THE CASE FOR MANAGED RISK INVESTMENTS

Transcription

1 A BetaShares Adviser Educational Whitepaper Introduction With interest rates at historic lows, investors are struggling with the challenge of allocating to investments that generate sufficient potential income and capital return while at the same time exhibiting a reasonable level of volatility. This whitepaper outlines the case for managed risk investments in an era of especially low returns from traditional safe haven assets such as cash and bonds. This whitepaper outlines the case for managed risk investments in an era of especially low returns from traditional safe haven assets such as cash and bonds. As will be shown, the key benefit of a managed-risk investment product is that it can potentially provide an improved risk-return trade-off for investors compared to the traditional asset allocation approach of simply diversifying into lower risk (and lower yielding) investments. This trade-off is especially important for the rising number of investors either in or nearing retirement who face the prospect of having to run down their investment capital to fund living expenses. Due to rising life expectancy and low returns on safer assets, these investors now arguably face even greater challenges than earlier generations. 2. Returns from traditional retirement assets have declined In today s environment of increasing budgetary pressure on the public pension system, the ideal of most retirees might be to live off their own savings. Yet this goal is being increasingly challenged by low returns on the relatively safe assets such as cash and bonds - that those in retirement typically invest in. Indeed, as seen in the chart below, the real 10-year government bond yield (a good indicator of the real fixed income returns 10 years ahead) has halved from around 5% p.a. in the 1990s to 2.5% p.a. in the 2000s. As at end-2015, the nominal bond yield was only 2.9% p.a. and underlying CPI inflation was around 2% p.a., implying a real bond yield of only 0.9% p.a. FIGURE 1: REAL CASH AND BOND YIELDS % year Govt. Bond Yield RBA Cash rate Dec-87 Dec-92 Dec-97 Dec-02 Dec-07 Dec-12 Source: BetaShares, RBA. Past performance is not an indication of future performance 1

2 The Reserve Bank s official cash rate in real terms (a benchmark indicator of real cash returns) has similarly declined from around 4% p.a. in the 1990s to 2% p.a. by end-2015, implying a zero real rate at the end of last year. This decline in returns has serious consequences for many investors relying on such assets for lifestyle needs they must either accept a lower level of living standard in retirement or take on a greater risk of running out of money prematurely. For example, consider the case of a retiree with $500,000 in invested assets who wishes to run down their nest-egg over 10 years. Assuming a real constant return on their investments of 5% p.a., the investor (ignoring taxation) could withdraw $61,669 annually (preserved in real terms) over this period before running their savings balance down to zero. Rising life expectancy and the decline in returns on traditional low risk cash and bonds investments is exposing investors to greater longevity risk, or the risk of running out of money during retirement. Were the real investment return to decline to only 2.5% p.a., however, the retiree would only be able to withdraw $55,736 p.a. over this 10-year period a drop in annual income of 9.6%. Should the investor not cut their withdrawals, they would run out of money within the 8th year. What s more, if the real return declined to only 1% p.a., the investor could withdraw only $52,268 p.a. - a drop of 15% in annual income compared to real investment returns of 5% p.a. 3. Retirees face an increasingly difficult dilemma The reduction in returns on traditionally safe haven investments such as cash and bonds poses a dilemma for retirees, who have typically sought greater exposure to these types of assets to dampen the volatility of their investment returns. As seen above, lower investment returns give rise to longevity risk or the risk of outliving your retirement nestegg. To overcome this loss of return, one obvious response could be to increase exposure to typically higher returning assets such as equities. For example, if the real return on bonds halved to 2.5% p.a., yet the real return on equities remained at, say, 7.5% p.a. - an investor could maintain an expected 5% p.a. real return on their previously 100% bond portfolio by instead investing an equal share in both equities and bonds. Lower investment returns give rise to longevity risk or the risk of outliving your retirement nest-egg. Of course, this is not without risk, as equity returns are far more volatile than bond returns over time. As seen in the chart below, history suggests the Australian equity market typically suffers a 30-50% total return decline at least once every years. That means at least one or two gut wrenching investment experiences for the average retiree. FIGURE 2: ASX ALL ORDINARIES DRAWDOWN: *. RETURN INDEX, END OF MONTH DATA. 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 21 yrs 22 yrs 8 yrs 6 yrs 19 yrs -60% Source: BetaShares, Thomson Reuters. * % Decline from Previous PeaK 2

