February 24, 2020—Morgan Stanley to Acquire E-TRADE Financial for $13 Billion as Consolidation of the Discount Brokerages Continues. What’s Driving Mergers in the Sector?
Mutual Fund Companies Legg Mason and Franklin Resources Merge in a $6.5 Billion Deal. Why Are Traditional Asset Managers Rushing to Merge?
Real Estate Investment Firms Starlight and Kingsett to Acquire Northview Apartment REIT for $4.8 Billion. Why are Apartments in Such High Demand From Investors?
Domino’s Pizza Stock Surges 25% on Fourth Quarter Results. What Has Made it a Top Performing Stock?
Welcome investors to the Absolute Return Podcast. Your source for stock market analysis, global macro musings and hedge fund investment strategies. Your hosts Julian Klymochko and Michael Kesslering aim to bring you the knowledge and analysis you need to become a more intelligent and wealthier investor. This episode is brought to you by accelerate financial technologies. Accelerate because performance matters. Find out more at www.Accelerateshares.Com.
Julian Klymochko: Welcome investors to Episode 55 of The Absolute Return Podcast. I am your host Julian Klymochko.
Michael Kesslering: And I am Michael Kesslering.
Julian Klymochko: Today is a Friday, February 21. It looks like spring is in the air and Q4 earnings season in full swing. In addition to earnings, there has been a lot of interesting M&A activity that we want to touch on this week, for example.
- Morgan Stanley acquiring E-Trade Financial for 13 billion as consolidation of the discount brokerages continues. Now, this was perhaps the largest financial deal since the global financial crisis, 2008/2009. What is driving mergers in the sector? We are going to chat about that.
- Mutual fund companies Legg Mason and Franklin Resources merge in a 6.5 billion dollar deal. Why are these traditional asset managers, these mutual fund managers rushing to merge?
- Real estate firm Starlight and Kingsett they are acquiring Northview apartment for $4.8 billion. Why are apartments in such high demand from investors?
- And lastly, Domino’s Pizza stock surges 25 percent on cooking fourth quarter results. What has made it a top performing stock?
Julian Klymochko: Wall Street investment bank Morgan Stanley agreed to acquire online discount brokerage firm E-Trade in an all-stock 13 billion dollar merger. Terms of the deal? Investors are receiving 1.043 to Morgan Stanley shares for each E-Trade share that they own. So an all stock swap here and just comparing the share price performance of these two over the past year or so. Obviously, E-Trade has come under pressure from a competitive standpoint. Number one, you had Charles Schwab come out with zero commission trading, which basically blew up TD Ameritrade. Any trades business, so that was certainly punishing for the stock. Then subsequent to that, we had Charles Schwab go and announce the acquisition of TD Ameritrade, which effectively left E-Trade out in the cold. But now we’re seeing them get a dance partner in Morgan Stanley. So certainly, things were looking poorly for E-Trade investors, but now a pretty good consideration for their shares here.
Now some background on E-Trade. They have five point two million client accounts and over 360 billion of retail client assets. This compares to Morgan Stanley’s three million client accounts and 2.7 trillion of client assets. So the strategic rationale here for Morgan Stanley is to move away from their traditional Wall Street investment banking and trading, where it’s more transactional based, not very reliable and stable cash flows. There have been moving to more wealth and investment management over the past 10 years, ever since CEO James Gorman became CEO over there. After this deal, Morgan Stanley will have 57 percent of its pre-tax profits from wealth management and investment management. So certainly moving way away from those more transactional-based revenue streams. What are your thoughts on this? Pretty huge financial deal. I mean, 13 billion, like I said, largest since the financial crisis and, you know, really exciting times in the brokerage space.
Michael Kesslering: Yes, absolutely. I just wanted to go into a little bit of the strategic rationale. As you know, in addition to E-Trade’s wealth management and brokerage line, they are also one of the largest U.S. public stock plan administrators. And so that actually really aligns well with Morgan Stanley’s 2019 acquisition of Calgary-based Solium Capital, which does the exact same thing except with more Canadian exposure.
And really, what the rationale for, you know, it is a profitable business on its own public stock plan administration. But they really use it as a pipeline to their brokerage business so that once those plans, once those investors theoretically get rich off of their stock options, then they will funnel them right in to their wealth advisory business.
