Fiduciary Duty in the Municipal Bonds Market

Baridhi Malakar

2024-06-21

Abstract:I examine whether the imposition of fiduciary duty on municipal advisors affects bond yields and advising fees. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, I show that bond yields reduce by $\sim$9\% after the imposition of the SEC Municipal Advisor Rule due to lower underwriting spreads. Larger municipalities are more likely to recruit advisors after the rule is effective and experience a greater reduction in yields. However, smaller issuers do not experience a reduction in offering yields after the SEC Rule. Instead, their borrowing cost increases if their primary advisor exits the market. Using novel hand-collected data, I find that the average advising fees paid by issuers does not increase after the regulation. Overall, my results suggest that while fiduciary duty may mitigate the principal-agent problem between some issuers and advisors, there is heterogeneity among issuers.

General Finance

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper primarily explores how imposing fiduciary duty on municipal advisors in the U.S. municipal bond market affects bond yields and advisor fees.

The core issue of the paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Municipal Advisor Rule (MA Rule) implemented by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in July 2014. This rule requires municipal advisors to owe a fiduciary duty to their clients. By comparing the changes in municipal bond yields before and after the rule's implementation, the author attempts to answer the following questions:

1. **Did municipal bond yields decrease after the rule's implementation?** The author uses difference-in-differences analysis to examine this issue and finds that municipal bond yields decreased by approximately 9% after the rule's implementation, primarily due to a reduction in underwriting spreads.

2. **Is there a difference between issuers of different sizes?** The study shows that larger issuers are more likely to hire advisors after the rule takes effect and experience a greater decline in yields. However, smaller issuers did not experience a yield decline after the rule's implementation; instead, they faced higher borrowing costs when major advisors exited the market.

3. **Did advisor fees increase?** Using manually collected data, the author finds that the average advisor fees paid by issuers did not increase after the rule's implementation.

In summary, the author's findings suggest that while fiduciary duty can mitigate some agency problems between issuers and advisors, there are heterogeneous effects among different issuers. Large and more mature issuers seem to benefit more from fiduciary duty, whereas small issuers face higher borrowing costs.