Saturday, January 5, 2013

Optimizing Investment Portfolio With Municipal Bonds

Today I will continue my long-running series of posts (see thisthisthisthis, and this among others) on how to squeeze a bit more out of today's fixed income choices. These have gone from fair or good value two years ago to meager at best now. Unfortunately, we have to invest in what's available, not in what we'd like to see available. So I've been trying to suggest the best ways to make lemonade out of today's fixed income lemons.

As before, if you are perfectly content to hold a simple three-bond type portfolio (e.g. VTSMX, VGTSX, VBMFX or equivalents such as LifeStrategy or Target Retirement funds) for as long as you live, then you should stop reading right now (and by the way, sometimes I wish I could tune out like that). Everyone else, especially those with limited tax-sheltered space and/or in higher tax brackets, please read on.

Today's idea is simple: the way things stand, it makes quite a bit of sense to invest in "long-term" (I will explain the double-quotes in a bit) municipal bonds in taxable accounts and to use the limited tax-sheltered account space for equities, rather than the "conventional" approach of keeping equities in taxable and using tax-sheltered space for bonds. Note that this discussion is complementary to my recent cheerleading for I- and EE-Bonds. Those -- especially the I-Bonds -- remain very good deals. But for many investors the relatively low purchase limits on I/EE-Bonds mean that decisions must be made on what other fixed income investments to hold. Hopefully what follows will help...


This chart attempts to visually capture the yield to maturity (YTM) and relative creditworthiness available from four Vanguard bond mutual funds (one column per fund) as of today. From left to right the four funds shown are:

  1. Total Bond Market (all nominal, taxable bonds). Mutual funds: VBMFX, VBTLX (Admiral)
  2. Investment-Grade Intermediate-Term Corporate. Mutual funds: VFICX, VFIDX (Admiral)
  3. Long-Term Tax-Exempt Municipal. Mutual funds: VWLTX, VWLUX  (Admiral)
  4. High-Yield Long-Term Tax-Exempt Municipal. Mutual funds: VWAHX, VWALX  (Admiral)
The first three rows of the chart capture SEC yield available from the Admiral version of each of the four bond funds. SEC yield is the best available tool we have for comparing expected yield to maturity from different bond funds -- note that actual yield will be different depending on the unknowable future yield curve movements. From top down, the first three rows represent:
  1. Pre-tax YTM, such as would be captured in a tax-sheltered account.
  2. Post-tax YTM in a taxable account at 25% federal tax bracket.
  3. Post-tax YTM in a taxable account at the new 39.6% federal tax bracket.
The font size used for the YTM number is proportional to the YTM itself for a bit of extra visual effect (you are correct -- I am not exactly artistically gifted). For simplicity I ignore state taxes and the extra taxes imposed on highest earners by the recent health care legislation -- they would not change the conclusions I will draw from this post.

In the bottom four rows of the chart I tried to capture the relative creditworthiness of each fund's holdings, using credit quality data published by Vanguard. Here too I scaled the font size of credit ratings (from highest Aaa to lowest investment-grade Baa) in proportion to the percentage held in each fund. For example, at a glance you can hopefully tell that, for example, long-term tax-exempt fund (column 3) primarily holds Aa- and A-rated securities, while intermediate-grade corporate fund (column 2) primarily holds A- and Baa-rated securities.

You may note that I haven't mentioned anything about either maturity or duration of any of these bond funds and you would be right to wonder about that. It makes little sense to do an apples-to-apples comparison like the above on bond funds without taking into account their different average maturities/durations. After all, price fluctuations in bond funds will very much depend on their duration and a bond fund expected to fluctuate by, say, 2% annually is a very different animal from one expected to fluctuate by 10%. Fortunately for us, all four bond funds in question have essentially identical average maturities/durations of 6-7 years, which makes for an easy comparison. This is despite the "long-term" in the name of the two municipal bond funds. Vanguard's use of "long-term" in the fund name refers to different and much shorter time period for municipal bonds than for treasuries or corporates.

