March 9, 2020—The Fed Implements Emergency Rate Cut in Response to Coronavirus Panic
Interest Rates Plunge to Record Lows as Global Markets Fear Recession
Xerox Launches Hostile Takeover Offer for Rival HP as M&A Activity Continues Despite Market Rout
Hedge Fund Elliott Management Unveils Shareholder Activist Campaign at Twitter
Subscribe: iTunes | Spotify | Google Play | Stitcher | Overcast | YouTube
Transcript:
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 57 of The Absolute Return Podcast, I am your host, Julian Klymocho.
Michael Kesslering: And I’m Mike Kesslering.
Julian Klymochko: Today is Friday, March 6, 2020 had a just a wild, wild ride in the markets this week we had multiple record Dow point jumps and declines. The VIX still well above 40. So clearly panic in the market. A number of really important topics to discuss this week.
-
- First, the Fed implemented an emergency rate cut in response to the Coronavirus panic. Is this what the market was looking for?
- Interest rates plunged to record lows, as global markets fear a recession. Are rates heading to zero in the U.S.?
- Xerox launched its hostile takeover offer for rival HP as M&A activity continues despite this market road. Will this hostile offer be successful?
- And hedge fund Elliott Management unveiled a shareholder activist campaign at a social networking company, Twitter. What is the activist goals here?
The Fed Implements Emergency Rate Cut In Response Market Fear Recession
Julian Klymochko: The U.S. Federal Reserve executed an emergency 50 basis point rate cut in response to the market panic and potential economic impact of this coronavirus epidemic, which has really swept over our markets and the global economy over the past couple of weeks. What happened here is the Fed lowered their federal funds rate to a range of 1.0 to 1.25 percent. This is down half a percent and we classify this as an emergency cut given this occurred outside of the Fed’s regularly scheduled policy meetings. The next one is coming up March 18th, and we previously discussed on last week’s episode how the market was pricing in a 50 basis point cut. However, no one is really expecting this emergency rate cut. We expected it to be done at the meeting on March 18. What the market did was think, wow, the Fed’s really panicking here. I think it did more harm than good. This was really not what the market was looking for. Stocks fell pretty precipitously off this decision. Got a quote here from Fed Chair Jay Powell. He stated, “A rate cut will not reduce the rate of infection of the Corona virus. It will not fix a broken supply chain. We get that, but we do believe that our action will provide a meaningful boost to the economy.” While also ahead, finance ministers from the G7 group of leading economies, they issued a statement pledging action to be taking and using all appropriate policy tools to maintain economic health as coronavirus spreads around the world. But if you look at stock price action this week, super volatile, you had a few big down days and a couple of big updates. Nonetheless, the direction of stocks here is downward, specifically after this 50 basis point rate cut.
I believe the Dow dropped about 800 points on a few percent on the day. Clearly, the market did not like this. It is probably causing more harm than good in terms of causing more investors to panic. And it’s really just sentiment here, ultimately, this whole corona virus issue, if people are getting sick or even if they’re not sick, but staying at home from work, really just slowing down the global economy. Right.
You have supply chains. If factories are not up and running, then you have supply chain issues. You also have demand issues if people are going out to restaurants or not consuming energy and things of that nature. What was a rate cut going to do? And even if a rate cut could do something, many central banks, say Europe, for example, rates are already negative, so they really have no ammunition left in their weapons to assist the economy here. It my opinion rate cuts are really not accomplishing a lot. Stocks really just prove out that theory. On the other hand, you look at gold, gold prices on track for their best week since the depths of the 2008/2009 financial crisis. The last time that the Fed implemented this emergency rate cut, gold up over 7 percent this week and having a great year, year to date, gold risen over 11 percent this year compared to a decline in the S&P 500 of nearly 10 percent and peak to trough. S&P definitely approaching bear market status here believe it is down about 15 percent. Equity investors certainly concerned. What are your thoughts on this emergency rate cut, which we have not seen for a dozen years?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, I mean, it certainly looks like the Fed was looking for any reason to cut rates, because let’s say in a hypothetical scenario where an antidote or a vaccine is proven effective, like in the next couple of weeks, what you’re not going to see is. The Fed then reverse that emergency rate cut, they would likely stand pat and make some comments about long-term viability within the economy and wanting to have stability. There really is a bias towards cutting rates. And you really hit the nail on the head with regards to, a rate cut in this scenario where there’s an actual viral risk to the world’s health. It is just not effective, and so in situations like 2008, where there’s more of a lending crisis, that’s where a rate cut can be effective as well as I believe there is another example of emergency rate cuts in 1998 after the Russian Crisis and Long-Term Capital Management. Now, those are examples of their more financial risks that are being taken care of by the rate cut and it will bring about stability. In this situation, really not much to do there. Now, the other thing that I found interesting was Jeff Gundlach came out, I believe it was yesterday.
