NEWS
31 Mar 2021 - Over The Inflation Hill
|
Over The Inflation Hill Charlie Jamieson, Chief Investment Officer, Jamieson Coote Bonds 09 March 2021
Funds operated by this manager: CC Jamieson Coote Bonds Active Bond Fund (Class A), CC Jamieson Coote Bonds Dynamic Alpha Fund, CC Jamieson Coote Bonds Global Bond Fund (Class A - Hedged), CC Jamieson Coote Bonds Global Bond Fund (Class B - Unhedged) |
31 Mar 2021 - Whoa-yeah, the divs are getting bigger
|
Whoa-yeah, the divs are getting bigger Dr Don Hamson, Managing Director, Plato Investment Management 15 March 2021
Funds operated by this manager: Plato Australian Shares Income Fund (Class A), Plato Global Market Neutral Fund (Class A), Plato Global Shares Income Fund (Class A) |
30 Mar 2021 - Policing the platforms
|
Policing the platforms John Guinness and Sumant Wahi, Portfolio Managers, Fidelity International March 2021
Funds operated by this manager: Fidelity Asia Fund, Fidelity Australian Equities Fund, Fidelity China Fund, Fidelity Future Leaders Fund, Fidelity Global Emerging Markets Fund, Fidelity India Fund |
29 Mar 2021 - Strengthening our Committment to ESG
24 Mar 2021 - Are Cyclicals the New Defensives?
|
Are Cyclicals the New Defensives? Douglas Isles, Investment Specialist, Platinum Asset Management 09 March 2021 In the February 2021 Monthly Update for the Platinum International Fund we noted that: "When we look at long term (i.e. 35 years) valuation analysis, relative to asset values, cyclical stocks still look cheaper than their averages, while defensives were only more expensive at the peak of the technology bubble." This brief note expands on the detail in that valuation comment. Over time, one simple valuation metric often used to identify stocks, sectors and countries that are out of favour or experiencing a temporary setback, is the Price-to-Book ratio (P/B). Mathematically, a P/B is equal to Price-to-Earnings (P/E) multiplied by Earnings-to-Book (or ROE). A low P/B can capture either a low valuation (on an earnings basis) and/or low returns on equity (coincident with cycle lows, or transient challenges) versus history. Our quant analyst team has their own classification that we use for cyclical and defensive sectors, which is more granular than the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). We split 19 sectors into cyclicals or defensives and track them over time. Today, according to our analysis, around 55% of the global market's capitalisation can be categorised as cyclicals and 45% as defensives. We classify cyclicals to be: retail; autos; banks; property; commercial services; industrial services; industrials; process industries; energy; materials; and hardware. The balance of the market we call defensives, and include: precious metals; consumer staples; healthcare; insurance; infrastructure; content; software; and communications. The Price/Book chart is key. Source: FactSet Research Systems, Platinum Investment Management Limited. If we compare the cyclicals in aggregate on a P/B basis, while they have experienced a sharp rebound from the lows of the COVID-19 sell-off, they are not expensive relative to historical levels, especially when considering today's near-record-low bond yields, which are often used to justify the case for paying more for equities. While defensives, on the contrary, are higher than most of the last 35 years, excluding the technology bubble. On a relative basis, the gap between the two groupings is close to its widest level of the last 35 years. In simple terms, this suggests that investing in cyclicals still makes sense, particularly given our observations in the February 2021 Monthly Update that: "A change in the 'real world' is a move away from monetary policy to fiscal policy, after decades of restraint by governments. This favours real companies over virtual ones, at the margin. With data on the recovery stronger than anyone would have expected in April/May 2020, the market is warming to sectors that were out of favour." From a performance outcome perspective, over the long bull market from 2009-2020, the best periods for Platinum's global equity strategy relative to market returns were in 2009, 2013 and 2017, which were coincident with the expansion of cyclical P/B multiples. This is a similar phenomenon to recent months. However, prior to the global financial crisis and especially from 2005-2008, cyclical areas, while performing well (particularly financials and resources), were less attractive and hence this relationship with our performance was not the same. In other words, Platinum's global equity strategy has not simply been a play on cyclicals over time, but we have tended to invest well in cyclicals when they are cheap. On the classification used by the quant team in assigning the 19 sectors and matching them to the portfolio on 26 February 2021, more than 75% of the long book was categorised as cyclical, with less than 25% in the defensive grouping, consistent with the discussion above and our views expressed over time about where there is value in the market. Thinking about cyclicals (or economically sensitives) as the opportunity rather than the common short-hand of 'value' (versus 'growth') is more instructive and captures a better sense