September 14, 2020—Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Subscribes to IPO of Loss-Making Cloud Data Company Snowflake. Have They Given up on Value Investing?
LVMH Launches Risky Gambit in a Bid to Reprice Tiffany Deal. Will it Work?
Tesla’s Stock Tumbles as its Snubbed for S&P 500 Index Inclusion. What Happened?
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 ladies and gents to episode 86 of the Absolute Return Podcast. I am Julian Klymochko.
Michael Kesslering: I am Mike Kesslering.
Julian Klymochko: Today is Friday, September 11th, 2020 back in the swing of things, children back in school, markets picking up again, some volatility this week. Markets actually went down this week, which we have not seen in quite the while after the post COVID bull market that we have had really with this massive growth stock bubble. Nonetheless, a few interesting items that we wanted to discuss on the podcast this week.
- Off the top Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, greatest investor of all time. They subscribed to an IPO loss, making cloud Data Company SnowFlake. Has Berkshire finally given up on value investing?
- LVMH launched a risky gambit in a bid to reprice their Tiffany deal. Will, this unprecedented move in M&A, actually work?
- Lastly, we are going to chat about Tesla’s stock crashing. As it is snubbed by the S&P 500 index committee to join the benchmark. What happened here? Why wasn’t Tesla added?
WARREN BUFFETT’S BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY TO IPO OF LOSS MAKING CLOUD DATA COMPANY SNOWFLAKE
Julian Klymochko: But Mike, I want to start off with this news that was unveiled in the S1 of Snowflake. Now Snowflake is about to go public. I believe they are going to start trading on Wednesday. They filed for a $2.38 billion dollar IPO, which will make it one of the largest stock market debuts of the year. Values that company over $20 billion dollars. Double its previous valuation and in that S-1 filing, which is the perspectives that they got to file prior to going public, which unveils what the company does? Financials, et cetera, indicated that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, long a bastion of value investing. You know, he has long preached it. Been the most practice and most celebrated value investor of all time. Have they finally thrown in the towel of on value investing? Because it’s basically sucked for so long. I mean they disclosed a $250 million dollar share subscription in Snowflakes IPO.
So Berkshire Hathaway investing in a cloud data company is one thing that’s mind-blowing, but subscribing to an IPO, makes a double mind-blowing because Berkshire Hathaway has, you know, up until recently never bought a new issue. I got a quote here from Buffet from a CNBC interview last year. He stated, quote “In 54 years, I don’t think Berkshire has ever bought a new issue”. So that’s quite the track record of snapping the IPO market as many skeptics agree. IPO could stand for, it is probably overpriced or idiots purchase only, but I digress some info on Snowflake. It has been around for about eight years. It is a data warehouse built for the cloud. Counts, major enterprise software providers, such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft as partners. And if we look at what Berkshire has done and currently does, you know, they’ve done it over the past 50 years was to invest in highly profitable companies at low valuations.
Like when they had that big investment into Apple, a handful of years ago at a very low valuation back when Apple traded at a single-digit earnings, multiple. Typically, Buffet’s benchmark is a 10% earnings yield. So he likes to buy things that single digit, earnings, multiple, which is why Snowflake is so surprising because if you look at Snowflake financials. They lost nearly $350 million red ink last year. The valuation is just absolutely sky high, more than 78 times revenue last fiscal year, so forget about earnings. I mean this company has seemingly spiralling loss is increasing dramatically. However, the revenue top line is growing significantly and the valuation is extremely lofty. Certainly reflects that growth, but it really lends credence to what we’ve seen as a pretty big change in Berkshire Hathaway over the last decade, as we know, Buffett has brought on his lieutenants Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, and they have quite a bit of a different style than Buffett has don’t they?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, they certainly do and when you mentioned, you know, I guess just the recent past where in the last few weeks you had the likely Buffet investment into the six Japanese trading firms at discount to Nav.
Julian Klymochko: Classic value investing.
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Julian Klymochko: And that one was confirmed to be Buffet because when Berkshire is buying, typically the ones over a billion are Buffet buys. However, the ones under a billion are either Todd or Ted, so not Buffet.
