The Upside: Themes driving global markets in October 2025

00:00.333 --> 00:05.772

Subtitles are AI-Generated.

 

00:05.772 --> 00:08.908

Hello and welcome to The Upside. I'm Jordan Chevalier.

 

00:08.908 --> 00:13.179

US equities continue to hold strong amid the ongoing US federal government

 

00:13.213 --> 00:17.150

shutdown. And with earnings season around the corner, what might the end

 

00:17.150 --> 00:21.221

of 2025 and Q1 2026 have in store

 

00:21.221 --> 00:25.191

for the markets? Joining us today to share her thoughts on the US government

 

00:25.191 --> 00:29.462

shutdown, interest rates, and the latest in the valuation story is

 

00:29.462 --> 00:33.133

Fidelity Director of Quantitative Market Strategy, Denise Chisholm.

 

00:33.133 --> 00:35.268

Denise, it's great to see you.

 

00:35.268 --> 00:37.804

Hey, it's great to be back Jordan.

 

00:37.804 --> 00:40.807

Let's start with the government shutdown in the U.S.

 

00:40.807 --> 00:42.575

We've got a couple questions coming in.

 

00:42.575 --> 00:44.677

What exactly does that mean? A federal U.

 

00:44.677 --> 00:47.113

S. Government shutdown.

 

00:47.113 --> 00:51.618

Yeah, it means all non-essential government work essentially halts,

 

00:51.618 --> 00:55.822

and many people are sent home from their jobs,

 

00:55.822 --> 00:59.893

and like furloughed is the coin of the phrase, which

 

00:59.893 --> 01:04.064

means that a lot of government employees are going without pay right now.

 

01:04.064 --> 01:07.434

Usually what happens, in fact 100% of the time this has happened in the past,

 

01:07.434 --> 01:09.569

you do get back pay as a government employee.

 

01:09.569 --> 01:12.839

I was actually part of the government shutdown when I worked as a government

 

01:12.839 --> 01:17.043

contractor in the 90s and I did in fact receive back pay during

 

01:17.043 --> 01:21.281

that time. But this has happened around 20 times when you go with

 

01:21.281 --> 01:23.683

the data back to the 1970s.

 

01:23.683 --> 01:27.353

And the interesting part is most of them last just hours.

 

01:27.353 --> 01:31.424

And then we're about five or so instances, which if you sort of couple them

 

01:31.424 --> 01:33.993

together, have lasted 15 days or longer.

 

01:33.993 --> 01:38.031

Now, you would think that that is a long time to shut down a government and

 

01:38.031 --> 01:41.601

that must have an impact on earnings or the economy.

 

01:41.601 --> 01:44.637

But when you study the historical trend, it really doesn't.

 

01:44.637 --> 01:46.473

It doesn't impact industrial production.

 

01:46.473 --> 01:50.810

It doesn't impact GDP and it doesn't impact earnings and because

 

01:50.810 --> 01:55.014

of that, from a long-term perspective, you see very little impact on

 

01:55.014 --> 01:58.351

stock markets, which is essentially what you're seeing right now.

 

01:58.351 --> 02:01.421

So you think, is there anything different about this time, anything different

 

02:01.421 --> 02:05.792

this period, or maybe if the length is different, do you see that changing?

 

02:05.792 --> 02:09.562

Or you think there's the data that suggests that this is sort of similar to

 

02:09.562 --> 02:11.831

what's happened in the past.

 

02:11.831 --> 02:13.867

Yeah, the length is always very variable, right?

 

02:13.867 --> 02:17.504

The longest we've seen historically is about 35 days, which again, over a

 

02:17.504 --> 02:19.472

month, that seems like a long time.

 

02:19.472 --> 02:23.610

Length in and of itself hasn't been enough of a shock to the U.S.

 

02:23.610 --> 02:27.614

Economy to matter that much to, again, GDP earnings or

 

02:27.614 --> 02:29.415

anything that drives the equity market.

 

02:29.415 --> 02:33.620

What could be different this time is that this administration has said,

 

02:33.620 --> 02:37.090

well, maybe instead of giving back pay this time, we won't.

 

02:37.090 --> 02:41.094

Or maybe instead, of hiring workers back, we want.