Julian Klymochko: Right. Yeah, that makes sense.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely, And then as well this acquisition, they did mention that they have $800 million of integration costs, but they expect to achieve profitability through the transaction, through their run rate synergies, of which they are about, they have estimated to be five hundred and fifty million, which would come from 400 million of regular cost synergies. And then one hundred and fifty millions of funding synergies, which I’ll get into in just a moment. But one interesting thing on the costs energy side, is that Morningstar pointed out that Morgan Stanley may be underestimating some of the cost synergies as this 400 million dollars represents about 25 percent of E-Trade expense base. And if you compare that to the TD Ameritrade, Schwab deal, Schwab is going to realize about 65 percent synergies on their expense base.
Now, don’t get me wrong, those businesses are, we know, a lot more aligned. There is a lot more
Both speakers: (Overlap)
Julian Klymochko: For sure.
Michael Kesslering: So but whether there is that much of a delta between these two deals remains to be seen.
Julian Klymochko: Perhaps they’re not underestimating, but being more conservative. That could be another argument there.
Michael Kesslering: Exactly, and conservatism in M&A is quite rational. Where do these funding synergies come and what exactly is this? Well, it will really just come in the form of E-Trade’s 56 billion dollars in a low cost retail bank deposits where their cost of deposits, what they’re paying to the investor is 34 basis points.
Julian Klymochko: Right. It is just cash sitting in their brokerage account.
Michael Kesslering: Exactly. Which they are paying is 34 basis points versus Morgan Stanley’s one hundred and nine basis points. And really all this means is that they can take that cash and use this for lending out to other aspects of their business. So it really just lessens their cost of capital, allowing them to earn a higher spread on other lines of business.
Julian Klymochko: And there is a pretty different divergent client base here. Obviously, you know, the way Morgan Stanley, fairly wealthy clients, and discount brokerage E-Trade is more so the clients with lower net worth kind of retail traders, much, much smaller accounts that wouldn’t necessarily have access to a Morgan Stanley broker.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely, and when this deal was initially announced, we noticed that this did trade through the deal terms, implying that there may be an overbid potential where that spread has come down and now does trade at a discount. But do you think there’s any chance of an overbid here, Julian?
Julian Klymochko: Like you said, when it was announced, it was trading slightly through the terms, basically a negative 0.2 percent merger yield. Now I believe it is at 1 percent annualized return, which even if it is a no risk deal that is insufficient on its own terms. So arguably, the market is still pricing in some optionality on an overbid here from a competitor. The first one rumour was Goldman Sachs. But they are fairly quick to squash that at this point. They pretty much denied it to the media, so I think that is unlikely. We also saw CEO of Interactive Brokers come out, said that they did have discussions, but they could not make the deal work. And this is a 13 billion dollar deal. I mean, not a ton of potential competitors who can write that size of check. So certainly, you can never say never, but what you need to recognize is that slight discount where it is trading at, that is not a normalized spread. That definitely is pricing in a bit of upside optionality on a potential overbid. Just wanted to comment on some of that individual stock action aside from the spread. Obviously, E-Trade stock traded way up, big win for E-Trade shareholders here, up almost 22 percent on announcement.
Morgan Stanley just given the potential dilution to book value some dilution there. Obviously short selling pressure from hedge funds, arbitrageurs shorting the stock, when you put on that pair trade. Morgan Stanley’s stock falling almost 5 percent on the news as a market action there. They did indicate that they did not run a formal auction process. I suspect that is perhaps why some market participants are willing to pay up for some of that optionality. The other really interesting aspect here is that Morgan Stanley’s CEO, James Gorman, he actually said that he’s been eyeing E-Trade since 2002. So 18 years ago, back when he was an executive at Merrill Lynch, and then again, he reached out in 2007 for discussions. But the global financial crisis shortly unfolded after that, which made all deals kind of go away. So it’s really interesting deal here. 13 billion dollar acquisition that really looks like E-Trade shareholders were kind of rescued here by a much, much larger competitor. And it’s interesting because I believe the TD Ameritrade Schwab spread tightened a little just on easing competitive concerns, because now people can argue that they have a significantly stronger competitor and that combined a Morgan Stanley E-Trade pro forma company.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely, and one other thing that I did want to highlight just because there is a lot of interesting deal dynamics that usually don’t come out in the media surrounding. Yes, there was not a formal auction process, but this was a deal that was, you know, kind of informally shopped around the street. And so you had mentioned Interactive Brokers, their CEO, Thomas Peterffy, but his comments were was that this Morgan Stanley deal is fair and that his deal team arrived at a similar price. Now, why that is interesting is because what he said. The reason for a deal not being done in his terms was the fact that E-Trade holds their customer cash balances in a long term government bonds, which yield a higher yield for them. And that was something that he was absolutely against. Whereas Interactive Brokers, they hold their customer cash balance in very short term T-bills, which are a lot less volatile and have a little bit less yield while significantly less yield. But why that’s interesting is because they still came to around the same deal price despite having a lower amount of revenue funding synergies that Morgan Stanley mentioned. So that could lend a little bit more credence to their being a little bit of upside on the cost synergies.
