Quantifying the value of a tax overlay: A case study

Transcription

1 Quantifying the value of a tax overlay: A case study In a letter written November 13, 1789, Benjamin Franklin wrote: Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. Over 225 years later those words still ring true and are a reminder of the uncertainty facing the United States as we enter One of the uncertainties we face is the future of tax rates. It is no secret that tax cuts are a key agenda item for the Trump administration. Though we will certainly continue to pay taxes, lower rates for 2017 could lower our tax burden. Given federal debt levels and the competing objective of reducing the budget deficit, passing any substantial tax cuts may be challenging. However, with a repeal of Obamacare also topping the agenda, many investors may get relief from the 3.8% tax on net investment income which currently helps fund the program. Even if tax rates do go down, however, they will continue to have a meaningful impact on aftertax investment returns. Therefore, the value that can be derived from employing tax management techniques will remain significant. With potential changes to tax rates, evaluating the effectiveness of tax management strategies in client portfolios takes on greater importance. As we review the results of Managed Portfolio Advisors tax management overlay through 2016, we will also evaluate and discuss how lower tax rates impact the potential value tax management contributes to investor returns. Several academic studies 1, 2, 3 have estimated that taxes historically erode 1% 2% of a client s investment returns. Other research 4, 5, 6 has found that employing tax management techniques such as tax loss harvesting and HIFO accounting (Highest In, First Out selects the highest-cost tax lots when selling positions) can mitigate a significant amount of this impact. Much of the research on the impact of tax management techniques has been based on simulations and very-low-turnover strategies. The purpose of this case study is to review the actual experience from the application of tax management techniques to real-world portfolios that are diversified and actively managed.

2 Case Study Overview One of the challenges in evaluating the efficacy of tax management is identifying an appropriate benchmark for comparing after-tax returns. Since taxes are highly dependent on each client s cost basis and holding period, an appropriate benchmark should begin not only with the same portfolio but with the same start date and cost basis in the underlying holdings. This case study makes just such a comparison between pairs of accounts. In the results section we will examine results for two types of accounts: Seed accounts, which were funded with seed money, and Tracking accounts, or paper portfolios, which are not actually funded or traded but are managed as if they are actual accounts. Simulated trading activity occurs at essentially the same time that it occurs in actual accounts invested in those strategies. For both types of accounts this study compares the results of pairs of accounts, one of which is tax managed and the other managed without regard to taxes (i.e. as if it were a taxexempt account). This comparison provides a couple of useful pieces of information. First, it shows whether the tax management techniques had much impact on the pre-tax returns. Ideally they should not and the pre-tax returns would be very close. Second, by comparing the after-tax returns of each pair of accounts, it demonstrates the after-tax benefit gained from the employment of these techniques. Both the seed accounts and tracking accounts are composed of combinations of separately managed account strategies as well as mutual funds and ETFs. These strategies were all implemented in a unified account (i.e. a single custodial account/registration), and the implementation and tax overlay were conducted by the Managed Portfolio Advisors (MPA) division of Natixis Advisors, L.P., a manager specializing in overlay management. These portfolios were rebalanced back to target allocations when asset class weightings drifted excessively, and changes to the managers included in the portfolio and/or target allocations occurred periodically. The seed and tracking accounts were invested in line with the same allocation models used to invest actual client accounts, and all portfolio changes were implemented concurrently. Tax Management Techniques There are a wide variety of tax management techniques that can be employed as part of a tax overlay. The primary techniques employed as part of the tax overlay applied to these accounts include: Tax loss harvesting. The tax overlay process employed involves looking for opportunities to harvest unrealized losses in positions so that they can be used to offset gains generated elsewhere in the portfolio. This is done in a systematic manner throughout the course of the year, and the proceeds of loss-harvested securities are invested in an ETF to preserve asset class exposure. A risk model is also used to help ensure that the portfolio does not deviate excessively from the recommended portfolio. Short-term gain deferral. For many investors the difference between the tax rates that apply to long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains can be significant. When positions are being sold in portfolios, MPA may defer trades for certain accounts that have significant gains associated with those