By JONNELLE MARTE

After a surprisingly solid year, the $3.7 trillion muni-bond business is getting another boost: the return of insurance.

For investors, this means more municipal bonds will again come with an added layer of protection. The downside is that yields on those offerings will likely drop.

The amount of insured municipal bonds jumped 60% in the first quarter of 2012 from a year ago, to $3.7 billion, according to the Bond Buyer, a trade publication that tracks sales. Municipal bonds are popular among many investors, particularly retirees drawn to their tax advantages.

Municipal-bond insurance, which guarantees an investor’s principal and interest payments, was hugely popular before 2008. Muni issuers commonly bought policies from highly rated insurance companies to help boost the credit ratings of their new offerings—and lower their payouts to investors.

After insurers suffered massive losses on mortgage bonds, they largely withdrew from the muni-bond market. That attracted yield-hungry investors, who bought up uninsured bonds with higher payouts, experts say. Yields hit 3.4% on 10-year Triple A rated munis last January.

Even after the spike to start the year, only about 5% of bonds issued are insured, compared with 57% in 2005.

Still, experts say recent high-profile defaults from municipalities such as Harrisburg, Penn., and Jefferson County, Ala., are reminding investors of how bond insurance can add some protection at a time when many cities still face financial challenges. Investors “are starting to see that there’s value in bond insurance again,” says Patrick Early, chief municipal analyst for Wells Fargo Advisors.

More insurers are expected to enter the muni market. Assured Guaranty, currently the only company insuring new muni issues, noted in its recent annual shareholder report that three companies were planning to start insuring the bonds. It declined to name the firms.

Experts say more demand for insurance from institutional investors could eventually help some municipalities get financing by drastically reducing borrowing costs. “But we’re still a few steps away from that happening,” says Matt Fabian, managing director for Municipal Market Advisors. Already, without a big pickup in insurance, $79 billion in new bonds were floated in the first quarter, up 60% from last year, according to the Bond Buyer, as issuers refinanced existing debt at lower interest rates.

But the return of insurance may have a flip side. Analysts caution that if a major jump in muni-bond insurance draws more investors to the market at a faster pace than cities can issue new bonds, bond yields could shrink. Indeed, over the past year, the average yield on Triple-A rated muni bonds has fallen to 1.9%, from 2.9%, according to MMA.

Experts say there’s another wrinkle. Assured Guaranty survived the downturn by avoiding riskier bonds, but now the company is under review by Moody’s

for a possible downgrade. The reason: Moody’s says a tough economy is making some struggling municipalities “more willing than in the past” to default on their debt. In a response posted on its website, Assured said it has been selective about the types of bonds it insures.

“We’re still kind of in a rough patch,” says Jim Ryan, an analyst with Morningstar. “There are still a number of municipalities with quite a few problems.”

All the more reason for investors to seek out insured bonds, says Richard Ciccarone, managing director at McDonnell Investment Management. Municipalities pay for insurance, which typically costs up to 1% of a bond sale, in order to issue bonds with lower yields—about 0.2 percentage points less than uninsured bonds, according to MMA. In return, investors get more peace of mind. “Insurance is the icing on the cake,” says Mr. Ciccarone.

Write to Jonnelle Marte at jonnelle.marte@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared May 1, 2012, on page C8 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Muni Buyers Gain Peace of Mind, But Will Likely Lose Some Yield.

Small businesses are facing a big choice when it comes to their Web presence.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is accepting applications for the chance to create and manage new top-level domains—the part of the Web address to the right of the dot, like “com” and “org.” People who manage websites will have the chance to acquire addresses at those new top-level domains, also known as TLDs.

The Wall Street Journal

Many Web veterans argue that the new addresses are a potential boon for small companies. Businesses will be able to get TLDs that better reflect their brand—perhaps “.food” for restaurants or “.realestate” for brokers—and let them do better marketing. There’s also the chance that the new TLDs may offer better security protections or even vet the sites that use the domain.

Critics, though, say the new addresses will cause confusion for customers and headaches for businesses. Marketing a new TLD will take precious money and time, they argue, and there isn’t a big demand for existing

niche TLDs to begin with.

Yes: More Choices Can Pay Off

By Kevin Wilson

Not investing in a new top-level domain is like pining for the good old days when your only telecom option was a black Ma Bell telephone, or you could watch only the three broadcast networks. The new TLDs will offer small companies a bounty of new choices and promise to deliver innovations that improve security and marketing online.

Let’s start with choice. Right now, there are more than 100 million “.com” domain names. That means it’s likely that the ideal name for a small business is already taken. I know my name, www.kevinwilson.com, is already taken by a real-estate agent in Denver. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but he’s not me.