Franklin Resources & Legg Mason Merger
Julian Klymochko: This week we had a big mutual fund company merger with Franklin Resources and Legg Mason announcing a six point five billion dollar merger. Now, Franklin Resources, which manages nearly $700 billion in assets largely under its Franklin Templeton brand, agreed to acquire Legg Mason in an all cash $50 per share deal. This was a premium of nearly twenty three percent, which is kind of in line where we have seen other deals get done. The combined company will have about 1.5 trillion in assets under management. This makes them the sixth largest global asset manager behind companies such as BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, etc. Now, talk about strategic rationale here. What has really happened over the past basically ten, twelve years, if not a bit before that. But this trend has really accelerated recently as low cost passive index funds ETF have really drawn investors away from the classic stock picking mutual funds.
So these mutual funds have seen obviously feed pressure on significant fee pressure from the competitive dynamics due to low cost passive index funds. And then obviously the S&P 500 has just performed extraordinarily over the past decade and the vast majority of mutual fund managers have not kept up with that. So it’s pretty hard to justify their, you know, 1.5 percent annual fee when you can buy an S&P 500 index fund for zero point zero three percent, a small fraction. Basically, investors really aren’t rewarding your traditional stock picking any more. Perhaps the market has gotten too efficient from a U.S. centric long only stock picking perspective. The other thing is just, you know, systematic strategies. I think investors are more so willing to give those a try. Just because they understand what they are getting into versus you look at a stock picker. They don’t really have a consistent process. They are just too many human biases involved in there. There is not any sort of standard process. That is what really resonates amongst investors for these more quantitative strategies. So to give you some details here, these active stock pickers, these long only mutual funds have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, so profits are down quite a bit.
Some numbers over the past decade, U.S. Equity Index, Mutual Funds and ETF have taken in about 1.6 trillion dollars, while active mutual funds such as Legg Mason and Franklin Templeton have lost one point four trillion. So trillions of dollars have flowed out of mutual funds into these low cost indexes tracking ETF. Making it such that now passive funds tracking indexes like the S&P 500 control more than half of the U.S. stock market, which is just quite wild because, you know, no one actually analysing those securities.
They are just sort of buying blindly according to these formulas. And the thing about the S&P 500. It is not based off of any sort of fundamentals, i.e. valuation, quality, no sort of proven factors such as that. The only thing that is the S&P 500 relies on it is largely market capitalization, I believe. They also have a profitability checklist in order to get introduced into the index. And that’s one major reason why, for example, Tesla isn’t yet in the index because they haven’t had four profitable quarters in a row, but I digress, really interesting deal here. If we look at the merger dynamics, current spread roughly 2 percent annualized, so nothing huge. Fairly low risk deals, no major regulatory concerns market pricing in about a 96 percent chance that this deal gets done successfully here. And I mean, there’s major implications if these two large shops are joining up to form the sixth largest. It is as if the big need to get bigger and everyone else in the middle is kind of left out in the dust. What are your thoughts on it?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, and I mean, the struggles in the industry for like traditional mutual funds is somewhat reflected in the valuation of this deal on it as a percentage of AUM. They only got about eighty-seven basis points compared to AUM, which is a little bit light compared to some other like especially alternatives. The multiples are a lot higher in terms of.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, by 10 to 20 fold.
