-
Exchange-traded funds
-
Resources
-
Other products
Please select your role
-
Current role selection
Uncertainty has been the theme of 2025. Geopolitical concerns, policy initiatives, and the potential impact of tariffs have put the US Federal Reserve on pause as it balances a still strong economy with concerns around the potential for upward pressure on inflation. For municipal investors, the uncertainty has been exacerbated by talk of changes to the municipal tax exemption, which ultimately was fully preserved in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Municipal credit remains resilient with strong economic growth and robust rainy day funds. At midyear 2025, high yield municipal bonds are on track to be one of the top-performing fixed income asset classes on a tax-adjusted basis, as measured by the Bloomberg fixed income indices, as investors continue to search for yield. For investors seeking to keep more income with a balanced approach to risk, high yield municipal bonds may offer the solution.
Over the past 10 years, the high yield municipal category has experienced an average organic growth rate of ~6% (source: Morningstar Direct). It is the second largest-growing segment after the intermediate-term municipal bond segment, which grew at ~8% as investors seek high levels of income.
The credit aspect of municipal bonds gained significantly greater emphasis after 2007 when the monoline insurance model,1 which was prevalent in credit default swaps and similar products during the global financial crisis, virtually disappeared. The peak in insurance for municipal issuance was in 2005, when 57% of new issues were priced as insured credits and more than 60% with the use of secondary market insurance (source: Bond Buyer). As the market transitioned from a predominantly AAA-insured environment to one that now has multiple underlying credit tiers to analyze, the growth in income-focused bond fund strategies was inevitable. Tax-exempt high yield funds, in particular, have experienced exceptional growth, based on Lipper fund flows data.
In this paper, we examine the high yield municipal category, including strategies that are used by tax-exempt high yield managers, to provide a better understanding of this space. We think it should be evident that the tax-exempt high yield asset class is substantially different from its taxable high yield counterpart, and we argue that the term “high yield” in the tax-exempt market may be a misnomer.
From a pure rating characteristics standpoint, high yield bonds are those with credit ratings below investment grade criteria. This means that securities rated lower than Baa3 by Moody’s Investors Service, BBB- by Standard & Poor’s, and BBB- by Fitch2 are deemed below investment grade or “high yield.” Non-rated bonds, in many cases, are also considered high yield. For high yield funds, however, the definitions are less concise.
Lipper defines high yield municipal funds as funds that typically invest 50% or more of their assets in municipal debt issues rated BBB or less.
Morningstar defines high yield municipal funds as portfolios that typically invest a substantial portion of assets in high-income securities that are not rated or are rated at or below BBB (considered high yield within the municipal bond industry) by a major ratings agency such as S&P or Moody’s.
Note that “typically invest 50% or more” and “invest a substantial portion” allow some leeway when defining high yield municipal funds, considering the limited universe of high yield securities available. These definitions point to the first key distinction between tax-exempt and taxable high yield markets. Due to a lack of high yield paper in the municipal market, investment grade issues rated BBB are considered part of the high yield universe and are typically traded as high yield. This is distinctly different from taxable high yield, which typically has its own dedicated department and does not include any investment grade bonds rated BBB at all. This is a direct result of the opportunity sets within the respective markets.
Sectors in the high yield category are the same sectors found in the investment grade indices. The chart below shows the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index and the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index for comparison. High yield credits are predominantly in project finance or revenue bonds, so the largest difference between the investment grade and high yield sectors is in the largest sector weightings for each index. General obligation (GO) bonds are much more prevalent in the investment grade category.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the industrial development revenue / pollution control revenue (IDR/PCR), special tax, and hospital bond sectors dominate the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index, representing approximately 60%, while the transportation, GO (both state and local), and special tax sectors dominate the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index, representing approximately 50%.
Figure 1: Sector breakdown in the municipal and high yield municipal indices
Sources: Barclays Live, Investortools Perform®. Weightings as of June 30, 2025.
