What You Will Find Here

My photo
Articles and news of general interest about investing, saving, personal finance, retirement, insurance, saving on taxes, college funding, financial literacy, estate planning, consumer education, long term care, financial services, help for seniors and business owners.

READING LIST

Blog List

Showing posts with label tax-free income. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax-free income. Show all posts

Tax Free Municipal Bonds - What to Buy Now (Barrons)

Where to find good opportunities in munis




Municipal bonds are not the bargain they were two years ago, but there's still good value to be had, especially compared to U.S. Treasuries. Some do's and don'ts.


Taxes for high earners look likely to rise next year, but those who feel the urge to park money in tax-free municipal bonds should shop carefully.

Plenty of investors have had the same thought since Election Day. A popular exchange-traded fund of these bonds, iShares S&P AMT-Free Muni Bond, has gained 1.5% since then, and 5.2% year-to-date. That might sound like small potatoes, but as bond prices rise, yields fall, and a muni universe that was recently an obvious bargain is now an iffy one.
Compared with Treasury bonds, munis still look cheap—but so does nearly everything else that carries a rate of return. Triple-A general-obligation munis, backed by the taxing authority of the issuer, yield 1.74% at 10-year maturities, a bit more than the 10-year Treasury's 1.62%. Historically, muni yields have tended to be only 85% to 90% of Treasuries', with investors making up the difference in tax breaks, says Dan Heckman, a fixed-income strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management.

Demand for munis is dominated by retail investors who are easily scared off and slow to return. Indeed, yields got so juicy two years ago, after a prominent analyst warned of widespread defaults, that even investment funds focused on providing taxable income with corporate bonds were dipping into munis. The default crisis didn't materialize, and now munis have retuned to pre-scare levels.

The muni discount versus corporate bonds is gone, says Chun Wang, a portfolio manager at Leuthold Weeden Capital Management. Since 1979, munis have yielded a median of 1.15 times as much as corporates, once their yields are adjusted to taxable-bond equivalents based on 35% tax rates, according to Wang. As recently as the end of October the ratio was 1.25. Now, it's 1.10.

However, investors who have put off their muni shopping until now can still find good deals using a targeted approach. Here are some dos and don'ts:

Don't just create an evenly laddered muni portfolio, with bonds coming due every few years. Yields on the short issues are well below the rate of inflation, which will erode wealth over time. Instead, favor intermediate maturities where yields take relatively sharp jumps.

For example, many buyers ask their brokers for 10-year bonds; it's a nice round number. That creates a minor demand bubble there, says Matt Fabian, managing director of Municipal Market Advisors, a Concord, Mass., research service. Recently, 12-year, AAA-rated bonds yielded 2.20%, versus 1.48% for nine-year ones. Investors who buy the 12-year paper get the higher yields, plus an added benefit: As the bonds age three years, they may rise in price, so that their yields match those for nine-year issues. This "roll-down" effect works only if rates stay where they are.

Do delve into bonds rated a couple of notches below perfection. Defaults by municipalities are rare, relative to those by corporations, and the percentage of funds recovered by investors in the case of default is typically much higher. Look to A-rated bonds for good value from a risk/reward perspective, says Peter Hayes, head of the muni group at BlackRock. From 1970 through 2011, the default rate for these munis was just 0.04% over 10-year periods, versus 2.22% for comparably-rated corporate bonds, according to Moody's.

Don't buy all home-state bonds. A New Yorker who buys his state's bonds gets the federal tax break offered by most munis, plus a break on state taxes (and maybe even local ones if he lives and buys in New York City). But bonds from outside states bring the benefit of diversification.

New Yorkers can put 70% or more in home-state bonds because of high taxes, decent state finances and a deep universe of local bond issuers to diversify among. California has weaker finances, but coastal cities are doing better than inland ones, and state taxes are headed to shockingly high levels, up to 13.3%. Buyers there should also favor in-state munis. Rhode Island and Connecticut, on the other hand, have weak economies and limited muni supply, so residents should limit their in-state buying to 40% or 50% of their portfolios.

Do shop for out-of-state bonds from states that don't have income taxes, like Texas, Florida, Nevada and Washington. They lack strong local demand, leaving yields a touch plumper.

Do keep fees low, but don't assume index mutual funds offer the best deals. The bonds they track tend to stay in high demand, while active fund managers can look for higher yields among less-popular issues. Fidelity Tax-Free Bond
gets a "gold" rating from Morningstar and ranks among the top 15% of peers for 10-year performance. Fund expenses are 0.25% of assets per year—the same as for the aforementioned iShares index exchange-traded fund.


Do seek help selecting individual bonds. Thanks to falling rates and a dearth of new issues, many bonds can be called away before maturity at lower prices than they currently sell for, which can trip up the uninitiated.

Above all, don't buy munis in hopes of scoring short-term gains when taxes rise. That's already priced in. Probably the only thing that will drive a big muni rally from here is if Congress trims the tax break on muni interest, while grandfathering in existing bonds. Barring that, buyers should expect to get their bond interest and not much more.

10 Ways to Invest Tax Free (Forbes)



10 Ways to Invest Tax Free (Forbes)

William Baldwin, Forbes Staff

Taxes|2/10/2011

For the moment, taxes on portfolios are modest. The federal rate is 15% on most dividends and on long-term capital gains. Come 2013, though, the rates shoot up.

Without a law change, the maximum federal tax on interest, dividends and short-term gains will go to 44.6%. That consists of a 39.6% stated rate, the 1.2% cost of a deduction clawback and a 3.8% surtax to pay for health care. The max for long gains will be 25% (but 23% for assets held for more than five years). Add state taxes to all of these.

What’s an investor to do? Take defensive measures. Here are ten ways to pocket investment income without paying tax on it.


Set up a kiddie Roth


Did your daughter earn $4,000 last summer that she needs for college? Were you going to leave her at least $4,000 in your will? Start your bequest now. Hand her $4,000 that she can use to fund a Roth IRA. Tell her not to touch it until she is 60.

She’ll get 40 years of tax-free compounding. (At 7% a year, this would turn $4,000 into $60,000.) You’ll get money out of your estate, probably saving on state inheritance taxes.

.

