[Image] GFOA Logo
[Image] GFOA Public Investor

July 1, 2005


Volume 23, Number 7

Inside This Issue

Leveling the Playing Field: A Review of GIPs (Part I)

Getting Started in Commercial Paper

Performance Benchmarks

Panel of Economists

Databank

Interest Rate Outlook


Leveling the Playing Field: A Review of GIPs (Part I)

By Jeff Flynn

Government investment pools (GIPs) exist in almost every state but a performance review reveals a wide disparity in yields—even though all of these pools are basically similar investments. The GIPs discussed in this article are “$1 NAV” pools that have similar credit and maturity risks and are intended for daily liquidity. In this article I provide a snapshot of all pools yields as of May 31, 2005 and attempt to find explanations for the wide range of yields.

Overview of Performance Differences. Why do yields vary so much from state to state? Yield differences can be attributed to several factors, beginning with the type of securities used in the portfolio. An all-Treasury portfolio would typically have a lower yield than one which buys commercial paper, floaters, or spread products, and this would simply reflect the lower credit risk of a Treasury portfolio. Two other factors appear to be fees and competitive influences.

Exhibit 1 provides a list of pool benchmarks and a collection of most U.S. pool yields as of May 31, 2005. The exhibit indicates several differences: a) rated pools have outperformed non-rated “peers;” b) state pools exceeded the returns on local pools; and c) many state pools were on par with top-tier institutional money market mutual funds (MMMFs). Perhaps the largest performance gap was between top institutional MMMFs and the iMoney All Taxable identified in Exhibit 1 (the latter includes both retail and institutional MMMFs).

Exhibit 1: Institutional Benchmarks as of May 31, 2005

State pools are generally sponsored by a state treasury agency and may be managed internally like that of Connecticut or Utah or they may employ an outside manager as TexPool or LAMP do. Local pools are usually established as a secondary pool alternative by and for local governments (e.g., under municipal investment cooperative provisions) and are not typically managed by a state treasury office.

Case Studies Illustrating the Impact of Competition. To gain a better understanding of yield differences, the following discusses performance among a selected number of pools. These performance differences seem to be linked to differences in the competitive environment within the states these pools operate in.

Texas Pool Environment. TexPool is the AAA-rated state pool for Texas charging 5 basis points to participating governments (called the gross expense ratio). Four other LGIPs in Texas compete for the same public-sector asset base. The TexPool yield was 3.02 percent as of May 31, 2005, which put it in the top quartile, but note the yields of the other Texas LGIPs. TexStar, LOGIC, and MBIA CLASS were all ranked in the same top quartile as well (see Exhibit 1). It appears that to be competitive with TexPool, the others have had to limit fees in order to raise yields—thus enabling them to be competitive and maintain asset share.

States Having No State Treasurer's Pool. Unlike Texas, there is no state-sponsored pool in Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, New York, or Michigan. (Iowa, for example, has only one LGIP and does not offer a state pool, although it does allow participation in MMMFs). The available LGIPs in the first four states are all in the bottom two quartiles. In Michigan, CLASS publicly announced a reduction in fees and raised yields above the other pools. They may be in the early stages of a Texas-type competitive transition. Some state treasurers in these states have indicated to TRACS Financial that certain influences have thwarted their efforts to get approval for their own pool, typically a strong bank lobby.

New York has no state pool but rather two GIPs, which creates some increased level of competition. They are in the 3rd quartile. Attention New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer: Based on the data presented in this article, New York municipal investment returns could easily be improved by millions of dollars by allowing localities to invest in AAA money market funds! In my view, recent reforms of mutual funds (led by Spitzer as well as California State Treasurer Philip Angelides, who both have championed compensation based on performance) have made them even better investment vehicles.

Exhibit 2: GIP Yields as of May 31, 2005
1st Quartile
3.15%  
2nd Quartile
2.96%  
3rd Quartile
2.77%  
4th Quartile
2.58%
CT STIF 3.15%   IL Funds Prime Fund 2.95%   MN Muni MMF (4M) - Plus 2.76%   MI PFM SDLAF Plus Liq
2.57%
MT STIP 3.10%   MD MLGIP 2.95%   VA PFM Cash Rsrve Prime 2.76%   IA IPAIT Diversified
2.56%
TX LOGIC 3.07%   PA INVEST 60 2.95%   CA PFM Asset Mgmt Prgrm 2.75%   NJ CLASS^
2.56%
TX TexPool Prime 3.05%   PA INVEST Comm Pool 2.94%   IN Invest CLASS^ 2.75%   PA PFM PLGIT
2.56%
NJ Cash Management* 3.02%   TN LGIP* 2.94%   NJ PFM A&R Mgmt Program 2.74%   MO PFM MOSP
2.55%
TX TexPool 3.02%   CA LAIF 2.93%   PA PFM PLGIT PLUS 2.73%   WY Govt Investment Fund
2.53%
KS Muni Invst Pool 3.01%   PA INVEST Daily 2.93%   ID LGIP* 2.72%   IL SDLAF Plus Liq
2.52%
UT PTIF* 3.01%   PA INVEST 30 2.93%   IL SDLAF Plus Max 2.72%   NE PFM SDLAF Plus
2.50%
IL Metro Inv Conv Fund 3.00%   WY WYO-STAR LGIP 2.93%   MI Comerica Govt Cash Invst 2.71%   NE NPAIT*
2.50%