Historically, the credit quality of municipal bonds has been a consistent factor in attracting demand from non-traditional sources or investors, which may or may not benefit from the tax-exempt status of these bonds. An annual study published by Moody’s illustrates the relative safety of municipal bonds, in our view. This study3 compares investment grade and below-investment-grade rating tranches and their respective default rates for Moody’s-rated municipal bonds versus Moody’s-rated corporate bonds from 1970 to 2024. We believe that this representative sample of the municipal and corporate bond markets, shown in Figure 2, is a good proxy for the overall default experience in the respective markets.
Figure 2: 10-year average cumulative issuer-weighted default rates
| Rating | Municipal rated debt | Corporate rated debt |
| AAA | 0.00% | 0.34% |
| AA | 0.02% | 0.71% |
| A | 0.10% | 1.84% |
| BBB | 1.04% | 3.42% |
| Below investment grade | 6.69% | 29.71% |
| Below investment grade | 65% | 47% |
Source: Moody’s Investors Service, US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries 1970-2024.
Figure 2 demonstrates that in all credit tranches municipal debt defaults at a significantly lower rate than corporate bonds. For the “below investment grade” or high yield category, municipal issues defaulted at 6.69% versus 29.71% for corporate bond issues for the same period. In our view, this disparity is largely explained by the generally more stable and predictable cash flows and investor-friendly covenants of municipal issuers relative to corporate bond issuers.
The recovery rates of municipal issues that have defaulted can vary substantially but have generally exceeded those of corporate bonds. The Moody’s default study4 notes:
“Average issuer-weighted recoveries on Moody’s-rated municipal bonds since 1970 have been about 65%, which is higher than the issuer-weighted average recovery rate for corporate senior unsecured bonds of 38% since 1983, as well as the ultimate recovery rate of 47% for senior unsecured bonds of North American corporate issuers since 1987. Municipal recovery rates, however, have been highly variable across individual bonds, with some recovering 100% and others receiving as little as 0%.”
Overall recovery rates of Moody’s-rated municipal debt, on average, have been higher than those of Moody’s-rated corporate debt.
The high yield or below-investment-grade segment of the market is composed of two basic categories: organic high yield securities and those classified as “fallen angels.” Organic high yield comprises issues that are priced in the primary market with initial ratings in the below-investment-grade category, so below Baa3/BBB-, or non-rated. Fallen angels are issues that have dropped from investment grade to high yield through some form of credit degradation. The high yield market expanded in 2014 as several Puerto Rico issuers lost their investment grade ratings and joined the high yield category. In 2017, those fallen angels were removed from the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index after defaulting on their debt, or not paying interest on bonds. After the restructuring of Puerto Rico’s sales tax revenue bonds (COFINA)5 in 2019, those bonds re-entered the index when they began to pay interest again, and the high yield market expanded. Puerto Rico bonds currently account for roughly 14% of the High Yield Municipal Bond Index.
High yield municipal bond funds are benchmarked to an underlying index or, in some cases, a hybrid index composed of more than one index. Among the universe of high yield municipal funds, a variety of underlying benchmarks are used. This is due to several factors.
First, some high yield municipal funds existed before the creation of the high yield indices. In fact, 16 of today’s 54 high yield municipal funds, or approximately 30%, pre-date the inception of the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index on October 31, 1995 (source: Morningstar Direct). This early generation of funds is typically benchmarked to a generic national municipal aggregate index, such as the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index. While some fund managers may have since amended their fund’s prospectus with a new benchmark, some have not.
Second, when considering the constitution of the market by credit segment, the investment grade portion of the market represents approximately 88-92% of supply, while high yield is only 8-12% (source: Barclays Live). Given the challenge for managers to get enough exposure to a relatively small component of the overall market, it seems logical not to use a purely high yield index as a fund’s benchmark. What has evolved in the marketplace is the practice of using a hybrid benchmark, typically a combination of an underlying investment grade index and an underlying high yield index. Two common hybrids are 60-40 blends of the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index and the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index, either weighted more toward the investment grade index (60% Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index, 40% Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index) or the reverse, weighted more toward the high yield index. Intuitively, this hybrid approach makes sense given the practical limitations of the high yield municipal sector.
