The Dividend Cafe - Market Outlook w/ David L. Bahnsen - Zoom Replay - January 25, 2021

Episode Date: January 26, 2021

Strong discussion on the market happenings shaping the lives of investors with David Bahnsen, Managing Director and CIO of The Bahnsen Group and Scott Gamm of Strategy Voice and Associates Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

Welcome to the Dividend Cafe, weekly market commentary focused on dividends in your portfolio and dividends in your understanding of economic life. Welcome to the Bonson Group's national video call, Market Outlook with David L. Bonson, January 25th, 2021. Our host for today's call is David Bonson, the Bonson Group's founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer, and Scott Gamm of Strategy Voice Communications. For this call, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session. Please send your questions for that Q&A session to questions at thebonsongroup.com. I will now turn your call over to your hosts. Gentlemen, you may begin. group.com. I will now turn your call over to your hosts. Gentlemen, you may begin. Thanks so much, Erica, as always, and welcome everyone joining the call here. I think our last call was almost three weeks ago because we did a special one with the kind of kickoff of 2021

and kind of that big picture yearly forecast subject. And so that was in the middle of that week. And now here we are. And it's kind of hard to believe we're already almost to the end of January. I'm going to turn it over to my partner in these endeavors, Scott Gamm, who's going to drive us through a discussion today on a number of market-oriented things and where we are and our perspective on stuff. And I think we'll kind of wrap up a little bit shorter than normal today, but we'll see what kind of questions come in. To that end, feel free to send questions. As we're going through live, they will get to Scott, questions at thebonsongroup.com. And Eric, I'm assuming that we have our people sending those on to Scott because I'm not doing it. So here we are. Scott,

the mic is yours. Well, David, thank you so much. Great to be with you as always. And like you mentioned, this is our second call of the new year, but actually our first call during the new Biden administration. A lot has happened since we spoke on this broadcast a couple of weeks ago. And I'm just curious how you're feeling about markets right now, you know, about a week into the new Biden administration. Well, most of my thoughts on markets right now, like kind of shorter term stuff, people who have read the last two dividend cafes and who read this coming dividend cafe this Friday will be able to tell that my mind is much more in a longer term framework right now than what I expect the markets to do this week or next month or what

have you. But that's actually true most of the time. But, you know, to the extent that there have been various market impacting issues and that there are questions around the very present state of affairs, not to mention the fact that on a daily basis, we have new capital on behalf of clients that either new capital for incumbent clients or new clients to our firm altogether. for incumbent clients or new clients to our firm altogether. And so that shorter term consideration is still relevant when it comes down to the deployment. And, and so in that short term box, there's nothing that I think is more relevant than, than just the kind of concerns and questions around valuations. You know, and questions around valuations. There's no question that things are harder to deploy at certain market multiples than they are at cheaper multiples. And yet, those who try to

use valuation as a timing mechanism have not done very well. And that reality is kind of always jinxing people in their attempt to do so, I think. From a policy standpoint, though, I believe that we mostly know what to expect. I believe that there was a lot of telegraphing as to what the agenda was. There are certainly some things that in the weeds could go one way or the other, but that's kind of the issue with the 50-50 Senate that you don't know exactly how much they're going to turn this knob up or that knob down. But we know that all of the sausage making legislatively around policy is going to require

some degree of both sides being on board. It's going to be difficult to ram anything through at all. So short term, I'd say that we continue to just look to the valuation realities of what we're buying. And then I think also on a short term basis is the realities about the economy. And I'm going to have today in our DC today that will come out after the market closes here on Monday, an awful lot of COVID information that I went through over the weekend, updated charts, updated material. I don't think most people know that Boston just decided to reopen restaurants and Chicago just decided to reopen restaurants. And the whole state of California, as of a couple hours ago, just decided to lift the stay-at-home ban. And Baltimore and Washington, D.C. and the state of Michigan have all just decided real recently to reopen indoor dining. And so there are some of these things.

