Leaving Franklin Templeton

Clicking OK below will take you to an independent site. Information and services provided on this independent site are not reviewed by, guaranteed by, or endorsed by Franklin Templeton or its affiliates. Please keep in mind that this independent site's terms and conditions, privacy and security policies, or other legal information may be different from those of Franklin Templeton's site. Franklin Templeton is not liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues, consequences or damages arising from your use of this independent website.
Franklin Templeton Fixed Income Muni Monitor Weekly Fixed Income

Weekly Municipal Monitor

Take a deep dive into activity in the municipal bond market over the past week.

Franklin Templeton Fixed Income

Published date

October 27, 2026

View more from this team

Reading time

10 minutes

[signin.article-banner-document-title]

Key takeaways

  • Munis posted positive returns last week, outperforming taxable fixed income.
  • Supply remained elevated, but a lighter forward calendar and steady demand supported technicals.
  • This week we touch on tax policy measures associated with the upcoming election.


Municipal Yield Changes and Returns

AAA Muni vs. Treasury Yield Changes and Ratios
As of October 23, 2026

Tenor

AAA

Δ bps

UST

Δ bps

Ratio

10Y avg

2-year

2.88%

−23

4.68%

−2

61%

74%

5-year

3.05%

−23

4.81%

−6

63%

72%

10-year

3.52%

−22

5.00%

−8

70%

79%

30-year

4.85%

−12

5.32%

−10

91%

92%

Source: Bloomberg. BVAL AAA callable curve and Treasury generics change vs. October 23, 2026. Ratio = AAA muni yield ÷ Treasury yield; 10-year average of daily ratios. Bps represents basis points. UST equals US Treasuries.

Index Returns and Yields
As of October 23, 2026

Bloomberg Index

1 wk

YTD

YTW

TEY

Municipal

1.14%

−1.13%

4.31%

7.28%

High Yield Muni

1.31%

1.51%

5.90%

9.96%

U.S. Corporate

0.34%

−1.49%

5.87%

5.87%

U.S. Treasury

0.56%

−0.99%

4.89%

4.89%

Global Aggregate

0.29%

−1.59%

4.30%

4.30%

One-week return vs. October 16, 2026. TEY = taxable-equivalent yield at a 40.8% top marginal rate.

Infographic showing municipal bond market demand and supply metrics. On the demand side, weekly net fund flows were +$1.6 billion through October 21, unchanged from the prior week, with ETF inflows of +$3.7 billion offset by mutual fund outflows of −$2.1 billion. Year-to-date net flows totaled +$77.3 billion, which is $31.7 billion ahead of the 2025 pace ($45.6 billion). On the supply side, $14.9 billion of municipal bonds were issued last week, 53% higher than the prior week. Year-to-date issuance reached $515 billion, 11% above the 2025 record pace. Thirty-day visible supply stood at $13.4 billion, 32% lower than the prior week. Demand metrics are displayed on the left and supply metrics on the right in blue-highlighted summary boxes.

Source: LSEG Lipper weekly reporting funds, week to October 26, 2026. Issuance: Bloomberg cumulative year-to-date issuance. Visible supply: The Bond Buyer 30-day visible supply,

Markets Last Week

Fixed income rallied last week as growing risk aversion outweighed persistent inflation concerns and higher energy prices. Worries about artificial intelligence-related investment grew as the Nasdaq 100 Index fell roughly 2.9% on Thursday, while mounting fiscal concerns pushed French government borrowing costs to multidecade highs. Economic data continued to point to resilience. Initial jobless claims declined and fell below expectations, while University of Michigan consumer sentiment and manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index data both rose and were above consensus.

Treasuries rallied across maturities and the curve flattened, with yields falling 8 basis points (bps) in 10-years and 10 bps in 30-years. Municipals outperformed as improving technicals pushed high-grade tax-exempt yields 23 bps lower in 5-years, 22 bps in 10-years and 12 bps in 30-years.

Supply and Demand Technicals

Weekly reporting municipal funds took in US$1.6 billion of net inflows in the week ended October 21, matching the prior week, according to Lipper. Tax-loss harvesting continued to shape flows, with ETFs gaining US$3.7 billion while open-end funds lost US$2.1 billion. Long-term funds led with US$1.5 billion of inflows, while intermediate funds saw US$655 million of outflows. Investment-grade funds accounted for all of the inflows, as high-yield funds lost US$756 million. Year-to-date net inflows now total US$77.3 billion, US$31.7 billion ahead of last year's pace.