Buy an MLP

Master limited partnerships that own energy assets like pipelines tend to pay pretty good dividends (in the neighborhood of 5%). Those dividends, at least initially, are largely sheltered by depreciation deductions. The quarterly cash, that is, is considered a nontaxable “return of capital.”

After a decade or two this tax shelter is exhausted, but if you die owning these shares your heirs get to start the process over with a new, higher tax basis.

Go Ugma

Use the Uniform Gift to Minors Act (a.k.a. Uniform Transfers to Minors Act) to set up a brokerage account for your son or daughter. The first $950 of annual income is free of tax; the next $950 is taxed in the kid’s low bracket.

The downside is that at age 18 Junior takes ownership and might not spend the money on college, as you intend. So fund the account modestly­—$30,000 is plenty—and concentrate the holdings on investments that (a) generate a lot of taxable income and (b) are compelling additions to the overall family portfolio. The idea is to make full use of that $1,900-a-year shelter while parting with a small amount of capital.

Here are several examples of investments that make sense in a diversified portfolio and that spew out a lot of ordinary income:

–exchange traded funds that hold a lot of Ginnie Maes and the like (MBB) or the whole bond market (BND).

–the ETF for junk bonds (JNK).

–high-yielding blue chips like Verizon, AT&T and Pfizer.

–preferred stocks.

Two cautions. (1) To avoid gift tax wrinkles, limit each year’s contribution to $26,000 per child ($13,000 if you are single). (2) Don’t set up Ugmas if you think your kid will qualify for college financial aid. Any assets in the kid’s name will be snatched by aid officers.

.

Open a 529

A Section 529 plan lets you accumulate investment income tax free, provided the proceeds are used on schooling. Drawback: Sometimes stiff fees erase the income tax saving.

The account is likely to be a good idea where the costs are low (as in Utah) or there’s a break on state income tax for parents chipping money in (as in New York).

As with Ugmas, 529s are not a good idea for families likely to get tuition assistance.

.

Own commercial real estate

As long as your building doesn’t have too much of a mortgage, depreciation deductions will make a good chunk of your rental income free of current income tax. There’s more on the economics of these deals here.

.

Own muni bonds

Interest on the general obligations of state and local governments is free of federal income tax. In most states you also get a pass on state income tax for home-state bonds. Caution: Some states are in financial trouble. Check out the Forbes Moocher Ratio before buying.

.

Give away stock profits

You put $3,000 into Netflix, wait at least a year, then give away the shares to charity when they’re worth $8,000. You get a deduction for the whole $8,000. Your $5,000 gain is never taxed.

Two other ways to shelter appreciated property from capital gain taxation: leave it in your estate, or give it to a low-bracket relative.

Bequeathed property benefits from a step-up, meaning that gains unrealized by an owner at the time of his death permanently escape income taxation.

Low bracket taxpayers (people who would be in a 25% or lower bracket if all their capital gain were taxed as ordinary income) get a free ride on long-term capital gains. But if the donee is a son or daughter 18 or younger (23 if in school), beware the kiddie tax, which applies to investment income over $1,900 a year.

.

Capture losses

When the market is down, swap out of losing positions into similar but not identical ones. For example, you could exit an S&P 500 index fund and immediately buy the Vanguard Megacap Index Fund. In this fashion, you can run up a capital loss carryforward that will make future capital gains tax free. For more on loss harvesting, go here.

.

Buy a safe


If your $400 investment saves you $45 a year in safe deposit box fees, you’ve got an 11% yield, tax free. The only exception on the tax side would be if you are one of those rare birds in a position to deduct miscellaneous items like the rental on a strongbox to hold your gold coins. Miscellaneous deductions are usable only to the extent they exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income; not many taxpayers get anywhere near this threshold.

.

Be a cheapskate investor

Are you paying someone 1.5% a year to have your assets managed? Cut this cost in half by haggling. A dollar saved in this fashion is a dollar earned free of tax, unless you are claiming miscellaneous deductions, which is unlikely.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2011/02/10/ten-ways-to-invest-tax-free/
America's Most Promising Companies





The Best and the Worst States for Muni Bonds (Barrons)


Barron's Cover | MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2011
Good, Bad and Ugly
By JONATHAN R. LAING There's hope for states that accept structural change, but pain for those that won't. Are you listening, Illinois and California?



For most states, fiscal 2012 is shaping up as a brutal year. They've already had to close a collective gap of more than $100 billion between their projected revenues and previously budgeted expenses, mostly due to anemic sales taxes and personal and corporate-income levies. And all this comes after three years of large budget shortfalls, during which most of the low-hanging fruit in expenses had been plucked and rainy-day funds and other reserves had been plundered.

Likewise, just about all of the $165 billion in federal stimulus money that had helped to close state budget gaps since the 2008-09 financial crisis has been spent. Thus, the cuts for fiscal 2012, which for most states began last month, promise to be particularly painful, leading to employee layoffs and reduced human-services spending on programs such as Medicaid.

Education will bear the brunt, as states are forced to trim their funding to public universities and K-through-12 school districts. The latter, particularly in low-income areas, will especially suffer from the lagged effect of the housing bust on a falling property-tax take.

Yet there's hope amid the gloom for many of the states, and for the $1.5 trillion state municipal-bond market. Tax revenue has begun to rise again, after falling cataclysmically for five straight quarters during the Great Recession.

In fact, state-tax revenue in fiscal 2011's first quarter was up 9.3%, on average, over the year-earlier figure, reports the respected Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York at Albany. This was the fifth straight quarterly improvement. To be sure, the revenue picture could darken if the U.S. economy double-dips. (The numbers in each category in the tables accompanying this article generally are based on the most recent and comprehensive data available, and so their dates don't all coincide. However, they do paint a good picture of each state's relative position against the others.)

And since the 2010 elections, new governors, mostly Republican, have come to the fore, unbeholden to the public-employee unions that have used political muscle to win cushy contracts and fat retiree pension and health benefits. The roster of new-breed, social-Darwinist figures includes the likes of Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Scott of Florida and Chris Christie of New Jersey, all following the successful path of two-term Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Even prominent Democrat and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, scion of a family steeped in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, has pushed state unions to accept contracts with a three-year wage freeze and five unpaid furlough days in the current fiscal year.