Julian Klymochko: The bond king.
Michael Kesslering: Yes, the bond king himself discussing how he thought that the Fed panicked with this rate cut, which is likely true. We all say panicking, but he did hedge that with just because it is panicking does not mean it is the wrong move. In this situation, I just really think that the efficacy of this rate cut is muted. As well, as you mentioned, we do have an FOMC meeting coming up, concluding on March 18. And as of this Friday afternoon, as we’re recording the is now pricing in a 65 percent probability of a 75 basis point rate cut at that meeting, which would then bring them the benchmark rate down to 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent. As well, the market is pricing in a 35 percent probability of a zero percent rate by December. It really looks like there is going to be some drastic moves by the Fed over the next number of months.
Julian Klymochko: Yes, certainly and we talk about the Federal Reserve’s mandate and they have basically that dual mandate, which is a stable inflation, roughly 2 percent and maximum employment. U.S. job numbers came out today. Fantastic, absolutely crushed expectations. Looking in the rear view mirror, U.S. economy doing great in terms of employment, inflation in check as well. However, my thesis is that the market really drives Fed policy, not their dual mandate. If you look at inflation and employment numbers, what the market was pricing in was basically a hundred percent chance of a rate cut this month or one hundred percent chance of a 50 basis point rate cut this month, and the Fed basically had to do it. They did not have to do it in the emergency fashion that they did. I think that was more so negative than anything in terms of signalling. However, you talk about what the market’s pricing and now that effectively guarantees that the Fed is going to enact additional cuts on March 18 this week. The Fed apparently does not really care what the stock market does, but the futures traders do and the futures traders effectively guide Fed policy. Basically, if the market’s going down, the chances that the Fed is going to cut interest rates increases, which then effectively forces their hands in a market driven monetary policy, not this independent Federal Reserve that is data driven. Then they go with the excuse that, oh, it is tightening financial conditions, which is just fed speak for the S&P 500 tanked.
Michael Kesslering: And when you mention the futures traders driving Fed market policy, what that really means is just that, because it’s being priced in, it is kind of a feedback effect where because the market is pricing in a rate cut, then the Fed does not want to surprise in quotations. They don’t want to surprise the market with any policy moves. So then they just do effectively what has already been priced in.
Julian Klymochko: Exactly and I say that monetary policy could be effected via algorithm that just listens to the market, make sure that the yield curve is not inverted and basically do what the market says, which would make things a lot easier, a lot clearer and fully transparent. Nonetheless the point here, being that no matter how many rate cuts you do, it is not going to survive. That is not going to prevent or resolve this whole coronavirus issue. Probably the best policy from a government perspective would be to just declare like two-week holiday ever and just stay home. Right? In that scenario, coronavirus will sort of people get over it and that will stop the spread and then go back to where it was, close the stock market for a couple weeks and everyone can just relax, watch Netflix and that stay at home basket of stocks could do even better.