WV Cash Liquidity Pool* 3.00%   CO ColoTrust Plus+ 2.90%   NY CLASS^ 2.68%   OK Pub Schl Liq Asset Pool
2.49%
GA Fund 1* 2.99%   LA Asset Mngmnt Pool 2.89%   MI PFM SDLAF Plus Max 2.66%   CT CLASS^
2.48%
TX CLASS 2.99%   OR State Pool* 2.89%   CT CLASS PLUS^ 2.65%   IA ISJIT Diversified
2.43%
VA LGIP 2.97%   VA SNAP 2.89%   ME CLASS^ 2.64%   SD Pub Fund Invst Trst Cash
2.43%
WA LGIP 2.97%   WI LGIP* 2.89%   AZ LGIP GOV* 2.62%   IL Park Dist LAF Plus
2.39%
FL SBA LGIP* 2.96%   MI CLASS^ 2.88%   MN PFM SDLAF Max 2.62%   PA SDLAF Liq
2.38%
NM LGIP Overnight Pool 2.96%   TX LoneStar Liq Fund* 2.88%   PA SDLAF Max 2.62%   MN PFM SDLAF Liq
2.35%
TX TexStar 2.96%   OH STAR 2.87%   MN Muni MMF (4M) 2.61%   NH Public Dep Invest Pool^
2.35%
    CO CSAFE 2.86%   MN PFM MAGIC 2.61%   WI Invst Series Cash Mngmnt
2.28%
    SC LGIP
2.86%   RI CLASS^ 2.58%    
    WI CLASS^
2.86%          
    IL Funds Money Market
2.85%          
    CO ColoTrust Prime
2.84%          
    NC STIF
2.84%            
    TX LoneStar Liq Corp*
2.83%            
    TX LoneStar Liq Plus*
2.83%            
    WV Govt Mny Mrkt Pool*
2.80%            
    WI Investment Series
2.81%            
    AK AMLIP
2.79%            
    PA PFM ARM
2.78%            
    AZ LGIP*
2.77%            
    MI Comerica Sch Csh Invst
2.77%            
    VA PFM Cash Reserve Fed
2.77%            
Notes: 1.Results are net of fees. *No daily rate, used monthly avg ^Estimate.
2. Red = Local Pool; Black=State Pool
Source: TRACS Financial

Competitive Alternatives May Provide Solutions. In some cases certain fees may be going to a particular association for endorsement or sponsorship, fees that reduce yield but may cover costs of administrative or other important services. Larger municipalities often seek their own alternatives or can negotiate better yields because of their size, especially in states where LGIP yields are below average. Fee sharing agreements were common when LGIPs began but it reduces yield and can send larger entities to higher yielding alternatives. If these fees were reduced, I believe it would increase revenues for the “little guys” and perhaps provide more competitive yields that could elicit support from larger municipalities.

AAA money market mutual funds can provide almost immediate competition and all but about 11 states allow purchase of these money funds. Indeed, the exhibit reveals that certain money funds could provide a higher yield than most of the LGIPs in the nation. Some key Iowa and Minnesota cash managers support the expanded use of these alternatives as a way to create a more competitive pool environment. Aside from benefiting from stronger competition, governments electing to invest in an SEC-registered money market fund could reasonably expect additional regulatory oversight.

What Is the Bottom Line? If you agree with the notion that enhanced competition—through access to additional GIPs or money market fund alternatives—could restrain fees and improve yields to governments, then the additional earnings could amount to hundreds of millions annually. On the surface, one would believe that municipalities in all states would achieve the same yields on their overnight pools, but the data reveals differing results.