Michael Kesslering: And why that is assumed is because Todd and Ted each, I believe they still have just $10 billion dollars to manage. I say just because in the context of Berkshire as a whole Berkshire has $200 billion dollars equities book.
Julian Klymochko: A stake in Apple. Is what like 80, 90 billion?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah. It is 45% their book and so yeah, has Berkshire changed as a whole? No, because you have Buffet with the Japanese trading firm investment. You have the smaller investments in Barrick Gold and Snowflake, both of those under a billion.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah and many were like scratching their head heads on Barrick. They are like, you know, what is Berkshire doing? Warren Buffett talk trash about gold but if you look historically, there was a point in time where he had a massive position in silver. It was like the biggest investor in silver. So, you know, despite what he said, you’ve got to look at actually what he does and the Barrick investment was either Todd or Ted, so Buffet had nothing to do with that on there.
Michael Kesslering: Exactly and those are small investments anyway. They account to under 50 basis points in terms of a percentage of their whole equity books. So they’re very immaterial in the context of Berkshire as a whole, but as well, you look at, there was some sales that he made in Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs. Wells Fargo is a long-term investment, but there has been a lot of drama within Wells Fargo, management called a good question. Goldman Sachs, especially though that was more of a strategic investment that he made in the crisis that really, it’s taken him 12 years to get out of. In terms of those investments, he still loves financials. Financial is 26% of his $200 billion dollar equity book.
Julian Klymochko: He was recently adding to BofA though.
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, which is his second largest position in their entire book. With Snowflake this is a Tod likely a Tod move.
Julian Klymochko: Certainly, because his signature is in the S1 filing, so that basically confirms that Todd made the call to invest Berkshire’s capital into Snowflake’s IPO.
Michael Kesslering: Exactly, so what does snowflake do? They focus on cloud data warehousing space, and you had mentioned some of their partners. Now while they have Amazon, Google and Microsoft as partners is because their databases work on top of AWS, Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure. So they’re users of those products and why clients love their enterprise. Clients love it as a service is because some other actual providers of this will walk you into a particular vendor. They will only work with AWS, so snowflake is very agile and they will let you work with different vendors, but they were founded by former Oracle employees. Kind of interesting to note that neither of their founders ever served as CEO, they have actually had three CEOs throughout their time as a company.
They have raised a ton of capital. As you had mentioned, Julian, over $1.4 billion dollars. Right now, in terms of the space that they are in data warehousing, they are third in market share with 10% with SAP being the biggest player in the space at 15%. So it is still a fairly fragmented market that could be ripe for consolidation in the future, but the business itself, it relies on these enterprise clients where it is a massive payment when you do get one of these contracts. For example, right now, one of their biggest clients is Capital One which represents 11% of their their revenue. But they do have, I believe it’s a couple thousand clients in total, so they do have a number of smaller clients, not just a big key client like this, but what’s very interesting. What I found interesting at least is that they are currently spending 70% of their revenue on sales and marketing, which is high even for the enterprise software industry, which typically does spend quite high on their potential clients.
As we discussed with Palantir a few weeks ago, they spend a ton as well because these, in Palantir case, government contracts, they are long-term and sticky. In this situation, Snowflake has only been around eight years. So it still does remain a little bit uncertain to me, at least whether it is worth all of this investment into potential clients, 70% of revenue. You typically see at the high end of enterprise software where 50% would be considered high. So that is quite high for the industry, remains to be seen like how sticky these relationships can be over the long-term. But ultimately it was interesting that Berkshire got involved in this deal. However, it is really not material to Berkshire as a whole, so I guess people can read through if you do like myself, believe that there is a reasonable chance that Todd Combs takes on a massive role upon Buffet and Munger leaving. Departure or I guess death, I think Todd Combs does have a legitimate shot at taking over Berkshire. Then I guess there is a read through in terms of how the investments will be done moving forward.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, if we look at Warren Buffet. Has the strategy changed? No. It is still a diehard value investor. Mike, as you indicated, he has been out buying these Japanese trading houses trading at single digit earnings multiple. Is Lieutenant Todd Combs is the one participating in these kind of growth stories, the Snowflake IPO, Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger have long avoided IPOs and warn investors against participating in them. But clearly Todd and Ted have different investment styles with the Snowflake investment, the Barrick Gold investment, et cetera, as for Snowflake. It plans to start trading in New York on Wednesday under the ticker symbol, snow, I mean, that is a good one.
