Biden Tax Hikes Would Help Junk Bonds, Says Market Savant

Maybe not so much stocks, but high-yield is well-positioned if the Democrat wins and enacts his agenda, Northeast’s Monrad forecasts.


There’s lot of speculation about how stocks, both in general and in specific sectors, would fare under either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. But what about junk bonds?

Let’s say Biden, the Democrat, captures the presidency, and he goes about increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. Then, argues Bruce Monrad, chairman of Northeast Investors Trust, US high-yield corporate bonds will benefit.

Reasons: The higher taxes will crimp company earnings, which will translate into lower stock performance; high-yield historically does well coming out of a recession; and junk benefits from a Federal Reserve backstop. So investors would pile into high-yield bonds.

Under Trump, whose market impact Monrad doesn’t discuss, taxes likely would not go up. Who knows what would happen to high-yield bonds?

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Biden’s plan to increase taxes—to 28% from 21% for corporations, plus a raise to 39.6% from 20% on capital gains for those making more than $1 million yearly—requires that his party takes over the Senate. It already controls the House of Representatives.

“If Biden gets his way and the top income tax rate also reverts to pre-Trump tax cut levels,” Monrad wrote, “bond income and stock appreciation would be on equal tax footing (at least for high earners) for the first time since 1990. It would also bring taxes on bond income and qualified stock dividends in alignment for the first time since 2003.”

Right now, stocks are very pricey, what Monrad called “priced for perfection.” Because the prospect of future earnings is a major driver in stock appreciation, the advent of heftier taxes should pull lofty share prices back, he predicted.

While skimpier earnings could have a negative effect on junk, it would be limited, he declared. High-yield investors care about profits only insofar as they affect a company’s ability to pay interest, Monrad reasoned. And junk circa 2020 is in relatively decent shape. The default rate for below-investment grade paper is a lot better than in the two previous recessions: 14% and 16%. At present, Moody’s Investors Service reports, the rate is 8.5%.

Meanwhile, junk’s nice interest outlays will be attractive, he said. Indeed, at the moment, these speculative bonds average a 5.7% yield, according to ICE BofA data. That’s far better than the 1.9% payout from the S&P 500.

What’s more, Monrad said, junk has outperformed stocks in the wake of past economic downturns. That happened after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 and in the financial crisis beginning in 2007, when the gap lasted for seven years, he wrote.

Also helping is that the Fed has bolstered junk’s position, via buying exchange-traded funds (ETFs) containing high-yield bonds and by offering low-cost loans to companies in need.

Nobody likes a tax boost in their future. Even Americans of modest means, who supposedly wouldn’t get a tax raise under the Biden plan, could see their investments affected: Their 401(k)s are usually heavily in the stock market.

Thus, in Monrad’s estimation, a shift into junk investments could prove wise. Certainly, he contended, “Tax-aware equity investors might frown on such a move in the current tax environment. But one has to wonder if that will still be the case after Nov. 3.”

Related Stories:

Ackman Bets Against Junk Bonds, Now Resurgent

Who Needs Bonds Anyway?

Both Trump and Biden Will Bring Higher Corporate Taxes, PwC Survey Says

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Local Pension Plans Benefited from Shifting Money to MassPRIM, Report Says

Push to consolidate underfunded small retirement programs under the state-level system is being considered in other states.


In 2007, Massachusetts mandated poor-performing local pension plans consolidate assets under the Pension Reserves Investment Management Board (PRIM). Over the next decade, 26 of them moved half of their funds or more to the state investment trust. 

By 2016, the 26 plans collectively gained about $321 million, or about 7% of their total unfunded liability, according to a report released this week from Boston-based economic consulting firm Analysis Group. 

Systems that switched funds to PRIM’s Pension Reserves Investment Trust (PRIT) gained annual gross returns of 8.9 basis points for every 10% of their assets transferred. Researchers reviewed data from 105 Massachusetts retirement systems from 2001 to 2016.

The findings confirmed for researchers that local systems in Massachusetts benefited substantially over the long term by transferring assets. 

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

“There are still a number of local systems in Massachusetts that have not transferred their assets to the state-run PRIM. And so we think that many local systems could potentially benefit by doing so,” said Yao Lu, manager at Analysis Group and one of the authors of the report.

In total, of the 105 state retirement plans reviewed by researchers, 55 had more than 75% of their assets managed by PRIM by 2016, when including plans that made the switch during the 2001 to 2007 period before the mandate. Another 37 had less than 25% of their funds with the state administrator, including 13 plans that have ceded no assets.

The idea to consolidate pension plans under one umbrella has been controversial in the past. In 2007, critics argued that the mandate for underperforming systems in Massachusetts to cede control of their assets would take autonomy away from municipalities—and that their beneficiaries might have different risk tolerances and require custom investment strategies. 

Meanwhile, supporters said the law would help increase investment returns for retirees, who can be assured their funds could access investment strategies, such as alternatives, that smaller institutional investors couldn’t. Assets would also be invested by a more highly skilled investment staff. 

A number of other states with sprawling collections of underfunded local pension funds have considered consolidating plans. Last year, Illinois approved a plan to consolidate nearly 650 pension programs to cut operational costs and improve investment returns. However, detractors said the plan’s accompanying benefit enhancements would nullify any extra gains. 

Researchers specified that the findings of the report are specific to Massachusetts. But Lu said other states with many funds could benefit from consolidation, depending on the strength of the state level administrator. 

“We’re glad to see more clients investing with us because they see the added value PRIM brings,” a MassPRIM representative said in a statement in response to the report.

In addition to its collection of smaller pension funds, PRIM, which holds roughly $75 billion in assets, manages the state’s two largest pension funds, the Massachusetts State Employees’ Retirement System (MSERS) and the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (MTRS). 

With an annualized 10-year return of 16.4% in private equity, PRIM also has the nation’s second-best performance in that asset class, according to a recent American Investment Council (AIC) study. The report found that national median for private equity, the best performing asset classes for public pensions, was 13.7% over the same time period.

Related Stories: 

Massachusetts Ramps Up Diversity Guidelines

Consultant’s ‘Less Optimistic’ View of Equities Leads Massachusetts to Consider Portfolio Re-Allocation

MassPRIM Misses Fiscal Benchmark by a Hair

Tags: , , , , ,

«