Jeff Flynn is founder of TRACS Financial. For information regarding GIP research or alternative investments, contact Jeff Flynn at info@tracsfinancial.com or visit www.tracsfinancial.com. For confirmation of firm data or sources regarding pool and fund yields, please refer also to the web sites of iMoneyNet and S&P. Public investors should carefully review all documents and prospectus materials on MMMFs and GIPs, their fees, the beneficiaries of those fees and the objectives and other costs associated before investing any money. MMMFs, GIPs, and all investments contain risks and do not guarantee a market rate of return or return of principal.


Getting Started in Commercial Paper

By Sofia Anastopoulos, CFA

While approximately half of the states allow investing public funds in commercial paper (CP), it has not enjoyed the widespread acceptance of other money market instruments such as agencies or certificates of deposits. Despite this, the inclusion of high-quality CP can be a part of a diversified investment portfolio.

The CP Market. Commercial paper is a short-term unsecured note issued in the open market, typically used for financing a corporation's shorter-term needs like working capital or bridge loan financing. While numerous options exist in the capital markets for longer-term financing, short-term financing needs have been often met through bank loans. In recent years, the CP market has emerged as a cost-effective alternative to bank loans. Issuers are primarily corporations, although municipalities can access this funding source to issue tax-exempt debt. As an unsecured obligation, issuers pledge no assets and only the liquidity and earnings power of the issuer can be counted on for repayment.

Originally limited to entities with the highest credit ratings, credit enhancements and collateralization have allowed lower-rated corporations to access the CP market. In such situations, a financial institution with a high credit rating provides a letter of credit for a fee, thereby substituting its own high credit rating for that of the issuer. In addition, collateralization by high-quality assets for asset-backed CP can be used. From the investor's perspective, credit quality depends on the underlying enhancement or collateralization and the bank's creditworthiness. Depending on the structure, the credit of the issuing corporation can be overlooked.

The maturity of CP is typically less than 270 days. Special provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 exempt CP from registration with the SEC if its maturity does not exceed this 270-day threshold. Because of this exemption, CP has become a viable alternative to bank borrowing. CP is quoted on a discount basis like Treasury Bills. Interest rate calculations use a 360-day year.

Issuers typically reissue or roll CP over and use the proceeds to pay off holders of maturing paper. The risk that an investor faces in this scenario is that the issuer will be unable to issue new CP to refinance the maturing CP. This can occur either due to an issuer-specific event or as a result of a broader, marketwide disruption. To mitigate against this risk, commercial paper is usually backed by bank lines of credit.

Procuring CP. Rating agencies assign CP ratings, taking into account the provisions for credit enhancement liquidity. The highest rating (A-1+ for S&P and Prime-1+ for Moody's) reflects a strong degree of safety concerning timely payment. Public investors should limit themselves to the top credit ratings.

CP is classified either as “direct paper” or “dealer paper.” Direct paper is sold by the issuer directly to investors without the use of an intermediary. Large issuers requiring continuous funds often opt to place direct paper, finding it more cost-effective to establish their own marketing program and bypass the dealer commission. Dealer-placed paper, on the other hand, is sold through a securities dealer. Numerous resources exist to facilitate investing in commercial paper, such as GFOA YieldAdvantage.™

CP yields track those of other money market instruments but they tend to be higher than comparable maturity treasury or agency instruments. The primary reason for this yield premium is CP credit risk. Also, while interest earned on treasury instruments is exempt from state and local taxation, commercial paper is fully taxable. Consequently, the yields are higher to offset this tax-disadvantage. In addition, there is a less active secondary market and thus a slight liquidity premium for CP.

The spreads between CP and Treasuries or between CP of different ratings change over time depending on various factors. When the money supply is tight, investors have a tendency to become more concerned about credit risk, turning to safe havens, which drives up the price of treasuries while driving down their yields, resulting in spreads widening. During these periods of restrictive monetary policy, a flattening yield curve is often accompanied by widening commercial paper spreads. In the alternative, during periods of easing, investors tend to abandon higher quality securities in an attempt to capture yield, effectively driving down spreads between the risk-free Treasuries and CP.

Issues to Keep In Mind. Investors should always be aware of the level of risk they are accepting. On the spectrum of credit risk, CP ranks behind both Treasuries and agencies. Investing in the highest-rated paper helps mitigate credit risk.

Like all fixed income securities, CP is susceptible to fluctuations in interest rates, also known as market risk. If interest rates rise, CP prices will decline. However, the relatively short maturity of the paper limits the potential price erosion.

Finally, the topics of risk, liquidity and yield should be contemplated in the context of a well-diversified portfolio. The investor should ascertain whether the additional yield, or spread of CP over other comparable maturity instruments, adequately compensates for the additional risk taken for a given maturity.

Sofia Anastopoulos, CFA is sales manager, GFOA YieldAdvantage.™ She can be reach at Sanastopoulos@gfoa.org or 312/578-2292.