The governors want the unions to contribute more to their pension funds and health plans to ensure the systems' soundness. Controversially, Walker and Kasich even have tried to convince the unions to surrender or reduce their collective-bargaining rights. Moreover, many states are creating new tiers of public employees provided with much less munificent pension and health-care plans. Retirement ages are being boosted, automatic cost-of-living adjustments to pensions are being eliminated, pension vesting periods are being increased and shenanigans like income-spiking at the end of careers to fatten benefits are being banned. Such moves will do much to ameliorate a long-term pension and retiree health-benefit funding gap that The Pew Center on the States puts at $1.26 trillion.

At the same time, some states, including New York, are trying to cap and slow property-tax hikes. And while such governors as Walker, Christie and Scott are putting the axe to spending, they're also cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy, with the aim of boosting employment and investment. Wisconsin even scaled back its earned-income tax credit for 152,000 working families ($518 for a family of five), to partially defray the cost of tax cuts for big earners. Trickle-up economics is in vogue in these states.

The process has been messy and, sometimes, noisy; witness the union demonstrations at the capitol building in Madison, Wis., in February. Yet the municipal-bond market has rallied sharply since late last year, when banking seer Meredith Whitney set off a panic by predicting that there would be as many as 100 major muni-bond defaults in calendar year 2011, totaling $100 billion or more, because of state and local financial problems. Through Aug. 12, a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch report notes that defaults have been modest this year, at $757.8 million, or just 0.026% of total outstanding municipal debt. And most of the troubled issuers have been small ones that depend on revenue from special-assessment districts, housing developments and hospital complexes, not general tax revenues.

To Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management in New York, it's "inconceivable" that any state will default on its general-obligation debt. According to Cure, the only risk that investors run in state debt, beyond the risk that could arise if interest rates jump, would come from credit downgrades or a change in market perceptions of a state's financial prospects, which could quickly push down prices of existing state bonds.

To help investors, the tables Barron's has compiled show how all 50 states rank, based on seven key financial and economic variables. The data were compiled by Janney Capital Markets and Evercore. The states are sorted by their Standard &Poor's credit ratings to make comparisons easier.

Our first statistic shows the amount of federal spending each state receives as a percentage of the state's gross domestic product. The source can be: defense or nondefense work; procurement contracts; grants; and salaries and wages paid to state residents by Uncle Sam. This reading is particularly timely, in that federal outlays face cuts for years to come, due to growing budget-deficit stringency.


Here, a couple of triple-A names -- Virginia and Maryland -- stick out. Federal spending accounts for 29.8% of Virginia's economy and 28.5% of Maryland's, far above the 19.7% that's the average in the U.S. Just think of all the federal employees who live in Arlington or Bethesda but work in Washington, or of the hordes who labor in the vast office parks outside the Beltway, filled with government consultants and federal contractors. The credit-rating firm Moody's has both states on "negative outlook" in the wake of the national-debt anxiety.

Medicaid as a percentage of total state spending is another key indicator. Nationally, the program, which provides health care for the poor, accounts for 21% of all state spending -- and will loom much larger if the Obama health reforms are upheld by the courts and fold in millions of currently uninsured into Medicaid, for which the federal government picks up about half the tab. Already, however, like Pac-Man, the program has ferociously eaten away at state financial resources due tomedical-cost inflation and rising enrollment.

Here, comparisons are difficult, because some states, like California (22%) and Illinois (33%), offer a far more extensive range of services than, say, Texas (8%). The Lone Star state also benefits because some members of its large Hispanic population are reluctant to sign up for government programs due to citizenship issues.

States with large urban underclasses also tend to have higher Medicaid rolls. That has swelled their spending -- New York's by 28%, Pennsylvania's by 28% and, of course, Illinois' (above). Not surprisingly, to curb the rise in Medicaid costs, states like New York are considering moving away from their current fee-for-service payment systems to managed care.

Tax-collection growth is where the rubber meets the road for most states. Many of the stars in this respect are benefiting from rising prices for oil, food and minerals. North Dakota had a 46% jump in first-quarter fiscal 2011 collections, boosted by exploitation of the gas- and oil-rich Bakken shale shelf. Alaska, with its tax take up by 16.7%, likewise benefited from higher oil prices.

Even some Rust Belt states -- Michigan (up 20.9%) and Ohio (up 22%) were helped, in part, by improved manufacturing. But, tax increases were the biggest factor in the improved revenue numbers. Illinois (up 13.7%) raised personal income and corporate levies at the beginning of calendar-year 2011. California, on the other hand, saw a package of emergency tax increases expire at the end of fiscal 2010, and thus realized a paltry 5.7% rise in tax receipts in fiscal 2011's first quarter, and there's little reason to believe that the situation has improved. So the no-longer-so-Golden State could face additional budget shortfalls in the current fiscal year.


Overall, however, tax-supported state debt as a percentage of state gross national product has hardly reached alarming levels. Even states like Connecticut and Hawaii, whose debt exceeds 10% of their gross domestic products, aren't basket cases. Both centralize more functions that local governments do elsewhere, so the figures are a bit deceiving.

The same doesn't hold true for the chronic underfunding problems of state public-employee pension plans. The public-employee pension funding gap accounts for around $660 billion of the aforementioned $1.26 trillion retiree-benefits shortfall tabulated by Pew. And unlike retiree health care, pension benefits are harder to fix.

Particularly shaky are states like Illinois, with only 51% of its pension obligations funded, and California, with 81%. Their dysfunctional state governments, allied with public-employee unions, are seemingly incapable of making needed reforms. Several times in recent years, Illinois has floated bond issues to make its pension contributions, only to find that it paid more in interest on them than it made on its investments.

The last two factors in our tables are the percentage of mortgages in foreclosure or seriously delinquent -- meaning 90 days in arrears -- as of fiscal 2011's first quarter, and the state's unemployment rate.

Florida, Nevada, Arizona and California still have big mortgage problems, stemming from the faux housing boom of the George W. Bush years. That encouraged local governments to wildly expand, using soaring property-tax revenue, and individuals to spend more, by taking out home-equity loans. When the boom ended, the spending did, too, and joblessness soared. Based on June numbers, the states with the worst jobless rates were Florida (10.6%), and Michigan and South Carolina (both 10.5%).