Interest Rates Plunge to Record lows As Global Market Fear Recession
Julian Klymochko: However, with this rate cut, we really saw just an exceptional move in bonds this week. Interest rates, yields on the 10 year plummeted to a record low. That is right, an all-time low dropping below 1 percent on the 10 year, for the first time in history. This really just follows the Fed’s desperate moves, which I believe caused increased market panic and what investors did as they rushed to bid up treasury bonds. They bid up bond prices and this caused the yields to plummet. The 10 year finished the week at a yield of 0.76. It notched a record intraday level at around 70 basis points, and we are talking about 10 year bonds yielding 0.76 percent in an environment where inflation is roughly 2 percent. Many think that inflation understates true consumer price inflation, especially if you are looking at PCE instead of CPI. We just heard from Warren Buffett roughly a week or so ago when 10 year yields were at 1.3 percent. He indicated how unattractive they were there. Now yields on a real basis that is nominal, just less inflation. So real yields going deeply negative. Obviously, U.S. Treasury yields still positive on a nominal basis, have not followed European and Japanese bond yields into the negative territory. However, our yields here, heading to zero or perhaps negative. What are your thoughts?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, I mean, if there is a 75 basis point rate cut at the March 18 meeting, I think there is a very real chance of that 10-year dipping below zero. I would almost say a certainty. Just put it into context and how quickly this has moved is the 10-year treasury, you know, now sitting I believe it is 0.76 percent around that range. It was 1.9 percent as of January 1. So, you know, bonds are thought of as, a lot less volatility as an asset class compared to equities. The volatility that we discussed in the stock markets earlier that has definitely infected the bond markets as well. Then when you look at the 30 year where it is down about 1.25 percent currently, well, just at as of January 1, it was at 2.4 percent. So just, you know, really low bond rates. In terms of some other things that are tied to our interest rates. Julian, what do you think this has in store for mortgage rates? You know, with specific to prime.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah. Prior to getting to other instruments, I still wanted to chat about bonds here, specifically the Barclays Global AGG, which is the benchmark global index. Now I should note that investors should be aware that it now has a record duration, a record sensitivity to interest rates. This passive bond index, which many investors just blindly allocate to, if yields tick up 100 basis points, you could be facing a 10 percent loss on that. Certainly be aware of the sensitivity to interest rates at this point. At this point, certainly, if you held long-term bonds here, you are sitting pretty at this point in terms of just the significant gains that you’ve been able to harvest. Nonetheless, you should be aware that they are turning massively risky. Just given that duration risk, combined with incredibly low yields touching on different asset classes, as you indicated, big effect on mortgage rates, they fell to their lowest level on record in the U.S. The average rate on a 30 year fixed mortgage fell to 3.29 percent from about three and a half. Some comments on the futures market. You indicated by the end of April, it could be down by another 75 basis points, which would be huge because that is 25 basis points higher than the near-zero level that had initially the Fed went down to during the global financial crisis and they did not increase rates from that until December 2015.
The other thing up in Canada, the Bank of Canada, obviously, as we indicated last week, that the Bank of Canada would follow whatever the Fed did.
And they, in fact, did do that at the regular policy meeting. They did not enact an emergency. However, they did cut by 50 basis points and signal to the market the potential for additional rate cuts to mitigate the material negative shock that COVID 19 poses to the economy. With that, we had Canadian banks dropping their prime rate, which affects consumers through variable rate mortgages, line of credits, potentially car financing as well. That is something to keep in mind in terms of some economic news here. Goldman Sachs economists, they see the U.S. likely to avoid a recession this year. However, they did downgrade U.S. growth to an annualized rate of .9 percent in Q1 and 0 percent in Q2. So people are starting to whisper the R-word recession. That is a potential possibility here. Bloomberg’s Financial Conditions Index, which combines nine separate measures that fell for the day and it keeps just plummeting. Now back to the low it hit during the panic conditions of the selloff back in Christmas Eve, 2018, when the S&P 500 officially hit the last bear market. That is something that we perhaps could get in this cycle. But ultimately, my thoughts.