Getting to the point, it should be immediately obvious that holding either the Total Bond Market or Intermediate-Term Corporate funds in taxable accounts is simply a bad idea. The higher your tax bracket, the worse it gets. What might be interesting, however, is that the tax-exempt municipal bond alternatives, both higher-quality and high-yield, exceed or match corporates both in quality and in yield, even before taxes are taken into account! After taxes, it's not even close. Even at the middle-class 25% tax bracket, you can expect to get 25-50% more yield out of munis relative to corporates in taxable accounts. The deal gets even better in higher tax brackets.

Now, granted, credit ratings agencies are not perfect. You may recall their infamous AAA ratings on tranches of "subprime" mortgages that ended up paying pennies on the dollar during the housing collapse. So it is conceivable that these credit ratings for municipal bonds are way too optimistic. But all in all, credit ratings agencies have had a pretty good multi-decade history of accurately gauging credit worthiness of various issuers. And municipal bonds have had an even longer history of very few defaults, even compared to similarly-rated corporates. During the depths of the recent crisis munis (blue line) were less volatile than corporates (orange line):

I'd feel pretty good about the safety of Vanguard's VWLUX, both in absolute sense and relative to the corporates. For that matter, I think Vanguard's high-yield munis VWALX has more than enough cushion in its ~0.4% higher annual yield to overcome its slightly lower credit quality relative to VWLUX (although it will be more volatile in a crisis). 

We already knew that I-Bonds, EE-Bonds, and various FDIC-insured CDs and savings accounts are clearly preferable --  both in yield and in safety from rising interest rates -- to treasuries that form the bulk of Total Bond Market. Today we also learned that municipal bonds are almost as clearly preferable to corporates -- again, both in yield and in safety from defaults. The course of action for somebody who doesn't mind spending a bit of time to optimize his or her portfolio becomes clear:
  • Phase out treasuries in favor of I-Bonds, EE-Bonds, FDIC-insured CDs and savings accounts.
  • Phase out corporates in favor of munis.
  • Since both treasuries and corporates have been (hopefully) kept in tax-sheltered space and since I/EE-Bonds and munis belong in taxable space, equities should now be re-allocated to tax-sheltered and fixed income be re-allocated to taxable accounts.
The only caveat here is if you happened to have a lot of capital gains in your existing taxable equities holdings. In order to re-allocate them into tax-sheltered space you would of course have to sell them in taxable which will trigger capital gains taxes which may well ruin the entire deal. 

So what you'd need to do is check whether some of your taxable equities holdings may have capital losses or at least only the most minimal of gains. Good candidates to check for that are international equities, especially international developed which have had the roughest time of all equities in the past five years or so. Moreover, their high dividend payouts have meant that their capital appreciation is limited, making them even more likely candidates for the transfer to tax-sheltered. 

By moving international equities to tax-sheltered accounts you will lose the foreign tax credit on dividend taxes withheld overseas, but that is a very small price to pay relative to keeping those dividends out of the Uncle Sam's hands entirely. And on top of that you will be getting same or higher yield at same or better safety out of the I/EE-Bonds and municipal bonds held in taxable compared to treasuries or corporates held in tax-sheltered.

If you happen to be sitting on large capital gains across all of your taxable equities, then unfortunately this re-allocation of existing investments will not be viable for you. But you can still use the same idea going forward. Until the interest rate situation changes significantly, you can keep keep your new fixed-income investments in taxable accounts via I/EE-Bonds and munis and use new tax-sheltered space exclusively for equities (and maybe FDIC-insured CDs).

And if down the road the interest rates revert to their higher historical norms which include muni yield slightly lower than treasuries yield which in turn is slightly lower than corporates yield (of same maturity, of course), you should be able to undo this optimization with no losses to taxes. You will be able to swap your tax-sheltered equities back into taxable (no capital gains issues there) and sell your taxable munis at likely no capital gains (and quite possibly small capital losses) and buy a mix of treasuries and/or corporates (such as Total Bond Market) in tax-sheltered.

Very roughly speaking -- exact numbers will vary widely depending on your tax bracket, amount of tax-sheltered space, and exact mix of investments -- I would guesstimate that doing this sort of portfolio optimization will yield you around 0.5% per year more on the entirety of your portfolio, across both equities and fixed income.