In sum, our tables should provide some clues for muni-bond investors puzzling out where to invest. But the most important factor isn't listed -- a state's willingness to embrace structural change. In that regard, Illinois and California bring up the rear.




.E-mail: editors@barrons.com

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Best bargains in Muni Bonds Now (Barrons)



How to Play the Panic in Muni Bonds
By RANDALL W. FORSYTH

For several months, panicked investors have been pulling cash from muni-bond funds. For investors of means, that presents an opportunity to lock in high tax-free yields for a decade or more.

Since mid-November, panicked sellers have yanked about $26 billion from muni-bond funds, disrupting a usually orderly market. For investors of means, that presents an opportunity to lock in high tax-free yields for a decade or more.

Doing so, however, takes more care than buying a muni exchange-traded fund or closed-end fund.

The undeniable crisis in public finances has moved from the political background to the top of the news in recent months. The demonstrations by Wisconsin public employees protesting the governor's drastic measures to close the state's budget deficit are only the most dramatic examples of the fiscal pressures being felt all across the nation.

But the budget problems in states and localities are not nearly as dire as those of the sovereign debtors in Europe, though you might not know that from the coverage in the popular media. Most notably, analyst Meredith Whitney predicted an imminent day of reckoning for state and local governments in a December interview with CBS News' 60 Minutes. "You could see 50 sizable defaults," she asserted. "Fifty to 100 sizable defaults. More. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."


Last week, a consulting firm formed by "Dr. Doom," Nouriel Roubini, chimed in with a similar forecast of $100 billion of defaults, which had no discernible impact on the muni market.

Whitney's unsupported prediction of default -- vastly in excess of that seen in the Great Depression of the 1930s -- helped push muni prices down about 10% for long-term bonds. Her assertions have been met with a deluge of criticism from muni-bond professionals, as well as in the pages of Barron's and on Barrons.com. Yet many pricing anomalies persist. Investors willing to buy individual bonds and hold them to maturity can get yields as high as 5% on highly rated paper. That's equivalent to a taxable yield of nearly 7.7%.

The bonds themselves provide the assurance of repayment of principal at maturity, which provides a measure of confidence even as their prices may fluctuate. Mutual funds, whether equity or fixed-income, are worth only what they fetch that day; there is no assurance that they will recoup their losses and return the original investment.

Among the securities to look for are bonds backed by clearly defined sources of money, including thruways, water and sewer systems and state lottery revenues.

Profiting from Panic
Other factors also conspired to make for a perfect storm for municipal bonds. The Treasury market -- which determines the broad trend in other bond markets, including munis -- also has been under pressure until recently as yields rose on increasing fears over inflation and investors' preference for risk assets. In addition, the end of the Build America Bond program on Dec. 31, which provided a federal subsidy to states and localities issuing taxable bonds, added to pressures. The BABs program meant less issuance of traditional tax-exempt securities, which had bolstered their prices and kept a lid on their yields. The sunset of BABs at the end of 2010 lifted that lid. The BABs program also was important in broadening the municipal market to institutional and global investors not interested in income free from U.S. income tax, the main lure for American individual investors.

The carnage is particularly visible in the iShares S&P National AMT-Free Municipal Bond exchange-traded fund, a quick and easy proxy for the muni market. It shed more than 10% in value from its peak in August to its trough in January and still trades 6.4% below its high.

In the process, extraordinary values have emerged as yields on tax-exempt municipals rose to equal or even exceed those of taxable Treasury or corporate bonds. Taking in munis' tax advantage, high-quality tax-exempt bonds exceeded the after-tax yields on junk bonds. Around the muni market's nadir in January, tax-free yields on investment-grade California general-obligation bonds were higher than the yields on lower-quality, fully taxable bonds of Mexico or even Colombia.

While that portion of the investing public who take their investment cues from TV were stampeding out of munis, savvy and sophisticated investors were going the other way. And even as a backlash against the doomsayers for their unsupported predictions of multibillion-dollar defaults increased, they dismissed their critics as peddlers of munis merely defending their turf.

Other disinterested and distinguished observers have pointed out how undervalued munis are.

MKM Partners' chief economist and strategist, Michael Darda, who made a perfectly timed call to buy deeply depressed but high-quality corporate bonds at the depths of the 2008 financial crisis, called valuations on munis "increasingly compelling" with higher prospective after-tax returns than medium-grade corporate bonds or equities.

David Rosenberg, chief strategist at Gluskin Sheff, one of Canada's top wealth-management firms, adds that only single-B junk corporates provide the same after-tax yield as investment-grade munis. "I can't think of a security that is going to provide a U.S.-based investor a 7% annual return for the next decade with such little risk attached -- not equities, not corporates, not commodities. I still think this is the biggest opportunity out there in the investing world today and the most glaring price anomaly."

As the pace of fund liquidations has slowed to about $1 billion a week from $4 billion at the worst of the exodus in January, the muni market has begun to recover, with the iShares muni ETF up about 5% from its mid-January trough. In addition, issuers of municipal bonds deferred new offerings amid an inhospitable market.

Despite the undeniable value that munis represent, the dilemma remains for investors. As the news coverage of the budget battle raging in Madison, Wis., dramatically shows, state and municipal finances never have been under such stress.

But, as Clifford D. Corso, chief executive and chief investment officer of Cutwater Asset Management, points out, debt service makes up a small part of the expenses for states and localities -- in contrast to the sovereign debtors of Europe, for which interest and principal payments place a huge burden on their budgets.

The impact of the budget cuts being played out in state capitals and city halls across America will fall on public schools and the poor, as Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management, a New York firm that manages separate accounts for high-net-worth individuals and families, ruefully observes.


Moreover, muni pros agree that states and localities have powerful incentives not to default in order to maintain their access to the capital markets. That is a direct contrast to the mortgage market, to whose parlous condition the municipal market has been compared, not entirely aptly. Borrowers whose mortgage balances are greater than their homes' values have engaged in what's euphemistically called "strategic defaults."

Yet the pressures on municipal finances are "episodic, not systemic," Cure adds. In other words, not every city is in the same dire straits as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's capital, which averted default through by an advance from the state.

The greater risk in municipal bonds, most market professionals agree, is the same as for all fixed-income securities -- higher yields resulting from a more ebullient economy, rising inflation or both, which would be expected to lead to further losses. That has them taking some tacks that may appear counterintuitive.

