The Upside: November market moves with “Quant Boss” Denise Chisholm

00:00.000 --> 00:05.438

Subtitles are AI-Generated.

 

00:06.706 --> 00:08.541

Hello and welcome to The Upside.

 

00:08.541 --> 00:12.712

I'm Nicole Correale. The holiday season is officially in full swing, and

 

00:12.712 --> 00:17.117

with all the joy, lights, and peppermint lattes comes a flurry of spending.

 

00:17.117 --> 00:21.021

While kids are busy asking for the latest toys and gadgets, investors are

 

00:21.021 --> 00:23.089

asking a different kind of question.

 

00:23.089 --> 00:27.193

Does holiday shopping actually tell us anything meaningful about where markets

 

00:27.193 --> 00:31.331

are headed? Our next guest says, historically, not really.

 

00:31.331 --> 00:33.033

So what does matter?

 

00:33.033 --> 00:36.936

What should we be watching? And how should investors think about positioning

 

00:36.936 --> 00:41.508

around the season? To walk us through the data, the nuance, and maybe

 

00:41.508 --> 00:45.912

just a few myths along the way, we're joined by the always fantastic Denise

 

00:45.912 --> 00:49.015

Chisholm, Fidelity Director of Quantitative Market Strategy.

 

00:49.015 --> 00:51.017

Welcome, Denise. Welcome.

 

00:51.017 --> 00:52.952

Thank you very much for having me.

 

00:52.952 --> 00:56.956

Of course, as always a pleasure to have you, and I'm so excited to be hosting

 

00:56.956 --> 01:00.794

this one with you. So, Denise, let's start with the economic picture.

 

01:00.794 --> 01:04.464

We're hearing a lot about this K-shaped economy and this divergence where

 

01:04.464 --> 01:08.134

higher income households still appear willing to spend while lower income

 

01:08.134 --> 01:10.870

households are cutting back. How do you interpret that?

 

01:10.870 --> 01:15.008

And is that a sign of a real stress or simply a normalisation after

 

01:15.008 --> 01:17.110

a few unusual years?

 

01:17.110 --> 01:19.679

Yeah, so let's start with the aggregate economy, right?

 

01:19.679 --> 01:23.516

So if you add up all the consumption dollars in the US economy and you look at

 

01:23.516 --> 01:27.520

it on a year on year basis, we definitely have seen a slowdown, and

 

01:27.520 --> 01:29.689

we are not seeing strong growth at all.

 

01:29.689 --> 01:33.827

So we've seen a slowdown from let's call it 3 ish percent consumption

 

01:33.827 --> 01:36.796

growth to the mid two consumption growth.

 

01:36.796 --> 01:40.867

So that is a market slowdown, and that is below median levels historically,

 

01:40.867 --> 01:43.937

meaning that consumption is not strong.

 

01:43.937 --> 01:47.907

So there is not the dynamism in terms of the US economy that we

 

01:47.907 --> 01:52.145

have seen coming out of the COVID pandemic and even coming out like later

 

01:52.178 --> 01:56.950

in the financial crisis. That said, it's also not in contractionary

 

01:56.950 --> 02:00.954

shape. We like what my kids call we're sort of in the mid range.

 

02:00.954 --> 02:03.356

It's just it's growing fine.

 

02:03.356 --> 02:06.626

It's not contracting, but it's certainly not robust.

 

02:06.626 --> 02:10.797

And you hit on the trend within that consumption, which looks fine,

 

02:10.797 --> 02:13.833

which is it's really a tale of two consumers.

 

02:13.833 --> 02:17.937

But part of that is very much renormalization.

 

02:17.937 --> 02:21.908

So yes, you have seen wage growth slow more rapidly

 

02:21.908 --> 02:26.079

for lower end or lower income consumers, but it's coming

 

02:26.079 --> 02:30.150

out of a very unique circumstance, which for the first time, you know, you can

 

02:30.150 --> 02:33.520

calculate it a bunch of different ways, but really in much of the data that I

 

02:33.520 --> 02:38.091

look at, for the first time in 2022, coming out of the pandemic,

 

02:38.091 --> 02:41.628

you actually saw lower income wage growth.

 

02:41.628 --> 02:45.298

Be much, much faster than higher income wage growth.

 

02:45.298 --> 02:49.302

So, some of what we are seeing now, if you just hyperfocus on the last six

 

02:49.302 --> 02:52.639

months, is just a renormalization of that.