This would very much be in line with what my forecasts have been. But I think that a lot of the areas that have been held down in the economy as limited and easily defined as those have been, I think even those areas now are on a path towards some better restoration. And that's got to be considered a good thing. And we'll look forward to that information later today in DC today. But David, we also just staying with the sort of short-term theme for a moment, we have a lot of earnings coming out this week, especially from big tech companies. And it's interesting because, you know, you and I have talked about for quite some time about how earnings drive markets, but, you know, last time we had earnings season in what, October, you know, it may have been sort of overshadowed by the election. So I'm just curious

if you think this current earnings season is taking on a little bit extra importance in terms of driving the markets. It is, Scott, but not necessarily for that reason that now the election is out of the way where a quarter ago the election was still the big factor. I think it's more interesting in the sense that so many companies beginning in the second quarter as they were reporting on calendar first quarter results, and then again into the next quarter after that, and it has slowly incrementally decreased, but there was almost a complete suffocation of forward guidance. And again, each quarter that's gotten a little bit more and more open, but now it's a pretty big stretch for companies to say they're still unable to provide visibility around forward guidance because I do think there's so

much more clarity than obviously there was nine months ago when, understandably, companies were not in much of a position to share their forecast on a revenue or earnings basis for three months ahead, six months ahead, full year. Now we're expecting and receiving more of that information. And so that is enabling some areas. You know, we just now this morning started to get some consumer staples companies. I'm not going to say any names for our purposes here. But, you know, usually in the first week of earnings, it's primarily financials. And you don't get forward guidance isn't as relevant. Mostly what we were seeing, and it was really bullish for markets and continued what's been

an absolutely violent rally in late 2020 into early 2021 in financials, but you were getting them to be able to recover some of their loan loss reserves. They had taken a hit against earnings for really overstated reserves against perceived or anticipated or possible loan losses. Now, as they realize those losses are going to be significantly less than expected, that money comes back into earnings. And I'm fine with people saying that doesn't count as real earnings because it certainly doesn't other than an accounting level. But see, it didn't count as real losses last year either. So, you know, potato, potato. Ultimately, that's been the picture of financials thus far. And then now with some of the numbers that came this morning, we're getting some of that forward

guidance and we're getting to see year over year organic growth. And I like what I'm seeing thus far on a bottom up basis. But this week and next week are much more substantial. So I'll wait because I don't want to get ahead of ourselves on that. That's going to be a much bigger factor than people continuing to pick out who the appointment and treasury undersecretary of this or that is going to be, or what executive orders the Biden administration signed. Those things are at this point incredibly de minimis in their market impact. Earnings, numbers, and guidance, and organic outlook in corporate America is a far bigger issue for market participants. And I have a couple of policy questions just on the Biden front, but sticking with earnings for

a second, we're also going to get some tech earnings this week. And I just wonder, depending on how those shake out, how that affects the sort of conversation around growth versus value. I know, David, you've been talking about this for years. So I wouldn't include you in whatever conversation might come out of the tech discussion, the tech earnings discussion this week, because you've kind of been ahead of that. But I guess, how are you looking at tech earnings this week? And where do you stand on growth versus value in January 2021? So I think that those are two separate questions for my purposes, because I am not of the opinion that what is driving stock prices in large cap growth is remotely related to earnings. If a company is projected to do $1.07 per share in earnings, and they come in at $1.28, I don't think that has anything to do with it. If that company

is already trading at 60 times earnings and they were trading at 57 times earnings? It's entirely sentiment driven. And so the reason that people who have questions about the space have to be incredibly humble and patient and transparent is predicting when all of a sudden sentiment will shift is nearly impossible. And also just foolish because it's totally speculative. I would never guess when sentiment will shift. I don't see any reason to think large cap growth will start to sell off until sentiment shifts as long as there is a flood of buyers that want to replace prior buyers at even higher valuations,

the whole thing can continue to go. But the notion of the entire space at these valuation levels and at the valuation levels they've been at for quite a while, that one particular earnings quarter is going to move that one way or the other, I don't agree. I think that you could hear some things in the reports that are negative, some concerns about an outlook, some promised deliveries of XYZ widgets that don't come through, some companies that are relying on subscriber growth when they can report really a robust top line. the market likes that, falls off, other words. But all of that is not about people plugging into their models and discounting cash flows out of it, which is the world I live in. They're really impacted by those things to

the extent they affect sentiment. And so I don't have a strong opinion as to when sentiment will shift. But I do have a strong opinion as to any asset class that becomes dependent on sentiment. And it's a bit different than the fundamentalist approach we take as dividend growth investors. And on that note, what can we expect on this topic in Friday's Dividend Cafe, which is your more longer form commentary that comes out every Friday. Yeah. So those who might've seen the last couple of weeks, and I hope a lot of you did, I do believe that the last two weeks represent the major macroeconomic theme that creates sort of the scaffolding that all investing is going to take place within. And I'm addressing that topic of where economic growth is domestically and where inflation, deflation,