Last week's new issue supply totaled US$14.9 billion, 53% above the prior week's US$9.7 billion. Year-to-date issuance reached US$515 billion, 11% ahead of last year's record pace. Tax-exempt issuance accounted for US$485 billion of the total, also 11% above the prior-year pace, while taxable issuance of US$30 billion was running 8% ahead. As the heavy October calendar cleared, 30-day visible supply fell 32% week over week to US$13.4 billion, though it remained 42% above the US$9.4 billion visible at this point last year.

This Week in Munis: 2026 Election Series—Tax Policy on the Ballots

On Election Day November 3, much of the news will focus on red states, blue states and which party controls Congress. For municipalities, it is also about green dollars flowing into state and local government coffers. Voters across the country will consider tax proposals that could reshape how governments raise revenue, fund essential services, and manage long-term financial obligations.

The 2026 election follows a multiyear push by state legislatures to reduce taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, 26 states have lowered individual income tax rates since 2021, and eight implemented additional reductions at the beginning of 2026.1 Many of those changes were enacted during a period of unusually strong post-pandemic revenue growth, bolstered by federal stimulus, robust capital gains, and expanding economic activity.

Today, the outlook is less forgiving. Revenue growth has moderated, spending pressures persist, and changes in federal funding are creating new uncertainty. At the same time, rising property values and mounting affordability concerns have intensified demands for tax relief. State lawmakers have begun responding, but now voters are being asked to weigh in. From taxing billionaires in California to expanding property tax exemptions in Florida, these measures offer a window into an increasingly complicated fiscal landscape.

Colorado: Rethinking the Flat Income Tax

Colorado voters will consider Amendment 87, which would replace the state's 4.4% flat income tax with a graduated structure beginning in 2027. The measure would lower taxes for most taxpayers while raising rates on higher-income households. According to state legislative estimates, the proposal could generate approximately US$2 billion in additional annual revenue in its first full year.2 The incremental funding would be directed toward education, health care, and early childhood programs.

However, voters will also consider Proposition 136, which would cap the state income tax rate at 4.4%, potentially conflicting with Amendment 87. Another proposal, Proposition NN, would expand the amount of revenue the state can retain and spend under its Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR.

For municipal investors, Colorado's ballot illustrates how tax structure, constitutional revenue limitations, and spending priorities can intersect. Additional funding could support important state programs and reduce fiscal pressure, but a greater reliance on higher-income taxpayers could also increase revenue volatility and sensitivity to economic and financial market cycles.

California: A Tax on Wealth, Not Income

California voters will consider Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of individuals with more than US$1 billion in wealth. Sponsored by a state health care union in response to federal funding reductions under H.R. 1, the measure could generate tens of billions of dollars over several years. Ninety percent of the proceeds would support health care, with the remainder directed toward education, food assistance, and related costs.3 Competing Propositions 41 and 42 could limit or invalidate the tax, however, depending on the election results and subsequent legal interpretation.

The proposal underscores California's longstanding dependence on a relatively small number of high-income taxpayers. Personal income tax collections, particularly those tied to capital gains, can fluctuate sharply with financial markets, contributing to a feast-or-famine budget cycle. Although Proposition 40 could provide substantial near-term funding, it would not create an ongoing revenue source. The measure also raises questions about asset valuation, taxpayer relocation, and California's economic competitiveness. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that behavioral responses could reduce recurring state income tax revenue by nearly US$1 billion annually.4 A one-time infusion could ease immediate budget pressures, but it would not necessarily strengthen the state's recurring financial capacity or resolve its longer-term spending demands.

Washington: Reconsidering a Newly Enacted Income Tax

Washington state did not have a traditional income tax until earlier this year, when state lawmakers enacted a 9.9% tax on annual individual income above US$1 million, scheduled to take effect in 2028. Washington voters, who have considered and rejected income taxes several times, will decide this November whether to repeal the new tax through Initiative 645. The initiative would also prohibit future state and local individual income taxes.

The outcome has implications beyond the immediate revenue estimates. Washington has historically relied on sales, business and property taxes, and the new tax would diversify the state's revenue structure although collections from high earners could be economically sensitive. For municipal investors, the vote could affect both Washington's future revenue flexibility and the options available to policymakers during periods of fiscal stress.