 

02:52.639 --> 02:54.974

So, and don't confuse nominal and real.

 

02:54.974 --> 02:58.978

So, nominal wage growth is slowing, but inflation is slowing

 

02:58.978 --> 03:03.283

along with it. So, some of what people focus on in nominal doesn't

 

03:03.283 --> 03:07.387

necessarily translate to real GDP or real consumption

 

03:07.387 --> 03:11.124

growth. So, to make a long story short, some of what we were seeing in the

 

03:11.124 --> 03:15.061

bifurcated economy is a renormalization.

 

03:15.061 --> 03:19.199

And even though we are seeing slow growth, it's not contractionary growth

 

03:19.199 --> 03:23.536

either, with a lot of potential tailwinds in the pipeline for maybe holiday

 

03:23.536 --> 03:26.706

season and certainly in 2026.

 

03:26.706 --> 03:29.976

So you mentioned something really important there, which is wage growth

 

03:29.976 --> 03:33.980

normalisation. So, how can you walk us through how that dynamic

 

03:33.980 --> 03:37.984

is now normalising and does that make that consumer data

 

03:37.984 --> 03:40.220

harder to read right now?

 

03:40.220 --> 03:43.656

It definitely makes it harder to read in the sense of historical parallels.

 

03:43.656 --> 03:47.193

So if you look back at history, you can look at the Atlanta Fed publishes a

 

03:47.193 --> 03:51.197

great index on quartiles of wage growth within top earners to

 

03:51.197 --> 03:55.168

low earners. And you can see that 2022 is the first instance

 

03:55.168 --> 03:59.339

where you saw a flip-flop in the data, meaning that wage growth grew much

 

03:59.339 --> 04:02.775

more robustly down the income spectrum.

 

04:02.775 --> 04:07.413

Usually you see the same gap applied, but it actually gravitates

 

04:07.413 --> 04:11.751

wider over time. And you saw that flip-flop in 2022.

 

04:11.751 --> 04:15.822

So some of this is a renormalization, which I think is unique in the

 

04:15.822 --> 04:19.759

sense that a lot of times when we evaluate cycles

 

04:19.759 --> 04:23.830

as either investors or economists or strategists,

 

04:23.830 --> 04:27.967

what you look at is the unemployment rate driving that differential.

 

04:27.967 --> 04:30.203

And this all was around.

 

04:30.203 --> 04:34.274

Full employment, meaning that we haven't really seen an escalation

 

04:34.274 --> 04:36.276

in mass joblessness.

 

04:36.276 --> 04:40.913

And that's where you usually get these strange wage growth dynamics.

 

04:40.913 --> 04:45.084

So, in some ways, yes, it is reminiscent of other areas where you

 

04:45.084 --> 04:48.921

see wage growth slowdowns, especially in lower income, where you're starting to

 

04:48.921 --> 04:52.925

see stress. And when you look at that historically, it tends to be

 

04:52.925 --> 04:54.761

correlated with recessions.

 

04:54.761 --> 04:58.765

But this situation looks more like a renormalization,

 

04:58.765 --> 05:03.236

which doesn't necessarily make it any better from a stress perspective,

 

05:03.236 --> 05:07.307

but it does potentially make it less durable to the extent that

 

05:07.307 --> 05:12.312

those tailwinds that I've been talking about actually come through in 2026.

 

05:12.312 --> 05:16.249

So the big question, every year investors try to use holiday sales as a

 

05:16.249 --> 05:20.320

read-through for the market, but as you're saying historically, that

 

05:20.320 --> 05:24.624

just doesn't really hold up. So why is holiday spending not a reliable

 

05:24.624 --> 05:28.628

predictor of market direction, except in those extreme years like

 

05:28.628 --> 05:30.663

2020 or 2008?

 

05:30.663 --> 05:33.700

Yeah, so you should we should definitely talk about it in terms of the base

 

05:33.700 --> 05:37.704

case and then the extreme circumstances, because the extreme circumstances can

 

05:37.704 --> 05:41.708

give a good read on what's going on in the economy relative

 

05:41.708 --> 05:45.144

to expectations. But if you just step back and look at all the data, and I just

 

05:45.144 --> 05:48.448

told you that consumption has already slowed to below median growth.

 

05:48.448 --> 05:52.018

Let's just assume that the Christmas season is good and consumption

 

05:52.018 --> 05:53.886

reaccelerates into that.