 

02:41.094 --> 02:44.130

Now, again, we'll see how this all plays out if these are just political

 

02:44.130 --> 02:48.334

threats, which is something of what you see in a government

 

02:48.334 --> 02:52.572

shutdown. But even if you look at that in terms of the federal

 

02:52.572 --> 02:56.809

workforce, we can go back to those austerity measures we saw in 2012,

 

02:56.809 --> 03:00.780

where the federal workforce shrank by five percent.

 

03:00.780 --> 03:03.583

Which was an epic amount relative to history.

 

03:03.583 --> 03:06.319

I mean, we saw something like it in the 1990s.

 

03:06.319 --> 03:10.623

And even that seems like a whole lot and it would have a lot of impact.

 

03:10.623 --> 03:14.627

But when you add it all up, as much as there's idiosyncratic problems for

 

03:14.627 --> 03:18.598

certainly all those workers involved, it's usually not enough to move the

 

03:18.598 --> 03:20.733

needle as it relates to the economy.

 

03:20.733 --> 03:24.671

And therefore, while it seems slightly insensitive, stocks

 

03:24.671 --> 03:28.675

tend to look through the noise to the bigger driver, which tends

 

03:28.675 --> 03:31.811

to be earnings, which right now are going up.

 

03:31.811 --> 03:35.215

And another driver that we're seeing is, of course, interest rates.

 

03:35.215 --> 03:39.485

Can you talk about your view overall about the Fed's direction

 

03:39.485 --> 03:42.956

with interest rates right now in the U.S.?

 

03:42.956 --> 03:46.159

Yes, let's go to the data. I think that there's two debates about the Fed.

 

03:46.192 --> 03:50.363

One is that the Fed should have been lowering interest rates already,

 

03:50.363 --> 03:54.601

has committed a policy mistake because of the soft labour market.

 

03:54.601 --> 03:56.869

So we'll take that as sort of one side of the argument.

 

03:56.869 --> 04:01.608

The other side of argument is look, we just entered GDP of 3.9%

 

04:01.608 --> 04:04.844

on a quarter on quarter basis, the economy is still strong.

 

04:04.844 --> 04:08.982

To the extent that the fed reduces interest rates too much, that might reignite

 

04:08.982 --> 04:12.952

inflation. So let's take those two and look at the historical data and

 

04:12.952 --> 04:15.054

see if we can make sense out of either argument.

 

04:15.054 --> 04:18.791

The interesting part from my vantage point is that when I look at the

 

04:18.791 --> 04:22.862

historical data about real interest rates, the higher real interest rates have

 

04:22.862 --> 04:26.866

been, the more likely GDP is to grow over the next

 

04:26.866 --> 04:30.903

year. So as much as we think all else equal that there are these lagged impacts

 

04:30.903 --> 04:35.074

to monetary policy, what I see in the data is more often

 

04:35.074 --> 04:39.279

than not, which is not to say every time, the Fed actually follows the

 

04:39.279 --> 04:41.114

cycle rather than creates it.

 

04:41.114 --> 04:45.184

So if you tell me this time the Fed seems like they're a little bit late and

 

04:45.184 --> 04:47.754

that employment has been a little soft and they should have been cutting

 

04:47.754 --> 04:51.891

earlier, I don't see that particularly different from history

 

04:51.891 --> 04:55.862

and I don t see it particularly problematic right now because we

 

04:55.862 --> 04:59.465

have a whole lot of leading indicators like corporate profits that I was just

 

04:59.465 --> 05:03.670

talking about that do suggest that the soft patch we're seeing in employment

 

05:03.670 --> 05:07.407

might actually be better as we go through the course of the year.

 

05:07.407 --> 05:11.778

On the other side of the argument, I think, is this potentially

 

05:11.778 --> 05:15.948

re-ignition of inflation on the other side if they lower interest rates too

 

05:15.948 --> 05:20.019

much. For me, when you look at the core CPI and you strip out shelter,

 

05:20.019 --> 05:24.190

which is its own lagged component, our core CPIX shelter has

 

05:24.190 --> 05:26.059

been running around 2%.

 

05:26.059 --> 05:30.029

This is even with the tariff impact that we've seen.

 

05:30.063 --> 05:34.367

So you're not seeing a broad-based rise in the generalised

 

05:34.367 --> 05:38.571

price level. You are certainly seeing some rises in some good prices that

 

05:38.571 --> 05:42.742

have tariffs accompanied with them, but you're not seeing broad-base inflation.