As of the first quarter of 2025, the most recent Fed data shows the municipal market worth $4.23 trillion. The high yield component of the municipal market, as noted earlier, is considerably smaller than the investment grade component. If we use the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index as a proxy for the high yield market, non-rated securities represent approximately 70% of the below-investment-grade category. Despite record pace for municipal issuance in 2025, high yield municipal supply has actually declined year-to-date, providing strong technical support.
With the below-investment-grade category being such a small slice of the overall market, it seems clear why the demand for such products has been substantial, given the asset growth in the high yield space. This is in addition to the demand from investment grade municipal bond funds and state-specific funds, which generally use below-investment-grade allocations as well. Many high yield funds will compensate for the lack of below-investment-grade supply by deploying leverage in their portfolios.
The limited supply in the high yield municipal bond segment, coupled with insatiable demand from both high yield funds and investment grade or state-specific funds that use below-investment-grade allocations, results in a supply deficit for high yield instruments. In fact, the average allocation to below-investment-grade investments for a high yield municipal fund in the Lipper High Yield Municipal Debt Average was 57% as of March 2025. This contrasts with taxable high yield funds in the Lipper High Yield Bond Average, which has an average below-investment-grade allocation of 95%. (Data as of March 31, 2025.)
The lack of high yield municipal supply leads many portfolio managers to deploy leverage in their funds to create excess yield, typically using higher-grade securities. This is most commonly done by issuing variable-rate municipal term preferred (VMTP), municipal multi-mode preferred (MMP), or institutional municipal term preferred (IMTP) shares, or using tender option bonds (TOBs) to lever the fund.
“When high yield supply diminishes, leverage can be used to create excess yield”
VMTP, MMP, and IMTP shares are preferred shares issued to borrow from the short-term tax-exempt markets. These shares are issued with either a variable or fixed rate, which is calculated by a predetermined spread over a benchmark, the US Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA™) Municipal Swap Index, which can reset as it changes weekly (VMTP, MMP) or is fixed at a spread off the index for the entire term. These structures will typically have three- to five-year terms but can be longer. The issuer then generally uses the preferred share proceeds to buy longer-dated, higher yielding municipal bonds.
A TOB is a security issued by a special purpose trust (a tender option trust), into which high-quality bonds are deposited and then split into two types of securities. The floating-rate security is typically sold to a money market fund and typically floats off the SIFMA Index. The residual security, the inverse floating-rate security, is retained by the fund. The difference between what is earned on the long-term bonds and what is paid out on the floating-rate piece is what’s earned by the fund. The proceeds from the sale of the floating-rate piece allow the fund to purchase additional longer-dated, higher yielding securities that can add to the income of the fund.
As with any form of leverage, interest rate sensitivity is added to the portfolio. When rates fall, total return can benefit from this increased rate sensitivity and, conversely, it can be detrimental to performance when rates rise. Some high yield managers deploy both forms of leverage within their funds.
There are three basic considerations to building a high yield portfolio: access, analysis, and diversification. These three factors must be present if one is to try to build a municipal high yield portfolio as opposed to investing through a high yield bond fund or exchange-traded fund (ETF).
Access. The first element in building a high yield portfolio is access to high yield issuance. We observe that new issues provide the strongest opportunity to secure high yield allocations, but because of the very scarcity of high yield issuance, little supply winds up trading in the secondary market. Roughly 10-12% of overall supply falls into the high yield category and, as previously stated, is in high demand (sources: Barclays Live, JP Morgan). In consideration of underwriting firms’ overall businesses, underwriters are notably judicious in allocating high yield supply to money managers that represent holistic relationships. It can be difficult to obtain allocations on deals if you are not transacting in other aspects of the municipal business with those underwriters.
Another impediment to access is the fact that many high yield issues come to the market designated as available to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) only. These deals are typically structured with minimum size pieces of $250,000 or $500,000. In some firms, individual financial advisors may be restricted from participating in QIB issues despite meeting the QIB definition.