 

05:53.886 --> 05:57.790

Does that change your odds of a market advance if it accelerates, meaning that

 

05:57.790 --> 06:02.128

holiday spending is beneficial, or if it continues to decelerate and holiday

 

06:02.128 --> 06:04.831

spending was poor or below expectations?

 

06:04.831 --> 06:08.835

And what you find is in the fourth quarter, stocks have a 90% hit

 

06:08.835 --> 06:11.637

rate of going up in either case.

 

06:11.637 --> 06:15.708

That's kind of what people call the Santa rally, which is a little bit of a

 

06:15.708 --> 06:19.712

cautionary note in terms of what you think you might know in

 

06:19.712 --> 06:23.950

terms of the influence of holiday spending on

 

06:23.950 --> 06:28.287

stocks. Because a lot of times there is a lot of hand-wringing

 

06:28.287 --> 06:32.759

going into every holiday season where investors become overly concerned,

 

06:32.759 --> 06:37.163

and at the high level, you do see that Santa does finally come.

 

06:37.163 --> 06:41.167

Now you highlighted these two examples where, you know, or there are

 

06:41.167 --> 06:45.471

examples. 2020 was a great one that sort of showed you that holiday spending

 

06:45.471 --> 06:48.341

was much, much stronger than investors expected.

 

06:48.341 --> 06:52.745

And that sort of was a nod that we were coming out of the COVID pandemic

 

06:52.745 --> 06:56.649

from an economic perspective, much faster than people thought.

 

06:56.649 --> 06:59.719

And 2009 was the exact opposite case.

 

06:59.719 --> 07:04.490

So when holiday spending was quite poor, much poorer than expectations,

 

07:04.490 --> 07:08.895

that was a sign that things were not nearly as rosy as investors expect.

 

07:08.895 --> 07:12.899

So it is true that the extremes can be telling, but

 

07:12.899 --> 07:16.836

I think your base case as an investor going in is that most of the time, you

 

07:16.836 --> 07:19.472

don't have extremes, that's what makes them extremes.

 

07:19.472 --> 07:23.376

And most of the time, it doesn't help you think about what to do in

 

07:23.376 --> 07:28.614

terms of your portfolio in terms of invest or not invest in stocks.

 

07:28.614 --> 07:32.718

So to your point, most fourth quarters, whether consumption is accelerating

 

07:32.718 --> 07:36.856

or decelerating, we still tend to see the markets

 

07:36.856 --> 07:39.192

maybe move higher, the Santa Rally.

 

07:39.192 --> 07:43.196

So was that a function of sentiment, seasonality, or simply

 

07:43.196 --> 07:46.232

markets pricing in better than feared outcomes?

 

07:46.232 --> 07:49.135

In some ways, all of the above. And every year is different.

 

07:49.135 --> 07:53.439

And yet every year the sea same seasonal trend tends to apply,

 

07:53.439 --> 07:55.508

with the exception of these extremes.

 

07:55.508 --> 07:59.512

But I do think most of it, when you sort of look at it, is the hand wringing

 

07:59.512 --> 08:01.514

around will Christmas come?

 

08:01.514 --> 08:03.749

Is consumption softer than average?

 

08:03.749 --> 08:06.252

Is this going to be a problem for consumers?

 

08:06.252 --> 08:09.922

There's always the concern that consumers will stop spending.

 

08:09.922 --> 08:14.227

And I always like to say that I as much as we understand that yes,

 

08:14.227 --> 08:18.631

a lot is based on the US consumer, because they're, you know, more than 75%

 

08:18.631 --> 08:22.735

of GDP, the consumer usually does spend to the

 

08:22.735 --> 08:24.804

extent that they are still employed.

 

08:24.804 --> 08:29.108

So I kind of like to say that Goldilocks, as much as it seems like it's

 

08:29.108 --> 08:33.279

a a wish, has the highest statistical odds, meaning that

 

08:33.279 --> 08:37.917

Santa does usually come, the consumer does usually spend.

 

08:37.917 --> 08:42.255

If we were to see a positive surprise this season, what would drive

 

08:42.255 --> 08:44.891

it and what would it look like in the data?

 

08:44.891 --> 08:47.860

I think in the data it would be it would look like a re-acceleration in

 

08:47.860 --> 08:51.931

consumption. And it might be that we find out that the consumer

 

08:51.931 --> 08:54.333

had much more in savings than we thought.