tensions and debates are and what that means for investors, how they allocate across stocks and bonds and how it impacts interest rates and so forth and so on. And so it's my opinion and the feedback I've gotten from others as well that I did what I wanted to do in synthesizing these topics into one cohesive topic. That was certainly my intent. If any felt still a bit fuzzy on it after reading it, I'm very happy to answer any questions that come up from that, either here on the call or by email or what have you. But what I want to do this coming week is be more application-oriented. And it's not just going to be in what might seem to some to be kind of armchair economist talk about inflation, deflation, but more taking the realities of markets and this so-called tension between growth and value and evaluating where we are in the cycle and what our expectations

are for people as they build out the investment policy to be executed upon for years to come. And a lot of people, by the way, have an approach of kind of all the above. They don't want to make a call on, well, growth's going to do well here, value's going to do well here. So they just sort of permanently exist with both types of categories in their portfolio. That's far preferable to trying to pick which one top down they think values and do better this year, gross and do better this year. Our view is a little bit agnostic to that in the sense that we are bottom up investors that want to buy companies and want to buy companies based on the generation of free cash flow. And we're sort of permanently cursed with an agnosticism about

what that does to stock prices. And I don't have to be cursed that way. I could lie and tell people, oh, well, based on this and this, it means the stock price will do that. But I would be lying because no one has any idea. And they'd be making it up out of thin air. Forecasting short-term stock prices around the five or six other unknowable stimuli that affect them, I think is very dishonest and I won't do it. What I do want to do, though, is calculate where I believe returns will be as it pertains to investor goals that come out of that approach. And that is tangible when you're in the world of free cash flow and not just trying to guess

on sentiment and multiple expansion and things like that. I don't believe that we are value investors and anti-growth investors. I've never believed it. I do think the way things have shaken out from a sector standpoint over the last couple of years, there are more companies in our universe that are free cash flow generative and distribute free cash flow through the form of growing dividends to shareholders in the bucket that the industry has classified as value versus more growthy. But I also believe there's a lot of companies that are in that quote unquote value bucket that are going to have incredible growth potential

into the future. And so I'm just a bit skeptical on the way these things get classified. And I'm certainly skeptical on trying to build an investment policy around it. I get where it fits from the indexing industry standpoint. So I'm going to unpack all this a bit more in this Friday's Dividend Cafe. But for clients that are saying, OK, what does this mean to my portfolio? But for clients that are saying, okay, well, what does this mean to my portfolio? I would suggest that there is a good outlook for where we are in the cycle for companies that have yet to be fully appreciated because of what they possess, what their value proposition is as an investment has been just underwhelming. People are not interested in free cash flow when there has been all the attention into momentum.

History has kind of taught us that those things don't last forever. And so from that vantage point, I feel very good about how we're positioned, but I always feel good about how we're positioned. But I always feel good about how we're positioned long-term. And that's really what my job is. Well, and while we're talking about client portfolios, I'm reminded of something you told me recently, David, which is every stock you own for clients, you like it regardless of who's president. And we talked earlier about kind of how you're feeling about the new administration. And I'm just wondering if you can unpack that as well, because there's a lot of commentary out there, you know, buy this and sell that now that we have a new administration. And, you know, I would imagine that could be a dangerous approach for folks following that.

Yes. You know, Scott, you've kind of summarized my position really well. And I just want to provide anecdotal confirmation as to why I feel the way I feel that I think is somewhat indisputable. And forgive me if you've heard all this before, but I think I just recently shared this with Varney on Fox Business. And it was a part of my thesis in the election white paper we had back in September. But I do think it's fair just to kind of point out on a high level, it seems as if the Trump administration would be really good from a policy standpoint for financials and energy.

They had a deregulatory bias in their worldview. They brought in pro-energy, regulatory bias in their worldview. They brought in pro-energy, pro-fossil industry, and on the financial side, anti-regulation, former Goldman Sachs type people that were there in Treasury Department and in National Economic Council. And both those sectors performed very poorly during the Trump administration. And I don't think that anyone was wrong that the administration had that favorability bias towards those sectors. It just didn't translate into stock performance. And the inverse of that is equally true.