Analysis. High yield structures are significantly more complicated in structure than basic GOs or essential service revenue bonds, making experienced analysis critical. These credits will often involve intricate financial modeling in which many inputs must be properly assessed for feasibility, probability, and longevity. It often takes real market experience to construct the proper model to assess the credit worthiness of an issue. In some cases, to assess value on a non-rated issue, a theoretical rating must be assigned, which can only be done through experience with relative values within specific sectors of the high yield market. This theoretical pricing matrix is obtained through years of following the relative trading values of credits. Without a credit analysis skill set, building a viable portfolio becomes a sheer gambling proposition.
Diversification. Lastly, one of the basic tenets of investing, diversification, is critically important to constructing a high yield portfolio. A single credit blow-up in a heavily concentrated holding can sink an entire portfolio’s performance. Having a well-diversified portfolio of credits is critical in a high yield portfolio and cannot be accomplished without the ability to assess credit properly and have access to as large a range of high yield product as possible.
These factors have led to the proliferation of high yield municipal bond funds and the growth in high yield municipal ETFs.
As investors have sought exposure to the high yield sector of the municipal market, high yield funds have seen significant growth. An alternative to municipal high yield funds is the high yield municipal ETF. ETFs are investment products that allow investors to buy or sell shares of an entire portfolio of bonds in a single security and trades throughout the day, as individual stocks do. Some high yield municipal ETFs track a benchmark index such as the Bloomberg Municipal Custom High-Yield Composite Index or the S&P Municipal Yield Index, while others are actively managed.
There are 17 high yield municipal ETFs in the market: 5 passive and 12 active. These funds have seen explosive growth in their asset base since the first one was introduced in 2009. The average annual growth rate in assets has been approximately 18% over the last 10 years. High yield municipal ETFs now hold $10.7 billion in assets (source: Morningstar Direct).
The insatiable demand for yield has been a catalyst for the asset growth in high yield municipal funds, but the key question is, have investors benefited by investing in the high yield space? To answer the question, Figure 3 shows the annualized returns for the Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index versus the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index. These indices serve as a fair representation of the overall high yield and investment grade markets, respectively. The results indicate that over the past 20 years, high yield municipal bonds have outperformed investment grade municipal bonds, in some periods by a significant amount.
Figure 3: High yield vs. investment grade performance in municipal debt
Source: Barclays Live. Returns as of June 30, 2025. All returns over one year are annualized.
The higher income generated by high yield securities appears to be the key variable in the outperformance of the high yield sector.
High yield municipals have also outperformed across the larger fixed income universe. Figure 4 shows the annualized returns for the past five years across fixed income. High yield municipals’ performance is second only to high yield corporates, which have a very different risk profile.
Figure 4: Fixed income annualized returns for the past five years (as of June 30, 2025)
The municipal market has exhibited a historical pattern during certain trading environments that has usually resulted in the high yield municipal sector underperforming. As a result of the unique concentration of ownership, markets in which individual holders are sellers (or are redeeming their shares in tax-exempt mutual funds) for an extended period show a sequential pattern: the high yield sector initially outperforms, then eventually succumbs to the selling pressure, and very quickly adjusts and even underperforms the investment grade sector.
The typical reaction to investor selling by tax-exempt fund managers is to meet fund redemptions by selling securities from a liquidity component of the portfolio consisting of very liquid high-grade holdings. We have observed that if the selling is short lived, cash or investment proceeds may be reinvested quite easily into similar securities when the environment becomes more favorable. Conversely, if the selling is prolonged and portfolio managers seek to maintain similar credit concentrations through the redemption period, then eventually higher yielding securities may be sold to maintain the integrity of that strategy. When the high yield tax-exempt market begins to see significant selling, liquidity becomes challenged and aggressive corrections may occur. This is the type of environment in which high yield tax-exempt sectors tend to underperform investment grade sectors.
We have found that the constrained supply of high yield tax-exempt securities has encouraged managers of high yield funds to have a high-grade liquidity provision in their portfolios. The constrained supply, and thus the difficulty of replacing high yield securities when the market environment improves, has generally caused portfolio managers to exhibit patience before selling high yield holdings that may not be easily reacquired.
High yield municipal bond funds have grown in number and popularity in the post-global financial crisis era, propelled by the demise of monoline insurance, demand for yield, and a better understanding of the relative default risk of municipal bonds. Investors have generally been rewarded for allocating to the high yield segment of the market with higher returns. We believe the characteristics of the high yield marketplace and the complexity of its credit structures make high yield funds the most efficient way to capitalize on the excess return that has been afforded to high yield investors.