positions and are relatively close to reaching the one-year holding period that would qualify those gains for treatment as long-term. Optimal tax lot selection. Custodians will typically resort to some kind of standard accounting process (often First In, First Out or FIFO) when identifying which tax lot is being sold unless they are instructed otherwise. In many cases, however, there may be other tax lots that would generate less tax liability for the client. When implementing sales of securities in client accounts, MPA may look across a client s entire portfolio to find the optimal tax lot from a tax perspective. Avoiding wash sale rule violations. The IRS s wash sale rule prevents taxpayers from using a realized loss to offset gains if they purchase the same or a similar security within 30 days of the sale. Avoiding these kinds of occurrences can be difficult in a diversified portfolio when the various investment managers are acting independently. As an overlay manager coordinating activity across the entire portfolio, MPA can prevent most of these types of situations from occurring. Results In Figure 1 we present the pre- and after-tax returns for the pair of seed accounts that have the longest history of these pairs of accounts. Figure 1 shows the pre-tax and after-tax returns (both pre- and post-liquidation) for the pair of seed accounts invested in an equity allocation model. As intended, the pre-tax returns of the two portfolios were very close (7.30% versus 7.37% or 7 basis points of annualized performance difference). On an after-tax basis, however, the benefits of employing the tax management 3 FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ONLY

3 techniques are quite evident. On a pre-liquidation basis the tax-managed portfolio outperformed the standard portfolio by an annualized 1.07%, with the non-tax-managed seed account returning 6.36% after tax and the taxmanaged seed account gaining 7.43% per year. On an after-liquidation basis this difference narrowed slightly to 0.58% per year (5.84% versus 6.42%). (Note: Pre-liquidation after-tax returns are calculated assuming all positions held at the end of the period are retained. Post-liquidation after-tax returns are calculated assuming all remaining positions are liquidated at the end of the period being considered.) The tracking accounts provide additional data points with similar results. The time period these portfolios have been managed is slightly shorter, but they span a broader range of asset allocation models and manager combinations. Figure 2 plots the annualized returns for the 24 tracking account pairs against their equity separate account allocation percentages. While tax management techniques are not applied exclusively to equity separate account strategies within the portfolios, it is in these types of sleeves that the greatest impact can be realized. As shown in Figure 2, the after-tax return difference increases as the equity separate account allocations increase. FIGURE 1: Equity Allocation Model Seed Accounts June 1, 2011 December 31, 2016 Annualized Return 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 7.30% 7.37% 6.36% Non Tax Managed 7.43% Tax Managed 5.84% 6.42% Pre-tax After-tax (Pre-liq) After-tax (Post-liq) All of the returns shown above are gross of fees and would be lower if shown net of fees. All other costs are properly incorporated into the above returns. Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of, and not necessarily indicative of, future results. FIGURE 2: Tracking Account After-Tax Performance Differences Tax Alpha Summary January 1, 2012 December 31, 2016 Annualized tax alpha (after-tax return difference) % 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Current % Equity SMA All of the returns shown above are gross of fees and would be lower if shown net of fees. All other costs are properly incorporated into the above returns. Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of, and not necessarily indicative of, future results. Tax Management and the Market Environment Not surprisingly, it is easier to be tax efficient in a bear market as opposed to a bull market, where much of the trading activity in a portfolio is likely to generate realized gains. In down markets it is much more likely that gains will be smaller or clients may experience net realized losses. Other factors, such as market volatility levels and the dispersion of returns of stocks within the market, can also have a significant impact. Some of this impact can be illustrated by comparing returns for tracking accounts established at the start of 2012 with tracking accounts initiated at different times during the year. Tracking accounts for each allocation model were established at the start of 2012, 2014 and Figure 3 illustrates the tax alpha generated by calendar year for the equity allocation tracking accounts. The alpha for the 2012 vintage tracking account was significantly higher than for the 2014 and 2016 vintage account in the first 12 months after inception, 2.77% for the 2012 vintage versus 1.19% for the 2014 vintage and 1.73% for the 2016 vintage. Overall, the equity market returns for each year were quite good FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ONLY 4