Michael Kesslering: Yes, absolutely. But I just wanted to go into some of the strategic rationale and then some of the background players here, but in terms of Franklin’s, their strategic rationale, really, it’s just about increasing their institutional exposure. Before announcement or the current state of Franklin has about 25 percent of their assets being institutional money, the pro forma entity will exceed 51 percent. Of the total assets that Legg Mason has, six hundred billion of those are institutional assets. That is a quite favourable for Franklin moving forward. But as well, one other party to mentioned here is Trian Fund, which is led by Nelson Peltz. They have agreed to vote in favour of this transaction.
Julian Klymochko: He is an activist, right?
Michael Kesslering: Yes and they own 4.5 percent of Legg Mason shares. And he does have some history with the company. Now, he currently sits on the board. He had joined the board in May of 2019 and has likely been pushing hard for a sale as he is an activist investor. But as well, I mean some of his focus have been on the typical cutting costs and streamlining of the business. But even before that, he had been a board member from 2009 till 2014 where he had focused on some of the same things in terms of streamlining the business. While he was on their board, the company did gain 75 percent over those five years.
So there was a little bit of history of him being involved in some of the value creation. You can make an argument about how involved a board member is in the value creation, but there certainly is some. As well, you know, Sullivan, I forget his first name off the top of my head, but Legg Mason CEO, he will be in line to get $26 million due to the change of control provision in his employment agreement.
Julian Klymochko: Golden Parachute.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely, so he is somewhat incentivized to do a deal here as well, as well as Nelson Peltz. Just wants to get a quick win. One last thing I would mention is that Legg Mason, in addition to a very difficult environment and the ability to realize some of these synergies with the pro forma entity is that they did have a lot more debt on their balance sheet than Franklin, whereas Franklin had about point four times gross debt to EBITDA. Legg Mason had 3.2 times. So a fairly levered structure for an asset manager as you typically don’t see a ton of leverage with mutual fund companies.
Julian Klymochko: To answer the question, why are traditional asset managers rushing to merge? Well, long only mutual funds, especially in the U.S. because they are the furthest ahead globally.
This is a sunset industry. It is in secular decline in what you see in an industry that is in secular decline. Is consolidation where companies merge, cut costs and really harvest those cash flows. Like I said, U.S. is furthest along in this path, so implications to Canada. I would say Canada’s five to 10 years behind the U.S. in terms of evolution and the industry, but it is something that you will start seeing in Canada. We are seeing Mutual Funds starting to decline, but that’s only going to pick up more and more as we go in the future. And there’s going to be more and more consolidation in that space as well. And what’s really driving that is, yeah, we talked about the movement out a long only Mutual Funds into ETF Index funds. But there’s sort of been a barbell approach where a lot of it has gone to Index ETF. But a portion has also gone the other way to alternatives. Private equity, hedge funds, venture capital, real estate, etc.
Starlight and Kingsett
Julian Klymochko: Now, speaking of this flood of capital into real estate. Here is a deal announced this week. Northview Apartment Real Estate Investment Trust agreed to be taken private by two real estate investment firms, one being Starlight Group and the other being Kingsett Capital. This deal is done at thirty-six dollars and twenty-five cash per rete unit of Northview.
Some background on Northview. They own about twenty seven thousand residential apartment units and a few hundred short-term rental apartments in eight provinces and two territories. So really spread-out throughout Canada. This is one of the largest real estate deals in Canada. Over the past five years, almost five billion. So certainly a transaction on the larger size and really the implications here. It’s just representative of the continued trend of institutional investors just pouring a ton of money into that private asset space. A lot of capital going into private real estate. We have seen Blackstone come up to Canada and do and do a lot of big deals. They are really just desperate for yield and really searching for yield from residential apartment building specifically. I know Toronto is really hot and they’re paying rich prices. You look at this Northview deal. Twenty-five percent premium to non-asset value, so they are paying 25 percent more than these assets are worth. In my opinion, what they are largely basing this deal off of is rent increases. So that’s really where they’re looking to gain off of this deal. But again, trying to get yield from anywhere they can and where they’re viewing that these days. Residential real estate.
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, in addition to that highlight, Starlight, you know, they have really come onto the Canadian scene and really established themselves as a big player in Canadian residential real estate.