Ken Woods, who heads Asset Preservation Advisors in Atlanta, which specializes in fixed-income management for high-net-worth individuals, is targeting a slightly longer duration for his clients' portfolios, which are concentrated in the intermediate-maturity range.

But for lengthening duration -- in a structure called a barbell -- he is concentrating on the very shortest maturities, under two years, and relatively longer ones out to eight-to-12 years. In the process, he's avoiding the middle of the range, which would be hurt the most by an increase in short-term interest rates by the Federal Reserve.

Corso of Cutwater Asset Management is taking the same barbell approach, concentrating on the short end and the long end of the market and avoiding intermediates. That is a strategy to deal with the extreme steepness of the muni yield curve -- the much greater yields paid on the longest maturities relative to shorter ones, which are anchored by the Fed's targeting of the overnight federal-funds rate near zero.


THIS ISN'T EUROPE
Headlines blare news of state and local budget woes, but many munis promise handsome returns. Especially appealing: bonds issued by agencies facing only modest retiree benefit costs.


Sample Portfolio
Maturity S&P Moody's Book Yield*

Texas A&M University 5/15/2012 AA+ Aaa 0.57%
San Antonio TX Elec & Gas 2/1/2014 AA Aa1 1.38
State of Pennsylvania GO 2/1/2014 AA Aa1 1.22
State of South Carolina GO 3/1/2016 AA+ Aaa 1.81
State of Utah GO 7/1/2016 AAA Aaa 1.85
Sutter Health - California 8/15/2016 AA- Aa3 3.37
Salt River Arizona Power Authority 1/1/2018 AA Aa1 2.53
State of Virginia GO 6/1/2019 AAA Aaa 2.54
Ascension Health - Michigan 11/15/2019 AA Aa1 3.87
State of Delaware GO 3/1/2020 AAA Aaa 2.75
State of Maryland GO 3/1/2021 AAA Aaa 2.90
Water/Sewer District of Southern California 3/1/2022 AAA Aaa 3.50
State of Texas GO 4/1/2023 AA+ Aaa 3.49
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7/1/2023 AAA Aaa 3.42
State of North Carolina GO 5/1/2024 AAA Aaa 3.53
NYC Transitional Finance Authority 2/1/2025 AAA Aa1 4.17
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority 7/1/2026 AAA Aa1 4.17
NYC Water/Sewer Authority 6/15/2028 AA+ Aa2 4.42
Charlotte NC Water/Sewer 7/1/2030 AAA Aaa 4.23.
Harvard University, Mass. 12/15/2031 AAA Aaa 4.27
Tallahassee, Fla. Health Facilities 12/1/2030 NA Baa1 6.43%
Halifax Hospital Medical Center, Fla. 6/1/20206 A- BBB+ 5.70
Northampton City, Pa., Hospital Authority 8/15/2024 BBB+ A3 5.58
Michigan Hosp. Fin. Auth. (Ford Health) 11/15/2039 A A1 6.28
Iowa Higher Ed. Ln. Auth. (Grinnell Col.) 12/1/2020 AAA Aaa 3.12
State of Washington GO 1/12/2020 AA+ Aa1 3.00
Illinois Fin Auth. (Swedish Covenant Hosp.) 8/15/2029 BBB+ A- 5.81
Denver City & Co Sch Dist. Colo 12/1/2021 AA- Aa2 3.30
*As of 03/02 Sources: Cutwater Asset Management & Asset Preservation Advisors
.
The muni yield curve's steepness parallels that of the Treasury market out to 10 years, but it becomes even more extreme for lengthier maturities. Two-year triple-A munis yield about the same as the two-year T-note -- as of March 3, around 0.72%. At 10 years, the muni yields 3.20% vs. 3.52% for the Treasury. But in 30 years, the muni yields 4.72% vs. 4.60% for the Treasury. For a taxpayer in what for now is the top federal tax bracket of 35%, the top-grade muni yields the equivalent of 7.26%, the same as better-grade corporate junk.

If, or when, the steepness of the muni yield curve corrects, with short- and intermediate-term yields likely moving higher, those on the short end of the barbell will be trading as near-cash equivalents and will be able to be redeployed at higher returns.

Historically, the long end typically doesn't move much in those circumstances, so the investor picks up significant yield with little price movement. In the less likely event the curve flattens from the long end, the lengthier maturities would rally.

Woods also is emphasizing medium-grade (triple-B and single-A) bonds to a greater extent since going down the quality scale provides greater-than-usual pickups in yield. But he does that for only some 15%-20% of portfolios, with 80%-85% in double-A or triple-A bonds instead of his usual 85%-90% in top grades.

Another emphasis is on longer-term, high-coupon callable bonds. For instance, instead of buying a bond maturing in eight or 10 years, Woods might buy a bond due in 18 years but callable in eight years with a high enough coupon to ensure it is called. These so-called kicker bonds provide a higher yield and lower volatility than comparable non-callable bonds. That's in part because they trade at a significant premium to par, and individuals not steeped in the arcane math of bonds are loath to pay above par.

Cure of Evercore emphasizes bonds outside the battlegrounds of budget deficits and future pension and retiree health-care benefits. While the news focus is on states and cities, there are thousands of bonds that are issued by various agencies. These securities have structures with clearly defined sources of money, either dedicated tax payments or revenues from the projects they finance.

In New York, Cure explains, personal-income-tax payments are dedicated to payment of bonds of the Housing Finance Agency, the Dormitory Authority and Thruway Authority. In Florida, there are bonds secured by state lottery revenues, which have to cover debt service three times.

Revenue bonds to finance essential services such as water and sewer systems also have the virtue of being relatively immune to vagaries in the economy, which affect income and sales-tax revenues. In addition, localities which depend on real-estate levies have been depressed by the drop in house prices.

Meanwhile, those authorities also have relatively few employees and lower future retirement liabilities than, say, school districts.

And just think of the satisfaction you'd get paying the toll on George Washington Bridge if you owned bonds of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the Hudson River crossing.

.E-mail: editors@barrons.com

Copyright 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com

New Rules - Should You Convert to Roth IRA? (WSJ Encore)

JUNE 20, 2009 Making a Good Deal for Retirement Even Better
New tax rules are about to give more people access to a Roth IRA, one of the best savings plans for later life. Here’s how the changes work—and how to get ready.
By KELLY GREENE
Robert Woods has been “chomping at the bit,” he says, to open a Roth individual retirement account. Next year, the 54-year-old American Airlines pilot finally will get the chance.