4 FIGURE 3: Tax Alpha Generated by Calendar Year for Equity Allocation Tracking Accounts ( ) Tax Alpha Generated in Year 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2.77% % 0.48% % 1.19% 1.17% FIGURE 4: Tax Alpha Generated by Calendar Year for Equity Allocation Tracking Accounts ( ) S&P 500 Total Return 16.0% 32.4% 13.7% 1.4% 12.0% S&P 500 Max Drawdown -6.6% -2.9% -3.5% -8.4% -5.1% Source: Factset, Managed Portfolio Advisors Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of, and not necessarily indicative of, future results Vintage 2014 Vintage 2016 Vintage 0.95% 0.70% All of the returns shown above are gross of fees and would be lower if shown net of fees. All other costs are properly incorporated into the above returns. Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of, and not necessarily indicative of, future results % The maturity of an account, especially in periods of prolonged bull markets, can also impact the potential for tax alpha in a given year. Referring again to Figure 3, the 2012 vintage tracking accounts generated less tax alpha than the 2014 tracking accounts in 2014 and Though material opportunity for tax loss harvesting persists in the 2012 vintage tracking accounts, strong equity market returns in 2012 and 2013 led to less loss harvesting opportunity in 2014 and 2015 relative to the newer, 2014 vintage tracking accounts. The 2012 vintage account started out 2014 and 2015 with much lower cost basis on most of the securities held in the portfolio than the 2014 vintage account, which established its cost basis on 12/31/13. As a result, there would have been fewer opportunities to conduct loss harvesting in the older account. Market conditions in 2016 allowed for moderate loss harvest opportunities in the aged vintages, while the new 2016 vintage realized a 1.73% advantage over its non-tax-managed counterpart due to its higher cost basis. and somewhat similar, with the S&P 500 generating a total return of 16% in 2012, 13.7% in 2014 and 12% in There were some meaningful differences in market behavior, however. Figure 4 provides the return and drawdown data for the S&P 500 by calendar year was a more volatile year for stocks with both a greater frequency and larger magnitude of drawdowns. The market volatility in 2012 also occurred earlier in the year, soon after the initial cost basis in securities had been established in the account and before many of these positions had a chance to appreciate. In 2014 the largest pullback in the market occurred much later in the year and after there had already been significant market appreciation. This meant that although the market pulled back, for many securities held in the portfolio the price may not have declined to the point where a loss could be harvested. Market behavior in 2016 fell in between these two previous scenarios. There was a meaningful drawdown early in the year, though not as large as in Not surprisingly, the after-tax benefit generated in the first year of the 2016 vintage account s life fell between those of the 2012 and 2014 vintage accounts. 5 FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ONLY

5 FIGURE 5: Seed Account Realized Gains and Losses June 1, 2011 December 31, 2016 $20,000 $10, $10,000 -$20,000 -$30,000 -$40,000 -$50,000 -$60,000 Manager/Asset Class Changes -$70,000 6/1/11 6/1/12 The Life Cycle of an Account During the course of managing an account numerous events and activities occur that have tax consequences. Managers sell some securities to buy others, asset classes drift away from targets and require rebalancing, managers are replaced and target allocations may be adjusted as new capital market projections are factored into asset allocation models. All of this results in trading activity that generates realized gains and losses. Figure 5 shows the cumulative realized gains and losses for the tax-managed equity allocation seed account since its inception. After the account initially opened, there were relatively small amounts of realized gains and losses on any given day. Since the equity market was generally declining during this initial period, the cumulative realized gain/loss line gradually trends downward. Roughly every 31 days the account went through a loss harvesting cycle, so there is a larger realized loss amount on those days and the cumulative losses gap down. Overtime, Manager Terminations 6/1/13 6/1/14 6/1/15 6/1/16 Cumulative gain/loss Daily gain/loss the allocation model this account was aligned with has gone through several changes -- including adjustments to allocation targets and manager changes. Manager and allocation changes can lead to significant gains or losses depending on market conditions and how long the account maintained the allocation. Large moves in the cumulative gain/loss line in Figure 5 illustrate the impact, both positive and negative, that allocation and manager changes can have on a client s net gain balance. Of course, allocation and manager changes are necessary to deliver a research team s best thinking to their clients. While tax management should never override the investment decision, an effective tax management program may minimize the tax cost related to portfolio changes. Through 2012, the market had not recovered from the previous decline, so net losses continued to be realized. From that point on, the equity market generally trended upward. The normal trading activity by managers began to generate realized gains, causing the cumulative realized gains to move slowly upwards. Periodic loss harvesting offset part of that increase, but the ensuing strong equity market returns resulted in more realized gains. Manager changes, which