You know, rates could temporarily fall to zero or perhaps a negative. That is not necessarily outside of the spectrum of possibilities here, which you need to consider. If we go back 40 years to the early 80s, when bond prices were double digits, seemingly doing nothing but going up, and I believe they peaked in the mid-teens when you had Paul Volcker adding the Federal Reserve and you had high inflation rates while people claimed the bonds were certificates of confiscation. No one can pay a yield high enough for many investors who just absolutely hated bonds. About 40 years later, people can’t get enough of them. My point here being that these things move in cycles. You should not expect bonds to hit zero and stay there forever. They certainly can and will move up at some point but you should think of a spectrum of possibilities and the risk reward with respect to doing that. If you are buying here, who is really buying the tenure to hold to maturity at seventy-six basis points? I mean, most of the price action here is just speculators looking for that price gain as rates tick lower. It is largely short-term traders driving the market, in my opinion. I don’t think anyone’s really looking for a fantastic return at 70 basis points when the U.S. government is actively trying to depreciate your currency at 2 percent per year. Just keep that in mind, bonds are not necessarily a great risk return here. However, people do like having these long-term bonds in their portfolio. Just recently, they have been negatively correlated to their stock markets. I believe the TLT ETF is up around 20 percent year to date. Certainly bailing out many portfolios on a mark to market basis. Keep that in mind. Just the insurance aspect. You definitely should not expect great long-term returns here. I mean, if you hold the 10-year bond, you are going to get 70 basis points, 76 basis points, 0.76 percent for the next 10 years and a likely negative real return. So keep that in mind when making any portfolio and asset allocation decisions.
Xerox Launches Hostile Takeover Offer for Rival HP as M&A Activity Continues Despite Market rout.
Julian Klymochko: Thus far, this market rout and tremendous volatility is not halting M&A activity. It is continuing and this week we saw a situation that we have discussed on past podcasts, the Xerox, HP hostile M&A situation. They have been really going back and forth over the past 10 months. Xerox threatening this takeover, really trying to get them to engage in takeover talks. HP not having any of it. Well, Xerox officially launched its $24 per share hostile tender offer for all the outstanding shares of rival HP.
What a hostile tender offer refers to is basically filing the official tender offer documents, launching this tender offer such that shareholders of HP could tender their shares to Xerox and it’s called a hostile offer because it is not supported by the target board of directors. The interesting aspect here, which we previously called the minnow trying to swallow the whale is that Xerox is much smaller than their target HP. Has a market value of only 7 billion. Meanwhile, their offer for HP values, the maker of printers, printer supplies and personal computers at nearly thirty five billion. It is really interesting structure that you don’t see too often. Typically, in a takeover situation, specifically a hostile one, you nearly always see a larger acquire going after smaller target. The tables have really turned on this one. The main strategic rationale on this deal is this is really just a sunset industry. What they are looking to do, they are looking to consolidate and cut costs. They estimate that synergies or cost cuts could yield $2 billion per year in savings. That goes straight to the bottom line in terms of EBITDA. In addition to that, they think there could be more than one billion in additional revenue synergies, which are more speculative, but certainly possible.
Xerox is claiming that a combination between them and HP would equip them to better deal with industry wide declines. Obviously, printers, not a growth industry. PC’s, not a growth industry. They are really trying to consolidate, which you typically see in sunset industries. We saw that in autos. We saw that in rail companies. It is really just the playbook that companies do. Typically, it is on a friendly basis, but this one is hostile. Nonetheless, HP not having any of this. They wasted no time in rejecting this offer. They stated that it, quote, meaningfully undervalues HP and disproportionately benefits Xerox shareholders. However, they did indicate that they are open to a potentially different deal combining the two companies that is something to note. The other really important aspect of this hostile tender offer is that Xerox did start a proxy fight. The goal of that proxy fight is to nominate candidates to the board of directors. Get their candidate on the board such that they can have friendly board members who will agree to a takeover, and basically get this hostile deal to a friendly deal, because in the U.S. it is very hard to be successful on a hostile tender offer if the target wants to put up roadblocks. There is this legal defense called the poison pill, which is quite difficult to get around in terms of effecting a hostile takeover. It just makes takeover extremely cost prohibitive. That is the main reason why they are running this sequential or this proxy fight at the same time, trying to replace HP board of directors. Really kind of a classic, classic hostile deal where they launch tender offer with a coordinated proxy fight to try to replace the board and ultimately lead to a deal. What are your thoughts on this one? How do you think it is going to play out?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, so a little bit of a timeline here. As you did mentioned, we have talked about this a few times. For those who are just joining the process now, in November, Xerox was offering $22 a share. Now this offer is at 24 dollars a share based on market pricing at the time. That is a 30 percent premium to the unaffected price at November 6. They did bump a bit, but I don’t know if that’s enough to actually entice the HP shareholders. Then moving forward into January. Xerox announced that they had secured $24 billion in financing for the proposal, but that was really a levered proposal in terms of the financing. There was a lot of debt in that structure. When HP did come out against the deal, in addition to the valuation, which they’ve somewhat addressed, the other issue that they had, they did indicate, as you’d mentioned, that they were interested in a combination. What they were really worried about was the capital structure of the pro forma entity. There would be a lot of that $24 billion dollars in financing that would come in the form of debt. That is something that in an industry that, you know, is not growing a lot, you know, that becomes quite a burden on the company. I think that is really the biggest issue in terms of the deal structure, and why it would make more sense for HP. To acquire Xerox as well just before all this happened this week. HP has they have been well aware of this since, as I mentioned, in November, they had pledged to buy back about 15 billion dollars of their stock over the next three years with $8 billion coming in the first year. So really all that is doing in terms of the proxy battle to come is to say to investors, you know, you have not been happy with the returns over the last number of years. Here is a step that we are taking to address that in returning capital to shareholders through buybacks. The tender offer does expire at April 21, but it can be extended by Xerox. You know, really, as you know, in my opinion, they likely need to bump a little bit more or restructure some of the financing for the transaction to get both shareholders and potentially get HP on board.