LVMH LAUNCHES GAMBIT IN A BID TO REPRICE TIFFANY DEAL
Julian Klymochko: On to some M&A news. After months of speculation. If you look at Tiffany’s stock, clearly the market was expecting something, potentially. Read a lot of sell-side notes and a lot of analysts were expecting LVMH to make a move. The spread was quite distressed. The deal price is at 135 and it was trading sub 120. So a spread so wide, you could drive a truck through, but certainly justified because after months of speculation in the media and by traders and arbitragers that LVMH was having second thoughts on the price of its Tiffany acquisition because it was initially struck in November pre COVID. When multiples specifically for a luxury retailer would be significantly much, much higher than they would be. These days, LVMH, this week unveiled a risky gambit in order to try to extract a price concession from Tiffany’s board of directors thus far, they have not been having any discussions with respect to price cut. Tiffany’s board takes the attitude; look a deal is a deal, at 135. That is where we struck it. That is where you got to close it and certainly in today’s environment, yes, LVMH is overpaying, but LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault, he’s actually one of the richest men in the world. Richest guy in Europe, net worth nearly $90 billion dollars.
Michael Kesslering: Second in the world, is it?
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, something you know, they are always changing, but the Tiffany deal is about 16 billion and LVMH is an order of magnitude larger. So somewhat a drop in the bucket, but what he pulled this week shocked everyone out there. So what he did was he contacted the French Government. He got turned away by the first minister that he spoke to and then got the second Government group within the French government to agree, to send out a letter indicating that due to the potential tariffs between France and the U.S. which is France is going to implement some sort of digital tax. And so the Trump administration wanted to get back at them by taxing French luxury goods or something of that nature due to that trade war.
For some reason the French Government would compel LVMH not to close the acquisition of Tiffany and LVMH came with that letter in hand that the CEO Bernard Arnault basically told the French Government to write. They took that to Tiffany and be like, whoops, sorry; the Government won’t let us close this deal. But it was quickly revealed in the media, like within hours of this new story, breaking that the letter did come direct from basically an order from LVMH as CEO. In addition, the French Government indicated that it was a non-binding order. It is more of a suggestion that was obviously written by the LVMH CEO.
Michael Kesslering: I believe that they advise them, which is a key word.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, exactly. So relations between the companies obviously hit a bit of a snag here. Tiffany they filed a lawsuit to compel LVMH to close. They alleged that LVMH has been dragging its feet on filing for the requisite antitrust approvals. One specifically is European Commission, which we expected a long time ago. Tiffany indicated that the deal should have closed in July, had to LVMH filed the requisite Anti-Trust filings in time. LVMH coming back saying that they are about to make this easy filing any day now, you know, we checked on it all the time. Still not there, so this deal is heading towards court, some animosity between the parties, but what do I think is going to happen? Like it is clear that LVMH has been consistently looking for price cut over the past number of months. We did talk about this a few months back when that Women’s Wear Daily article came out with respect to the LVMH board, having discussions on what legal strategy, what legal recourse they have to try to get this price cut. We have discussed in the podcast historically where these precedents have been typically in the five to 12% range.
We have seen some price cuts over this deal cycle, especially through a COVID. We saw it on the trash deal, Advanced Waste. That one was repriced, I believe down 12%. We saw it on an auto parts deal. BorgWarner acquisition of Delphi Technologies. That one was repriced downwards, 5%. We do have two other big deals in court right now, which is Simon’s acquisition of Tubman. We’ve got a position in that, got a disclosed. We actually have a position in Tiffany in the accelerate arbitrage fund. In addition to Tubman and a third, deal that is currently in court that we are long is the Gilat Satellite deal acquisition by Comtech. Clearly, the targets businesses have declined at least temporarily, as we go through the COVID induced recession and the buyers having a bit of buyer’s remorse. Which is I’m most surprised with by LVMH given that typically a buyer wants to get out of a deal when they say loose financing or they can’t afford it, or they don’t have the capital, or perhaps they’re just a short term player like a private equity firm.