required the liquidation of most of the terminated managers holdings in June 2013 and October 2014, also contributed to the realization of more gains. During this period the loss-harvesting opportunities were scarcer, so the offsetting realized losses were modest. Despite the strong equity markets over much of this period, however, the account still had very limited cumulative net realized gains since inception. This is due in large part to the loss harvesting that occurred in the challenging market environment during the months after the account opened. During this period, realized losses were banked and were able to be used to offset later realized gains. Following a brief period of volatility early in 2015, a strong market drove the realization of gains in the account while minimizing opportunities for loss harvesting. Starting in August 2015, volatility returned and remained elevated through year-end. Through this period our loss harvesting process realized enough in losses to offset most of the gains realized earlier in the year. After being invested for four and a half years, the account finished 2015 with a small net realized gain. Market action in 2016 allowed for material loss harvest opportunities throughout the year. In the fall of 2016, a model change led to the realization of significant gains, pushing the cumulative balance back to a net gain. Loss harvesting in the remaining months was enough to keep the balance at a net loss. This illustrates how a comprehensive approach to maximizing after-tax return may significantly defer the realization of gains. FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ONLY 6

6 How Varying Tax Rates Impact Results It is important to understand how the value of tax management persists across tax brackets and how potential tax cuts may impact tax management opportunities. Clients do not have to be in the top tax bracket to benefit from tax management. Similarly, potential tax cuts for 2017 will, of course, not eliminate tax liabilities, merely reduce them. The results illustrated in the previous sections assume the hypothetical clients pay the highest federal tax rates. The current rates applied are 43.4% for income and short-term gains and 23.8% for long-term capital gains. No state taxes are assumed and all income, including qualified dividends, is assumed to be taxed at the income rate. The highest federal tax rates applied include the 3.8% Medicare surtax applied to net investment income for higher-income investors. In this section we review five-year annualized tax alphas realized in each tracking account model at each tax bracket. Because the 3.8% net investment income tax does not apply across all tax brackets, we will use only income and capital gains rates for each bracket. The tax brackets used are those under current law. Though proposals have been outlined to reduce tax rates, at this point it would be speculation to assume what tax rates will be in place at the end of However, the current tax brackets are useful in modeling the impact of potential tax cuts. Figure 6 illustrates the results and provides some key insights. First, though not a certainty, it is likely that the 3.8% net investment income tax will be eliminated in Because we do not consider this tax in these calculations, the table shows results that would have FIGURE 6: Tax Alpha % Assuming Current Federal Tax Bracket January 1, December 31, 2016 Model been realized without this tax. Though there are multiple tax cut proposals on the table, an example with real numbers we can analyze is Paul Ryan s plan, which lowers the top bracket to 33% and replaces a long-term capital gains tax with a deduction that leads to a highest effective rate of 16.5%. 7 In this context, we can use the 33% income rate / 15% capital gain rate column as the closest scenario for the impact Paul Ryan s plan would have if adopted. Using the Aggressive Growth models as an example, we can see the tax alphas are reduced by 15bps compared to today s current highest tax bracket but the tax alphas remain meaningful at 92bps for the higher minimum model and 79bps for the lower minimum model. Similar to Figure 2, Figure 6 also highlights how each model s allocation to equity SMAs impacts the potential for tax alpha. For example, the 39.6%/ 20% Aggressive Growth and Growth models allocate more than two-thirds of the Federal Tax Bracket (Income Rate/Capital Gains Rate) 35%/ 15% 33%/ 15% 28%/ 15% 25%/ 15% 15%/ 0% portfolio to equity SMAs. The results show material value added across the tax brackets. In contrast, the Conservative Income models have limited exposure to equity SMAs leading to minimal tax alpha. In the $500K minimum version of the model, a 10% allocation to equity SMA was added in Prior to this there was zero exposure to equity SMAs in the model. Because of this the annualized tax alpha rounds to zero at lower tax brackets. Though we expect to generate some tax alpha over time in these conservative models, the potential value is limited. In the models with meaningful tax management opportunities, the value of tax management generally persists across tax brackets. We will leave it up to the reader to determine the threshold for what they consider to be a meaningful level of potential tax alpha. For purposes of discussion, we will set the threshold at an arbitrary annualized 25bps of tax alpha. 