As things stand, I have to come up with a “.com” name that’s confusing for me and my customers, something like kwilson1437.com. With a new TLD, I can choose a name ideal for me and my customers without having to force something available to work—for instance, www.kevinwilson.cfo.

New Possibilities

These new, specific TLDs will also give small firms the chance to tell customers what they’re about. Think of how much more information a business is giving customers, both online and in printed materials, when its address ends in “.travelagent” or “.restaurant” instead of just “.com.”

Kathy Wilson

KEVIN WILSON: ‘The new TLDs will offer small companies a bounty of new choices and promise to deliver innovations that improve security and marketing online.’

The marketing possibilities will get even more interesting than that. Some companies that manage the new TLDs will likely limit access to certain types of websites. An address like “.realestate,” for instance, might be open only to people whose broker license is up-to-date. That will be a boon for people like Kevin the real-estate agent in Denver, since the address immediately tells customers something crucial about his business.

If your TLD has those kinds of conditions attached, it also means you can put distance between your site and ones you don’t like. Don’t want porn near you? There won’t be any at site if the TLD operators vet businesses and remove ones that don’t meet their criteria. There is a good chance, in fact, that some TLDs will end up with the same exclusive appeal as an address on Rodeo Drive or Fifth Avenue.

On top of all that, some companies that manage the new TLDs are also likely to offer security features that cut down on the risk of things like phishing and denial-of-service attacks.

It’s Up to the Companies

Critics argue that all the new possibilities will cause confusion. What’s wrong with confusion? Having to choose one toothpaste is less confusing, but is it better? Of course, you can stick with what you have. You can still use black Ma Bell phones, drive Model T’s and watch one channel on TV. Others will use innovation to meet client needs more effectively.

Likewise, some companies will do a better job than others of making their investment pay off. Some businesses will pay a lot for marketing, infrastructure and overhead. Some will pay a little. The return on investment is a function of the business plan.

Critics also fret about marketers that try to get small companies to buy up a company name across a host of TLDs, such as “mycompany.myniche,” “mycompany.myindustry” and “mycompany.mylocation.” The pressure to get anything of value causes pressure. If a small business learned that there was land suddenly available next door to its headquarters, wouldn’t that cause pressure? Small companies can choose to get their company name, or they can choose not to get it. It’s up to them.

Also, keep in mind that if their company name is trademarked or otherwise protected, ICANN can help prevent the name from being sold to others.

Finally, there’s the argument that small companies mostly aren’t using the narrower TLDs that already exist. But each TLD that is narrow and restricted still has registrants who register and renew year after year.

These new options will bring up new challenges. Small companies will have to find ways to use their new choices to their best advantage. But that’s an improvement over the absence of choice we face right now.

Mr. Wilson is a former chief financial officer of ICANN and co-founder of Wise Dots LLC. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

No: Confusion and High Costs

By Douglas J. Wood

Reed Smith

DOUGLAS J. WOOD: ‘Small businesses have not asked for more TLDs, and they would not benefit by acquiring them.’

Small-business owners work on slim margins. Every penny counts. That’s why investing in new top-level domains for company sites is a bad idea.

The cost of buying individual domains is not exorbitant in itself. Nor is the cost of switching over an existing site to a new TLD. But when a small business makes that change, it must couple the move with a marketing campaign letting customers know of the new address and why it means something of value to them.

The company has already spent time and money establishing the goodwill of the original site. Will the incremental returns on promoting the new site match the original investment? It’s very doubtful. More likely than not, consumers will simply be confused.

Bad Addresses

But isn’t part of the sales pitch for the new TLDs that they make marketing easier? That it’s simpler to reach the customers you want if you have “.myniche” as part of your Web address instead of the generic “.com”?

The answer: We’ve tried this already. It doesn’t work.

There are already 22 narrowly focused dot-addresses around, and the majority are flops, including .coop, .aero, .travel, .jobs, .museum, .pro, .name and .tel. They’re virtually unused by businesses and unrecognized by consumers. Saying that thousands of new ones will fare any better is sheer speculation; it’s also sheer speculation to say that the flurry of new TLDs will bring about technical innovation.

And what happens if the outfit managing a TLD goes belly-up? A cash-strapped small business that has bought an address in that domain has to invest yet more money to reroute customers someplace new and tell them about the move.

Those who support the flood of new TLDs also argue that there’s a scarcity of addresses available for the familiar .com TLD. But are small-business owners abandoning the Internet because they can’t get the domain names they like? If anything, small businesses are relying more heavily on the Web than ever, whether or not they can get the exact .com name they want.

The Heat Is On

This leads to an unsavory part of TLD marketing. Small businesses have already been victimized by marketers trying to sell them loads of Web addresses—a process that will only intensify with the introduction of new TLDs.