But LVMH-Tiffany, this deal is highly strategic. LVMH has basically rolled up the whole industry and this is pretty much the last big target left. They obviously have the cash and they do have a long-term framework, but clearly, CEO Bernard Arnault is, you know, he wants to get it cheaper. Those are my thoughts on this deal and basically doing whatever he can to try to extract a price cut. This one might be tough here because man, I have never seen a gambit go so bad, so quickly. As I said within hours, it was unveiled by Reuters that this was just a scheme pulled off by LVMH to engage in a bit of crony capitalism. Which is disappointing, especially in an environment like France where they have the yellow jacket protests, and they’re highly against the whole crony capitalism and the wealthiest man in Europe and one of the richest in the world gaining favour from his Government friends to save himself perhaps $500 million dollars or so. So it could serve as something that will fly back in his face. We will obviously closely monitor this one. Obviously, the stock was going to trade down, but not down a ton. It is still trading what around 114-115 and analysts think that the unaffected share price, if this deal were to break, would be around the $80 dollar range. So arbs obviously think that there’s a high success chance on this deal, at least with re-cut Tiffany stock was down about 6.9% this week on the news, so the market not pricing in a deal-break here, however, pricing in a decent chance of a price cut. What are your thoughts on this really extreme situation?
Michael Kesslering: Much of the risk arb desk commentary that we have seen over the last little bit has really been, as you had mentioned, Julian. Everybody was expecting this eventually given the messaging from LVMH. And when I say expecting this, expecting that it would go to court, they were not expecting how. A lot of the commentary was that a lot of risk ARBs were staying out of the deal until a deal break was announced.
Julian Klymochko: Or deal turbulence.
Michael Kesslering: Yes, any sort of turbulence and then to enter the trade and so that provided a bit of a floor and why it bounced off. I believe it bottomed out around the $108 dollar mark before rebounding a bit where you probably did have some ARBs coming back into the name. But overall, I mean, I’ll give Bernard Arnault credit. This was a very creative way that he did this.
Julian Klymochko: Very creative.
Michael Kesslering: Where everybody was expecting that they would invoke an MAE clause.
Julian Klymochko: Which they did actually.
Michael Kesslering: Yes and that part was expected. This other part was completely out of the left field and what this will really come down to and the basis of their argument, which has likely already been unveiled to be not true is whether this was an order from the French Government, or it was the French Government advising them not to close the deal because those are two very different things and a very different legal distinction, an order. Their hands literally are tied.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah and I have heard commentary from lawyers that indicated only the European commission could block this deal. And then on the issue with the French Government, I saw an article in the New York Post today indicating that Tiffany would compel or now to testify on this letter from the French Government and whether or not he directed it. And there’s speculation that he’d actually just rather close the deal on the terms then having to go through that.
Michael Kesslering: Absolutely and I believe it was their CFO that was making comments and taking questions from the press. When asked if LVMH had reached out to the government, this was before this was all unveiled, literally right before there was a question on whether LVMH had reached out to the Government proactively and his response was akin to, “I can’t believe you would ask such a question”.
Julian Klymochko: Oh dear you?
Michael Kesslering: Being very distraught with them even asking the question, which was quite a bit of PR savvy from a CFO. I am quite impressed where he did not say explicitly either way. So he just expressed disgust at the question and moved on, which is quite savvy of him, I guess when you’re in a situation that you can’t really say that you didn’t reach out to them because you did. Very interesting situation, but Julian, what do you think in terms of probability tree? I know what the street was kind of thinking now is that there is probably about a 20% chance of the deal closing on terms. It was a 30% chance of the deal closing on terms. 20% of it being completely terminated and then about a 50% chance of a re-cut. Do you think those probabilities are somewhat accurate? How would you handicap it?