19 comments:

  1. Great post as always! I was thinking about the same concept, so was good to see someone else reinforce the facts. I have a slightly related question about my allocation to munis. I don't know how common this is, but I have tiered my emergency fund into layers of increasing yield. 20% or so in my regular brick & mortar bank, 40% in an online high yield savings account, 20% in I-bonds and 20% in intermediate term tax exempt (VWITX). I know I'm trying to chase yield here, but I was thinking of moving 20% from the online high yield account to the high yield muni fund (VWAHX). Comparing the two muni funds, I know that VWAHX has one year longer duration than VWITX and still holds about 80% in A or above rated bonds. Given the slightly longer duration and higher credit risk, is it worth the extra yield? In my tax bracket, VWITX yields 2.1%, while VWAHX yields 3.3%. Or should I gradually shift it to I-bonds over the next few years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a minor change in the big scheme of things. 60% of your emergency fund remains perfectly safe, both from default and from interest rate. The 20% in VWITX is, in my opinion crossing the line from emergency fund and into investments, but it is still a very low-risk investment that will likely beat any of the perfectly safe options after taxes. The other 20% going from HYS to VWAHX would be another such cross-over. Does it really matter where the line between "emergency fund" and "safe fixed-income investment" is drawn? Probably not, especially if you are still working as opposed to relying on your investments for living expenses. So I wouldn't stress over it too much and make the move if that's what you want. Putting more of your HYS money into I-Bonds would likely be a good move as well. We'd be splitting hairs arguing which is better.

      One thing I would say is that you should look at SEC yield and not the distribution yield as expected return for both VWITX and VWAHX. SEC yield for the two funds is 1.54% and 2.46% respectively. The actual future return is likely to be somewhat higher than SEC yield (depending on the future moves in the yield curve), but all in all it'll likely be closer to SEC yield than to the past distribution yield.

      Delete
  2. Great article! My question is whether it makes sense to jump from ~1.7% CD option available today (say that's ~1.1% after-tax) to VWLTX for 2.1% after-tax return? In other words, it's an extra 1% in yield, but you lose safety of your principal in a vehicle that changes its principal values 1% up and down very easily... ? I am struggling to see why one would want bonds in their portfolio at all. (And if more risk is needed, they can always add more equities too). In short, does not reaching for extra 1% at the expense of losing principle guarantees seem a bit too expensive as that investment could be going up and down easily but that extra 1% and more?

    (Being high-yield AND long-term, VWAHX seems even riskier making, 1.4% difference even more of a noise in the movements of the principal...)

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  3. To add to my post above, I agree that 0.5% return is a big deal (say 1% for bond side with 50/50 bond/equity portfolio), but added risk of switching from FDIC insured funds for half of the portfolio to something that jumps up and down a few percentage points easily seems like even a bigger deal in that the extra reward does not seems to be compensated by the extra risk... ? In other words, if someone really wants some extra risk for extra reward, I would guess it would be more "efficient" to minimize risk with CDs on fixed side and increasing risk with higher equity allocation... Would you suspect the opposite?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good questions... I absolutely would not try to discourage you from going exclusively with CDs over munis, even in taxable accounts. CDs are very good fixed income deals the way things stand today (good in relative sense, not absolute -- in absolute sense all fixed income choices are lousy). The peace of mind you get in them may well be worth the extra ~1% spread by itself, plus they may carry the option to break early and re-invest at higher yield, plus you can get 1.83% in a 3-year CD (at PenFed; maybe others) versus a ~6-year maturity/duration muni fund. Munis will not do dramatically better and could conceivably turn out worse, at least temporarily, depending on how the yield curve moves in the future. So, absolutely, if you like the idea of an all-CD fixed income portfolio to ride out the current low-interest rate period you should go for it.