 

05:42.742 --> 05:46.979

Inflation, when I look through history, is just a whole lot harder to get

 

05:46.979 --> 05:50.717

than you would think. I mean, look at Japan all these years later.

 

05:50.717 --> 05:54.320

So it's not just stimulative monetary policy that ignites inflation.

 

05:54.320 --> 05:58.291

In fact, there's not a historical relationship between interest

 

05:58.291 --> 06:01.260

rates and inflation, ironically speaking.

 

06:01.260 --> 06:05.398

So I don't think that the Fed is in policy mistake territory right

 

06:05.398 --> 06:09.702

now, and I don't think that we're in danger of reigniting inflation,

 

06:09.702 --> 06:13.039

which puts us in the sweet spot for equity market returns.

 

06:13.072 --> 06:16.209

Denise, you briefly mentioned tariffs there, I'd like to spend a little more

 

06:16.209 --> 06:19.946

time on that. When you were on the show last month, we talked about how much or

 

06:19.946 --> 06:23.082

how little the market has priced in these tariffs.

 

06:23.082 --> 06:26.085

Has there been anything that you've seen since the last time we spoke that

 

06:26.085 --> 06:30.256

would indicate a shift in that tariff pricing?

 

06:30.256 --> 06:33.659

Yeah, not really. I mean, I think that the irony of it all is that peak

 

06:33.659 --> 06:37.663

uncertainty was in fact a buying opportunity as it suggests

 

06:37.663 --> 06:40.400

in the data, meaning that, yes, it was uncertain.

 

06:40.400 --> 06:43.202

Things are still uncertain in terms of how it will play out.

 

06:43.202 --> 06:47.173

People are still arguing about who is bearing the brunt of the tariff

 

06:47.173 --> 06:50.676

increases. And there are some arguments, you know, 60% is borne by the

 

06:50.676 --> 06:52.545

consumer, maybe it's only 40%.

 

06:52.545 --> 06:54.313

Does the foreign producer to bear some.

 

06:54.313 --> 06:57.717

We're still not sure and we'll have to sort of sift through all the data on

 

06:57.717 --> 07:01.721

that, but what is very clear is that it's being absorbed,

 

07:01.721 --> 07:05.858

right? And we are most of the way through of the impact of terrorists.

 

07:05.858 --> 07:08.594

It's been dragged out longer than we thought.

 

07:08.594 --> 07:13.065

Which means it's less of a shock to income than I think the Fed thought and

 

07:13.065 --> 07:17.136

less of a shock, to CPI than the Fed though, which is sort of back to

 

07:17.136 --> 07:20.907

the Fed. One of the reasons I think that they're lowering interest rates is

 

07:20.907 --> 07:25.311

because they can, not because they must, because employment is so weak,

 

07:25.311 --> 07:29.782

because despite tariffs, inflation is still coming in about

 

07:29.782 --> 07:33.920

in line or potentially even a little bit lower than they expected, especially

 

07:33.953 --> 07:35.922

when we started the year with the tariff announcements.

 

07:35.922 --> 07:40.126

So, that gets to this renormalization of monetary policy

 

07:40.126 --> 07:44.497

at the same time that tariffs appear to be absorbed without

 

07:44.497 --> 07:46.466

a shock to the U.S. Consumer.

 

07:46.466 --> 07:49.602

The real consumption growth is hanging in pretty well.

 

07:49.602 --> 07:53.673

Real income growth is also hanging in well, which means that the consumer is

 

07:53.673 --> 07:58.344

in good shape in aggregate despite the impact of the tariffs.

 

07:58.344 --> 08:02.381

Looking now to valuations, is there anything to suggest that these

 

08:02.381 --> 08:06.385

higher valuations continuing long term, is that just a

 

08:06.385 --> 08:09.856

net positive when you look at overall markets in the investors or is there a

 

08:09.856 --> 08:13.860

little bit of nuance there within that valuation story?

 

08:13.860 --> 08:18.030

I'll just generally be the naysayer on valuations in the sense that

 

08:18.030 --> 08:22.568

when you just study the data, I really have a hard time finding anything

 

08:22.568 --> 08:25.938

predictive about it. So when you quartile it out, you say from the cheapest

 

08:25.938 --> 08:29.275

quartile to the most expensive quartile, what are my go-forward odds of a

 

08:29.275 --> 08:33.379

market advance? The market goes up 75% of the time regardless of valuation.