 

08:54.333 --> 08:57.870

So always remember when you're looking at government statistics, and this this

 

08:57.870 --> 09:02.174

even goes in terms of retail sales, but consumption growth is that it's heavily

 

09:02.174 --> 09:06.245

revised. And when we think about income, it's hard to count income if

 

09:06.279 --> 09:10.416

they're the US government. So we usually find there was more income

 

09:10.416 --> 09:14.587

than we thought, which is why the savings rate is one of the most heavily

 

09:14.587 --> 09:16.889

revised data series that we have.

 

09:16.889 --> 09:18.658

We end up having more income.

 

09:18.658 --> 09:22.728

We thought we had less income, therefore we had more savings,

 

09:22.728 --> 09:26.098

and therefore consumption was much stronger than we expect.

 

09:26.098 --> 09:30.670

So I do think that there is still some positive surprise

 

09:30.670 --> 09:34.974

potential in terms of the fact that we still have full employment

 

09:34.974 --> 09:38.511

in the US, meaning a very low unemployment rate.

 

09:38.511 --> 09:42.114

There is very slow growth, but job growth nonetheless.

 

09:42.114 --> 09:45.318

Income usually gets counted after the fact.

 

09:45.318 --> 09:49.288

And we may, by the way, have more savings than you suspect,

 

09:49.288 --> 09:53.392

all which might mean that despite the hand-wringing and the surveys

 

09:53.392 --> 09:56.495

that we've seen that the high-income consumers are going to spend and the

 

09:56.495 --> 10:00.566

low-income consumers are not going to spend, it might in aggregate look

 

10:00.566 --> 10:03.369

a whole lot better than people think.

 

10:03.369 --> 10:07.206

So I may just get a nice lovely gift under the tree this year is basically what

 

10:07.206 --> 10:09.842

you're telling me. I shouldn't be too worried.

 

10:09.842 --> 10:12.545

Maybe I'll send it to you.

 

10:12.545 --> 10:16.482

So you so we've spoken many times before and you always point to credit spreads

 

10:16.482 --> 10:20.720

as the real barometer of consumer stress, especially at the lower end.

 

10:20.720 --> 10:23.422

What are high yield credit spreads telling you right now?

 

10:23.422 --> 10:27.827

And are we seeing stress that looks systemic or more isolated?

 

10:27.827 --> 10:31.097

Now much more isolated. So we're not seeing any systemic movement in credit

 

10:31.097 --> 10:34.300

spreads. Even with the government shutdown that we've seen, even with the

 

10:34.300 --> 10:38.304

stress on sort of that area of the either the economy or

 

10:38.304 --> 10:42.308

that part of the that part of the consumer, you're not seeing any

 

10:42.308 --> 10:46.545

massive move higher in high yield credit spreads, which is the credit market

 

10:46.545 --> 10:50.549

saying, again, it's not to say that there are no points of stress

 

10:50.549 --> 10:52.718

in the US economy. There always will be.

 

10:52.718 --> 10:55.488

It's very rare that you're firing on all cylinders.

 

10:55.488 --> 10:59.191

And honestly, if you're firing on all cylinders, usually the risk reward shifts

 

10:59.191 --> 11:02.928

a little bit negative. It's a little bit of that grinded out that tends to be

 

11:02.928 --> 11:05.431

the most beneficial environment for stocks.

 

11:05.431 --> 11:07.900

And that's sort of the situation we're in.

 

11:07.900 --> 11:11.170

So when you look at the credit market, the credit market is pricing off

 

11:11.170 --> 11:15.274

aggregate credit, which is not to say that there's no pockets of credit

 

11:15.274 --> 11:18.711

that aren't seeing rising delinquencies or rising insolvencies.

 

11:18.711 --> 11:22.848

But the credit market overall gets concerned when there's a tipping point where

 

11:22.848 --> 11:26.052

those become correlated to other asset classes.

 

11:26.052 --> 11:28.454

We're not seeing any of that right now.

 

11:28.454 --> 11:32.558

The stress that we see in maybe subprime autos and in some parts of

 

11:32.558 --> 11:35.861

housing, that's not being systematic.

 

11:35.861 --> 11:38.597

Pervasive stress in the overall credit markets.

