IB Traders’ Insight

View The Latest Videos View Videos

1 2 3 4 5 2 1869


Macro

Interactive Brokers - Asia-Pacific: The Week Ahead (Jan 21-28)


Interactive Brokers senior market analyst Steven Levine provides some highlights for what to look for in the Asia-Pacific region in the week beginning January 21. Experience the IBKR Platform! Use our powerful trading platform to begin trading a simulated account for free and without commitment.

Click here to start your free trial today:

https://www.interactivebrokers.com/mkt/?src=youtube7&url=%2Fen%2Findex.php%3Ff%3D1286

 

Produced on January 15, 2019

The analysis in this material is provided for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IBKR to buy, sell or hold such investments. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


22355




Fixed Income

Interactive Brokers Asset Management - Smart Thinking About Retirement


By the time you read this, you will have likely received your first paycheck of 2019. Take a minute to see how much of it you’ve diverted into your 401k plan.

Are you on track to contribute the $19,000 for the year? (Or $25,000 if you’re 50 or older?)

If not, take a minute today to log in and increase your contribution levels. The longer you wait, the harder it will be to catch up.

 

Alternatives

It’s OK if you’re worried about the stock market taking another spill. No one says you have to allocate your 401k to stocks. In my opinion, a money market or stable value fund is a perfectly fine option for now.

In my view, it’s simply to get your cash into the account to take advantage of the tax break and any employer matching. The actual investing can happen later.


Small Business

While the 401k is the backbone of most Americans’ financial plan, if you’re self-employed or a partner in a small business, you may have even better options at your disposal in my view.

In addition to a defined-contribution 401(k) plan, you can also build yourself a good, old-fashioned defined-benefit pension plan.

In my opinion, if you play your cards right, you can potentially shield hundreds of thousands of dollars from the tax man every year.

 

Paying Yourself

Very few companies offer traditional pension plans today. They’re expensive to administer, they can be a legal minefield, and at the end of the day, no one wants the responsibility of caring for retired workers decades after they’ve quit working.

This is why most companies moved to defined-contribution plans like 401ks.

There’s no real risk from the company’s point of view. Managing the portfolio is the responsibility of the worker, not the company.


Different Story

But my own retirement? That’s a different story. I don’t mind dealing with the hassle if I’m the one that gets the benefit.

So, with that as an introduction, let me introduce the cash-balance plan.

A cash-balance plan is a traditional defined-benefit pension plan designed for one-man shops or small businesses with a handful of partners.

The formula for contribution limits is complex and depends on your age, income and the current value of your plan, among other things. So, it’s probably easiest to explain with examples.

If you’re 40 years old and make $250,000 per year in self-employment income, you can contribute around $106,000 to a cash-balance plan, saving tens of thousands of dollars in taxes.

If you’re 50 years old and making $250,000 per year, the amount you can potentially contribute jumps up to over $180,000. And if you’re 55, the number gets close to $220,000.


Tax Man

Sheltering $220,000 per year from the tax man sounds a lot better than sheltering $19,000 to $25,000.

But here’s where it really gets fun. It doesn’t have to be an either/or decision. You can actually do both!

So, playing with examples again, let’s say you’re 50 years old and earn over $250,000. You can dump the first $25,000 into your 401k plan, pay yourself an extra 6% in matching or profit sharing, which would work out to another $15,000, and then top it off with a massive $180,000 contribution to your cash-balance plan.

There are a few catches, of course. You need a professional to set up the plan and do the annual actuarial calculations, which will cost you several hundred or even a couple thousand dollars per year.

You do not want to get cheap here and try to do it yourself, as making any mistakes can subject you to penalties and a potential tax nightmare.

You also have to invest the cash-balance plan conservatively. Just as is the case with an old-school traditional pension, any portfolio losses have to be made up with higher future contributions.

It doesn’t matter if you’re the only participant in the plan and you’re effectively “paying yourself.” You face the same risk that General Motors or Ford do when their pension assets fall short of liabilities.

So, you’d want to make sure your cash-balance plan was invested primarily in bonds, CDs or other low-risk investments.

 

Lifetime Maximum

Once you’ve retired or reached the lifetime maximum contribution of around $2.6 million, you don’t have to worry about dealing with the administration of the cash-balance plan anymore.