Starting Jan. 1, the income limits that have prevented many individuals, including Mr. Woods, from converting a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth will be eliminated. The change—one of the biggest and most important on the IRA landscape in years—will widen the entryway to one of the best deals in retirement planning. With a Roth IRA, virtually all income growth and withdrawals are tax-free.


The new rules come at a time when many IRAs have plummeted in value, meaning the taxes on such conversions (and you do pay taxes when you convert) will likely be lower, as well. And with taxes at all levels expected to rise in coming years, the idea of an account that’s safe from tax increases appeals to many people heading into retirement.

“It’s potentially quite a big deal,” says Joel Dickson, a principal with Vanguard Group in Valley Forge, Pa. “We’re getting a lot of questions, and investors certainly should be thinking about it.”

Here’s a look at how the new rules work, how to take advantage of them—and the possible pitfalls.

Nuts and Bolts
At the moment, many people make too much money to use Roths. Individuals whose modified adjusted gross income for 2009 is $120,000 or more can’t contribute. For couples who file joint tax returns, the cutoff is $176,000.

You aren’t allowed to convert traditional IRA assets to a Roth if your household’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000. A married person who files a separate tax return is prohibited from converting—no matter how much or how little he or she makes, says Ed Slott, an IRA consultant in Rockville Centre, N.Y.

But while the income limits for funding a Roth will remain, the rules for conversions are about to change.



As part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act enacted in 2006, the federal government is eliminating permanently, starting Jan. 1, the $100,000 income limit for Roth conversions, as well as the restriction on spouses who file separate tax returns. That should make it easier for people with higher incomes to invest through Roth accounts. The changes also should enable more retirees—who rolled over their holdings from 401(k)s and other workplace savings plans into IRAs—to convert to Roths.

Of course, there’s still the matter of taxes. When you convert assets from a traditional IRA or workplace plan to a Roth, you have to pay income tax on all pretax contributions and earnings included in the amount you convert.

The law does provide some wiggle room, however: You can report the amount you convert in 2010 on your tax return for that year. Or, you can spread the amount converted equally across your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, paying any resulting tax in those years. For example, if you convert $50,000 next year and choose not to declare the conversion on your 2010 return, you must declare $25,000 on your tax return for 2011 and $25,000 on you return for 2012. The two-year option is a one-time offer for 2010 conversions.

The fact that Uncle Sam is allowing you to stretch out your tax bill could help people who convert keep their nest eggs intact. Financial planners uniformly say it makes no sense to convert to a Roth unless you can pay the taxes from a source other than your IRA. If you need to tap your IRA for the tax money, you’re defeating, in part, the purpose of the conversion: to maximize the long-term value of the Roth.

One other note: If you are age 70½ or older and taking required minimum distributions from a traditional IRA or workplace plan, you can’t convert that required withdrawal to a Roth. However, after you take your required minimum distribution for the year, you can convert remaining traditional IRA assets to a Roth. For 2009, Congress has waived required withdrawals in an attempt to help retirees rebuild savings. But required withdrawals resume in 2010.

So, if you’re over the income limits for contributing to a Roth, what’s the simplest way to fund one when the conversion rules change? If you haven’t already done so, open a traditional IRA (which has no income limits), contribute the maximum amount allowable ($6,000 in 2009 for individuals age 50 and older), and convert the assets to a Roth next year.

John Blanchard, a 41-year-old executive recruiter in Des Moines, Iowa, has “maxed out” IRA contributions for himself and his wife since 2006 in anticipation of the 2010 rule change. He plans to convert about $34,000 in holdings next year. “If they would let me do more, I would do more,” he says. “This planning is purely for retirement.”

You could continue this strategy each year after that—opening a traditional IRA and converting it to a Roth. In fact, you would have to use this approach if your income exceeds the limits for making Roth contributions.

But how do you do this—over a number of years—without winding up with multiple Roth accounts? Mr. Slott recommends holding two Roths. When you first convert the assets, put them in your “new” Roth. That way, if that holding suffers a loss in the first year, you can recharacterize it as a traditional IRA so you don’t have to pay tax on value that no longer exists. (More on that below.) If the account increases in value before that deadline expires, you could then transfer the assets to your “old” Roth—after the time to recharacterize expires. Each year, you could repeat those two steps.

Why It’s a Good Idea…Why convert? Roth IRAs have several big advantages over traditional IRAs:

For the most part, withdrawals are tax-free, as long as you meet rules for minimum holding periods. Specifically, you have to hold a Roth IRA for five years and be at least age 59½ for withdrawals to be tax-free. Early withdrawals are subject to penalties.

There are no required distributions. With traditional IRAs, you must begin tapping your account after reaching age 70½. In doing so, you increase your taxable income starting in your 70s.

Your heirs don’t owe income tax on withdrawals. That can be a big deal for middle-aged beneficiaries earning big paychecks. One caveat: Roth beneficiaries do have to take distributions across their life expectancies, and Roth assets are still included in an estate’s value.

The fact that anyone who inherits a Roth could make withdrawals with no income tax has led some older adults to consider Roth conversions as an alternative to life insurance. Jonathan Mazur, a financial planner in Dallas, already has suggested that strategy to Shayne Keller, a 55-year-old semi-retired telecommunications consultant. Mr. Keller’s heart disease has made it tough for him to get life insurance. Instead, he’s now planning to convert a traditional IRA worth about $300,000 to a Roth, and then name his two grandchildren as the Roth’s beneficiaries.

Another big advantage: A Roth IRA provides what many financial planners refer to as tax diversification.

“In the future, when you’re going to be taking assets out of your account, you don’t know what your personal situation is going to be, and you don’t know what tax rates are going to be,” says Sean Cunniff, a research director in the brokerage and wealth-management service at TowerGroupin Needham, Mass. “So, if you already have a taxable account, like a brokerage account or mutual funds, and you have a tax-deferred account like a 401(k) or traditional IRA, adding a tax-free account gives you the most flexibility” to keep taxes low in retirement.