of market dynamics. Bringing this back to themes in the portfolio and as the February 2021 Monthly Update notes: "The majority of the portfolio continues to be classified as belonging to the following thematics: Growth industrials, semiconductors, travel-related, Chinese consumer, healthcare, internet-related (though much reduced) and metals." DISCLAIMER: This article has been prepared by Platinum Investment Management Limited ABN 25 063 565 006, AFSL 221935, trading as Platinum Asset Management ("Platinum"). This information is general in nature and does not take into account your specific needs or circumstances. You should consider your own financial position, objectives and requirements and seek professional financial advice before making any financial decisions. You should also read the latest relevant product disclosure statement before making any decision to acquire units in any of our funds, copies are available at www.platinum.com.au. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Some numbers have been rounded. The commentary reflects Platinum's views and beliefs at the time of preparation, which are subject to change without notice. No representations or warranties are made by Platinum as to their accuracy or reliability. Commentary may also contain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements have been made based upon Platinum's expectations and beliefs. No assurance is given that future developments will be in accordance with Platinum's expectations. Actual outcomes could differ materially from those expected by Platinum. To the extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted by Platinum for any loss or damage as a result of any reliance on this information. Funds operated by this manager: Platinum Asia Fund (C Class), Platinum Asia Fund (P Class), Platinum European Fund (C Class), Platinum European Fund (P Class), Platinum Global Fund, Platinum International Brands Fund (C Class), Platinum International Brands Fund (P Class), Platinum International Fund (C Class), Platinum International Fund (P Class), Platinum International Health Care Fund (C Class), Platinum International Health Care Fund (P Class), Platinum International Technology Fund (C Class), Platinum International Technology Fund (P Class), Platinum Japan Fund (C Class), Platinum Japan Fund (P Class), Platinum Unhedged Fund (C Class), Platinum Unhedged Fund (P Class) |
23 Mar 2021 - China's 14th Five Year Plan
|
China's 14th Five Year Plan Arminius Capital 25 February 2021
Western voters are used to their governments announcing numerous initiatives and targets - especially around election time - then forgetting these as fast as they can, and hoping that the electorate will do the same. By contrast, the Chinese Communist Party has been diligently preparing Five-Year Plans ever since they took power in 1949, and they are now up to Plan Number 14, which will apply from 2021 to 2025 inclusive. These Plans are very serious documents. They cover all arms of government and all parts of the country. Their purpose is to get China's army of unruly and self-interested bureaucrats heading in the same direction on the things that matter. To this end, each Plan is prepared with local and provincial input as well as the central authorities' opinions. At the end of each five-year period, the top leaders formally assess their government's performance against the Plan and, while they mostly boast about their achievements, they do also fess up to a few missed targets. Over the last four months the draft 14th Five-Year Plan has been making its way around the highest levels of government before getting the final seal of approval from the National People's Congress (China's tame Parliament) in March. As with all Chinese official documents, the Plan contains vast amounts of Communist platitudes and superfluous verbiage. But it also contains some very clear statements about where the Party leadership wants to the Chinese economy to go. The 14th Five-Year Plan departs quite dramatically from its predecessors in three key priorities which it sets. Right at the top comes "achieving self-reliance in science and technology" (�'技自立自强) so as to become "a science and technology superpower". Among other things, this means strengthening basic research, emphasizing original innovation, formulating strategic science plans, constructing national science centres and regional innovation hubs, and encouraging entrepreneurs in technology innovation. The Plan sets out a list of cutting-edge industries where it wants China to lead, including AI, semiconductors, aerospace, brain science, and bio-engineered breeding (genetically modified organisms).
Obviously, China's leaders have learned from the various US sanctions and embargos which the Trump Administration placed on the export of its high-tech to China. The Biden Administration has not removed these - instead, it has re-affirmed its intention of limiting technology transfer to China. (For some reason, neither side mentioned the Tiktok video platform.) The Chinese government now believes that the US has a stranglehold over China's future, so the 14th Five-Year Plan is intended to push China's high-technology sector to catch up with then overtake the US.