You can simply roll the balance into an IRA and manage it the same way you would with any other retirement account.

Regardless, if you’re looking to turbocharge your retirement savings, you should definitely look into cash-balance plans.

In my opinion, there’s simply nothing else out there that can offer the same tax-deferred growth.

 

Disclosure:  This article is not intended as tax advice and IBKRAM is not qualified and cannot provide any tax advice.  Those interested in the plans discussed in this article should consult and accountant or tax attorney as to the taxation implications of these plans.

--

Charles Sizemore manages the Strategic Growth Allocation and Long Term GARP portfolios offered by Interactive Brokers Asset Management, an online investing marketplace and a division of Interactive Brokers Group. He is also the Chief Investment Officer of Sizemore Capital Management, a registered investment advisor.

This material is not intended as investment advice. IBKR Asset Management or portfolio managers on its marketplace may hold long or short positions in the companies mentioned through stocks, options or other securities.

This material is from Interactive Brokers Asset Management and is being posted with Interactive Brokers Asset Management’s permission. The views expressed in this material are solely those of the author and IBKR is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the material. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

 


22389




Macro

Schroders - How Trade Wars Have Affected Emerging Market Returns - By Andrew Rymer


We illustrate how trade concerns influenced emerging markets equity returns in 2018 and discuss the prospect of a rebound this year.

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index, a measure of emerging markets (EM) equities, was down 14.3% in 2018, but this masked a considerable dispersion of returns, particularly in US dollar terms.

Turkey was the year's worst performer, thanks to a collapse in the lira, with equities losing investors 57.6% in dollar terms. The best performing major market, Brazil, was still down for the year, but only just at a less painful 0.2%. The outlier was Qatar, where the equity market rallied 29.8%, despite the ongoing economic blockade by regional countries.

The dominant common theme for emerging markets (EM) equities in 2018 was trade wars, as demonstrated by the chart below. Craig Botham, Emerging Markets Economist, explains:

“Taking April, when the US first mooted China-specific tariffs, as a starting point, there is a striking correlation between equity performance in EM and a country's exposure to the US-China trade war, as measured by value added to China-US trade.

“The less exposed economies managed to eke out small positive price gains, but due to currency moves still saw a negative overall return in dollar terms.”

Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.

 

...But are emerging markets set to rebound in 2019?

After a challenging 2018, could EM equities recover this year? Expectations for major global central banks to take further measures to tighten monetary policy, and the impact of the US-China trade dispute will not help. However, Keith Wade, Chief Economist, has named the return of emerging markets as one of his themes for the year.

He said: “If our forecast is correct and the US Federal Reserve decides to end its interest rate tightening cycle in June 2019, there is a good argument to be made for the dollar to weaken. This would relieve the pressure on dollar borrowers and emerging markets. Arguably, those markets may already be discounting the worst, with both equities and foreign exchange having fallen significantly.”

Macroeconomic developments will be important, and it may be that further stimulus in China is the catalyst for investors to return to the region. Wade believes this would help to alleviate concern over another collapse in global trade as seen in 2007-08.

Wade added: “Whilst US-China trade will slow, unless the trade war goes global there is no reason to expect an outright contraction in trade as activity should be diverted elsewhere.”

--

Originally Posted on January 14, 2019

Please remember past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.

There is a substantial risk of loss in foreign exchange trading. The settlement date of foreign exchange trades can vary due to time zone differences and bank holidays. When trading across foreign exchange markets, this may necessitate borrowing funds to settle foreign exchange trades. The interest rate on borrowed funds must be considered when computing the cost of trades across multiple markets.

