This article presents a new, cointegration approach to test a tax arbitrage opportunity in holding municipal bonds. Noticing that the variables of interest are nonstationary, two alternative cointegration tests are used to examine the relationship that may exist (1) between the yield on municipal bonds and the after-tax yield on corporate bonds and (2) between the explicit tax rate on corporate bonds and the implicit tax rate on municipal bonds. Previous studies do not take into account the time-series properties of the variables involved, assuming tacitly that they are stationary. Weekly bond yield data together with New Jersey and federal income tax rates are used, and various unit root and cointegration tests are employed to test for stationarity and for cointegration between the variables. The evidence fails to support the tax arbitrage hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, Donald W. K.1991. Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica59:817-858.
2.
Buser, Stephen A., and Patrick J. Hess. 1986. Empirical determinants of the relative yields on taxable and tax-exempt securities. Journal of Financial Economics17:335-355.
3.
Campbell, John Y., and Robert J. Shiller. 1987. Cointegration and tests of present value models. Journal of Political Economy95:1062-1088.
4.
Chakravarty, Sugato, and Asani Sarkar. 1999. Liquidity in U.S. fixed income markets: A comparison of the bid-ask spread in corporate, government, and municipal bond markets. Staff Report No. 73, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, March.
5.
Corbae, Dean, Kian-Guan Lim, and Sam Ouliaris. 1992. On cointegration and tests of forward market unbiasedness. Review of Economics and Statistics74:728-732.
6.
Engle, Robert F., and C.W.J. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica55:251-276.
7.
Fortune, Peter. 1988. Municipal bond yields: Whose tax rates matter?National Tax Journal41:219-233.
8.
Fortune, Peter. 1991. The municipal bond market, Part I: Politics, taxes, and yields. New England Economic ReviewSeptember/October: 13-36.
9.
Fortune, Peter. 1992. The municipal bond market, Part II: Problems and policies. New England Economic ReviewMay/June: 47-64.
10.
Fortune, Peter. 1996. Do municipal bond market yields forecast tax policy?New England Economic ReviewSeptember/October: 29-48.
11.
Hall, Anthony D., Heather M. Anderson, and Clive W. J. Granger. 1992. A cointegration analysis of Treasury bill yields. Review of Economics and Statistics74:116-126.
12.
Johansen, Søren. 1988. Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control12:231-254.
13.
Johansen, Søren. 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica59:1551-1580.
14.
Kidwell, David S., and Charles A. Trzcinka. 1982. Municipal bond pricing and the New York City fiscal crisis. Journal of Finance37:1239-1246.
15.
Kochin, Levis A., and Richard W. Parks. 1988. Was the tax-exempt bond market inefficient or were future expected tax rates negative?Journal of Finance62:913-931.
16.
Kwiatkowski, Dennis, Peter C.B. Phillips, Peter Schmidt, and Yongcheol Shin. 1992. Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economictime series have a unit root?Journal of Econometrics54:159-178.
17.
Metcalf, Gilbert. 1991. The role of federal taxation in the supply of municipal bonds: Evidence from municipal governments. National Tax Journal44 (Part 1): 57-70.
18.
Miller, Merton H.1977. Debt and taxes. Journal of Finance32:261-275.
19.
Ogaki, Masao. 1992. Engel’s law and cointegration. Journal of Political Economy100:1027-1046.
20.
Park, Joon Y.1990. Testing for unit roots and cointegration by variable addition. In Cointegration, spurious regression, and unit roots: Advances in econometrics, Vol. 8, edited by G.F. Rhodes and T.B. Fomby, 107-133. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI, 1990.
21.
Park, Joon Y.1992. Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica60:119-143.
22.
Park, Joon Y., and Buhmsoo Choi. 1988. A new approach to testing for a unit root. Center for Analytical Economics working paper no. 8823. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
23.
Park, J., and J. Sung. 1994. Testing for unit roots in models with structural change. Econometric Theory10:917-936.
24.
Peek, Joe, and James A. Wilcox. 1986. Tax rates and interest rates on tax-exempt securities. New England Economic ReviewJanuary/February: 29-41.
25.
Perron, Pierre. 1989. The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica57:1361-1401.
26.
Phillips, P.C.B.1988. Reflections on econometric methodology. Economic Record64:344-359.
27.
Phillips, P.C.B., and S. Ouliaris. 1990. Asymptotic properties of residual based tests for cointegration. Econometrica58:165-193.
28.
Phillips, P.C.B., and Pierre Perron. 1988. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika75:335-346.
29.
Poterba, James M.1986. Explaining the yield spread between taxable and tax-exempt bonds: The role of expected tax policy. In Studies in state and local public finance, edited by Harvey S. Rosen, 5-51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Ramsey, James, and Merl Hackbart. 1993. Managing state debt: Issues and challenges. In Handbook of comparative public budgeting and financial management, edited by Thomas D. Lynch and Lawrence L. Martin. New York: Marcel Dekker.
31.
Said, Said E., and David A. Dickey. 1984. Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving average models with unknown order. Biometrika71:599-607.
32.
Said, Said E., and David A. Dickey. 1985. Hypothesis testing in ARIMA (p, 1, q) models. Journal of the American Statistical Association80:369-374.
33.
Trzcinka, Charles. 1982. The pricing of tax-exempt bonds and the Miller hypothesis. Journal of Finance37:907-923.
34.
Yawitz, Jess B.1978. Risk premia in municipal bonds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis13:475-485.