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, I think the probabilities are accurate in terms of the magnitude of the price cut. That is where the debate is, so just to summarize what happened here, LVMH came with its letters saying, oh, we can’t close. Tiffany sued them going to Delaware court to basically force them to close at the 135 initial deal price. LVMH coming back with a countersuit saying, oh, there is also a material adverse effect and on the MAE side, one a precedent that I forgot to mention. We talked about a lot on this podcast, was Forescout-Advent. That followed a similar playbook. Forescout released a poor quarter throughout Corvid. The private equity buyer Advent, they claimed and MAE. Then on the steps of the courthouse, basically the day before they’re set to go to trial, they settled on, I believe in 8% price cut, then close the deal.
And so throughout this cycle, we actually have not seen a ruling on him on an MAE. We have seen a number of deals in which the acquire tried to get out citing an MAE, but thus far we have seen them either settle at a lower price. As we saw on a Forescout, Advent. We saw it on an asset deal between Bed Bath & Beyond, and 1-800- Flowers. And the other scenario were that the parties agreed to terminate, which we saw on Sycamore and L Brands with respect to the Victoria’s Secret deal. And so will we actually see a precedent on this MAE factor throughout COVID on LVMH, Tiffany? I don’t think so. As you indicated, a commentary that 50% chance of a deal reprice, which is the most likely scenario, I have seen estimates as high as a 20% price guide. I think we are going to see it in the range of the precedents, sort of in that 5 to 12% range. And we looked over the past decade and that we’ve never seen a price cut more than 12%.
Michael Kesslering: And I think some of the rationale for why it would be a 20% price cut, is that why would Arnault go through such trouble and such personal putting his own brand himself on the line for just a 5 to 10% price cut. So if that is what happens, you got to think that the brand deterioration just himself, not the company, just himself, that can’t really be
Julian Klymochko: Yeah but even an 8% price cut puts a few hundred million dollars in his jeans, which you know, that is a pretty big yacht for him, so I’m sure he would be happy with it.
TELSA’S STOCK TUMBLES AS ITS SNUBBED FOR S&P 500 INDEX INCLUSION
Julian Klymochko: Onto some Tesla news. Now, stock market darling Tesla. I mean, their shares are up what 330% year to date been an absolute rocket. Last week and there’s been speculation over the past number of weeks of people, you know, trying to front run the S&P 500 on potential index inclusion on a rebalance. Well, The Standard and Poor’s index committee came out last Friday and said, no, Tesla is not going to be added, and this was a head scratcher for the market because Tesla met all the quantitative measures needed to be added to the S&P 500. And so market participants were shocked, especially Tesla Bowls were quite angry and upset that the index committee snubbed the electrical vehicle maker. I mean, you look at their market cap, nearly $350 billion dollars, which makes it one of the largest public companies in the world. It has been absolutely on fire since an IPO over half dozen years ago. It is well over a 10 bagger and I think it is up four fold since Elon came out with his whole going private at 4:20 tweet. Obviously, after that recently split the stock, and so that got a split adjust that, and instead the S&P 500 chose to snub Tesla and go with three much smaller companies, Etsy, Teradyne, and Catalent to add into S&P 500 index.
I could not even tell you what Katelyn does, but you know, it is a head-scratcher that Tesla didn’t make it. The key metric being four quarters of profitability, which last quarter they did get the four quarters of profitable earnings, positive earnings. However, you know, that is debatable because on the durability of those earnings, you can say, oh, it was all based on regularly credits, et cetera. But in my opinion, this looks real, real bad on the S&P 500. This is supposed to be the largest so-called passive index in the world, but clearly excluding Tesla is a straight up active investment decision. It met all of their criteria, all of the quantitative characteristics that they need. It is a massive, massive market cap of a company. And they just said, no, we’re not adding it, so clearly inactive decision. What is even worse is they did not give a reason for the exclusion, even though it made all of their requirements to be added. There is some speculation that because Tesla’s share price has gone up over three fold this year. There is a view that the skyrocketing share price and the massive market cap is not based on fundamentals, but it is based on future hype. And that the share price rise was due to retail traders speculation. As we always talk about are these free trading apps. These unsophisticated traders piling in pushing the stock price up, and, you know, these kind of newbie gamblers, they have you know, a different effect and different needs that, you know, traditional, you know, Wall Street, conservative index investors would have. What are your thoughts on this real strange move by S&P? And do you think it’s safe to classify the S&P 500 is the world’s largest actively managed fund?