Important Information: This communication is marketing material. The views and opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) on this page, and may not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders communications, strategies or funds. This material is intended to be for information purposes only and is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. It is not intended to provide and should not be relied on for accounting, legal or tax advice, or investment recommendations. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information in this document when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. The value of an investment can go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. All investments involve risks including the risk of possible loss of principal. Information herein is believed to be reliable but Schroders does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. Some information quoted was obtained from external sources we consider to be reliable. No responsibility can be accepted for errors of fact obtained from third parties, and this data may change with market conditions. This does not exclude any duty or liability that Schroders has to its customers under any regulatory system. Regions/ sectors shown for illustrative purposes only and should not be viewed as a recommendation to buy/sell. The opinions in this material include some forecasted views. We believe we are basing our expectations and beliefs on reasonable assumptions within the bounds of what we currently know. However, there is no guarantee than any forecasts or opinions will be realised. These views and opinions may change.  To the extent that you are in North America, this content is issued by Schroder Investment Management North America Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Schroders plc and SEC registered adviser providing asset management products and services to clients in the US and Canada. For all other users, this content is issued by Schroder Investment Management Limited, 31 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7QA. Registered No. 1893220 England. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Information posted on IBKR Traders’ Insight that is provided by third-parties and not by Interactive Brokers does NOT constitute a recommendation by Interactive Brokers that you should contract for the services of that third party. Third-party participants who contribute to IBKR Traders’ Insight are independent of Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers does not make any representations or warranties concerning the services offered, their past or future performance, or the accuracy of the information provided by the third party. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

This material is from Schroders and is being posted with Schroders’ permission. The views expressed in this material are solely those of the author and/or Schroders and IBKR is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the material. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


22388




Macro

Franklin Templeton - Why We Think Most "Brexit Panaceas" Are Ill-Thought-Through or Unviable - By Sandy Nairn


As expected, Theresa May and her government survived the no-confidence vote called by the opposition Labour Party after the UK Parliament overwhelmingly rejected her withdrawal deal. Now UK political attention must turn back to the real job at hand—navigating the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union (EU). Sandy Nairn, chairman of Templeton Global Equity Group and CEO of Edinburgh Partners, analyzes the options and argues that the most realistic is an extension of Article 50.

We suspect there was relief on both sides when Jeremy Corbyn’s vote of no confidence in the UK government failed. It appeared neither party actually wanted a general election. Labour’s position in opinion polls indicate it would be unlikely to win and, although some polls suggest the Conservatives could increase their majority, many Tory members of parliament would be reluctant to go into a campaign with Theresa May as the leader.

The question on everyone’s lips therefore is: “What happens now?” It is symptomatic of the level of debate that the options which tend to get offered as panaceas for Brexit are rarely thought-through or viable.

No Deal Can Happen by Accident

Some observers believe the rejection of May’s withdrawal agreement has increased the chances of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, but we believe the probability is still low. Theresa May is aware of how disastrous the impact could be, even if the extreme Brexiteers are not. Of course, this does not mean it cannot happen by accident.

Under a no-deal scenario, trade with the EU will automatically be subject to the common external tariff.

In addition, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) most-favored-nation principle means the EU has to apply the tariffs and quotas they apply globally to the United Kingdom.

Under WTO rules, the United Kingdom would be required to charge other countries the same tariff and quota as it charges the EU and vice versa. This means no special deals between the United Kingdom and the EU. If the United Kingdom waived tariffs/quotas on EU goods to smooth trade, then these would have to apply globally. One only needs to consider the impact of non-EU food imports into the United Kingdom and EU to understand how implausible this solution actually is.

Norway Option Comes into Play

Our view is that focus will now shift towards the so-called “Norway” option, in which the United Kingdom would leave the EU but become part of the European Economic Area (EEA), alongside countries such as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

However, because the EEA is not a customs union, membership of the EEA would still require the Irish backstop, which has caused so much consternation to opponents of May’s failed withdrawal deal. In addition, the EEA membership is also very expensive—Norway is a top-10 per-capita contributor to the EU budget.

Neither is the process for joining the EEA hurdle-free. The United Kingdom would first have to join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and then apply for membership of EEA. This would require the ratification of 30 national parliaments, any of whom could object or demand specific concessions from the United Kingdom.

We calculate implementation of this approach would require a two-year extension to the existing March 29 Brexit deadline.

Extending Article 50 Deadline

The EU has clearly signaled that it will not grant an extension to re-enter a negotiation. It believes the negotiation has been completed.

On the other hand, we believe that if the UK argued that an extension was needed to put the proposal to the people in another referendum, it is highly likely it would be granted.

Labour Party policy has been to push for an election and failing that, then to have a second referendum. May’s confidence vote victory has effectively ruled out an early General Election so we believe it would be difficult for the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to oppose a second referendum.