    I do think that the ~1% higher post-tax yield from Vanguard's long-term muni funds (either "regular" or "high-yield") is a very good compensation for the default risk. Historically investment-grade munis have had extremely low levels of default, much lower than similarly rated corporates (which themselves have been as low). And when they did default, bondholders on average recovered more than half the principal (also somewhat better than corporates). For 1970-2000 cumulative 10-year default rates for all munis were less than 0.05%! Compare that to over 0.6% cumulative defaults for the top-rated Aaa corporates in the same timespan. Also compare it to the 1% annual (not cumulative!) cushion we have for munis today. Also note that the last 15-20 years of the 1970-2000 period were quite unfavorable for borrowers as interest rates peaked in early 1980s. You can find this a lot of fun related data in http://www.moodys.com/sites/products/DefaultResearch/2001700000407258.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obviously these days municipalities are much more stressed than they have been historically, but I just can't imagine a scenario in which we see 1% annual defaults among high-rated (and even Vanguard's "high-yield" still averages better than A-rated) munis. Meredith Whitney was warning against something like that or maybe even worse two years ago causing a mini-panic and sending yields higher (prompting me to recommend munis: http://www.longtermreturns.com/2011/01/municipal-bond-rates-update.html ). Maybe she'll end up proven right but so far nothing even close to her dire warnings transpired. I am looking at history and seeing that 1% annual "safety cushion" is something like 100-200 times higher than historical muni default rates. I'm content taking those odds.

    As far as price fluctuations due to changes in interest rates -- yes, absolutely things can go against bondholders there. I'm guessing the rates going higher are more likely that rates going lower. But timing these things is next to impossible. ~6-year maturity/duration on the bond funds I discuss here is short enough that vast majority of investors in these bonds should be wishing that rates do in fact go higher. Yes, there will be a temporary loss, likely recovered in 1-2 years. After that they'll get to enjoy higher yields. I guess I just don't see a reason to stress about it. If this is your emergency fund, then absolutely it should not be invested in munis or other bonds (at least most of it shouldn't be). But if it's a regular investment with 10+ year horizon then you should be wishing for higher interest rates, not be afraid of them. And, of course it's conceivable rates go lower, especially on the relatively "cheap" (compared to treasuries/corporates) munis.

    To wrap up, if you like CDs, go with them. You'll have more of a peace of mind while still easily beating treasuries. And yes, you'll be in a better position to skip over the temporary unpleasantness of rising rates and could get a few extra percent there relative to munis if things go your way. But if you don't mind a bit more risk, I think you are getter very well compensated for the extra default risk of munis. And interest rates may not go up fast enough to cause a dip in muni values. If interest rates stay constant or move up at a glacial pace, then today's munis will actually appreciate as they slide down the relatively steep front part of the yield curve.

    The future yield curve is unknowable, the 6-year muni maturity/duration is modest, the yield curve is fairly steep, the current compensation for risk default is generous. Hence my recommendation of munis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the article. If I am subject to the AMT, does your recommendation change at all? I know that certain muni funds hold bonds that have AMT implications for fund owners. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, since the big advantage of munis today is their post-tax yield relative to taxable choices like CDs you do not want to be holding munis whose income will count under AMT in case you are subject to AMT yourself. Where to draw the line is not an exact science, but I'd want at least 0.5% post-tax yield advantage from A-rated or better munis relative to CDs.

      AMT information should be published by all muni funds and bonds, so check it before jumping in. By prospectus Vanguard muni funds may invest up to 20% into munis subject to AMT, but I believe historically they have not done so. Of the broad muni funds only the tax-exempt money market and high-yield hold munis subject to AMT today (I haven't checked the state-specific ones).

      Vanguard muni funds' AMT info can be found in the top table of the fund's "Portfolio & Management" tab. Of the two funds I mentioned in this post,
      Long-term muni fund does not hold munis subject to AMT: https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0543&FundIntExt=INT#tab=2
      and high-yield long-term muni holds about 13% subject to AMT:
      https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=5044&FundIntExt=INT#tab=2

      So if this is a concern you may want to steer clear of the high-yield muni fund and go with the "regular" long-term muni fund instead.

      Delete
  7. Great article as always. (this blog and bogleheads are 2 best info sources I've found on web)

    I'm struggling with whether or not this (tax-exempt bond fund in Taxable) makes sense in my situation: My asset allocation is 70% stocks & 30% bonds+cash. The stock breakdown target is 60% TSM (VTSAX), 30% TISM (VTIAX), 10% REIT (VGSLX). The bond breakdown is more of a hodge podge: it's split about equally between cash (Ally savings 0.95%), I Bonds, TBM (VBTLX), PIMCO total return (PTTRX), and VCIT (VG int-term corp bond ETF, would prefer VFIDX, but this 401k is not at VG). The bond funds & REIT are all in tax-advantaged with room to spare. Plan to max I Bond purchases every year, keep cash flat for emerg fund etc, and split the rest of the bond allocation between VBTLX, PTTRX, and VCIT.