I think there was rather heated rhetoric against Silicon Valley. There was a whole lot of extrinsic factors and tensions with some of the key companies, some of the key people. And those companies, their stock prices elevated significantly during those years. So that's one example under the Trump administration, both on a good and a bad. But I think that I could say the same thing about any number of industries in any administration. And as a matter of fact, so far here, since the November 3rd election results were clear, going back over the last 60, 90 days, the two top performing sectors are financials

and energy. That's with the Trump administration losing. And that's with the Biden administration coming in, who most people would say appears to be coming in to put up more roadblocks against the sectors. So I guess people could say, okay, well, I guess we had it all wrong, but you didn't have it wrong. What you had wrong is the fact that those things are actually the real driver of these prices to begin with. The contrarian realities of investing are gospel. You just don't make money by believing in the same thing everyone else already knows

that has clearly already been priced in and thinking that that's how you're going to go about buying stocks or selling stocks in your portfolio. So my view is that it is my job and the team, the job of my investment committee at the Bonson Group to hold companies that we want to hold regardless of who's president and not believe that we can game a stock price based on some of those political things that move around. Now, that said, are there circumstances that tactically change the outlook for individual companies or individual sectors more tangibly? Of course, there could be regulatory interventions that are a surprise to the market. Regulatory interventions that are not a surprise to the market are a completely different story.

I'm going to make an argument in tomorrow's D.C. Today. I'm going to make an argument in tomorrow's DC Today. And the only reason why I'm not doing it today is because I've already written such a long DC Today with a lot of COVID updates that I don't want to get it lost. And so I'm going to have this covered tomorrow in the energy oil section. I'm going to make the case that this executive order that was signed last week in the first day or two of the Biden administration that is putting a 60-day ban on more drilling on federal lands for oil and gas is incredibly bullish for oil and gas sector.

And so I'll leave you in suspense as to why that is, but it is my view. And policy and markets are filled with apparent paradoxes all the time that are nowhere near as paradoxical as we may think. Well, and that's a perfect segue to something else I wanted to talk to you about, which was, you know, historically, when you look at stock market data over the very long term, it doesn't exactly matter who's president, right? I mean, that's, I think, another one of those paradoxical examples that people might find surprising. Yeah, I think that if you ever get someone elected president who maybe worked on

Wall Street forever and worked at Goldman and every day wakes up and waves a flag for free markets and stock market forever, And while that person's president, you have a Fed that is significantly tightening money supply and tightening monetary policy and raising interest rates. I can assure you that the latter is going to overshadow the former and its impact on markets. And vice versa. If we ever elected explicit socialists who just wanted all kinds of government control and regulation and higher taxes and all these things that you would think markets would hate. And if at the same time that was happening, you had significant accommodation in the credit markets and even looser monetary policies, I think that

would probably be a far bigger factor too. So it isn't just that markets generally do well regardless of who's president. That's all true, but that's largely true because our presidential terms are usually eight years, at least four years. And we just have markets go up more than they go down, which is why they're investable assets. So over four and eight year periods, you're generally going to get pretty good returns. It's totally nonpartisan. But to the extent that one is kind of looking for what is a causation, not merely a correlation. I think that various extrinsic factors like monetary policy, like technological innovation, and also where you start off at, a recovery. You look at the market after World War II going up into the 1960s.

I guess someone could make an argument that Truman and Eisenhower and the Kennedy administrations were also incredibly pro-market or whatnot. But what that period of American history shared was starting off at a very low valuation and a post-war economic boom that was totally historical. And then on the other side, when the Bush administration, George W. the son came in to very, very high valuations and then technology busting and ultimately terrorist attacks and things leading into a financial crisis, it's not to say that he did nothing wrong. There were no policies that were bad. And it's not to say everything was good. It's just to say it really

almost wouldn't have mattered who was president with those kind of external factors going on. It's pretty hard for markets to enjoy that kind of extrinsic climate. And so that cuts both ways. And again, if someone wants me to say something really bad about a certain president they don't like or something really good about a president they do like, I'm happy to do it. But I'm not wrong on this as to the role that presidents play with markets. It's very minimal. Well, and on that note, I guess one thing people might be wondering within this subject,