Critically, the pressure group, Momentum—the driving force behind Corbyn’s election as leader—is strongly in favor of a second referendum.

On the Conservative side, the different factions will likely squabble. But while we can expect the ardent leavers to characterize a second referendum as a “betrayal of democracy”, this is unlikely to hold water against a stalemate, with a resolution decided by the people in a democratic vote.

This would then lead to a debate about the exact question that would go on the ballot paper. We’d expect this to take up a considerable amount of energy.

However, by this time, the terms of the debate will have changed. The Remain campaign strategy is likely to be much more robust than at the previous vote and it will seek to address the concerns of Leave voters. For example, one can imagine the appearance of a “no Brexit dividend” used to fund investment in reducing regional inequality and improve public service provision in regions impacted by immigration.

The thorny question of immigration cannot be dealt with by conflict with the EU, but it would not be difficult to limit flows within the existing EU framework and this point is likely to be made.

From the Leave side, it is likely that much of the debate will be about “betrayal” and the subversion of the political process. Leave campaigners may disown the existing negotiations as the failure of the negotiators and the intransigence of the EU. However, the economic benefits of leaving are going to be harder to promote and the challenges are less likely to be susceptible to the charge of simply being “Project Fear”.

The current polling evidence suggests that in the event of a second referendum, a reversal of the original result is more likely than not. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has ruled that a country can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and return to being a member of the EU under the same conditions as previously.

Under a “Remain” scenario we could expect a sharp rise in sterling and sterling related assets, although this may prove to be relatively short-lived. Under the “no-deal” outcome we would expect a similar move in the other direction which might initially be overdone, but with a prolonged negative period to follow.

--

Originally Posted on January 17, 2019

This information is intended for US residents only.

The comments, opinions and analyses expressed herein are for informational purposes only and should not be considered individual investment advice or recommendations to invest in any security or to adopt any investment strategy. Because market and economic conditions are subject to rapid change, comments, opinions and analyses are rendered as of the date of the posting and may change without notice. The material is not intended as a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region, market, industry, investment or strategy.

What Are the Risks?

All investments involve risks, including possible loss of principal. Stock prices fluctuate, sometimes rapidly and dramatically, due to factors affecting individual companies, particular industries or sectors, or general market conditions. Special risks are associated with foreign investing, including currency fluctuations, economic instability and political developments. Current political uncertainty surrounding the European Union (EU) and the financial instability of some countries in the EU may increase market volatility and the economic risk of investing in companies in Europe.

To get insights from Franklin Templeton delivered to your inbox, subscribe to the Beyond Bulls & Bears blog.

Information posted on IBKR Traders’ Insight that is provided by third-parties and not by Interactive Brokers does NOT constitute a recommendation by Interactive Brokers that you should contract for the services of that third party. Third-party participants who contribute to IBKR Traders’ Insight are independent of Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers does not make any representations or warranties concerning the services offered, their past or future performance, or the accuracy of the information provided by the third party. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

This material is from Franklin Templeton and is being posted with Franklin Templeton’s permission. The views expressed in this material are solely those of the author and/or Franklin Templeton and IBKR is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the material. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IBKR to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


22386




Fixed Income

BlackRock - Rates and Reality Series: Was The Great Bond Bull Market Just Plain Bull?


In this three-part series, Matt Tucker overturns some commonly held assumptions about the relationship between interest rates and bond returns. Here, he examines what 30 years of falling rates actually meant for bond investors.

One comment you often hear these days is how lucky bond market investors have been.   Interest rates have been falling for decades, and this has led to a huge bull market for bonds. This is the conventional wisdom that everyone has embraced: falling interest rates are good for investors, and rising rates are bad.

The reasoning is straightforward bond math. If interest rates fall then yes, the price of your bond will go up. And vice versa: if interest rates rise then bond prices will fall. Many observers apply the same math to the so-called great bond bull market–the 30-year decline in bond yields beginning in 1981. The assumption is that bond investors have been making out like bandits for decades. And now with interest rates on the way back up, it stands to reason that the bounty has dried up. No more good returns for you bond investors. From here on out it will just be declining prices, doom and gloom.

