Gyroscopic Investing

I've noticed through tax-preparation that many high-weath individuals hold muni-bonds, and due to the state non-taxability of domestic (resident-state) muni bonds, they often weight their bond portfolio to be very-much in-state munis.

I know many of us don't like muni bonds, but assuming that they're a somewhat acceptable store of much of the wealth for high-income individuals, does anyone see having those bonds weighed heavily to in-state bonds?

If it weren't for 1/3 of the stimulus being a giant bail-out of state and local governments, I'd be pretty nervous in California or Michigan sitting on a pile of in-state munis.

The general problem with state and local governments is that they have the same unfunded future liabilities problem that the federal government has, but they can't print money to pay these obligations.

Since state and local governments rely on income tax, sales tax and property tax to fund their activities, the secular decline in real wages, the decline in spending resulting from credit contraction, and the long term decline in housing values mean that all three sources of tax revenue are being pinched, and may continue to be pinched for a long time.

I think that, in general, state and local government debt is currently mis-priced, but this won't become apparent until the forces above are given more time to play out.

I think that many people continue to buy these bonds more or less out of habit, and don't realize that the world has changed.

MT,

If you had to invest and muni-bonds (and didn't live in a low/no tax state), would you weight them towards in-state bonds to avoid paying state tax or try to diversify into other states?

If the latter, how much would you find it appropriate to diversify by?

Even with a state tax rate of 7.5% (MN... high tax high bracket), if you're earning 3% interest on a bond, that means that you're losing .225% of the value of a bond to state taxes.  Is it worth the loss of that .225% if you gain some diversification outside the state?

I'm not a good person to ask.  I've lived in Texas my whole life so I don't have much to offer on state income tax strategies.

moda,

Take a look at the return of in-state funds and compare them to national muni funds.  In many instances, the yield on the national fund will be sufficiently higher than the yield on the in-state fund such that the state-tax advantage of the in-state fund is completely negated by the lower yield of the in-state fund.

It's kind of a hard comparison to do since you also need to be comparing credit quality, duration, etc.  But this has been discussed at length on Bogleheads, by some people who are very educated on the topic, and the conclusion---more often than not---is to buy a national muni fund.

If you are talking about individual bonds instead of funds... well, I guess the same principles would apply.

Thanks... I really have to dive in over at that forum.

I'm not saying I'm pro muni bonds... in fact I hate non-callable bonds... but I just want to properly educate myself on these since so many of our wealthy clients love them.

They make tax-planning "easy" (quarterly payments are easier to calculate without having to estimate interest), but they are a lazy-man's bond IMO, as most callable bonds are... at least based on my current knowledge of them.