Panel of Economists

Sustained Growth Seen, Despite More Rate Hikes

This month, Public Investor asked its panel of economists to provide readers with their forecast of the economy over the next six months, commenting specifically on economic growth, inflation, and interest rates. Although economic growth and inflation are expected to be moderate, the economists see more rate hikes in the offing.

Carl Tannenbaum's outlook calls for real growth in gross domestic product of 3 to 3.5 percent for the second half of 2005. He expects some moderation in housing activity, but job creation will enable consumers to support the continued expansion of the economy. At the same time, inflation should remain under control and energy price increases should slow somewhat. Despite the moderate growth and inflation, Tannenbaum predicts that the Federal Reserve will raise rates at least three more times this year.

Compared to Tannenbaum, John Silvia predicts that the economy will grow at a slightly more tepid rate of 3.25 percent, and inflation will remain steady at 2.5 to 3 percent. He expects that the Federal Reserve will raise the Fed Funds rate to 3.75 percent by the end of the year, and for the benchmark 10-year Treasury bond to be in the 4.5 to 4.7 percent range over the following six months.

RGM
Databank Analysis

Expansion Extends to All Regions

The Fed “Beige Book” reports that business activity continued to expand in all 12 Fed districts, with most districts describing growth as “moderate, solid, or well-sustained.” The Philadelphia Fed's biannual Livingston Survey of economists predicts that the economy will continue this pattern, with real GDP growing at 3.6 percent for the second half of 2005 and 3.1 percent for the first half of 2006.

The databank’s average money market fund maturity—currently 36 days—suggests that short-term interest rates will continue to rise. In contrast, the average maturity over the past 10 years has been around 50 days. Money market fund managers tend to decrease their average maturity when they expect short-term interest rates to rise.

RGM

Databank
 

Current
Period

Previous
Period

Year
Ago

Economic Growth      
Real GDP growth I Q '05 IV Q '04 Year Ago
Annual rate, constant dollars 3.5 3.8 4.5

Retail sales

May April Year Ago
$ billions 343.62 345.34 322.97
Industrial production index May April 12 mo. chg.
Change, monthly and annually 0.4% -0.3% 2.7%
Leading indicators index May April 12 mo. chg.
Change, monthly and annually -0.5% 0.0% -2.1%
New housing starts May April Year Ago
Thousands of units, annualized 2,009 2,005 1,974
Purchasing Management Index May April Year Ago
Nati'l. Assoc. of Purchasing Management 51.4 53.3 62.6
Inflation      

Consumer price index

May April 12 mo. chg.
Change, monthly and annually -0.1% 0.5% 2.8%

Producer price index

May April 12 mo. chg.

Change, monthly and annually, seasonally adjusted

-0.6 0.6 3.5
GDP price deflator I Q '05 IV Q '04 Year Ago
Annual rate 3.2 2.3 2.8
Unemployment rate May April Year Ago
BLS 5.1 5.2 5.6
Other      
Money market fund maturities June 7 May 17 June '04
Average portfolio maturity
(Money Fund Report Averages TM)
36 days 22 days 48 days

Interest Rate Analysis

Fed Not Retreating

The Fed is widely expected to continue its series of measured rate increases by raising the Fed Funds rate 25 basis points to 3.25 percent at its meeting on June 30. The Fed's next meeting is on August 9, where it is also expected to raise rates 25 basis points. The Fed Funds futures market projects that the central bank will continue to the rate hikes through the rest of the year. Although the Fed has raised rates about 200 basis points in the past year, the real Fed Funds rate is still about 100 to 150 basis points below the historical average.

The Livingston Survey predicts that the three-month Treasury bill will rise to 4.2 percent over the next 12 months and then level off. The survey predicts that the 10-year Treasury bond will rise to 5.1 percent over the next 12 months and also level off at that point.

RGM

Interest Rate Outlook
The Public Investor's panel of eminent institutional economists projects interest rates for the first day of each forecast month. Averages are the midpoints between the arithmetic mean and the median of individual projections. The low and high individual forecasts illustrate the range.