and it's a pretty big one, tax rates. What is your outlook on tax rates, especially as it pertains to the tax rates that investors care about, capital gains, things like that? Well, we have never had, and I don't believe we ever will, investment tax rates go up in the middle of a year retroactively. And so to the extent that there is a possibility of higher capital gain or dividend taxes in the future, it would be just that in the future. I see no scenario in which those will happen for the 2021 calendar year. Do I think it'll happen for 2022? I don't, but I certainly think it's possible. A lot of it will depend on the state of the economy a year from now, and a lot of it will depend on the political landscape for the midterms. Generally speaking, raising taxes in an election

year is not always a great idea. And that's one of the things I wrote about a lot after November 3rd was the impact of how tight margins got, not just in the Senate, you know, we're 50-50, I think we would all consider to be pretty tight, but in the House as well. And those are every two-year elections. So there's also an ideological thing here where we heard soon-to-be Secretary Yellen say last week, I heard with my own ears President Obama say this a couple of times in a couple of administrations ago, that there was a recognition when the economy is distressed or trying to come out of a moment of damage and in need of some repair, that that may not be the best time to go tax capital. So I don't think anyone listening doesn't know how I feel. I don't care. I'm happy

to share it. I obviously am opposed to them raising investment taxes on capital. I want more capital formation. I want more capital creation that can be used to build wealth in our country and generate economic growth and more opportunity for all income tiers. But there's people who disagree with me on that as a matter of policy, and that's all totally fine and legitimate, and I enjoy those discussions very much. But I am only answering your questions to what I anticipate happening. And I think it's possible we get an increase in investment tax in 2022, effective for 22. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. And then I think where those taxes end up going by the time it's all said and done, if they do do it, are going to be very, very limited in who they end up impacting just simply because the politics of it right now are not good to have capital gain taxes go up for people at $250,000 of income or even married couple of $400,000 of income, recognizing this applies to people's real estate and things like that.

That's a little tricky. So maybe they do something, you know, at a much, much higher income threshold, and it's more symbolic than actual revenue generating. But for now, I don't, my biggest concern on various policy ramifications to markets is not around tax policy at this time. Yeah. And on that note, you know, similar to kind of note, similar to how do you position your portfolio in a new administration? I feel like we're also seeing chatter about get out of tech because tax rates are going up, stuff like that. And I think that just speaks to your broader point about the nuances of such a policy decision and then having that long-term outlook as well. I think so. And I think that what you may be referring to is people have big capital gains and they're

trying to time when they're going to take a gain. This quarter, some people running in 2020 and then folks maneuvering things around, around estate tax planning and so forth. And look, if someone's able to get it all right and they do some planning in the present tense that based on things that happen in the future end up benefiting them and their family, I think that's great. But I don't believe there's anyone who can do that right now without a lot of risk. And I've learned this throughout my career because I've actually made mistakes in this regard.

Trying to guess where the policy ball is going in the future and making investment decisions around specifically what you anticipate will happen legislatively is very, very tricky. And you have to kind of get lucky and you have to understand what you're up against in terms of the odds. The sausage making on Capitol Hill is not easy to forecast. And that's true when it's a 57-43 Senate, let alone a 50-50 Senate. Well, David, is there anything else on your mind when it comes to markets or any other thoughts as we move to the end of our discussion? Oh, there's always lots of things on my mind, my friend. But I think we've covered some of the basics. If other questions come in, of course, I'm happy to field them. But right now, I believe that we're into a position in the economy. If I take a step back from the stock and bond market for a second and just look to where we're going economically,

I understand there's been a lot of discussion about hiccups, some of which has been not really very smart discussion, some of which has been pretty spot on. But there's been a lot of commentary on the vaccine logistics and implementation. And through all of that, you know, we blinked and the total amount of administered vaccines in the country went from 10 million to now here we are today. It was 21.8 million at four o'clock this morning. So I assume it's past 22 million. You know, when President Biden made the comment that he was going to try to get 100 million vaccines done in his first 100 days, he wasn't saying it as a joker. He was saying it to be aspirational, like we're going to reach to