And just for example, right now they have $11 billion in a AUM and they were the top purchaser of Canadian multi-family assets in 2008 when they bought five hundred and eighty nine million dollars’ worth of assets. Then in twenty nineteen, they doubled that, specifically one single deal doubled that. Where in late twenty nineteen in November of twenty nineteen, they came in and we did talk about this on our podcast with the Continuum Reit right before they were about to go public, buying…
Julian Klymochko: Again with a big premium over what public market investors were willing to pay a record for the cap rate, the capitalization rate, the yield being roughly 2 percent wasn’t it.
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, around there where as the comps in the public comps were trading in the 4 percent range. So a really high premium and then not only doubling that in 2019. Now in 2020 with just starting the shooter with this $4.8 billion transaction. Now this is a joint venture, but even still Starlight has really just early established themselves as a big player in Canadian real estate.
Julian Klymochko: And what is interesting is I just wanted to further that comment, just the substantially higher valuations that these private investors are willing to pay above and beyond what public market investors are willing to ascribe to these assets. So that’s a really interesting dynamic to be aware of. We talked about this thing called the illiquidity premium. That used to be a premium return that you could earn from owning private assets, note where that premium return came from was that discounted multiple you are able to buy these assets due to the illiquid nature. But as we’ve said in the past, that relationship seems to have flip flopped, such that private market investors are paying far higher valuations than public market investors. And in my opinion, that illiquidity discount has turned into…should I say illiquidity premium has turned into an illiquidity discount, meaning owning private assets, since you’ve got to pay such rich prices for them, you’re probably going to receive lower returns than just owning public market assets. Nonetheless, some deal dynamics here. Northview stock up about 13 percent on the news. As I indicated, twenty-five percent premium to net asset value. Merger yield trading at roughly a 2.8 percent annualized spread. So very low risk deal here, highly likely that close market pricing in a 90 percent odds of success, but a really interesting real estate deal with major implications.
Julian Klymochko: Talking Q4 results here, shares of the pizza chain Domino’s soared after the company reported fourth quarter results, which easily topped analysts’ expectations. The main thing that was happening here was sentiment on the stock was depressed. Investors were concerned that the company’s results would come under pressure from meal delivery companies. You have Uber Eats; you have DoorDash, Grubhub and a whole lot of these meal delivery companies, which really opened up access for people at home looking to order food.
Previously it was, you know, pizza or perhaps a small handful of other potential options that you could have delivered to home. But what these meal delivery companies have done, such as Uber Eats, have really opened up that access. So the past few quarters that Domino’s did report, investors did become increasingly concerned. I know that I did see a number of short reports really focusing on that dynamic. However, Domino’s really crushing it this quarter disproving that thesis as same store sales growth came in at three point four percent year over year, which was significantly higher than analysts’ estimates at the 2.3 percent year over year expected rise and same store sales growth, earnings per share and revenue also topping street estimates. Earnings per share by roughly 3 percent, revenue slightly above expectations. Now, an interesting stat here just in terms of incredible performance by Domino’s and we are going to talk about its share price performance. But from an operational perspective, they haven’t had a quarter with negative U.S. same store sales growth in nearly a decade. What that’s meaning is that you take the average store year over year every quarter. They are growing sales within the U.S., which is a really, really solid operating result. It is incredibly rare to see that out of a restaurant chain.
Michael Kesslering: It is organic growth so that not including new store ads. So that being able to mask that.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, exactly. And so they’re just, you know, pumping more and more product, perhaps some price increases as well. So that’s really representative of the strength of the business model. Like I said, the stock surging 25 percent. Now, the results were not incredibly good. Some are finding it kind of tough to justify that huge increase in share price. I should mention that nearly 10 percent of the float was sold short and there were these various short reports, people bearish on the stock due to this competitive pressure from these meal delivery companies.