…And Why It’s Not as Easy as It Looks
The trickiest part of paying the tax for a Roth conversion involves the IRS’s pro-rata rule. In short, you can’t cherry-pick which assets you wish to convert.

Let’s say you have a rollover IRA (from an employer’s 401(k) plan) with a balance of $200,000, and an IRA with $50,000. The latter contains $40,000 in nondeductible contributions made over a number of years. As much as you might wish, you can’t convert the $40,000 alone—tax-free—to a Roth IRA.

Rather, you have to follow the pro-rata rule. The IRS says you must first add the balance in all your IRAs—in this case, $250,000. Then you divide nondeductible contributions by that balance: $40,000 divided by $250,000. This gives you the percentage—16%, in our example—of any conversion that’s tax-free. So, let’s say you want to convert $30,000 of your two IRAs to a Roth. The amount of the conversion that would be tax-free would be $4,800 ($30,000 x 0.16).



“If you’re thinking about doing a Roth conversion, leave your 401(k) alone” rather than rolling it into an IRA beforehand to keep your share of nondeductible contributions higher in the calculation above, says John Carl, president of the Retirement Learning Center LLC in New York, which works with investment advisers. And if you’ve already rolled over your 401(k) into a traditional IRA, you may want to roll it back—a move that many employer plans allow, he adds.

Perhaps the toughest part of all this is “gathering the data”—showing which of your past IRA contributions were deductible and nondeductible, says Kevin Heyman, a certified financial planner in Newport News, Va. “You have to keep one heck of a record to know which IRAs were nondeductible over the years.”
It’s involved, but possible, to reconstruct your after-tax basis in a traditional IRA, and it makes sense to do it now so you can weigh whether to convert to a Roth in 2010, says Mr. Slott, the IRA consultant.

First stop: tax returns you still have. You’re supposed to keep a running record of nondeductible IRA contributions on IRS Form 8606 and file it with your tax return. If you haven’t done so, you can either buy back your old tax returns from the IRS, using Form 4506, or you can order a free transcript of everything that’s reported about you to the IRS, using Form 4506-T. Included in your transcript is information from IRS Form 5498, which reports contributions you made to an IRA. Other resources are year-end statements from your IRA custodian.

As mentioned above, you should be able to pay any tax involved from a source other than the IRA itself to make the conversion worthwhile. Some retirees already are setting up piggy banks for that purpose. “I’m putting my savings plan together so we have money to pay for the tax,” says Marjorie Hagen, 60, a retired postmaster in Minneapolis. She and her husband plan to convert at least $150,000 in IRA assets next year to give them “more control and flexibility,” she says.

An IRA withdrawal made simply to pay taxes on a Roth conversion could be a particularly bad move for battered investments because you’d be locking in losses. And if you’re under age 59½, you would get dinged with a 10% penalty for withdrawing IRA assets at the time of the conversion. The silver lining, of course, is that those battered investments probably would be taxed at relatively low value, meaning any tax you have to pay should be relatively low, as well.

Indeed, tax rates—what you’re paying now and what you might pay in the future—invariably complicate decisions about whether to convert. Linda Duessel, a market strategist at Federated Investors Inc., an investment-management firm in Pittsburgh, points out that the income tax you pay on a Roth conversion while you’re working would be at your top rate, since it’s added to your regular income. But in retirement, when IRA distributions presumably would help take the place of a paycheck, you’d be paying tax at your “effective” rate, or the total tax you pay divided by your taxable income.

If you expect your income to be lower in retirement—and tax rates to stay about where they are—then a Roth conversion might not make sense. The upshot: Whether you convert or not basically depends on what you expect to happen with your income in retirement, compared with your income while working, and whether you’re more comfortable paying taxes sooner at current rates or betting on lower taxes later.
Strategies to Consider
What’s the best way to take advantage of the rule change? First, keep in mind that you don’t have to convert your entire IRA next year. You can do it piecemeal, as you can afford it, over a number of years. A Roth conversion “isn’t an all-or-nothing option,” says TowerGroup’s Mr. Cunniff. If you hold traditional IRAs made up largely of pretax contributions, such as a 401(k) rollover, your tax bill could be steep. One way to mitigate the tax-bill pain is to get your accountant to help you figure out how much you could convert within your current tax bracket each year without bumping yourself into a higher one.

It’s also a good idea to put converted holdings in a new account, rather than an existing Roth. Here’s why: If the value of your converted assets falls further—after you have paid taxes on their value—you can change your mind, “recharacterize” the account as a traditional IRA, and, in turn, no longer owe the tax. Later on, you could reconvert the assets to a Roth again. (See IRS Publication 590 for the timing details.) This dilutes the tax benefit if you’ve combined those converted assets with other Roth holdings that have appreciated in value.

In fact, you might consider opening a separate Roth for each type of investment you make with the converted money. That way, you could “cherry-pick the losers,” recharacterizing investments that perform poorly, suggests Mr. Slott. Let’s say you made two types of investments—one that doubled in value and another that lost everything. If those investments were in the same Roth, the account value would appear unchanged. But if they were in separate accounts, you could recharacterize the one that suffered—and allow the one doing well to continue appreciating in value as a Roth.

Some owners of IRAs that hold variable annuities with depressed account values are planning to convert those investments to Roth IRAs as well. The current value of the underlying investments in their variable annuities has fallen below their income benefit or death benefit. In that situation, if you convert to a Roth, you’d pay tax on the lower account value—and potentially get a higher benefit in the future tax-free.

Still, if you have a variable annuity and you’re considering a Roth conversion, make sure you value the account according to the latest IRS rules, Mr. Slott cautions. The IRS cracked down on annuity holders using “artificially deflated” variable-annuity values in Roth conversions a few years ago to lower their taxes, he says. “The IRS ruled that you have to get the actual fair-market value of the account from the insurance company and use that number.”

What You Should Do Now
There are a few ways to get ready for next year. Again, as noted above, if you have money to invest, consider funding an IRA before Dec. 31. That way, you can convert those assets to a Roth as soon as Jan. 2.

Also locate and organize your paperwork for any nondeductible IRA contributions you’ve made in the past. By taking that step, you should be able to come up with an estimate of how much of your potential conversion would be taxable. If you expect your 2010 income to be similar to this year’s, you can look up the tax brackets at www.irs.gov to get a ballpark idea of the taxes involved.