    Based on this article, I'm thinking through whether or not to switch from VCIT in tax-advantaged to VWLUX-or-VWALX in taxable. I'm in mid 40's planning to work 15-20 more years. Didn't sell anything in 2008/2009. Does the math on average support a slightly higher yield with VWLUX-or-VWALX in taxable and VTSAX/VTI in tax-advantaged...or current state with VTSAX in taxable and VCIT in tax-advantaged? Any assistance in thinking through this one would be greatly appreciated.

    P.S. Currently VCIT is 2.57% SEC yield, 6.3 yrs duration. VWALX is 2.55% yield, 6 yrs duration, & VWLUX is 2.19% yield, 5.9 yrs duration. All are 0.12% ER.

    One more question: I'm not sure if estimated 1 yr loss for 1% interest rate rise is equal to duration or "duration minus yield"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for letting me know this blog has been useful for you -- always nice to hear.

      To your question, yes, I think it would be worth your while to go with either VWLUX or VWALX in taxable in place of VCIT in tax-advantaged and use the newly freed up tax-advantage space for stocks.

      VCIT-level corporates have historically lost roughly 0.2% annually to defaults (around 0.4% defaulting per year and assuming 50% recovery in defaults). Either VWLUX- or even VWALX-level munis basically never lost anything to speak of. Obviously these aren't normal times for munis, but I just can't see things get worse for them than similar 0.2% annual losses to defaults. Obviously, people like Meredith Whitney disagree(d?)

      I think VWALX has enough of a "safety margin" in higher yield to overcome its lower credit quality relative to VWLUX but will be a bit more volatile if/when the next crisis comes. But either one would work well.

      The math is pretty straightforward... assuming no losses (or equal losses) to defaults and you go with VWALX over VCIT you get essentially identical yield to VCIT. With the newly saved tax-advantaged space that you use for VTSAX or VTIAX you save dividend taxes. Assuming 2% yield and 15% qualified dividend tax, that's extra 0.3% return from your stocks. VTIAX has higher yield, so you'd save even more in taxes, though you'd sacrifice foreign tax credit. I think you'd still come out on top there but I haven't ran the numbers -- the breakeven will be, roughly, if foreign tax credit is equal to 0.15% (VTIAX yield being ~1% higher than VTSAX) but I think it's been closer to 0.10% historically. So I think you're slightly better off putting VTIAX into tax-advantaged over VTSAX, though it's very close to splitting hairs. Just call it 0.3% extra whichever stocks you move to tax-advantaged.

      Another, minor, advantage of keeping more stocks in tax-advantaged is easier re-balancing when they go up (no taxes on gains). And you'd presumably still have some stocks in taxable to allow you to tax-loss harvest if/when they go down.

      So, to wrap up, not a huge benefit, but I think it's worth doing. Save ~0.3% in stock taxes while getting about same yield with VWALX (or lower yield but higher credit quality in VWLUX -- your choice). If future turns out to be same as the past you'll get another 0.2% relative to VCIT due to VCIT's expected defaults -- but that might be too optimistic a view.

      Biggest catch, of course, is that if you have gains in your taxable stocks now it's very unlikely to be worth it to sell them for this move. But you can always adopt this strategy going forward, for new investments.

      Finally, to your question about duration... Price will drop by ~duration percent, but you will continue to collect interest, so net loss after a year will be roughly "duration minus yield". Also, if you haven't already read it, check out http://www.longtermreturns.com/2012/12/optimizing-fixed-income-portfolio.html , specifically the section called "A Thought" (yes, not real catchy) where I talk about about how rising interest rates may not necessarily negatively impact existing bonds.

      Delete
  8. This is very very helpful. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just wanted to drop a line and say that while your whole blog is great, this article in particular really helped me significantly today when making some asset allocation decisions.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome! And thank you for letting me know that my site has been useful to you -- hearing that is a great motivator for me to keep the site going.