10%/ 0% Aggressive Growth ($1M) 1.07% 0.98% 0.92% 0.78% 0.69% 0.52% 0.37% Aggressive Growth ($500K) 0.94% 0.84% 0.79% 0.65% 0.57% 0.38% 0.24% Growth ($1M) 0.82% 0.74% 0.69% 0.57% 0.50% 0.34% 0.23% Growth ($500K) 0.61% 0.55% 0.51% 0.42% 0.37% 0.25% 0.16% Conservative Growth ($1M) 0.76% 0.69% 0.65% 0.55% 0.49% 0.36% 0.26% Conservative Growth ($500K) 0.66% 0.59% 0.56% 0.48% 0.43% 0.30% 0.21% Growth & Income ($1M) 0.38% 0.34% 0.32% 0.26% 0.23% 0.16% 0.10% Growth & Income ($500K) 0.35% 0.32% 0.30% 0.26% 0.23% 0.16% 0.11% Income ($1M) 0.24% 0.21% 0.20% 0.17% 0.15% 0.10% 0.06% Income ($500K) 0.10% 0.09% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07% 0.05% 0.04% Conservative Income ($1M) 0.08% 0.08% 0.07% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% Conservative Income ($500K) 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Source: For illustrative purposes only. Net investment income tax (NIIT), a 3.8% federal tax that may apply in some brackets, is not included in the tax alpha calculations. No state taxes are assumed and all income, including qualified dividends, is assumed to be taxed at the income rate. 7 FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ONLY

7 Through this lens, we see that meaningful tax alpha persists across all but the lowest tax brackets in the models with the highest allocations to equity SMAs. Models that allocate at least 30% to equity SMAs have exceeded the 25bps threshold across the top four tax brackets. Regardless of where tax rates settle in 2017, a comprehensive tax management program has the potential to materially lower tax liabilities for certain investors. Conclusions Taxes can erode an investor s realized return and the impact can be significant. Even if tax rates are reduced from current levels, it will remain important to consider ways to mitigate the impact of taxes on investment portfolios. Great care should be taken when interpreting the results summarized in this case study. The improvement in after-tax returns achieved in these accounts cannot necessarily be extended to all accounts or extrapolated over longer time periods. As we have shown, there are a number of factors that can impact the magnitude of tax benefits that may be realized by employing a tax overlay. To summarize, key findings include: Equity separate account strategies provide the most opportunity for adding value on an after-tax basis. Maximizing the use of separate account strategies for a portfolio s equity exposure can help improve after-tax returns. This isn t to suggest that allocations to equities should be increased but that where equities are being used in a portfolio, there may be some tax benefit to using separate account strategies if tax management techniques are being employed. The tax efficiency of investment strategies may depend on the market environment. Bear markets create more loss-harvesting opportunities. During strong markets it is more difficult to find opportunities to enhance after-tax returns, especially by loss harvesting, so the benefits of tax management may be lower, though still beneficial. Volatility levels and the dispersion of returns across the securities in the market can also impact the potential for generating tax alpha. This case study has examined the potential benefits of employing a number of tax management techniques as part of a tax overlay process. These techniques should be employed in a thoughtful manner as tax considerations must be weighed carefully against other investment considerations. The topics addressed in this paper are also fairly limited in scope and are focused on enhancing the after-tax returns of investment portfolios. There are many other techniques that can be employed to help manage an investor s tax situation including estate planning, investment and vehicle selection, and choosing which asset types to locate in tax-deferred versus taxable accounts. Clients are best served when taxes are taken into consideration in all aspects of the financial planning process. 1 Lipper Analytics 2010 Tax Study. 2 Peterson, J.D., P.A. Pietranico, M.W. Riepe and F. Xu, Explaining After-Tax Mutual Fund Performance. Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 58, No. 1 (January/February 2002). 3 Longmeier, G. and G. Wotherspoon, The Value of Tax Efficient Investments: An Analysis of After-Tax Mutual Fund and Index Returns. Journal of Wealth Management, Fall Arnott, Robert D., Andrew L. Berkin and Jia Ye, Loss Harvesting: What s It Worth to the Taxable Investor? Journal of Wealth Management, Spring Berkin, Andrew L. and Jia Ye, Tax Management, Loss Harvesting and HIFO Accounting. Financial Analysts Journal, July/August Horvitz, Jeffrey E. and Jarrod Wilcox, Know When to Hold Em and When to Fold Em: The Value of Effective Taxable Investment Management. Journal of Wealth Management, Fall Kent, Bernie, Year End Tax Planning for Capital Gains and Losses. Forbes.com, December FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS ONLY 8