Next comes the tough part: Identifying ways to pay those taxes with money outside of your IRA.

To think through all the moving parts, it may help to consult a financial planner or accountant who has extensive experience working with retirees relying on IRAs. The tax rules governing IRAs are intricate, nonintuitive, and arcane. One misstep can unwind a tax-deferred nest egg in a way you might not have intended.
For example, if you’re already taking regular, so-called 72(t) retirement payments, which allow IRA holders to make “substantially equal” withdrawals penalty-free before age 59½, converting that IRA to a Roth is even trickier, Mr. Slott says. The new Roth can contain no other Roth IRA assets, and the 72(t) payments must be continued from the Roth—but no 72(t) payments from the traditional IRA can be converted to the Roth. And if you have company stock in your 401(k), you might wind up with a lower tax bill if you withdraw the stock from the account before doing an IRA rollover and Roth conversion, he adds.

Seek out online tools to help you devise your conversion strategy as well. One resource is Mr. Slott’s Web site, www.irahelp.com, which has a discussion forum where consumers can post questions about Roth IRA conversions and get answers from investment advisers who specialize in IRA distribution work.

At least one free, interactive calculator has been developed to help people think through the decision. Convergent Retirement Plan Solutions LLC, a retirement-services consulting firm in Brainerd, Minn., released a Roth Conversion Optimizer calculator in May for investment advisers with Archimedes Systems Inc., a Waltham, Mass., maker of financial-planning software. A consumer version of the calculator is available at www.RothRetirement.com.

“For the vast majority of middle America, the question is, ‘What’s the best portion of my IRA to put into a Roth?”’ says Ben Norquist, president of Convergent.

The calculator takes several factors into account, including your income needs from retirement assets, future tax rates and the portion of your assets you convert to a Roth. Then, it crunches those variables to show you, using a simple bar graph, the impact of a Roth conversion on your future assets.

One caveat: With any calculator that lets you adjust the future tax rate, as this one does, it’s easy to manipulate the answer if you’re predisposed to doing a conversion now—or avoiding it because you don’t want to pay the resulting tax bill, Mr. Slott says.

Still, the calculator does help you pin down the answer to the big question you should answer for yourself this year, Mr. Norquist says: “If I can take a portion of my assets and shift them over to a Roth, am I going to sleep better knowing they can’t be touched by future tax increases?” If your answer is “yes,” it’s time to start digging out records and number-crunching.

--Ms. Greene is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York. She can be reached at encore@wsj.com.

Slow & Steady Starting to Look Good - Municipal Bonds (from NY Times)

May 21, 2009
More Investors, Chastened by Stock Losses, Settle for Municipal Bonds
By PAUL SULLIVAN
THE historic lure of most municipal bonds has been their tax-free returns. But the recession and the rash of corporate troubles have widened their appeal to investors wary of the stock market who want to settle for a steady if unspectacular return.

Municipal bonds are still the terrain of high earners, who like their safety and higher tax-adjusted return than Treasury bonds. But increasingly average retail investors have been buying them to fill out their bond allocations. “Our average account has increased their asset allocation in fixed income to 52 percent and most of that is in munis,” said Robert Everett, director of fixed income at the Boston Private Bank and Trust Company. He said that was an increase of 15 percentage points from last year.

Even though the major stock markets have risen in the last month, uncertainty about the rally abounds. Suddenly, the return on a municipal bond of 6 to 7 percent, including the tax exemption, seems great.

The other draw has been safety. Historically, the default rate on investment-grade munis is less than a quarter of a percent, compared with almost 2 percent for corporate bonds. And the difference in yield between United States Treasuries and munis has recently been as much as 2.5 percent.

Given the pressure on city and state coffers, the default rate is likely to rise closer to 1 percent. But that is far lower than the yields on munis suggests, said George Strickland, a managing director at Thornburg Investment Management of Santa Fe, N.M. “The market thinks 20 percent of investment grade issuers will default in the next 10 years,” he said. “The major muni issuers are doing well.”

Being selective with munis is key. The first risk investors need to understand is the difference between general obligation and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are sold to finance the daily operations of a municipality. Legally, that entity is obligated to do whatever it needs — from cutting services to raising taxes — to make its bond payments.

A revenue bond is sold to finance particular projects like hospitals, utilities and stadiums. The receipts from such projects are used to make the bond payments, and many investors have started to wonder how these will hold up.

“Stay away from revenue bonds, backed by projects like a parking lot at a university,” warned Gregg S. Fisher, chief investment officer of Gerstein Fisher, an investment advisory firm in New York. “If cars stop showing up, then you could have trouble getting your money.”

Hospital bonds also need to be evaluated carefully. “Community hospitals with A and BBB ratings are feeling the pinch because people without insurance go to them and can’t pay,” said Ronald J. Sanchez, director of fixed income strategies at Fiduciary Trust, a unit of Franklin Templeton Investments. “You need to avoid certain segments with greater risk.”

This points to another issue: liquidity. Roughly $360 billion of new bonds are sold annually. New York and California are the benchmark issuers and their bonds are traded often. But there are scores of municipalities that sell bonds that buyers may have to hold for their duration because of illiquid markets.

Munis are traded in an over-the-counter fashion, which means finding a price quote, let alone a buyer, can be difficult at times. Although small investors make up a good part of this market, the Securities and Exchange Commission has no role in its regulation.

But for those aware of the risk, there are investing opportunities. During the first quarter, few municipalities sold bonds because they were waiting to see what the stimulus plan would bring them. Now, cities and states are making up for lost time.

Several portfolio managers advise that shorter-dated munis are safer. “The longer the duration the more volatility,” said Mr. Strickland, who likes the two- to three-year range.

Diversification is also being pushed for munis. Historically investors have concentrated on bonds from their state to get the full tax deduction. But owning bonds from other states could give them a greater return, as in the case of California, where a fiscal crisis has pushed up yields.

The recession has brought about new securities, known as Build America Bonds, to help ailing municipalities raise money. They allow municipalities to sell taxable bonds for capital projects while receiving a rebate from the federal government for a portion of their borrowing costs. The program is meant to attract institutional investors who typically do not buy munis. But they could also suit a retail investor who wants to put them in a taxable retirement account.