Domain-name sellers insist buyers should fear losing customers to competitors or scammers trading off their brand name. For example, if a small business owns only mycompany.com, domain-name sellers constantly remind it that there’s nothing to prevent a competitor from buying mycompany.net or mycompany.org and rerouting customers to their sites.

While the small-business owner may be able to sue for trademark infringement or cybersquatting, that’s expensive. So it’s cheaper for the small business, according to domain-name sellers, to simply buy every available mycompany address. Just imagine the pressures small businesses will face with more than 1,000 TLDs out there.

For an idea of the costs involved, consider this example. I recently searched at a popular domain-name seller to find Web addresses for a company name I invented. Mycompanyname.net was available for $9.99. Very reasonable. Immediately under the offer, however, was a string of 10 other TLDs—mycompanyname dot something else—for an additional $67.91. The seller also listed .mx (Mexico) and .ag (Antigua and Barbuda) for $159.98.

In fact, if I bought everything on the list, it would cost $620.44, assuming I didn’t want premium setups with extra features; those would cost between $1,588 and $29,850. And that’s before additional costs to hide my private registration information from snoopers and other add-ons.

The bottom line is this: Small businesses have not asked for more TLDs, and they would not benefit by acquiring them.

Mr. Wood is a partner with Reed Smith LLP and general counsel for the Association of National Advertisers. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Por KEN PARKS

BUENOS AIRES (Dow Jones)–La tasa de aprobación del gobierno argentino aumentó en mayo tras la nacionalización de la mayor empresa de petróleo y gas del país, según la firma de encuestas Management & Fit.

Previamente este mes, la presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner expropió una participación del 51% en YPF SA de manos de su accionista mayoritario, la española Repsol YPF SA. La medida contó con amplio apoyo del público y la mayoría de los partidos de oposición.

Pese a ello, la tasa de aprobación del gobierno se mantiene por debajo del 64,1% de octubre pasado, mes en que Kirchner salió reelecta con una votación récord del 54%.

La tasa de aprobación personal de Kirchner cayó al 40,9%, frente al 42,1% de marzo y el 63,3% de octubre, según Management & Fit.

Management & Fit’s encuestó a 1.440 personas en todo el país entre el 4 y el 8 de mayo. El sondeo tiene un margen de error del 2,58%.

By LESLIE KWOH

Unless Goldman Sachs

executive Greg Smith is shopping a book proposal, the scathing opinion piece he wrote announcing his resignation in Wednesday’s New York Times is a lesson in how not to quit, career experts say.

The piece, titled “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” accused the banking behemoth of fostering a toxic culture where profits come before client interests. In the piece, Mr. Smith criticized senior management and aspiring leaders for hewing primarily to the goal of making money.

The right way to quit is to “just resign and move on, and keep it quiet,” says Laura Hill, president of Careers in Motion LLC, a career-coaching firm in New York City.

Mr. Smith may have sought sympathy or catharsis, but airing grievances about superiors in a letter, whether private or public, is unlikely to amount to much, she adds. “It’s not going to change the organization,” she says.

Still, Mr. Smith’s piece dominated chatter among Wall Street workers on Wednesday and set off a social-media firestorm. Online commenters’ views ran the gamut of emotion, from disgust to wistful admiration for Mr. Smith. On one point, however, nearly all agreed: Mr. Smith is unlikely to find work in finance.

Ms. Hill concurs: “What he did generally renders you unemployable in your industry” and makes him unlikely to be seen as trustworthy by many other firms.

Mr. Smith didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment Wednesday.

However harmful Mr. Smith’s letter may be for his future prospects, crisis-management experts say the episode should spur Goldman to think deeply about how and why one employee’s discontent could fester and spill over so publicly.

Employees generally become disgruntled when they feel like they aren’t being heard by management, says Davia Temin, chief executive of Temin and Company, a New York crisis- and reputation-management firm. Frustrations can grow when employees escalate concerns to higher and higher levels and still feel ignored.

While Ms. Temin says she doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of the situation within Goldman, she notes that it’s possible that writing an op-ed may have been a last resort for Mr. Smith. “If he felt like he was being heard, it probably would not have gotten to this point,” she says.

In a statement, Goldman rebutted Mr. Smith’s account of the company’s culture. “We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business,” a spokeswoman wrote. “In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”

Ms. Hill of Careers in Motion notes that while it may be difficult to lead cultural change at a company as large as Goldman, disgruntled employees should handle their frustrations by first “setting an example” for their colleagues. If they’re still dissatisfied with the response, then it may be time to leave the company—gracefully. That includes refraining from bashing an employer in later job interviews.

Someone in Mr. Smith’s position, for example, might describe their previous employer in more diplomatic terms, she says: “Over time, I felt their commitment to customers was not as strong.”