Florida: Property Tax Relief and Local Government Revenues

In Florida, the debate centers on property taxes rather than income or wealth. Voters will weigh on Amendment 3, which would expand the homestead exemption, potentially shielding up to US$250,000 of assessed value for qualifying homeowners from certain non-school property taxes. Although homeowners could see lower tax bills, the effects on counties, municipalities and special districts could be significant. The Florida Legislature's July 2026 Revenue Estimating Conference analysis projects that the measure could reduce local non-school property tax revenue by approximately US$4.9 billion in fiscal 2028 and US$11.8 billion annually once fully implemented.5

The effect on general obligation bonds may be more limited because tax rates generally must be increased as necessary to meet debt-service requirements. The greater credit concern is the loss of recurring operating revenue used to support public safety, infrastructure maintenance and other essential services. Local governments could face pressure to reduce spending, raise other revenues or shift more of the tax burden to remaining taxable properties. School property taxes and school district bonds would not be affected, an important distinction for school district credit.

Florida lawmakers have considered compensating certain fiscally constrained counties for lost revenue, but the state has not established a comprehensive reimbursement program. For municipal investors, the proposal illustrates why property tax policy is central to credit analysis: even financially healthy local governments may face challenges when their capacity to raise recurring revenue is restricted.

Looking Beyond Election Night

Midterm elections are often overlooked, but these tax measures could have meaningful implications for municipal credit and the after-tax relative value of municipal securities. The central question is not simply whether taxes rise or fall. It is how each decision could affect revenue stability, budget volatility and spending flexibility, and whether those risks are already reflected in market valuations. In our view, active management supported by a well-resourced credit team can help investors navigate these shifting dynamics.

How Ballot Measures Could Impact Taxable-Equivalent Yields

As of October 23, 2026
Percent

Bar chart comparing taxable-equivalent yields (TEY) at current top state tax rates versus TEY after a proposed tax measure for Colorado and Washington municipal bonds. Light blue bars show current TEY and dark blue bars show post-measure TEY.    For Colorado (YTW 4.28%), TEY increases from 7.81% to 8.43%, a gain of 61 basis points.    For Washington (YTW 4.08%), TEY increases from 6.89% to 8.28%, a gain of 138 basis points.    The chart uses a percentage scale from 0% to 10% and highlights that the proposed tax changes would increase the taxable-equivalent yield benefit of municipal bonds, with a substantially larger impact in Washington than in Colorado.

Source: Bloomberg. Yields-to-worst of the Bloomberg Colorado and Washington Municipal Bond Indexes. As of October 23, 2026. Taxable-equivalent yield = yield ÷ (1 − 40.8% federal − top state rate). State rates: Colorado 4.4% today vs. 8.4% top rate under Amendment 87; Washington 0% today vs. the enacted 9.9% rate on income above $1 million from 2028, which Initiative 645 would repeal. For illustration only; individual tax rates vary.

Key Market Themes

1) Municipal taxable-equivalent yields remain near their highest level in over a decade

Muni and Taxable-Equivalent Muni Yield-to-Worst

Percent

Line chart showing the historical relationship between the Tax-Exempt Municipal Bond Index yield-to-worst (YTW) and its taxable-equivalent yield (TEY) from approximately 2010 through 2026. The light blue line represents the tax-exempt municipal bond index YTW, while the dark blue line represents the taxable-equivalent yield.    Both series generally move together over time, with the taxable-equivalent yield consistently higher than the tax-exempt yield. Yields trend lower from 2010 through 2021, reaching lows near 1% to 2%, before rising sharply beginning in 2022. The taxable-equivalent yield experiences greater volatility and peaks periodically above 6%.    At the latest observation in 2026, the tax-exempt municipal bond index YTW is 4.31%, while the taxable-equivalent yield is 7.28%, both near the highest levels shown in the chart. The graphic highlights the substantial income advantage of municipal bonds on a taxable-equivalent basis for investors in higher tax brackets.

Source: Bloomberg. Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index yield-to-worst, weekly, December 31, 2010 to October 23, 2026. Taxable-equivalent yield uses the top marginal federal rate in effect each year (35% through 2012, 43.4% for 2013–2017, 40.8% from 2018).