go get it done. I don't think he could have known when he said it that we're already vaccinating over a million people a day now. So in fact, that pace that he was sort of aspiring to would be a slowdown from where we actually have now gotten to. So I think that the vaccine is getting out there and there's, you know, some states have done better than others and there's been some challenges, but my point being it's happening. It needs to continue to happen. It will continue to happen. That's all with the Pfizer and Moderna treatments thus far. I think that we are within about 10 to 11 days from a very possible new announcement that will add a whole nother dimension to vaccine distribution. In the meantime, we've already seen the policy winds apparently have really started to shift

quite quickly. And you're going to get more and more reopenings, more and more loosening of economic activity. Do we get back to 100% of economic life the way it was pre-COVID by April? Of course not. But the difference between 80% and 70%, or the difference between 60% and 40%, these are huge differences. And all of that now represents a tailwind into the economy. differences. And all of that now represents a tailwind into the economy. And the one thing I would add to that is most of that tailwind in the economy is probably reflected in stock prices now. Markets had been spending a lot of 2020, and here we are now in the new year, digesting that reality. I share it not so much for what it means to stock prices, but what it means to our expectations about economic life. I'm very excited for it. Well, and to that point, there are

obviously some new strains of this virus that are emerging that may be more deadly or may spread faster. At the same time, reports that the vaccines may be effective in immunity against these strains too. Seems like the market is not paying much attention to these new COVID strains that are popping up. No. And then the market is probably seeing how hospitalizations are collapsing and cases are collapsing and positivity rates collapsing. And look, there's been a very big disconnect between the market and a lot of the headlines. And what I consider to be some stuff has not been very helpful to our seriousness as a society in preparing for and dealing with COVID. Market's done a pretty good job tuning a lot of that stuff out. So there's definitely unknowns, there's definitely uncertainties, there's definitely risk,

but really very, very clearly identifiable risks that can be focused on as opposed to the days of uncertainty where we didn't know where to target our risk mitigation efforts. where we didn't know where to target our risk mitigation efforts. And that's the most important aspect to markets. But today's DC Today, I really encourage people to read through some of the updated COVID data, just really useful material from the CDC, from Johns Hopkins, from various quite objective data sources that provide a lot of information I think is very useful. And one of the things I focus on, and this is all after this new strain, even with the strains that you're referring to, the mutation that had made its way around UK and increased a lot of

positivity tests, is the just complete collapsing of the mortality rate from hospitalizations. So not just the total mortality rate, which the case fatality rate has been very, very low for a long time, because cases have gone so much higher from asymptomatic and mostly healthy type people. And so that brings the percentage down that leads to fatality as a percentage. That brings the percentage down that leads to fatality as a percentage. In that universe of severity where people are having to be hospitalized for COVID, how many of those people are resulting in a lethal fatality? It's really dropped quite a bit. I have the charts and everything demonstrating that.

I don't share that because of its economic impact or market reality. I share that because I just think it's wonderful news. And I haven't been overly impressed with the availability of good news. And so there has been some. There's been a lot of bad news, too, but people have access to that. I'll shut up now. Well, no, it's important information. And David, I think we'll obviously continue to follow all these trends in both these calls,

but also on DC Today and in Dividend Cafe. And I'll toss it back to you for any closing thoughts. Thanks as always, Scott. I appreciate it. I'm going to get back to my desk and finish up what will be a very busy second half of the day. So I appreciate you guys joining us on the call.

I hope we've answered your questions. I'm happy to follow up with anything I've said. Always just shoot me a note and I will respond. In the meantime, read Dividend Cafe this coming Friday for more on the great growth value discussion. And Erica, I'll let you close us out. Thank you. This concludes today's call.

Thanks for attending. The Bonson Group is a group of investment professionals registered with Hightower Securities LLC, member FINRA and SIPC, with Hightower Advisors LLC, a registered investment advisor with the SEC. Securities are offered through Hightower Securities LLC. Advisory services are offered through Hightower Advisors LLC. This is not an offer to buy or sell securities. Thank you. The investment opportunities referenced herein may not be suitable for all investors. All data and information referenced herein are from sources believed to be reliable.

Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices, or other information contained in this research is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. The Bonser Group and Hightower shall not in any way be liable for claims and make no expressed or implied representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the data and other information, or for statements or errors contained in or omissions from the obtained data and information referenced herein. The data and information are provided as of the date referenced. Such data and information are subject to change without notice. This document was created for informational purposes only.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the Bonson Group and do not represent those of Hightower Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates. Thank you.