The second big change in priorities is the new focus on "dual circulation". This priority needs to be placed in historical context. From 1990 on, government policy actively encouraged production for export markets, mainly because exports generated foreign exchange which could be used to pay for essential imports, but also because Chinese consumers were then very poor - per capita GDP was USD 318 in 1990, compared to USD 10,262 in 2019. China's exports rose steadily in the 1990s, then rocketed up after the country joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, where it magically still enjoys the trade benefits of "developing nation status" despite being the second largest economy in the world. When calculated by purchasing power parity, China IS the largest economy in the world. But the great export boom slowed down as Chinese wages rose and the government allowed the renminbi to appreciate. From 2015 to 2019, exports were on average matched by imports, with the result that net exports contributed nothing to GDP growth. (It goes without saying that 2020 was a very unusual year, when China's trade surplus returned with a bang because of coronavirus-related demand and the suspension of tourism. Both of these factors are temporary.) The special term for this new emphasis is "dual circulation" (双循环), which Xi Jinping introduced at a Politburo meeting on 14 May 2020. It is now a common element in the policy lexicon. It means that the government wants to encourage production for domestic markets as well as for export markets. In order to do so, the government intends not only to expand domestic demand, but also to build a unified national market, upgrade supply chains, establish a modern logistics system, and strengthen property rights (including intellectual property). The focus on domestic demand is long overdue. Private consumption accounted for only 39% of China's GDP in 2019, compared to 66% for the US, so there is plenty of room to encourage consumption. The third big change in priorities is related to meeting the goal of peak carbon emissions by 2030, on the way to carbon neutrality by 2060. This goal will require the restructuring of China's power generation system, because at present more than 60% of electricity is generated by coal-fired power stations. It will also require the restructuring of energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium, cement, and plastics. All three big changes in priorities have clear implications for the long-term investment outlook. The new focus on high-tech and domestic consumption implies that less government and private money will go to infrastructure and mega-projects, hence China will have less need for steel, cement, and other building materials, therefore less demand for Australian iron ore and metallurgical coal. Housing growth will remain strong for the time being, but China's likely population decline will create headwinds for the housing sector. The goal of peak carbon emissions by 2030 speaks for itself - China will import less thermal coal. The implications for the world economy and Australian exports are equally clear. China will be using less construction materials and energy minerals, so any global resources boom will not be running on coal and iron ore, but on the essential inputs for renewable power generation plants and electric vehicles - e.g. copper, nickel, lithium, and rare earths.
With the U.S. importing 80% of its rare earth elements from China (14 of the 35 most critical types such as those used in the F-35 are not able to be produced in the U.S.) Australia may have found itself a new resources export market... in the United States. Funds operated by this manager: |
22 Mar 2021 - Manager Insights | Laureola Advisors
|
Damen Purcell, COO of Australian Fund Monitors, speaks with Alex Lee, Director of Investor Relations at Laureola Advisors. Laureola are a specialist investment management firm offering conservative, risk mitigated exposure to life settlements. The firm was established in 2012 to take advantage of the opportunities in the Life Settlements asset class which produces attractive non-correlated long-term returns. Since inception the fund has returned 16.1% with a standard deviation of just 5.6%.
|
19 Mar 2021 - Manager Insights | Laureola Advisors
|
Damen Purcell, COO of Australian Fund Monitors, speaks with Alex Lee, Director of Investor Relations at Laureola Advisors. Laureola are a specialist investment management firm offering conservative, risk mitigated exposure to life settlements. The firm was established in 2012 to take advantage of the opportunities in the Life Settlements asset class which produces attractive non-correlated long-term returns. Since inception the fund has returned 16.1% with a standard deviation of just 5.6%.
|
19 Mar 2021 - Is this the global macro landmine no one is talking about?
|
Is this the global macro landmine no one is talking about? Scott Williams, FiftyOne Capital 1 March 2021 While all eyes are on the recent rise in yields, the debate has largely been centered around inflation expectations and how far the Fed will actually let inflation run before raising rates. While all this is all very interesting and sounds smart and logical, there is a much more concerning issue, deep within the technical plumbing of money markets, that equity traders are mostly unaware of. On February 23rd 2021, testifying before congress, Jay Powell was asked the following question, and his answer, although somewhat vague, should have warranted a much more intense interrogation. Question: Senator Rounds: It would appear Congress is going to create even more bottlenecks in our financial plumbing by flooding the economy with about $1.9 trillion in new money, that banks will have to hold capital against as soon as the treasury starts writing the checks. My question is would you agree that it makes sense to seriously consider extending the SLR exclusion, given the other measures the Fed and Congress are taking to facilitate our economy's recovery?