2) Tax-selling weighs on technicals, drives opportunity

Weekly Fund Flows: ETFs vs. Open-End Funds

US$ Billions

Bar-and-line chart showing weekly municipal bond fund flows from January 2025 through October 2026. Dark blue bars represent ETF flows, light blue bars represent open-end fund flows, and a red line represents the net total flow. The vertical axis ranges from approximately negative $8 billion to positive $8 billion.    Throughout the period, ETF flows are generally positive and relatively stable, while open-end fund flows are more volatile, with several periods of significant outflows. Net flows fluctuate around zero but are positive for much of 2026.    In the most recent week (October 2026), ETF inflows totaled +$3.7 billion, while open-end funds recorded −$2.1 billion in outflows. The combination resulted in a net positive municipal bond fund flow of approximately +$1.6 billion.    The chart highlights the growing role of ETFs in supporting overall municipal bond demand, with strong ETF inflows offsetting weakness in traditional open-end mutual fund flows.

Source: LSEG Lipper weekly reporting funds and Bloomberg. Weekly data from December 2024. Week to October 21, 2026 is the seventh consecutive week in which ETF and open-end fund flows have moved in opposite directions, consistent with tax-loss harvesting out of funds and into ETFs.

3) High-grade munis offer attractive after-tax yield pickup vs. taxable alternatives

After-Tax Yield Pickup vs. Taxable Comparables, Bps

As of October 23, 2026
Basis Points

Horizontal bar chart comparing current municipal bond spread valuations as of 23 October 2026 (dark blue bars) with their 5-year averages (light teal bars), measured in basis points.    10Y AAA vs. Treasury: 56 bps currently versus 43 bps five-year average.  30Y AAA vs. Treasury: 169 bps currently versus 125 bps five-year average.  AA vs. corporates: 83 bps currently versus 62 bps five-year average.  A vs. corporates: 116 bps currently versus 89 bps five-year average.  BBB vs. corporates: 140 bps currently versus 120 bps five-year average.  High Yield vs. corporates: 93 bps currently versus 99 bps five-year average.    The chart shows that most municipal bond spreads are wider than their five-year averages, particularly 30-year AAA municipals relative to Treasuries, indicating comparatively attractive valuations versus historical norms. The only category trading tighter than its five-year average is high-yield municipals versus corporate bonds (93 bps versus 99 bps).

Source: Bloomberg. Treasury rows use the BVAL AAA callable curve and Treasury generics; quality rows use Bloomberg municipal and corporate quality indices. After-tax yields at a 40.8% rate.

Market Monitor

30-Day Visible Supply, and Cumulative Year-to-Date Fund Flows vs. Five-Year Average

US$ Billions

Two-panel chart showing municipal bond market supply and demand trends.    Left panel: Line chart of Bond Buyer 30-day visible supply (daily, in billions of dollars) from January 2023 through October 2026. Visible supply fluctuates considerably over the period, generally ranging between $5 billion and $25 billion, with several spikes above $25 billion during 2025 and 2026. After reaching approximately $30 billion in late 2026, the measure declines sharply to the most recent reading of $13.4 billion.    Right panel: Line chart comparing 2026 cumulative net municipal fund and ETF flows (solid blue line) with the 2021-2025 five-year average (dashed gray line). Cumulative flows rise steadily throughout 2026, accelerating from May through August before leveling off near year-end. The 2026 total reaches approximately +$78 billion by late October, far exceeding the five-year average, which ends below +$20 billion.    Together, the charts show a combination of moderate new issue supply ($13.4 billion visible supply) and exceptionally strong investor demand (+$78 billion of cumulative inflows in 2026) relative to historical norms.

Fund Flows: ETFs vs. Open-end Funds, Weekly

US$ Billions

Combined bar-and-line chart showing weekly municipal bond fund flows from 5 August through 21 October 2026. Dark blue bars represent ETF flows, light blue bars represent open-end fund flows, and a maroon line shows the net total flow. The vertical axis ranges from approximately −$8 billion to +$8 billion.    ETF flows remain positive throughout the period, generally increasing over time and peaking near +$6 billion in late September. Open-end fund flows are more volatile, alternating between inflows and outflows, with a notable outflow of approximately −$6.5 billion on 30 September.    Net flows are positive for most weeks, despite several weeks of open-end fund outflows. During October, strong ETF demand more than offsets mutual fund redemptions.    In the latest week ending 21 October 2026, ETF inflows totaled +$3.7 billion while open-end funds recorded −$2.1 billion of outflows, resulting in a net inflow of approximately +$1.6 billion. The chart highlights the continued strength of ETF demand as the primary driver of positive municipal bond fund flows.