      Delete
  10. Thanks for this informative post. I am 31, currently have my 401k and and Roth maxed out with Vanguard target funds, and am looking to maximize an additional ~$125k, with ongoing monthly contributions of around $1200. This additional money is for general savings, with a decent chance that a good chunk of it may be used for a down payment in 3-5 years.

    I currently have $20k of this in LifeStrategy Conservative Growth in a taxable account. I am considering moving this into a muni bond fund, as recommended in this article, but am wondering if my unrealized short term capital gains ($700) mean I should avoid selling the LifeStrategy fund. I am in the 28% tax bracket. What are your thoughts?

    I'd also be curious to hear any thoughts on how I might best divide this money up between cash/bonds/equities. Right now everything that isn't in the LifeStrategy fund is in an Ally savings account. I'll most likely be putting some of this into CDs and maxing out I-Bonds. I prefer simplicity, so Vanguard's Tax-Managed Balanced Fund (VTMFX) seems attractive, but it's probably heavier on stocks than this kind of savings holding should be, which would mean I'd need to augment with a bond fund, at which point it's no longer simple. I wish Vanguard had a more conservative tax-managed balanced fund...

    Thanks in advance for any advice, and keep up the great work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. All of my bonds have been in two DFA one- and two-year funds since 1995, but I finally worked up the nerve to put a big slug of other money into the VG CA "long-term" tax-exempt fund after reading your posts.

    But I still need to have a large bond allocation in my IRA/ROTH accounts, presently using VG TBM. I thought I might combine TBM with intermediate term investment grade in a 60:40 ratio–this results in 50% Treasuries and 50% corporates. I think John Bogle recommends something like this–he considers TBM currently too (artificially) heavy in Treasuries. I guess just using intermediate term bond index would produce a similar result.

    Your blog is having a great influence on the structure of my portfolio! Thanks for sharing your knowledge!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to hear that you found my blog useful. I have to say I would be a little concerned about putting all my muni eggs into one state's basket. The risk of a bad muni blow-up in one state seems higher than for the entire country and VWLUX offers identical yield/duration... Not sure if exemption from state income tax (probably worth less than 0.2% of munis' value annually relative to VWLUX?) would be enough for me... Chances are very high it'll work just fine, of course, but I'd personally go with VWLUX.

      Anyway, I think you are on the right track to "dilute" TBM with some investment-grade corporates. CDs are another very good option. They are clearly better deal than Treasuries and, given their FDIC insurance, are a better deal than the slightly but not significantly higher yielding corporates. E.g. 1.9% 7-year CD from Discover https://www.discover.com/online-banking/ira-cd/ versus ~2.2% yield from VFIDX with nearly same maturity. Though you would have to do some paperwork and shuffling of funds around to get that Discover CD in your IRA.

      Delete
  12. Thanks for the heads-up on the (CA) state fund, but I thought I recalled you mentioning this as an option, in general.

    I'm 70, healthy, retired working half-days, but still don't have a long time horizon. I thought about spreading tax-exempt money amongst several Admiral funds: short term, limited-term, intermediate-term, long-term, and high-yield. Can this make sense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My apologies if I gave conflicting messages in different posts regarding single-state munis. I do think that investing exclusively into your home state's munis can make sense but I would want a substantial premium in return for giving up the diversification. How substantial? Maybe 0.5%? Maybe 1.0%? Probably depends on what I had for breakfast that day. But it's going to be more than 0.2%.

      As far as spreading the investments across different flavors of muni funds instead of all in one, you'll be sacrificing some yield in return for less volatility. I feel that the "long-term" (as defined by Vanguard) munis compensate you very well for the extra term risk and are the sweet spot:
      - VWLUX gets you extra 0.6% per year for just 1 extra year of maturity relative to VWIUX (along with very, very slightly lower credit rating)
      - VWIUX gets you extra 1.3% per year for 4 extra years of maturity relative to VWSUX -- over 0.3% extra yield per extra year of maturity (again, with very, very slightly lower credit quality)

      Getting extra 0.3% or more in yield for an extra year of maturity with almost negligible credit difference is a very generous compensation in my opinion. But yes, should the rates spike unexpectedly the "long-term" munis will be hit harder than limited/short/intermediate. So I wouldn't try to talk you out of going with shorter maturities.

      Delete