Here’s the problem with this story: there never was a bond bull market. Those three decades were largely a bad period for bond investors.

 

Bonds ≠ Stocks

How is this possible? Most investors think of market rallies in equity terms. Say that you had invested $1,000 in the stock market on 9/30/1981 – roughly the date we saw the highest ever long-term bond yields. The S&P 500 Index was at 116.  Thirty years later, with the S&P at 1,131, you would have had an annualized return of 10.80% if you had reinvested dividends–a pretty solid return. You bought equities, prices went up and you got to participate in the market rally. All very straightforward.

Now, imagine that you put $1,000 into a brand new 30-year Treasury bond on that same day, 9/30/1981. Since this is a bond you would expect to realize something close to the bond yield if you held it to maturity, around 15%. Yields then fell for the next 30 years to around 3%. Wow, a 15% starting yield, plus falling interest rates. Your return must be really good!  In fact, your return from holding your bond over that period and reinvesting the coupons as they came in would have been… about 10%, or roughly 5% lower than your initial expectation. Yes, you still got a good return, but it was less than you expected–despite the supposed bond market rally.

What happened?  You bought a bond near all-time high yields and held it through what has been called the greatest bond bull market of the past century.  How could you get 5% less than you expected? The answer is simple: falling yields are not good for long-term bond investors.

To understand this, we need to peek into how a bond’s yield is calculated.  When you see that 15% yield on the 30-year Treasury there are a couple of assumptions being made. One of them is that every six months when you receive a coupon payment, you are reinvesting it back into the market at that same initial 15% rate.  This is a fine assumption when you start, as you don’t really know which way interest rates are going to go.  However, if yields are declining, each coupon payment is being re-invested at lower and lower yields, leading to a lower return than you expected over the life of your investment. This is compounding interest in action.  A lower interest rate, compounded over a 30-year period, can lead to a significantly different outcome.

Take a look at the graph below.  The bar on the left shows you the cash flows you would have received from buying that 15% yield bond in 1981 and reinvesting your coupon payments back into the market as you received them.  From that $1,000 you put in in 1981 you would have received back over $18,000 30 years later.  The bar on the right shows you what you would have gotten back if you had purchased that same 15% bond in 1981, and yields had remained at 15% for 30 years.  You would have gotten back over $75,000 dollars!  Investing at higher yields has a real impact on your cash flows over 30 years.

For illustrative purposes only. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 

Know your short from your long

Where does this fiction about falling yields being good for bond investors come from?  It comes from shorter-term bond investors who are seeing the value of their bonds rise as rates decline, and who aren’t factoring in the impact of compounding interest over time. A short-term investor could sell their bond when it rose in price and realize a benefit from falling interest rates. A longer-term investor who holds her bonds to maturity never realizes any gains on that original bond.  The $1,000 you put into that original bond returned $1,000 30 years later.  Most of the return comes from reinvesting that bond’s coupons along the way. The only way to benefit from falling yields is to sell a bond that has gone up in price. My example above used a single bond, but you would have gotten a similar result if you had bought a bond ladder or even a bond fund.  Any strategy that holds bonds to close to their maturity is penalized by falling interest rates over long periods of time as coupon payments are reinvested at lower and lower yields.

Critics of this logic might say “of course you have to sell things when they go up in price.” After all, in my equity example, the investor only gets that 10%+ return if they sell their S&P 500 investment at the end. This is true, but it misses a key distinction between bonds and stocks. If you buy a stock and hold it, you will realize the return of that stock, either up or down. If you buy at $100 it could rise to $150 or fall to $50. You hope it will go up in price, but you have no surety around what it will be worth in the future.

However, if you buy a bond, you expect regular income payments and then your money back at maturity[1]. There is no expectation that you will get more than what you put in when the bond matures. A bond you buy at $100 may rise in price to $150, but if you keep holding that bond, it will fall back to $100 when it matures. Any gains or losses that a bond experiences disappear as it approaches maturity and the price pulls back to its initial par.

In other words, changes in bond prices decay, equity price changes do not. This is one of the most overlooked concepts in investing, and what really separates fixed income from equities.