Source: LSEG Lipper weekly reporting funds and Bloomberg. Week to October 21, 2026 is the seventh consecutive week in which ETF and open-end fund flows have moved in opposite directions, consistent with tax-loss harvesting out of funds and into ETFs.

Quality Spreads to AAA, Basis Points

As of October 23, 2026
Basis Points

Line chart showing yield spreads for municipal bonds versus comparable corporate bonds from approximately 2010 through October 2026, measured in basis points. Four rating categories are displayed: High Yield (HY), BBB, A, and AA. Dashed horizontal lines mark each category’s five-year average spread.    The High Yield spread (dark blue) is the widest and most volatile, ranging between roughly 150 and 500 basis points over the period. It spikes sharply during market stress in 2020 before narrowing. The latest reading is 163 basis points, below its five-year average of 218 basis points.    The BBB spread (burgundy) generally ranges between 50 and 300 basis points, with a pronounced spike in 2020. The latest reading is 80 basis points, below its five-year average of 103 basis points.    The A-rated spread (green) trends lower over time, declining from around 150 basis points in the early 2010s to 36 basis points at the latest observation, below its five-year average of 48 basis points.    The AA-rated spread (light blue) remains the tightest throughout the period, hovering near zero in recent years. The latest reading is 5 basis points, below its five-year average of 7 basis points.    Overall, all four municipal credit tiers are trading at spreads that are narrower than their respective five-year averages, indicating that municipal credit valuations are relatively rich compared with historical norms, particularly in higher-rated segments.

Municipal vs. Taxable Yields, National, High-Yield and Key States

As of October 23, 2026
Percent

Bar chart comparing tax-exempt municipal bond yields to worst (YTW), their taxable-equivalent yields (TEY), and the yields of several taxable bond indexes.    On the left, stacked blue bars show municipal bond YTW (dark blue) and the additional value from tax exemption (light blue), resulting in TEY values:    National municipal index (federal tax exemption only): 4.31% YTW, 7.28% TEY  High-yield municipal index: 5.90% YTW, 9.96% TEY  California municipals (13.30% state tax rate): 4.14% YTW, 9.03% TEY  New York municipals (10.90% state tax rate): 4.37% YTW, 9.05% TEY  New Jersey municipals (10.75% state tax rate): 4.24% YTW, 8.75% TEY  Oregon municipals (9.90% state tax rate): 4.26% YTW, 8.65% TEY  Minnesota municipals (9.85% state tax rate): 4.15% YTW, 8.41% TEY  Massachusetts municipals (9.00% state tax rate): 4.21% YTW, 8.40% TEY    A dashed vertical line separates municipal bonds from taxable bond benchmarks shown in gray bars on the right:    U.S. Treasury: 4.89%  U.S. Aggregate Bond Index: 5.33%  U.S. Investment-Grade Corporate Index: 5.87%  U.S. High-Yield Corporate Index: 8.39%    The chart illustrates that after accounting for the value of tax exemption, many municipal bond sectors and state-specific municipal portfolios provide taxable-equivalent yields that are comparable to or exceed those available in investment-grade and high-yield taxable bond markets, with high-yield municipals offering the highest TEY at 9.96%.

Source: Bloomberg. National and high yield use the Bloomberg Municipal and High Yield Municipal Indices; states use the Bloomberg state municipal indices (CA, NY, NJ, OR, MN, MA). Taxable-equivalent yields assume a 40.8% top federal rate plus each state's top marginal rate. Taxable: Bloomberg US Treasury, US Aggregate, US Corporate and US Corporate High Yield Indices.