The $4 trillion municipal bond market is distributed across more than one million distinct bonds and 50,000 issuers. The large, fragmented structure can create pricing inefficiencies that active managers can exploit through deep credit research.
Led by three experienced bond managers and supported by 10 dedicated analysts and traders, our Municipal Bond Team manages $10.9 billion in assets across strategies. Our award-winning6 team has a 40+ year track record of helping income-seeking investors. Investors can now access our flagship high yield municipal bond expertise in Macquarie National High-Yield Municipal Bond ETF (HTAX).
1. A monoline insurance company is one that provides guarantees to issuers, generally in the form of credit wraps, that are intended to enhance the issuer’s credit standing. These insurance companies first began providing wraps for municipal bond issues, but then moved into credit enhancement for other types of bonds such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
2. The Fund’s investment manager, Delaware Management Company (DMC) receives “Credit Quality” ratings for the underlying securities held by the Fund from three “nationally recognized statistical rating organizations” (NRSROs) — Standard & Poor’s (S&P), Moody’s Investors Service, and Fitch, Inc. The credit quality breakdown is calculated by DMC based on the NSRO ratings and the index credit quality rules. For securities rated by an NRSRO other than S&P, that rating is converted to the equivalent S&P credit rating. Securities that are unrated by any of the three NRSROs are included in the “not rated” category when applicable. Unrated securities do not necessarily indicate low quality. S&P assigns a rating of A-1 as the highest to D as the lowest credit quality rating.
3. Moody’s Investors Service, US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries 1970-2024.
4. Moody’s Investors Service, US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries 1970-2024.
5. As part of the massive restructuring effort to address the fiscally troubled US Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, $12 billion was issued in February 2019 in new sales-tax backed bonds from COFINA, the Spanish-language acronym for the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation.
6. Barron’s Best Fund Families ranked Macquarie Asset Management #1 in the tax-exempt bond category for 2023 and 2020. The ranking looks at one-year relative performance of fund firms that offer a diversified lineup of actively managed mutual funds and ETFs. The ranking eliminates index funds. Results are based on firms’ skill in active management. Ranking calculates returns before any 12b-1 fees are deducted. Similarly, fund loads, or sales charges are not included in the return calculations. 49 asset managers were included in Barron’s one-year ranking list for the year ending December 31, 2023. 53 asset managers were included in Barron’s one-year ranking list for the year ending December 31, 2020. In 2020, the Macquarie Municipal Bond Team was listed under Delaware Management. This ranking is not based on total return. The ranking is the opinion of Barron’s and not Macquarie Group. No such person creating the ranking is affiliated with Macquarie Group. There can be no assurances that other providers or surveys would reach the same conclusions as this ranking.
In April 2025, Macquarie Group Limited and Nomura Holding America Inc. (Nomura) announced that they had entered into an agreement for Nomura to acquire Macquarie Asset Management’s US and European public investments business. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including the receipt of applicable regulatory and client approvals. Subject to such approvals and the satisfaction of these conditions, the transaction is expected to close by the end of 2025
Carefully consider the Fund's investment objectives, risk factors, and charges and expenses before investing. This and other information can be found in the Fund's prospectus or the summary prospectus, which may be obtained by visiting macquarie.com/mam/etf-literature or calling 844 469-9911. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.
The Macquarie ETF Trust Funds are distributed by Foreside Financial Services, LLC. Foreside Financial Services, LLC is not affiliated with any Macquarie entity, including Macquarie Asset Management and Delaware Distributors, L.P.
Macquarie ETF Trust exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are actively managed and do not seek to replicate a specific index. ETF shares are bought and sold through an exchange at the then current market price, not net asset value (NAV), and are not individually redeemed from the fund. Shares may trade at a premium or discount to their NAV when traded on an exchange. Brokerage commissions will reduce returns. There can be no guarantee that an active market for ETFs will develop or be maintained, or that the ETF's listing will continue or remain unchanged.