 

11:38.597 --> 11:43.135

And when the credit market doesn't see broad-based insolvencies and the equity

 

11:43.135 --> 11:47.139

market is afraid of whether or not Santa is going to come and whether or not

 

11:47.139 --> 11:51.210

there's a weaker consumer, that tends to be the situation statistically that

 

11:51.210 --> 11:54.513

the stock market can end up climbing that wall of worry.

 

11:54.513 --> 11:58.918

So sort of a situation we just talked about where there's a lot of concern

 

11:58.918 --> 12:03.155

going into Christmas and more often than not, the market ends up climbing

 

12:03.155 --> 12:07.159

the wall of worry because it wasn't necessarily as bad as maybe many investors

 

12:07.159 --> 12:08.661

expected.

 

12:08.661 --> 12:11.864

And speaking of this wall of worry, I guess I don't know, maybe we could partly

 

12:11.864 --> 12:15.601

blame it on the headlines. Like this time of year, the headlines tend to focus

 

12:15.601 --> 12:20.005

on sales numbers, flashy consumption consumption stats.

 

12:20.005 --> 12:24.076

But what's the biggest thing investors may be paying attention to

 

12:24.076 --> 12:28.180

then that they shouldn't? And what's the better metric or signal to focus

 

12:28.180 --> 12:29.315

on instead?

 

12:29.315 --> 12:33.052

Yeah, so when you think of, you know, Santa and the rally, we just talked about

 

12:33.052 --> 12:36.822

the fact that overall Christmas spending might not be predictive for any parts

 

12:36.822 --> 12:40.493

of the, you know, either the US economy or the overall stock market.

 

12:40.493 --> 12:43.929

But I do think when you think about consumer discretionary stocks, it's not

 

12:43.929 --> 12:46.499

just revenues. It's not just sales.

 

12:46.499 --> 12:50.569

The two more important things, and this creates the complication in terms

 

12:50.569 --> 12:54.340

of the what the market is discounting, is one margin.

 

12:54.340 --> 12:58.110

How much money are they making on those sales?

 

12:58.110 --> 13:01.847

Because if they had to price it down to move it, you might get revenues that

 

13:01.847 --> 13:05.551

look better than average, but you might get profits that look less than

 

13:05.551 --> 13:09.555

average. But the other complicating factor is who doesn't know

 

13:09.555 --> 13:13.692

that some of the areas of weakness, like restaurants and some leisure

 

13:13.692 --> 13:15.928

areas, are already weak.

 

13:15.928 --> 13:18.731

So many of that might already be priced in.

 

13:18.731 --> 13:22.568

When I say priced in, it means the stocks are cheaper relative to the rest of

 

13:22.568 --> 13:25.371

the market, relative to the historic average.

 

13:25.371 --> 13:29.475

That's why you can end up in this situation where you might get the numbers

 

13:29.475 --> 13:33.479

right, but you actually might get the stocks wrong because it's already priced

 

13:33.479 --> 13:37.716

in bad news. So when you think about how to think about

 

13:37.716 --> 13:42.655

Christmas spending, remember it's not just revenues driving the idiosyncratic

 

13:42.655 --> 13:45.157

moves within the consumer discretionary sector.

 

13:45.157 --> 13:49.228

It's profitability and it's the starting point on valuation, which makes

 

13:49.228 --> 13:53.232

it a little bit complicated to directly translate it.

 

13:53.232 --> 13:57.236

So from that, what's on your market wish list this year?

 

13:57.236 --> 14:01.740

Which data trend or economic signal would you like to unwrap under the tree?

 

14:01.740 --> 14:04.043

Yes, it would have to be high-o credit spreads.

 

14:04.043 --> 14:07.346

I would like to actually see them break down to new lows.

 

14:07.346 --> 14:10.916

So from my vantage point, remember, if you're if you're me, you're just looking

 

14:10.916 --> 14:15.421

at data and you're saying, what are the beneficial signs for overall equities?

 

14:15.421 --> 14:19.959

What I find is that improving trends, but not very exceptional

 

14:19.959 --> 14:21.894

trends, are the sweet spot.

 

14:21.894 --> 14:24.930

So good news is actually makes me wary.

 

14:24.930 --> 14:29.168

So above 25% earnings growth, below 80 basis points

 

14:29.168 --> 14:32.771

credit spreads, all of these good things that most investors would say, well,

 

14:32.771 --> 14:35.174

this is good news. We're firing on all cylinders.

 

14:35.174 --> 14:38.677

When you look back historically, that's actually a negative risk reward.