 

08:33.379 --> 08:37.316

Right, so we can think about, you know, valuation.

 

08:37.316 --> 08:40.920

It makes sense to say that it should impact your risk reward.

 

08:40.920 --> 08:44.090

But when I look at long-term history, I can't prove it at all.

 

08:44.090 --> 08:48.027

And in fact, sometimes you prove the opposite, meaning that if the stock market

 

08:48.027 --> 08:51.964

goes up a lot, you can see in your crystal ball that once the market goes

 

08:51.964 --> 08:55.101

up, it usually goes up, right? A ball in motion stays in motion.

 

08:55.101 --> 08:57.069

This is why momentum is actually a factor.

 

08:57.069 --> 09:00.039

So you say, okay, well, wait a minute. What if your starting point is really

 

09:00.072 --> 09:03.943

expensive? Well, then it would make sense that you go up less, right.

 

09:03.943 --> 09:07.980

Wrong. You actually go up more and more often.

 

09:07.980 --> 09:12.051

So what you find is valuation, as much as we think it might mitigate your

 

09:12.051 --> 09:15.888

future returns, what you'll find is it's almost a measure of confidence and

 

09:15.888 --> 09:19.992

almost like stocks get it right because the valuation expands ahead

 

09:19.992 --> 09:23.930

of time. It usually means that mid cycle earnings are actually

 

09:23.930 --> 09:28.100

just stronger than you think because stocks move in advance of earnings.

 

09:28.100 --> 09:32.672

So as Tom Thoms valuation is just an expression of confidence in those earnings

 

09:32.672 --> 09:35.942

that you see are more durable. And I think that there's a real reason for that

 

09:35.942 --> 09:39.378

this cycle and it's around the tax that we've seen in the U.S.

 

09:39.378 --> 09:43.883

Which total about 700 basis points of effective tax cuts between

 

09:43.883 --> 09:47.620

sort of bonus depreciation and R&D expensing.

 

09:47.620 --> 09:50.957

You add that on top of the fact that the Federal Reserve is re-normalising

 

09:50.957 --> 09:55.161

rates because they can, not because they have to, and all of a sudden median

 

09:55.161 --> 09:58.497

earnings growth which is now starting to inflect higher looks That's a whole

 

09:58.497 --> 10:02.501

lot more door. So the stock market isn't going to wait for that

 

10:02.501 --> 10:04.470

durability to be evidence.

 

10:04.470 --> 10:07.106

It's actually going to price it in ahead of time, which is usually what the

 

10:07.106 --> 10:11.210

stock market does. So hence you're seeing this valuation expansion, which

 

10:11.210 --> 10:15.047

to me, again, quantitatively, I don't find it problematic.

 

10:15.047 --> 10:18.818

And in some ways all of those mantras we've seen about higher for longer in

 

10:18.818 --> 10:22.221

terms of inflation and the Fed, I think we got to get used to the higher for

 

10:22.221 --> 10:25.992

long. Of valuations as well, especially in the U S.

 

10:25.992 --> 10:30.096

Denise, let's look now a little more closely on some specific sectors.

 

10:30.096 --> 10:32.231

I wanna talk about energy and then gold.

 

10:32.231 --> 10:35.067

Let's start with energy. What are your thoughts right now on energy?

 

10:35.067 --> 10:40.072

What are you seeing? What is the data supporting there with that sector?

 

10:40.072 --> 10:44.176

Yeah, I find energy a problematic sector and it's mainly around the fact that

 

10:44.176 --> 10:48.314

fundamentals just aren't in a position to be meaningfully good.

 

10:48.314 --> 10:52.351

So energy is a tricky sector in that it is very cyclical, meaning

 

10:52.351 --> 10:55.988

that there's not a secular uptrend like you see in technology where companies

 

10:55.988 --> 10:58.891

have just gotten more and more profitable cycle to cycle.

 

10:58.891 --> 11:02.962

So what you usually just see is this very steady arc towards

 

11:02.962 --> 11:06.899

a median profitability. Now, 2022 was the most profitable this sector

 

11:06.899 --> 11:10.002

has ever been in my data set going back to the 1960s.