Michael Kesslering: Yeah, I mean, so I guess our listeners may recall some of my views on Tesla where I am the furthest from a Tesla bull, but I think my view may surprise some of them. What it seems like is that it came down to earnings quality, specifically, as you had mentioned, the sale of regulatory credits to other auto makers, which is about 25% of their EBITDA,
Julian Klymochko: But that is speculative at this point, because we will never know. S&P did not tell us why specifically they got excluded, as soon as you indicated,
Michael Kesslering: They probably leaked it a little bit to Wall Street Journal is my assumption there. As that’s, who came out with the article describing the situation. I don’t argue with their earnings quality. I think their earnings quality is very poor, but that does not really matter because I am not really very convinced that the S&P is in a position that heir skillset is judging earnings quality. And are they doing that for other constituents?
Julian Klymochko: Exactly, what you mentioned right there that is called fundamental analysis.
Michael Kesslering: Exactly.
Julian Klymochko: Fundamental analysis is used to buy active stock pickers, not passive index providers.
Michael Kesslering: And if there is starting to engage in fundamental analysis, then it begs the question of why their index is market cap weighted. Why wouldn’t it be evaluated or something of that nature that would bring in more fundamental analysis. So you could see where this doesn’t really square with their entire business model, and really does just doesn’t seem consistent in terms of how they would have treated other companies. And once again, like I am not a Tesla bull but really just when you had mentioned, are they the largest actively managed fund? Now, this is something that you and I have debated countless times in our office, but something like this, I would tend to agree with you. It is a very weird look for an in quotes, I am air quoting “a passive index” and on the other side, Tesla has been on the NASDAQ composite index for a number of years. So which is more tech heavy but that’s more an example of, okay, they’re taking their criteria and they are just basically adding and dropping names in a systematic fashion, the whole goal of allocating to an S&P index strategy is that it is systematic.
Julian Klymochko: They have index trickery I will call it. This isn’t the first time, I remember a number of months ago, I believe it was the Russell Indices in which they didn’t rebalance on a certain date because they claimed that it was too volatile, which is ridiculous. In my opinion, you have an index that is driven by rules. You must with the rules; you must be systematic irrespective of your fundamental views. Otherwise, that is the definition of active when you are not systematic, when you are not following in these sort of rules sets; you are just sort of flying by the seat of your pants and doing it that way. But, you know, in my opinion, we’ve had this debate, what seems like a thousand times is I don’t believe there’s anything truly passive because you see this so-called index trickery time and time again, where they’re straight, making fundamental calls, I’ve criticized the Dow Jones Index for, you know, selling General Electric buying Walgreens. And now with the Apple stocks with they’ve decided to sell that position way down.
Michael Kesslering: Because it’s price weighted.
Julian Klymochko: Yeah, exactly. So how do you describe that? That my friends is active investing and you know, if you want to convince me that that’s actually passive, I’m down to argue about it any time of the week, but Mike, anything else on this file?
Michael Kesslering: Nope, nothing else. This is where I would agree with you wholeheartedly that this is active management on behalf of S&P. So we can put a cork in that argument for another time, I guess.
Julian Klymochko: Tesla and index front-runners, not happy with this as the stock dropped a record 21% on the S&P 500 snub. So that is that on, Tesla’s shares still up massively this year. That about wraps it up folks for episode 86 of The Absolute Return Podcast. If you enjoyed it, please recommend it to your friends, co-workers, and fellow investors. You can always check out more absolutereturnpodcast.com and I implore you to follow Mike on Twitter. What is your handle?
Michael Kesslering: @M_Kesslering.
Julian Klymochko: Mine is @JulianKlymochko and we wish you all the best in your investing, trading and speculating and hope you have a great week. 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.