 

14:38.677 --> 14:43.082

So what I want to see is credit spreads are have been a little bit elevated,

 

14:43.082 --> 14:45.818

but not anything meaningful over the past six months.

 

14:45.818 --> 14:50.122

I would like to see the credit market say, and it looks like it is still

 

14:50.122 --> 14:53.859

improving. So that's what I want to see under the trade.

 

14:53.859 --> 14:57.596

And what does your perfect holiday day look like for you?

 

14:57.596 --> 15:01.967

Oh well that would it would have to be just spending it with my my family.

 

15:01.967 --> 15:05.905

So my two girls, I have a college student, so having her come home, spend it

 

15:05.905 --> 15:09.341

with her. And I have last year at home with my senior daughter.

 

15:09.341 --> 15:12.945

And I will have to say, I I know you also have a pet, Nicole, I will have to

 

15:12.945 --> 15:16.548

say that this is Penny's first Christmas, my Labrador retriever, and I'm kind

 

15:16.548 --> 15:19.885

of just hoping she doesn't take down the tree.

 

15:19.885 --> 15:23.789

That's so sweet. Happy first Christmas to Penny.

 

15:23.789 --> 15:26.358

Thank you, Denise, so much. And you heard it here first.

 

15:26.358 --> 15:30.029

The headline, holiday spending numbers, maybe noisy, but the underlying credit

 

15:30.029 --> 15:33.799

signals, margin dynamics, and valuation starting points are what really matter

 

15:33.799 --> 15:36.669

for markets heading into year end.

 

15:36.669 --> 15:38.837

Thank you, Denise, so much for being here.

 

15:38.837 --> 15:42.107

Always insightful, always great to s to speak with you.

 

15:42.107 --> 15:43.442

Oh, yeah.

 

15:43.442 --> 15:45.978

Thank you, and thank you for joining me on the upside.

 

15:45.978 --> 15:49.915

For more investor content, be sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to never

 

15:49.915 --> 15:52.151

miss an episode and sign up for a newsletter.

 

15:52.151 --> 15:55.921

And remember, working with a financial advisor is the best investment you can

 

15:55.921 --> 15:57.656

make on your financial journey.

 

15:57.656 --> 16:01.160

Thank you again for tuning in. For The Upside, I'm Nicole Correale.

 

16:18.043 --> 16:22.314

Thanks for listening to, or watching, Fidelity Canada's The Upside Podcast.

 

16:22.314 --> 16:26.051

Subscribe on your podcast platform of choice so you don't miss an episode.

 

16:26.051 --> 16:29.755

And if you like what you're hearing, please leave a review or five-star rating.

 

16:29.755 --> 16:33.425

Fidelity Mutual Funds and ETFs are available by working with a financial

 

16:33.425 --> 16:35.995

advisor or through an online brokerage account.

 

16:35.995 --> 16:39.498

Visit Fidelity.ca slash how to buy for more information.

 

16:39.498 --> 16:43.168

While on Fidelity.ca, you can also find more information on future live

 

16:43.168 --> 16:47.172

webcasts. And don't forget to follow Fidelity Canada on LinkedIn, YouTube,

 

16:47.172 --> 16:51.276

Instagram, or X. We'll wrap things up today with a quick disclaimer.

 

16:51.276 --> 16:55.114

The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are those of the participants,

 

16:55.114 --> 16:59.118

and do not necessarily reflect those of Fidelity Investments Canada ULC or

 

16:59.118 --> 17:03.188

its affiliates. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should

 

17:03.188 --> 17:06.125

not be construed as investment, tax, or legal advice.

 

17:06.125 --> 17:06.158

It is not an offer to sell or buy, or an endorsement, recommendation or

 

17:06.158 --> 17:09.661

It is not an offer to sell or buy or an endorsement recommendation or

 

17:09.661 --> 17:12.364

sponsorship of any entity or securities cited.

 

17:12.364 --> 17:12.398

sponsorship of any entity or security cited.

 

17:12.398 --> 17:14.633

REDAFunds prospectus before investing.

 

17:14.633 --> 17:18.537

Funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently and past performance

 

17:18.537 --> 17:22.474

may not be repeated. Fees, expenses, and commissions are all associated with

 

17:22.474 --> 17:24.943

fund investments. Thanks for tuning in.

 

17:24.943 --> 17:25.911

We'll see you next time.

 

17:25.911 --> 17:26.345

Thanks for tuning in. We'll see you next time.