The supplementary leverage ratio, or SLR, requires banks with more than $250 billion of assets to maintain an extra cushion of high-quality capital against their total assets. Banks must maintain a minimum 3% ratio against their total leverage exposure. The ratio is 5% for the largest bank holding companies. In April 2020, the Fed allowed U.S. Treasury securities and deposits held by commercial banks at Federal Reserve Banks to be excluded from the calculation of total leverage exposure for purposes of the supplementary leverage ratio. This exclusion however, expires on March 31st 2021. And, why does this matter? Its all related to the Treasury's General Account, the TGA, which is essentially the governments bank account that holds the proceeds of selling T-bills. The proceeds are a liability on the government balance sheet and the funds are supposed to be spent on government bills, stimulus payments and anything they need to fund. Former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin allowed the account to skyrocket to $1.6 trillion. To put this into perspective, the account generally held ~$5bn prior to 2008, and more recently between ~$150bn on average. Current Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen recently outlined plans to reduce the TGA account (remember it is a liability) from $1.6trillion to $800 billion by the end of March, and then further to $500 billion by the end of June. That's a whopping $1.1trillion of liquidity that is being unleashed into the system within a very short time frame. So big, it has been dubbed a "tsunami of liquidity" into the economy. Yellen needs the account to be at a more manageable size for several reasons, the first being she needs it to meet 2019's debt ceiling requirements for holding no more than $120 billion in the TGA by August this year. But whatever the reason, the cash needs to be deployed somewhere, and the first stop is usually the banking system. Banks have previously been able to absorb this liquidity and allow their reserve accounts at the Fed to grow dramatically. But commercial banks currently hold $3.4 trillion in reserves and they probably don't want to hold anymore earnings almost 0% interest while inflating their leverage ratios to uncomfortable levels which will only limit lending and risk another repo rate market explosion. This comes at a time where there is a shortage of collateral that the banks can find in the market to hold against a wave of cash. The Treasury has been reducing its T-bill issuance in order to extend the duration of its debt portfolio and take advantage of the lower longer term interest rates. Banks simply cant comply with the SLR requirement. So Fed Powell has one clear option, extend the temporary exemption of bank reserves and treasury securities from the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) calculation and/or increase the leverage ratio. But, as explained above, there is no incentive for the banks to participate. In fact, releasing so much liquidity into the system lies another problem, money market rates are already trading close to 0%. This sort of influx can take short-term rates into negative territory. BAML bond strategists like Mark Cabana thinks the Fed will have to raise IOER (interest on excess reserves) to keep rates from slipping below zero. This would be a "technical" rate rise and not one associated with any kind of change in its policy stance, but how would it be viewed by the Market? The real net effect will be a steeper yield curve, as the long end continues to rally, the short end will be fighting to hold above zero. At the end of the day, its the rate of change that determines how the market views rising rates. And all this is taking place at a time when markets are already nervous about inflation and financial market bubbles. While we all like to sit back and debate on inflation and the rising 10yr yield, we should be more concerned about what is happening at the short end and how steep the curve can go. How will the market react to a IOER rate rise, despite it being strictly technical in nature? How much of this excess liquidity finds its way to the equity market? And what does this mean for the US Dollar? 10yr vs 3mth yields: While 10yr rates are rising, short term rates have been trading lower, the risk is a test of 0%, and potentially negative rates: Funds operated by this manager: |
18 Mar 2021 - Six key reasons to invest in a managed Fund
|
Six Key Reasons to Invest in a Managed Fund APSEC Funds Management March 2021 The share market is a popular investment choice for many Australians looking to grow or protect their wealth over time. According to the ASX Australian Investor Study 2020 (1), of 19.4 million adult Australians, 46% (9 million) Australian adults currently hold investments other than their primary residence, with another 900,000 planning to begin investing in the next 12 months. Of these investors, more than half are direct, or DIY shareholders. The growth of available investment research and the decreasing cost of executing trades has made this an accessible and potentially lucrative pathway for investors of all experience levels. The other major share market investment pathway, for both individuals and institutions, is the managed funds industry, which held $3,828.1b billion total funds under management in September 2020, as per the latest ABS industry data. (2) Managed funds allow you as an individual to pool your money together with the money of multiple investors, to purchase units in the fund, and a professional Investment Manager then buys and sells shares or other assets (property, cash, bonds etc) on your behalf. The value of units you own in a managed fund start with the amount of money you invest at the value of each individual unit at the time of purchase, along with any additional investments or redemptions you make. The unit price then fluctuates along with the underlying investments, and the value of your holdings become a function of the success of the fund's investment performance. All of the decisions on what, when and how much to buy or sell are made by the Investment Manager, so you should conduct careful research up front to choose a Fund with an investment strategy that suits your needs, which will be documented in their Product Disclosure Statement (PDS). So why choose a managed fund rather than doing it yourself?