 

11:10.002 --> 11:12.772

We're still re-normalising from that.

 

11:12.772 --> 11:16.842

Now you add on to that that this means that energy is probably

 

11:16.842 --> 11:20.846

still in a low earnings growth situation, especially relative to

 

11:20.846 --> 11:25.251

other sectors that are growing like technology, so relative is even worse.

 

11:25.251 --> 11:28.821

But energy is one of the only sectors, this little quantity, but hang with me

 

11:28.821 --> 11:32.825

for a second, where you get trough multiples on trough earnings.

 

11:32.825 --> 11:36.996

A lot of the times when you know stock earnings fall out of bed in a recession

 

11:36.996 --> 11:41.067

or at the bottom of the cycle usually get this valuation expansion which makes

 

11:41.067 --> 11:45.171

the stocks actually appear oddly expensive but that's just because

 

11:45.171 --> 11:49.241

earnings are artificially low well energy is the only cycle where

 

11:49.241 --> 11:53.179

investors don't wait for that they don't cushion that blow and you usually get

 

11:53.179 --> 11:57.717

multiple so the stocks are valued less on those trough earnings.

 

11:57.717 --> 12:01.754

Which makes energy dangerous to play in terms of being

 

12:01.754 --> 12:05.991

early because there's more downside in energy statistically than

 

12:05.991 --> 12:08.027

most other cyclical sectors.

 

12:08.027 --> 12:12.131

So that makes energy, I think, a tricky situation despite the,

 

12:12.131 --> 12:15.968

we can debate, you know, excess supply and all of the other geopolitical risk

 

12:15.968 --> 12:17.770

premium potentially coming out of it.

 

12:17.770 --> 12:21.774

So it's really just the fundamentals I don't think are in good shape to lead

 

12:21.774 --> 12:25.778

to outperformance. Gold, on the other hand, is the commodity with

 

12:25.778 --> 12:28.981

a much better supply and demand dynamic.

 

12:28.981 --> 12:32.752

Now, what you see in the commodity is, again, of all the commodities you look

 

12:32.752 --> 12:36.989

at, that is the commodity, both in a long-term uptrend, which is important,

 

12:36.989 --> 12:40.926

and two, one of the best supply and demand dynamics because of the buying

 

12:40.926 --> 12:44.897

of central banks. Right, you don't see that structural demand

 

12:44.897 --> 12:49.034

really anywhere else and you're seeing more buying over this last five-year

 

12:49.034 --> 12:52.371

period, then I don't want to say that any other five- year period, but you're

 

12:52.371 --> 12:56.542

certainly seeing a secular trend. I think it's a little more complicated to

 

12:56.542 --> 13:00.746

make this a function one click down in the equity market to buy the gold

 

13:00.746 --> 13:04.750

miners since right now this isn't a problem because gold has gone up so

 

13:04.750 --> 13:07.019

much so fast, they have plenty of free cash flow.

 

13:07.052 --> 13:10.589

But these are companies that generally cycle to cycle with a lot like energy

 

13:10.589 --> 13:14.760

companies Where they usually burn through a lot of that profitability and

 

13:14.760 --> 13:18.264

free cash flow because it takes so much money to get it out of the ground So I

 

13:18.264 --> 13:21.767

think gold as a commodity looks very interesting still even though it's up a

 

13:21.767 --> 13:25.738

lot I'm sure you're likely to see a shakeout, but still looks interesting from

 

13:25.738 --> 13:29.742

a supply-demand dynamic But I think that gold miners is a little bit trickier

 

13:29.742 --> 13:34.313

when you think about equity relatives I still prefer things like technology

 

13:34.313 --> 13:38.384

financials and consumer discretionary versus any of the miners

 

13:38.384 --> 13:40.052

Denise, thank you for sharing those insights.

 

13:40.052 --> 13:44.523

Gold was the top question that we've received coming in from viewers.

 

13:44.523 --> 13:46.625

So very, very happy that you're able to address that.

 

13:46.625 --> 13:50.996

Looking now to next year, are there sectors to watch towards sort of the end of

 

13:50.996 --> 13:55.367

Q4 here, 2025, or looking to the first half of 2026?

 

13:55.367 --> 13:58.971

Things that are on your radar, opportunities or sectors to watched.

