, LLC, and Guggenheim Partners India Management. Values from some funds are based upon prior periods.
Guggenheim Investments represents the following affiliated investment management businesses of Guggenheim Partners, LLC ( GP ): GS GAMMA Advisors, LLC, Guggenheim Aviation, Guggenheim Funds Distributors, LLC, Guggenheim Funds Investment Advisors, LLC, Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC, Guggenheim Partners Europe Limited, Guggenheim Partners India Management, Guggenheim Real Estate, LLC, Security Investors, LLC and Transparent Value Advisors, LLC. Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC (GPIM) is a registered investment adviser and serves as the adviser to the strategies discussed herein. This material is intended to inform you of services available through Guggenheim Investments’ affiliate businesses.
No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. ©2014, Guggenheim Partners, LLC.
Guggenheim Funds Distributors, LLC and Guggenheim Distributors, LLC are affiliates of Guggenheim Partners, LLC and Guggenheim Investments. For information, call 800.345.7999 or 800.820.0888.
Member FINRA/SIPC GI FIO 0114 #11494
11Guggenheim Investments Municipal Market Outlook | May 2014
Contact us
New York
330 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 212 739 0700
Chicago
227 W Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 312 827 0100
Santa Monica
100 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 310 576 1270
London
5 Wilton Road London, SW1V 1AN +44 20 3059 6621
About Guggenheim PartnersGuggenheim Partners is a global investment and advisory firm with more than
$210 billion in assets under management1. Across our three primary businesses of
investment management, investment banking, and insurance services, we have
a track record of delivering results through innovative solutions. With over 2,500
professionals based in more than 25 offices around the world, our commitment is
to advance the strategic interests of our clients and to deliver long-term results with
excellence and integrity. We invite you to learn more about our expertise and values
by visiting guggenheimpartners.com and following us on Twitter at twitter.com/
guggenheimptnrs.
About Guggenheim InvestmentsGuggenheim Investments is the global asset management and investment advisory
division of Guggenheim Partners, and manages more than $180 billion in assets2
across fixed income, equity, and alternatives. We focus on the return and risk needs
of insurance companies, corporate and public pension funds, sovereign wealth funds,
endowments and foundations, consultants, wealth managers, and high-net-worth
investors. Our 250+ investment professionals perform rigorous research to understand
market trends and identify undervalued opportunities in areas that are often complex
and underfollowed. This approach to investment management has enabled us to
deliver innovative strategies providing diversification and attractive long-term results.
GPIM12816