Julian Klymochko: In terms of the tender offer expiring. Clearly, they are going to extend this. These hostile takeovers tend to be very protracted battle. They can take a long time back and forth. It will take them a while to if they are going to be successful in this proxy fight. That is really representative of what the shareholders want. If they do want this takeover to be successful, they will be able to replace the board, but if not, then it is effectively dead. Right now, the market’s pricing in about 50/50 chance of this deal happening. The merger yield is quite high, I believe, north of 20 percent annualized. So an interesting situation, obviously quite risky given it is hostile, but they did put their cards on the table. They launched the official tender offer and so this is a really interesting, huge takeover battle that will be pretty exciting to watch how it plays out.
Hedge Fund Elliot Management Unveils Shareholder Activist Campaign at Twitter
Julian Klymochko: It has been a while since we saw a really interesting shareholder activist campaign, but that turned around this week as feared activist investor Elliott. They took a $1 billion stake in social networking company Twitter with the ultimate goal of ousting chief executive officer and co-founder Jack Dorsey. Now, what happened here? Elliot took a 4 percent position in the company with the goal of shaking things up and ultimately getting the stock price to go up. Since IPO, Twitter has not performed very well. Certainly has vastly underperformed competitor Facebook, who boasts eight times more users and a market cap almost 20 fold higher. What Elliott’s goals here, their main concerns regarding Jack Dorsey are two-fold. Number one, he is a part time CEO, which perhaps is not appropriate for such a large public company because he is also the chief executive officer at Square, which is significantly larger, I believe. His 2 percent stake in Twitter is worth about five hundred million, and his stake in square is tenfold that, like five billion. Where is he focusing his attention? And proof of that. Their second concern is that Jack recently announced plans to move to Africa, which gives you the sense is he distracted? How focused on creating shareholder value at Twitter is he? However, Jack Dorsey came out and defended his role leading both these companies, Twitter and Square, and saying that he is now reconsidering his planned trip to Africa this year. Quote, “I have enough flexibility in my schedule to focus on the most important things, and I have a good sense of what is critical in both companies.”
As for his move to Africa, he said he was re-evaluating these plans, citing everything happening in the world, particularly with Coronavirus. Have a really interesting comment here from NYU Professor Scott Galloway. He really summed it up, this whole situation up nicely in one sentence; he is a Twitter investor as well. He stated it from those perspectives. He indicated weak governance, a part time CEO, relocation to Africa, damage to the Commonwealth and poor returns. Stakeholders deserve a board and CEO that command the opportunity, Twitter occupies. So there you have it. Basically summarizes the situation here. Twitter shareholder returns have not been great. This situation was really just a layup for an activist investor of a part time CEO, which is really inappropriate for a company as large and as important as Twitter. Nonetheless, the CEO moving to Africa, that is weird. What is up with that? It is kind of an easy target, in my opinion, Elliot’s goal here. They are pretty intense, I should say, in terms of what they’re able to enact to pressure managements and boards into bowing to their demands. Clearly, they are probably going to run a proxy contest to replace directors. Sometimes they come out with embarrassing information on executives and board members to get them to bend to their commands. It will be interesting to see what happens on this one when you think about Twitter. It is a pretty amazing resource with a lot of potential, isn’t it?