8 NATIXIS INVESTMENT MANAGERS Natixis Advisors, L.P. does not offer tax advice. Clients should always consult with their tax advisor to discuss their personal situation. The information provided here is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation for investment action. The investment strategies mentioned may not be suitable for everyone. Examples provided are for illustrative purposes only and not intended to be reflective of results you can expect to achieve. Results may vary. Tax Alpha: The incremental benefit associated solely with active tax management. The two seed accounts examined in this case study were both invested in portfolios composed of identical asset allocations and the same combination of separate account strategies, mutual funds and ETFs. Both accounts had inceptions on 5/4/11 and therefore began with essentially identical portfolios and the same cost basis and purchase date for the underlying securities. As of 12/31/16, the allocations for these accounts included 8 separate account equity strategies comprising 74% of the portfolio. The remainder of the accounts was invested in mutual funds and ETFs. 100% of the accounts were allocated to equities at inception. The trading for these accounts was done simultaneously with the trading for live client accounts. This includes individual trades communicated by the separate account managers as well as asset allocation changes and manager changes. The asset class drift monitoring and rebalancing were also conducted in the same manner as they were for actual client accounts. Each pair of tracking accounts was also invested in portfolios composed of identical asset allocations and the same combination of separate account strategies, mutual funds and ETFs. All vintages of tracking accounts had inceptions on 12/31 of the preceding calendar year. Each pair began with identical portfolios and the same cost basis and purchase date for the underlying securities. The tracking accounts spanned various risk categories and each pair had different allocations to separate accounts versus mutual funds and ETFs and varying splits between equities and fixed income. The tracking accounts were all invested in accordance with asset allocation models used for actual client accounts. Changes to asset allocations, manager changes and trades in the underlying separate account strategies were all implemented consistent with the manner and timing that they were implemented in actual client accounts. Asset class drift monitoring and rebalancing as well as loss harvesting for the tax-managed tracking accounts were also conducted in the same manner that they were for actual client accounts. Since the tracking accounts were paper portfolios and did not represent actual assets, the trade execution was simulated. Trades for the tracking accounts were generated at the same time these trades were generated for actual client accounts. Instead of these trades being actually executed as they were for actual client and seed accounts, however, these trades were assumed to be executed at the current market price of the security being traded. After-tax returns are calculated assuming current, top federal tax rates apply to the history of the accounts. The current rates applied are 43.4% for income and short-term gains and 23.8% for long-term capital gains. No state taxes are assumed and all income, including qualified dividends, is assumed to be taxed at the income rate. The highest federal tax rates applied include the 3.8% Medicare surtax that applies to net investment income. Representative account performance does not reflect the deduction of advisory fees. Returns will be reduced by the advisory fees and any other expenses incurred in the management of the advisory account. For example, on an account with a 1% annual fee deducted quarterly, a hypothetical gross annual performance of 12% would be reduced to a net annualized performance of 10.92% for 1, 3, 5 and 10-year periods. The illustrative models shown in figure six represent six risk categories ranging from Income Focus to All Equity Focus. Each risk category is shown with a $500,000 minimum and a $1,000,000 minimum. All models invest in a combination of separate accounts, mutual funds and ETFs with allocations that vary by risk category. For example, the Income Focus model allocates primarily to fixed-income securities while the All Equity Focus model invests primarily in equity securities. This document may contain references to third-party copyrights, indexes and trademarks, each of which is the property of its respective owner. Such owner is not affiliated with Natixis Investment Managers or any of its related or affiliated companies (collectively Natixis ) and does not sponsor, endorse or participate in the provision of any Natixis services, funds or other financial products. The index information contained herein is derived from third parties and is provided on an as is basis. The user of this information assumes the entire risk of use of this information. Each of the third-party entities involved in compiling, computing or creating index information disclaims all warranties (including, without limitation, any warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, non-infringement, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) with respect to such information. Natixis Advisors, L.P. provides advisory services through its divisions Active Index Advisors and Managed Portfolio Advisors. Advisory services are generally provided with the assistance of model portfolio providers, some of which are affiliates of Natixis Investment Managers, L.P. Natixis Distribution, L.P. is a limited purpose broker-dealer and the distributor of various registered investment companies for which advisory services are provided by affiliates of Natixis Investment Managers. Natixis Distribution, L.P. and Natixis Advisors, L.P. are located at 888 Boylston Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA, im.natixis.com Exp. 12/31/2018 WP