Investing in any exchange-traded fund involves the risk that you may lose part or all of the money you invest. Over time, the value of your investment in the Fund will increase and decrease according to changes in the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio. An investment in the Fund may not be appropriate for all investors.
The Fund’s principal risks include but are not limited to the following:
Fixed income securities can lose value, including the possible loss of principal. Fixed income securities are subject to credit risk and interest rate risk. Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of a fixed income security may be unable to make interest payments and/or repay principal in a timely manner. Interest rate risk is the risk that prices of bonds and other fixed income securities will increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. Fixed income securities with longer maturities or duration generally are more sensitive to interest rate changes.
High yield securities (“junk bonds”) are subject to reduced creditworthiness of issuers, increased risk of default, and a more limited and less liquid secondary market. High yield securities may also be subject to greater price volatility and risk of loss of income and principal than higher-rated securities.
Governments or regulatory authorities may take actions that could adversely affect various sectors of the securities markets and affect fund performance.
Substantially all dividend income derived from tax-free funds is exempt from federal income tax. Some income may be subject to state or local and/or the federal alternative minimum tax (AMT) that applies to certain investors. Capital gains, if any, are taxable.
The ETF is a newly organized, diversified management investment company with limited operating history. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Fund will grow to, or maintain, an economically viable size, in which case the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board") may determine to liquidate the Fund.
Nothing presented should be construed as a recommendation to purchase or sell any security or follow any investment technique or strategy.
Not FDIC Insured • No Bank Guarantee • May Lose Value
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Diversification may not protect against market risk.
The Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index measures the total return performance of the long-term, investment grade tax-exempt bond market. The Bloomberg US Treasury Index measures the performance of US Treasury bonds and notes that have at least one year to maturity. The Bloomberg US Agency Index is composed of publicly issued debt of US government agencies, quasi-federal corporations, and corporate or foreign debt guaranteed by the US government. The largest issuers are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB). The Bloomberg US Corporate Bond Index is composed of US dollar-denominated, investment grade corporate bonds that are US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-registered or 144A with registration rights, and issued by industrial, utility, and financial companies. All bonds in the index have at least one year to maturity. The Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index is composed of US dollar–denominated, noninvestment grade corporate bonds for which the middle rating among Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Fitch, Inc., and Standard & Poor’s is Ba1/BB+/BB+ or below. The Bloomberg US Credit Index measures the total return performance of nonconvertible, investment-grade domestic corporate bonds and SEC registered foreign issues. All bonds in the index have at least one year to maturity. The Bloomberg US Fixed Rate Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) Index tracks the fixed-rate ABS market for bonds with collateral types of credit cards, autos, and stranded-cost utility (rate reduction bonds). To be included in the index, an issue must have a fixed-rate coupon structure, have an average maturity of greater than or equal to one year, and be part of a public deal. The Bloomberg US Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Index measures the performance of agency mortgage backed pass-through securities (both fixed-rate and hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage) issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (Freddie Mac), and Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). The Bloomberg US Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBS) ERISA-Eligible Index measures the market of commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions with a minimum current size of $300 million, and includes investment grade securities that are Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-eligible under the underwriter’s exemption. The Bloomberg Emerging Markets USD Aggregate Index is a hard currency emerging markets debt benchmark that includes US dollar-denominated debt from sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and corporate emerging market issuers. The Bloomberg High-Yield Municipal Bond Index measures the total return performance of the long-term, non-investment-grade tax-exempt bond market. The Bloomberg Municipal Custom High-Yield Composite Index includes high yield municipal bonds from issuers across the US. The index is market-value weighted and includes bonds with remaining maturities of at least one year. The S&P Municipal Yield Index measures the performance of high yield and investment grade municipal bonds. The SIFMA Municipal Swap Index is a seven-day high-grade market index comprised of tax-exempt variable-rate demand obligations (VRDOs) and serves as a benchmark for pricing municipal swap transactions.
Index performance returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. Indices are unmanaged and one cannot invest directly in an index. Indices are unmanaged and one cannot invest directly in an index.
All third-party marks cited are the property of their respective owners.
[4650079 - 07/25 | MET-771407]