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely, and just going back to Elliot, I mean, yeah, as you mentioned, they do have quite a history of forcing CEO departures in their activist targets. We have talked about them multiple times on the podcast. But, you know, not to belabour the point too much, but, you know, John, Jack Dorsey really does a lot of things that aren’t typical at all of a CEO of two public companies with a combined market cap of about I think it’s about $57 billion. He is doing 10-day meditation retreats, and I believe that was in 2018 in Myanmar. As well, you know, one of the big proponents of intermittent fasting. In terms of being, a typical is not in itself a bad thing. You know, being a not a typical CEO can be viewed as a very good thing. But a lot of them are, you know, somewhat of head scratchers, especially when you’re also splitting duties and as you’ve mentioned, Square having a way larger effect on his net worth. In terms of some of the other critiques of Jack Dorsey with his handling of Twitter is one of the biggest is shutting down Vine in 2016. It was quite popular and now it is even more we are using some hindsight bias, of course, with the popularity of tech talk, it really looks like a big missed on Twitter’s behalf.
Julian Klymochko: Right. Could Vine have been Tick-Tock? which is just massive these days and the hugely valuable.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely, and in terms of innovation, it looks like they are now launching a stories feature. This is really just a third, derivative of innovation. Where Snapchat had stories and then Instagram came and kind of wiped that out. Then Twitter would be coming in with that as well. That is not really innovation.
Julian Klymochko: You think about Twitter, what have they done over the past five years on the platform? All I know that they have changed the star to a heart in terms of liking tweets.
Michael Kesslering: Amount of characters in a tweet.
Julian Klymochko: Oh, yeah. For certain characters, there is a blue checkmark. Obviously, you don’t think those require a billion dollar investments and workforce in the thousands or perhaps tens of thousands. The other thing is users are desperate for an edit function, which still has not happened. You have to wonder if a different CEO came in; would he much better be able to monetize the platform? You look at certain management changes. For example, Microsoft, when it transitioned from Ballmer to Satya Nadella, who absolutely just killed it, he turned it around. The business stock is just absolutely on fire ever since that occurred and you wonder and I’m sure Elliot’s thinking the same thing, can that happen to Twitter as well?
Michael Kesslering: Especially, bringing in a turnaround artist. As of right now, this is a turnaround story, because they do actually have a quite a good product. As you had mentioned, a lot of potential.
Julian Klymochko: This is a business that can run with no CEO in my opinion. Perhaps that is why it does not really matter if Jack is there part time or no time at all. However, if they did have someone really focused on maximizing the value here from the platform. Who knows what that, could do to the stock?
Michael Kesslering: Ourselves we have used Twitter as an odd platform and I can say that it is in terms of targeting an audience. It is quite far behind both Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.
That is something to note just for actually using, how they monetize their platform. You mentioned that this is a kind of a slam-dunk as an activist. Just some stats behind that. The total return of Twitter’s stock over the last five years has been at 28.4 percent loss. That is on a total return basis. Then as well, since their IPO in November 2013, they are only up about 28 percent. So this really is somewhat of a slam dunk in terms of an activist campaign, although I will give the one caveat that historically displacing founders from a Silicon Valley tech start up hasn’t always had a lot of good results.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, good point there. Nonetheless, interesting activist campaign and we will see how this one plays out. I think one, at least in my opinion, I think Elliott’s going to be pretty effective here. I am not sure if they’ll actually get jacked out, but certainly it wouldn’t be surprised to see them settle with some board representation.
Nonetheless, that is it for episode 57 of The Absolute Return Podcast. If you liked it, always check out more at absolutereturnpodcast.com. Leave us a review if you would like and definitely follow us on twitter. My handle is @Julian Klymochko, K-L-Y-M-O-C-H-K-O and Mike your twitter is?
Michael Kesslering: I am @M_kesslering that is K-E-S-S-L-E-R-I-N-G
Julian Klymochko: Yeah. Thank you for listening. And until next week, best of luck in your trading and investing. We know it’s a volatile times out there, but just stick with the game plan and stick with your asset allocation. Right. 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.