 

13:58.971 --> 14:00.840

Let's end there.

 

14:00.840 --> 14:04.910

Yeah, I think one of the things that I am going to be watching is capex in

 

14:04.910 --> 14:09.114

technology. So that is one of big sort of trends that people are talking about

 

14:09.114 --> 14:12.017

in AI. Are these capex numbers too big?

 

14:12.017 --> 14:15.721

I think that they're eye popping when you think of them on a nominal basis, but

 

14:15.721 --> 14:18.357

there is also eye popping free cash flow.

 

14:18.357 --> 14:20.693

So you always have to rescale them.

 

14:20.693 --> 14:24.830

That's why I look at either CapEx relative to sales or CapEx, relative

 

14:24.830 --> 14:29.001

to free cashflow for the technology sector to see if it

 

14:29.001 --> 14:33.038

really is impactful or growing above average or in that

 

14:33.038 --> 14:35.174

way that looks anomalous.

 

14:35.174 --> 14:39.345

Right now, when I look at the data, oddly enough CapEx relative to sale for the

 

14:39.345 --> 14:42.815

technology sector is right in the median level of history.

 

14:42.815 --> 14:46.752

Meaning that as much as people are saying we are spending so much money

 

14:46.752 --> 14:50.789

on AI for this aggregate sector, they have the cash and they have

 

14:50.789 --> 14:52.725

sales to be able to spend.

 

14:52.725 --> 14:56.729

So I am keeping my eye on that data set for any kind of anomalies, but

 

14:56.729 --> 14:58.797

I'm not seeing anything yet.

 

14:58.797 --> 15:02.568

Denise, thanks so much again for joining us and sharing your key market

 

15:02.568 --> 15:04.970

insights and all the data research.

 

15:04.970 --> 15:08.908

We really appreciate it and we'll see you next month.

 

15:08.908 --> 15:10.376

Absolutely, great to be here.

 

15:10.376 --> 15:13.846

Thanks for watching everyone. Just a quick reminder that Upside webcasts air

 

15:13.846 --> 15:17.583

daily, so keep an eye on your inbox so you don't miss an invitation to the next

 

15:17.583 --> 15:21.654

show. And if you haven't done so already, sign up for the Upside newsletter to

 

15:21.654 --> 15:23.522

make sure that you don't miss out.

 

15:23.522 --> 15:27.693

Also, video podcasts are released frequently, both the Up side and

 

15:27.693 --> 15:32.298

Fidelity Connects. Just search Fidelity Canada on YouTube, Spotify and

 

15:32.298 --> 15:35.868

Apple Podcasts. Thanks for joining and I hope you'll join us again on the Up

 

15:35.868 --> 15:37.336

Side. I'm Jordan Chevalier.

 

15:54.053 --> 15:58.457

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

 

15:58.457 --> 16:02.227

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

 

16:02.227 --> 16:05.130

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

 

16:05.130 --> 16:09.101

rating. Fidelity Mutual Funds and ETFs are available by working with a

 

16:09.101 --> 16:12.271

financial advisor or through an online brokerage account.

 

16:12.271 --> 16:15.874

Visit Fidelity.ca slash howtobuy for more information.

 

16:15.874 --> 16:20.212

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

 

16:20.212 --> 16:23.582

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

 

16:23.582 --> 16:25.017

Instagram or X.

 

16:25.017 --> 16:27.519

We'll wrap things up today with a quick disclaimer.

 

16:27.519 --> 16:31.290

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

 

16:31.290 --> 16:35.361

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

 

16:35.361 --> 16:39.365

affiliates. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and should not

 

16:39.365 --> 16:42.267

be construed as investment, tax or legal advice.

 

16:42.267 --> 16:45.738

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

 

16:45.738 --> 16:48.741

sponsorship of any entity or security cited.

 

16:48.741 --> 16:50.409

Read a fund's prospectus before investing.

 

16:50.409 --> 16:52.311

Funds are not guaranteed.

 

16:52.311 --> 16:55.914

Their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated.

 

16:55.914 --> 17:00.085

Fees, expenses, and commissions are all associated with fund investments.

 

17:00.085 --> 17:01.887

Thanks for tuning in, we'll see you next time.

 

17:01.887 --> 17:02.521

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