So perhaps a lot of that gain could due to short covering. Because, I mean, the short thesis, it really got disproved on this quarterly report from Domino’s. The other thing that I wanted to touch on, which is really a lot of people can’t really believe this, but Domino’s is actually one of the best performing stocks if you look over the past 10, 20 years, people, if you ask them, you know, what’s the best performing stocks that you can think of? They typically think of the hot technology stocks, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, but no. The thing is Dominos has absolutely crushed all of those stocks. If we go back over the past eight years, Dominos stock has been an absolute star performer and amongst other timeframes as well. But I just chose eight years for this example. They have returned over 12 hundred percent, now this is nearly 40 percent annualized. So it’s been more than a 10 bagger since 2012. If we compare that 12, 100 percent rise over the past eight years to the hottest stocks in the market, these large cap growth stocks, Amazon up less than nine hundred percent. Microsoft up six under 40 percent. Facebook let some 500 percent. Apple and Google up less than 400 percent. So the point being here is that you don’t need to be in these, you know, hot technology stocks, these page one story stocks to do well in your portfolio. You can find if you look at the list of the top performing stocks. There is a lot on there besides software and technology, you see a restaurant company like Dominos. You see pharmaceuticals, you see car dealerships, retail, a number of different sectors represented in that. It is not just these so-called fang stocks.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely and I mean, in terms of that, when you look at the past 20 years, I believe I don’t know if we spoke about it on the podcast, but we certainly spoke about it
Off-line is one of the top performing stocks over the last 20 years has been Monster.
Julian Klymochko: Monster beverage energy drinks, which I am a huge consumer of.
Michael Kesslering: Yes, Julian does very bullish on them, but as well in Canada, there is Boyd Income Group, which is, you know, an auto body shop effectively. And so, you know, very unsexy businesses, and if you look back just to really solidify that, you know, in 2004, Dominos, Google and Salesforce, all IPO. Now, Dominos actually outpaced Google in terms their returns since then and have just come in just below Salesforce. So really keeping pace, but one thing that you did mention was the sentiment on the stock with regards to their competitors being Uber Eats and Grubhub. Now, I believe folks will remember when Uber was IPOing. One thing that we highlighted was that the Uber Eats division was actually a drag on their growth. Where they were actually shrinking year over year in terms of their revenues, which was very much against the narrative that was playing out in some of these stocks, such as Dominos and other competitors. Where the narrative was that Uber Eats and Grubhub are coming in, Just Eat as well, that they are going to come in and take over the market. And that really hasn’t played out, especially over the last couple of months. We have seen some news with Grubhub, some VC, as well as public company investors really breaking down their unit economics and specifically the deterioration of their unit economics over the last couple of months, where a lot of the operational advantages to scaling that was assumed in the valuation of Grubhub. Really has not come to fruition, specifically, a big one is marketing. Was the expectation is they get to a certain percentage of market share and that they will be able to, on a per unit basis, be able to decrease their marketing spend, and that has not been the case that has not flowed through.
Julian Klymochko: Right. It is just because that business has become so competitive to consumers really care who they go at the DoorDash, Grubhub, Uber Eats. It is all the same, right?
Michael Kesslering: I have three on my phone. I Skipped the Dishes, DoorDash and Foodora. And it really just depends which restaurant is using which, I’m completely indifferent as to who I use.
Julian Klymochko: That makes sense, and for disclosure purposes, we are short GrubHub. In addition, I should disclose that I am a huge Domino’s Pizza fan and eat it every Friday night so I will be having a pep and bacon tonight along with perhaps some cheesy bread. And so who knows? Maybe that explains some of the fourth quarter beat.
And that is it ladies and gents, for episode 55 of The Absolute Return Podcast. If you liked it, please leave us a review on Apple iTunes, we’ll be very much appreciative of that. If you want to listen to past episodes, you can check them out on absolutereturnpodcast.com. Feel free to follow us on Twitter. Your handle is
Michael Kesslering: @M_kesslering
Julian Klymochko: And mine is at @JulianKlymochko, K-L-Y-M-O-C-H-K-O and until next week we wish you all the best in your investing and we will chat with you soon, cheers.
Thanks for tuning in to the Absolute Return Podcast. This episode was brought to you by Accelerate Financial Technologies. Accelerate, because performance matters. Find out more at www.AccelerateShares.com. The views expressed in this podcast to the personal views of the participants and do not reflect the views of Accelerate. No aspect of this podcast constitutes investment legal or tax advice. Opinions expressed in this podcast should not be viewed as a recommendation or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities or investment strategies. The information and opinions in this podcast are based on current market conditions and may fluctuate and change in the future. No representation or warranty expressed or implied is made on behalf of Accelerate as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this podcast. Accelerate does not accept any liability for any direct indirect or consequential loss or damage suffered by any person as a result relying on all or any part of this podcast and any liability is expressly disclaimed.