1) Expertise of the managed fund team As with any profession, experience matters. A prime reason many investors choose managed funds rather than DIY to is have a dedicated investment professional managing their future prosperity, as they would have an accountant manage their taxes, or a lawyer managing their legal affairs. Fund managers are strictly regulated by ASIC and other oversight bodies, especially in the wake of the 2019 Royal Commission (3) which led to increased oversight and accountability for the financial services industry, and extra protections for investors. Reputable Funds should make it easy for investors to access details on the team that will be managing their investments, and objectively measure their short and long-term results.
2) Access and use of investment grade research While there are a plethora of research reports, tools, websites and other services that can provide share market information, sifting through available data and knowing how to apply what's relevant to your investment objectives is challenging for many investors. Fund managers usually have access to relevant research and maintain professional networks inside and outside their firms that support their investment objectives. APSEC's portfolio leads helped create the powerful share market research and trading platform HALO, which provides a competitive information edge for the fund. The platform is used by thousands of individual and institutional investors for up to date research on over 20,000 global equities, advanced portfolio management tools, and signals to help guide buying and selling decisions. Examples of HALO technical trading indicators used by the Atlantic Pacific Australian Equity Fund, October 2020.
3) Diversification and risk management Diversification is a fundamental principle of prudent investing - spreading your cash across a range of assets, asset classes, geographies etc to reduce the impact of any one investment moving against you. Australian investors would typically select from a mix of local shares, international shares, property, bonds, and cash in a balanced portfolio. There are also more complex products like equity derivatives (such as options or futures), Initial Product Offering (IPO's) share buy-backs or placements, etc, that may not be offered to, or cost-effective for individual investors. Managed funds usually have the resources to hold a larger number of stocks than individuals, and/or a range of other complementary products to help advance the Fund's investment strategies. Investors should take care to research the Fund's investment mandate and asset allocation, to ensure they align with your own investment goals, whether that's higher risks for higher returns, or more stable investments designed to preserve capital or pay a reliable income stream. The APAEF's long/short investment mandate allows us to invest in all of the products mentioned above, however in practice our short positions (i.e. Positions whereby we seek to profit from downward price movements) are mostly S&P/ASX 200 SPI futures contracts, designed to reduce risk and shelter the Fund from large capital drawdowns that the market can experience. This core focus on risk management has helped the APAEF smooth out the impacts of market volatility over the long run, while still generating above-market returns. As you can see in the risk statistics chart below, the largest drawdown the fund has experienced in more than 7 years since inception was -7.1% while the largest drawdown for the S&P/ASX 200 in the same time period was -26.7%. The Alpha value shows the outperformance of the Fund vs the benchmark S&P/ASX 200, annualised at 1.1% per annum since inception (net of all fees). Annualised returns since inception in June 2013 of the Fund are 9.3% p.a.* vs the S&P/ASX200 Accumulation Index returning 8.2% p.a. as at December 31, 2020.
*Source: ASPEC Investor Monthly Report, December 2020
4) The ability to start small and build holdings incrementally and consistently Managed funds allow you to start at a relatively lower threshold than some comparable investment options, like property or bonds, and then build the value of your holdings over time through ad-hoc or structured top-ups. The APAEF, for example has a current minimum investment amount of just $10,000, and a minimum additional investment amount of $1,000, making it accessible for most investors. In contrast, investing in property can require a minimum deposit of up to 20% of the property's value, as well as substantial on-costs like stamp duty, inspection, conveyancing and other legal fees, creating a substantial barrier to entry for new buyers.
5) Focussed investment Emotions and attitude play a large part in successfully navigating the share market, and can be a significant challenge for individuals in developing and sticking to a long-term investment plan. Aside from maintaining the discipline for continually researching the market and maintaining portfolio hygiene, high levels of media noise and information saturation can lead to emotive short term behaviours, such as the well-studied syndrome of performance chasing: - Fear of missing out on a stock that's climbing fast can cause you to buy in at a high point of the valuation, with limited upside potential. - Panic at a sudden drop in one of your shares can cause you to sell down at a low point, crystalising your losses with no possibility of a recovery in value. - Excitement caused by a stock you hold that's doing well can cause you buy more at a high point, rather than prudently taking some of the profits and rebalancing your holdings in line with your larger portfolio and investment objectives. Fund managers are paid to professionally manage your money in line with their stated investment mandate, replacing the emotions that can lead to irrational behaviours with systematic and disciplined decisions deigned to optimise long-term returns, rather than short-term reactions.