Market Monitor: Municipal Credit Curves

Municipal Credit Curves, Nominal

As of October 23, 2026
Percent

Line chart showing the municipal bond yield curve by credit quality as of 23 October 2026, compared with the prior week's AAA curve. Four curves represent AAA (dark blue), AA (light blue), A (green), and BBB (burgundy) municipal bonds across maturities from approximately 1 year to 30 years. A gray dashed line shows the AAA curve from the prior week.    Yields generally rise as maturities extend, with lower-rated bonds offering higher yields than higher-rated bonds at all points on the curve. The spread between ratings narrows somewhat at longer maturities.    Selected yields include:    5-year: AAA 3.05%, AA 3.06%, A 3.51%, BBB 3.99%  10-year: AAA 3.52%, AA 3.82%, A 4.11%, BBB 4.36%  30-year: AAA 4.85%, AA 5.21%, A 5.46%, BBB 5.59%    The prior week's 30-year AAA yield was 4.97%, compared with 4.85% currently, indicating a decline in long-term AAA municipal yields. Overall, the chart shows an upward-sloping yield curve with progressively higher yields for lower credit ratings, and modest week-over-week yield declines for AAA municipals.

Source: Bloomberg. AAA callable, AA general obligation, A revenue and BBB general obligation curves AAA prior week Markers and values at 5, 10 and 30 years.

Taxable-Equivalent Municipal Credit Curves vs. Treasury

As of October 23, 2026
Percent

Line chart showing taxable-equivalent yields (TEY) for municipal bonds across different credit ratings compared with the U.S. Treasury yield curve as of October 2026. Lines represent AAA (dark blue), AA (light blue), A (green), BBB (burgundy), and Treasury (gray) securities across maturities from approximately 1 year to 30 years.    All municipal taxable-equivalent yield curves slope upward with maturity and remain substantially above Treasury yields at every point on the curve. Lower-rated municipal bonds provide higher taxable-equivalent yields than higher-rated bonds.    Selected yields include:    5-year: AAA 5.14%, AA 5.53%, A 5.93%, BBB 6.73%  10-year: AAA 5.95%, AA 6.46%, A 6.94%, BBB 7.36%, Treasury 5.00%  30-year: AAA 8.19%, AA 8.81%, A 9.23%, BBB 9.45%, Treasury 5.32%    At the long end of the curve, municipal taxable-equivalent yields range from 8.19% for AAA-rated bonds to 9.45% for BBB-rated bonds, compared with just 5.32% for 30-year U.S. Treasuries. The chart highlights the significant tax-adjusted income advantage available from municipal bonds, particularly for investors in higher tax brackets and in longer maturities. 102726-muni-weekly-ex11.jpeg

Source: Bloomberg. Taxable-equivalent yields at a 40.8% top marginal rate; Treasury generics with linear interpolation between published tenors.

Endnotes

  1. Source: State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets, Tax Foundation. As of February 17, 2026.
  2. Source: State of Colorado Ballot Information Booklet. As of September 10, 2026.
  3. Source: California Legislative Analys’s Office. As of September 2026.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Source: Florida Revenue Estimating Conference, 2026 Fiscal Impacts. As of July 10, 2026.

 

Sources and Definitions

Municipal yields: Bloomberg Valuation Service (BVAL) AAA callable municipal curve; Treasury yields: Bloomberg generic Treasury yields, with linear interpolation between published tenors. Index returns and yields: Bloomberg. Fund flows: Lipper weekly reporting municipal funds (open-end, ETF and total) via Bloomberg. Issuance: Bloomberg cumulative year-to-date issuance series (total and taxable), differenced week over week. Visible supply: The Bond Buyer 30-day visible supply. After-tax pickup table: 10- and 30-year rows use the BVAL AAA municipal curve and the U.S. sovereign curve; quality rows compare Bloomberg municipal AA, A, BBB and High Yield indices with the same-rated Bloomberg corporate indices; pickup is the municipal yield less the after-tax yield of the comparable index. Credit curves: Bloomberg Valuation Service (BVAL) AAA, AA, A and BBB general obligation curves, populated with pricing from uninsured GO bonds. Taxable-equivalent yield (TEY) assumes the top marginal federal rate of 37% plus the 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income (40.8%); state figures add top marginal rates of 13.3% (California) and 10.9% (New York). Individual tax rates vary; TEY does not account for the alternative minimum tax or capital gains taxes.

Indexes referenced: Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index which represents the US tax-exempt investment-grade municipal bond market; Bloomberg High Yield Municipal Bond Index which tracks the US municipal non-investment grade tax-exempt bond market; Bloomberg California and New York Municipal Bond Indices which track the performance of a diversified portfolio of investment‐grade, tax‐exempt municipal bonds issued by the states of California and New York; Bloomberg Municipal AAA, AA, A and BBB Indices which represent the credit quality specific benchmark that track the performance of US tax-exempt investment-grade bonds within each rating category; Bloomberg US Corporate is an investment-grade US dollar denominated benchmark covering corporate bonds; Bloomberg AA, A and BBB Corporate Indices represents the credit quality specific benchmark that track the performance of investment-grade corporate bonds within each rating category; Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield Index which tracks the US non-investment grade corporate bond market.

Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect fees, expenses or sales charges, and one cannot invest directly in an index.

 

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal. Fixed income securities involve interest rate, credit, inflation, and reinvestment risks, as well as possible loss of principal. As interest rates rise, the value of fixed income securities falls. Low-rated, high-yield bonds are subject to greater price volatility, illiquidity, and the possibility of default. Changes in the credit rating of a bond, or in the credit rating or financial strength of a bond’s issuer, insurer, or guarantor, may affect the bond’s value. Derivative instruments can be illiquid, may disproportionately increase losses, and have a potentially large impact on performance. An investor may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax, and state and local taxes may apply. Diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against a loss.

This material is intended to be of general interest only and should not be construed as individual investment advice or a recommendation or solicitation to buy, sell or hold any security or to adopt any investment strategy. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. This material may not be reproduced, distributed or published without prior written permission from Franklin Templeton.

The views expressed are those of the investment manager and the comments, opinions and analyses are rendered as at publication date and may change without notice. The underlying assumptions and these views are subject to change based on market and other conditions and may differ from other portfolio managers or of the firm as a whole. The information provided in this material is not intended as a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region or market. There is no assurance that any prediction, projection or forecast on the economy, stock market, bond market or the economic trends of the markets will be realized. The value of investments and the income from them can go down as well as up and you may not get back the full amount that you invested. Past performance is not necessarily indicative nor a guarantee of future performance. All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal.

Any research and analysis contained in this material has been procured by Franklin Templeton for its own purposes and may be acted upon in that connection and, as such, is provided to you incidentally. Data from third party sources may have been used in the preparation of this material and Franklin Templeton ("FT") has not independently verified, validated or audited such data.  Although information has been obtained from sources that Franklin Templeton believes to be reliable, no guarantee can be given as to its accuracy and such information may be incomplete or condensed and may be subject to change at any time without notice. The mention of any individual securities should neither constitute nor be construed as a recommendation to purchase, hold or sell any securities, and the information provided regarding such individual securities (if any) is not a sufficient basis upon which to make an investment decision. FT accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss arising from use of this information and reliance upon the comments, opinions and analyses in the material is at the sole discretion of the user.

Franklin Templeton has environmental, social and governance (ESG) capabilities; however, not all strategies or products for a strategy consider “ESG” as part of their investment process.

Products, services and information may not be available in all jurisdictions and are offered outside the U.S. by other FT affiliates and/or their distributors as local laws and regulation permits. Please consult your own financial professional or Franklin Templeton institutional contact for further information on availability of products and services in your jurisdiction.

Issued in the U.S. by Franklin Templeton, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, California 94403-1906, (800) DIAL BEN/342-5236, franklintempleton.com. Investments are not FDIC insured; may lose value; and are not bank guaranteed.

You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print PDF documents. Download a free version from Adobe's website.

CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are trademarks owned by CFA Institute.

Download the Franklin Templeton 529 Program Description

You’re almost there.
Please agree to receive the Franklin Templeton 529 Program Description electronically, then the application will be ready to download on the next page.
Open, read, and retain the Program Description and Participation Agreement:
Franklin 529 College Savings Plan - Program Description and Participation Agreement
By clicking “I agree” and accessing this document, you acknowledge and agree that:
Electronic Delivery - The Program Description is being delivered to you in electronic form in lieu of paper delivery.
Consent - You hereby consent to receive this document electronically and acknowledge that such electronic delivery satisfies any legal or contractual requirements that this document is provided to you in writing.
Ability to Access - You represent that you have the necessary hardware and software to access, view, download, and retain the document in electronic form (including PDF format), and that you are able to print a copy for your records if you choose.
Retention - You are responsible for retaining a copy of the downloaded document for your records.
Withdrawal of Consent - Your consent applies solely to this document. If you do not consent, you should not proceed with the download and may request a paper copy by calling (866) 362-1597.
The application will open once “I Agree” is pressed.

Sign in to view documents