Rate

August-05
Average
(Low-High)

October-05
Average
(Low-High)
January-06
Average
(Low-High)
Fed Funds
3.3
3.5

3.7

 
3 1/4- 31/4
3 1/2- 3 1/2
3 1/2- 3 3/4
30-day prime bank (CD)
3.4
3.6
3.8
 
3 3/8 - 3 3/8
3 5/8 - 3 5/8
3 5/8 - 3 7/8
3-month T-bill yield
3.4
3.6
3.7
 
3 3/8 - 3 3/8
3 5/8 - 3 5/8
3 5/8 - 3 3/4
5-year Treasury note
4.1
4.3
4.4
 
4 - 4 1/4
4 1/4 - 4 3/8
4 1/4 - 4 3/8
30-year Treasury bond
4.7
4.9
5.0
 
4 1/2 - 4 7/8
4 5/8 - 5 1/8
4 3/4 - 5 1/4
Consensus Index*
100%
100%
100%
*Consensus index is the percentage of responses within 75 basis points (0.75 percent) of the average interest rate. Index measures the extent of panelists' agreement. If all forecasts are with 3/4 percent of the various averages for a given month, the consensus would be 100. If all responses fall at the extreme ends of a wide range, the index is 0.

Interest rate forecast panelists
John Silvia Wachovia Securities

Carl R. Tannenbaum

LaSalle Bank ABN/Amro


Performance Benchmarks

Public Investor Performance Indexes
The Public Investor 10-bill index
 

Quarterly/Monthly
Return

Annualized Returns Since
 
Index
Annualized
Jan.1, 2004
Jan. 1, 2003
Jan. 1, 2004 276.6328

1.0% (M)

1.1% 1.4%
Jan. 1, 2005 280.0364

1.9% (Q)

1.2% 1.2%
June 1, 2005 282.8994 r 3.0%(M) r 1.6% 1.4%
July 1, 2005 283.3724 2.0%(M)
2.6%(Q)
1.6% 1.4%
The Public Investor 10-bill index consists of 10 hypothetical Treasury bill investments, with an average maturity of approximately 80 days. Every other Thursday, a T-bill matures and proceeds are reinvested alternately in the three-month and six month T-bills. This rolling index provides a benchmark for evaluating cash management portfolios with biweekly payment and payroll requirements. The original value of the index was 97.6765 on July 1, 1984.
The money market fund index
 
Annualized Returns Since
  Average Return Jan. 1, 2004 Jan. 1, 2003
Jan. 1, 2004 0.5% 0.67% 1.61%
Jan. 1, 2005 1.5% 0.76% 0.82%
June 1, 2005 2.3% 1.09% 0.92%
July 1, 2005 2.4% 1.16% 0.925%
The money market fund index is the simple average of Money Fund Report Averages ™ seven-day money market fund indexes, as reported for the two weeks closest to the end of each month. The annualized return is calculated using these rates for a four-week period centering on the first of each month. The results should simulate returns from passive investment in an average money market fund.
S&P Rated LGIP Index (June 10, 2005)
7-day yield
30-day yield
Maturity (days)
2.77%
2.73%
26
This index is comprised of local government investment pools that are rated AAAm or AAm by Standard & Poor's and represents pools that strive to maintain a stable net asset value.
Key Rates: Cash Markets
Rate 6/17/05 Year Ago
Fed funds 3.00 1.00
CDs: Three months 3.38 1.50
CDs: Six months 3.58 1.82
BAs: One month 3.21 1.20
T-bills: 91-day yield 2.98 1.39
T-bills: 52-week yield 3.38 2.17
2Commercial paper, dealer-placed, 3 months 3.35 1.47
Bond Buyer 20-bond municipal index 4.31 5.05
Tax-exempt notes 2.61 1.61

Moving Averages

6-Month Treasury Bill

2-Year Treasury Note

30-Year Treasury Bond

Public Investor’s four-week moving averages are calculated as a simple average of Friday closing yield quotations for the most recently offered six-month Treasury bill (discount basis), two-year Treasury note, and 30-year Treasury bond. Moving averages are used by analysts to monitor trends and trend changes. Generally, interest rates are increasing (prices falling) when the moving average yield is rising and the current rate exceeds the moving average. Conversely, current yields below a declining moving average are associated with lower interest rates (high prices on fixed-income securities). Some market timers buy (or sell) longer maturities when current market yields fall below (or penetrate above) their moving averages.

Relative Yield


Executive Director/CEO Jeffrey Esser
Editor Nick Greifer
Contributing Staff R. Gregory Michel

The Public Investor is published monthly by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), 203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60601. (312/977-9700; email: PublicInvestor@gfoa.org) Annual subscription rates are $55 for active GFOA members, $70 for associate GFOA members, and $85 for nonmembers. For reprint permission contact GFOA.

The information and opinions printed herein are from sources believed to be reliable, but GFOA makes no guarantee of accuracy. Opinions, forecasts and recommendations are offered by individuals and do not represent official GFOA policy positions. Nothing herein should be construed as a specific recommendation to buy or sell a financial security.

Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada
[ Archive ] [ Feedback ] [ e-Store ]