6) Time saving and ease of reporting Finally, a significant reason for choosing managed funds rather than DIY is the time involved in market research, portfolio management and administration tasks like tax reporting Researching stocks to trade can be both intellectually satisfying and potentially lucrative. However, maintaining this research across a balanced portfolio of 10-15 or more stocks, and potentially multiple portfolios can become a significant impost. Consider your own situation - if you like to be hands on and are happy to commit the time needed to do justice to your investments, DIY may suit. If, however, your work, family or other commitments don't leave enough scope for adequate research and portfolio management, a managed fund may be an attractive option. References: 1) ASX Australian Investor Study 2020: https://www2.asx.com.au/blog/australian-investor-study 2) ABS, Managed Funds, Australia: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/managed-funds-australia/latest-release 3) Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry: https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/royal-commission-misconduct-banking-superannuation-and-financial-services-industry Disclaimer: *Fund Returns are prepared on a redemption unit price basis after management and performance fees inclusive of GST. Distributions are assumed to be re-invested at the mid unit price. Individual tax is not taken into account in deriving Fund Returns. In calculating the NTA, the Atlantic Pacific Australian Equity Fund ("Fund") asset values have been calculated using unaudited price and income estimates for the month being reported. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. APSEC Funds Management Pty Ltd ACN 152 440 723 (APSECFM) is a corporate authorised representative (CAR: 411859) of APSEC Compliance and Administration Pty Limited (AFSL 345 443 ACN 142 148 409). APSECFM is the investment manager of the Atlantic Pacific Australian Equity Fund (ARSN 158 861 155) (Fund). This document has been prepared and issued by APSECFM. Equity Trustees Limited ("Equity Trustees") (ABN 46 004 031 298), AFSL 240975, is the Responsible Entity of the Fund. Equity Trustees is a subsidiary of EQT Holdings Limited (ABN 22 607 797 615), a publicly listed company on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:EQT). A Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) for the Fund is available at www.eqt.com.au/insto and can be obtained by calling APSEC on +612 8356 9356. The PDS should be considered in deciding whether to acquire, or to continue to hold, an investment in the Fund. This material is for general information purposes only. It is not an offer or a recommendation to purchase or sell any security and is not intended to substitute for the Fund's PDS which will outline the risks involved and other relevant information. It is not intended to take the place of professional advice and you should not take action on specific issues in reliance on this information. Please note that past investment performance is not a reliable indicator of future investment performance. Equity Trustees do not express any view about the accuracy or completeness of information that is not prepared by Equity Trustees and no liability is accepted for any errors it may contain. The performance of the Fund or the repayment of any investor's capital is not guaranteed. This information has not been prepared taking into account your objectives, financial situation or particular needs. This document may contain information provided directly by third parties. To the maximum extent permitted by law, APSECFM excludes liability for material provided by third parties. APSECFM does not warrant that such information is accurate, reliable, complete or up-to-date, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, disclaims all liability of APSECFM and its associates. APSECFM believes that the information contained in this document is accurate when issued. To the maximum extent permitted by law, APSECFM excludes liability for any loss or damage arising as a result of reliance placed on the contents of this document. HALO is an analytical tool developed and owned by HALO Technologies Pty Ltd (ABN: 54 623 830 866) (HALO Tech) a Corporate Authorised Representative (CAR: 1261916) of Amalgamated Australian Investment Solutions Pty Ltd (ABN: 61 123 680 106. AFSL: 314 614) (AAIS) and a related party to ASPEC FM. HALO only contains factual and forecast information. Information presented or extracted from HALO should not be considered advice or a recommendation. Any forecast information relates to the intent, belief and current expectations of various analysts via Factset with respect to the performance of the respective stocks based on historical and projected performance data. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. While all due care has been used in the preparation of the forecast information, actual results may vary in a materially positive or negative manner. Forecasts and hypothetical examples are subject to uncertainty and contingencies outside of HALO Tech's or AAIS's control. If you would like more detail in relation to HALO please contact APSEC FM / or your Adviser. A copy of the privacy policy and FSG can be found here www.apsec.com.au. Funds operated by this manager: |