Short- to intermediate-term investors, and those who opportunistically harvest gains, would have had a different experience in the 30-year period outlined above.  If I had sold my 15% 30-year bond five years after purchasing it, I could have gotten over $160 for a bond I bought at $100.  Even if I were just monitoring the current market value of my investment I would have seen a significant price increase in the early years, driven by falling yields. Falling yields do lead to higher bond prices. But all those bonds that rise in price will mature at par.

In the end, bond price gains are transient for the long-term investor. What really matters is the level of yields at which you can invest in the future, as we’ll see in my next post.

 

Matt Tucker, CFA, is the iShares Head of Fixed Income Strategy and a regular contributor to The Blog.

[1] As this is a US Treasury security we will assume it matures at par.  For corporate bonds and other securities with credit risk there is the chance that the issuer could default and the investor could receive back less than par.

--

Originally Posted on January 15, 2019

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

Fixed income risks include interest-rate and credit risk. Typically, when interest rates rise, there is a corresponding decline in bond values. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the bond issuer will not be able to make principal and interest payments.

Investment comparisons are for illustrative purposes only. To better understand the similarities and differences between investments, including investment objectives, risks, fees and expenses, it is important to read the products’ prospectuses.

This material is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The opinions expressed are as of the date indicated and may change as subsequent conditions vary. The information and opinions contained in this post are derived from proprietary and non-proprietary sources deemed by BlackRock to be reliable, are not necessarily all-inclusive and are not guaranteed as to accuracy. As such, no warranty of accuracy or reliability is given and no responsibility arising in any other way for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by BlackRock, its officers, employees or agents. This post may contain “forward-looking” information that is not purely historical in nature. Such information may include, among other things, projections and forecasts. There is no guarantee that any of these views will come to pass. Reliance upon information in this post is at the sole discretion of the reader.

The strategies discussed are strictly for illustrative and educational purposes and are not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. There is no guarantee that any strategies discussed will be effective.

This post contains general information only and does not take into account an individual’s financial circumstances. This information should not be relied upon as a primary basis for an investment decision. Rather, an assessment should be made as to whether the information is appropriate in individual circumstances and consideration should be given to talking to a financial advisor before making an investment decision.

©2019 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a registered trademarks of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.

USRMH0119U-688721-1/1

Information posted on IBKR Traders’ Insight that is provided by third-parties and not by Interactive Brokers does NOT constitute a recommendation by Interactive Brokers that you should contract for the services of that third party. Third-party participants who contribute to IBKR Traders’ Insight are independent of Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers does not make any representations or warranties concerning the services offered, their past or future performance, or the accuracy of the information provided by the third party. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

This material is from BlackRock and is being posted with BlackRock’s permission. The views expressed in this material are solely those of the author and/or BlackRock and IBKR is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the material. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice. 

 


22385




1 2 3 4 5 2 1869

Disclosures

We appreciate your feedback. If you have any questions or comments about IB Traders' Insight please contact ibti@ibkr.com.

The material (including articles and commentary) provided on IB Traders' Insight is offered for informational purposes only. The posted material is NOT a recommendation by Interactive Brokers (IB) that you or your clients should contract for the services of or invest with any of the independent advisors or hedge funds or others who may post on IB Traders' Insight or invest with any advisors or hedge funds. The advisors, hedge funds and other analysts who may post on IB Traders' Insight are independent of IB and IB does not make any representations or warranties concerning the past or future performance of these advisors, hedge funds and others or the accuracy of the information they provide. Interactive Brokers does not conduct a "suitability review" to make sure the trading of any advisor or hedge fund or other party is suitable for you.

Securities or other financial instruments mentioned in the material posted are not suitable for all investors. The material posted does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situations or needs and is not intended as a recommendation to you of any particular securities, financial instruments or strategies. Before making any investment or trade, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Any information provided by third parties has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable and accurate; however, IB does not warrant its accuracy and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions.

Any information posted by employees of IB or an affiliated company is based upon information that is believed to be reliable. However, neither IB nor its affiliates warrant its completeness, accuracy or adequacy. IB does not make any representations or warranties concerning the past or future performance of any financial instrument. By posting material on IB Traders' Insight, IB is not representing that any particular financial instrument or trading strategy is appropriate for you.