3 For long-term investors that don t need to touch their retirement savings for several decades, such volatility need not be a concern (though it may well be psychologically). But for those either in, or approaching retirement, facing the prospect of having to drawdown on their investment nest-egg over time, such volatility matters greatly - as it leaves them especially vulnerable to a hard-to recover-from equity market slump early in their retirement, through what s known as sequencing risk. To explore the impact of equity volatility, consider the case of the investor above that has decided to invest 50% of their portfolio in equities (with a hypothetical 7.5% real annual return) and 50% in bonds (with a hypothetical 2.5% real annual return) such that the overall portfolio is expected to generate an average annual real return of 5%. If annual investment returns for each asset remained constant, the investor could still withdraw $61,669 annually in today s dollars over 10 years as in the first example above. But increasing exposure to higher return equity investments then gives risk to sequencing risk, or the risk of a debilitating hit to one s investment nest-egg due to a large market decline. Let s now consider the case where equity returns are not constant but instead equities suffer a major crash in the first two years only to then recover strongly, such that the compound annual real return over the 10-year period is still 7.5%. As seen in the chart below, the result in this situation is that the investor runs out of money a year earlier unless annual withdrawals are reduced. FIGURE 3: DRAWDOWN SCENARIOS $600,000 60% $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 Smooth returns [RHS] Crash & recovery [RHS] Draw-down-smooth returns [LHS] Drawdown-crash & recovery [LHS] 45% 30% 15% $200,000 0% $100,000-15% $- -30% -$100, years -45% Source: BetaShares Indeed, to avoid running out of money and assuming the above investor knew of the crash in equity returns ahead they would need to scale back their real level of annual withdrawals to $57,221, implying a cut in living standards of 7%. That s despite the fact the equity market would still provide the same 7.5% compound annual return over this 10-year period. This hit to retirement savings due to equity volatility alone is known as sequencing risk and arises when there is a need to make regular withdrawals from investment capital over time to fund retirement. That s because a given withdrawal in capital at a time when markets are particularly weak, for example, would represent a larger percentage of the nest-egg compared to a situation where this withdrawal took place when markets were particularly strong. If this market decline took place at an early stage of an investor s retirement, therefore, it would leave a relatively large dent in remaining capital, which will then benefit less from any subsequent rebound in the market. As should be evident, with the reduction in returns on traditional safe-haven investments, today s retirees face an even more difficult challenge of balancing longevity vs. sequencing risk. Invest too cautiously and low returns could mean you need to live-off less or risk running out of money too early. But invest too aggressively and your investment nest-egg could also be wiped out before you ve had much chance to enjoy it. 3

4 Irrespective of the specific impact on investment capital, moreover, exposure to equity volatility per se can be psychologically traumatic for some investors. In these cases, it is perfectly reasonable that they may wish to limit their exposure to equities to a more emotionally tolerable level after all, we all need to sleep at night! Through the process of risk profiling, for example, financial planners know that the emotional impact of return volatility on specific clients needs to be considered when developing their retirement investment strategy. Irrespective of the impact on investment capital, market volatility can also have a large emotional impact on some investors. 4. The limitations of traditional asset allocation As seen in the diagram below, there is no right or wrong answer in dealing with the trade-off between longevity and sequencing risk it depends on one s own risk-return preferences. The traditional asset allocation approach is to choose the right blend of low risk and high risk assets (such as bonds versus equities) that an investor is most comfortable with in balancing the various risks of running out of money too soon, as well as emotional wellbeing. FIGURE 4: BALANCING RETIREMENT RISKS Sequencing Risk High Risk Portfolio e.g. 80% Equities Probability of running out of money during retirement Low Risk Portfolio e.g. 80% Bonds/ Cash Investing in cash and bonds to reduce equity market risk means the degree of downside protection afforded is broadly equal to the degree of upside return that needs to be foregone. Source: BetaShares Longevity Risk This is fine to an extent, but traditional asset allocation does give rise to two limitations. For starters, by maintaining a relatively fixed asset allocation to say bonds or cash versus equities, whatever downside portfolio protection is afforded when equity markets decline is similar or symmetrical to the upside returns forgone when equity markets rebound. Using our equal weight bond-equity portfolio example above, if equities fell by 30% in a year, the portfolio would fall by only around half that amount (13.8% to be exact). By contrast, if equities surged by 30% in a year, the portfolio would only participate in about half of that return (16.3% to be exact). As seen in the chart below, the downside protection afforded by bonds in this case is broadly symmetrical to the upside returns forgone. 4

5 FIGURE 5: PORTFOLIO RETURNS V EQUITY RETURN % BOND-EQUITY WEIGHTING, CONSTANT 2.5% BOND RETURN 50-50% Bond-Equity Weighting, constant 2.5% bond return 25% 20% 15% Portfolio Return 10% 5% 0% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% -5% -10% -15% -20% Equity Market Return Source: BetaShares Note, moreover, this example assumes bond returns are known and constant. But of course, bond (and cash) returns can also vary over time. That means the degree of downside protection afforded by bonds in particular can t be known ahead of time with complete certainty, and depends on the movement in interest rates and the correlation of these changes with equity returns. In turn, that depends on the nature of the economic events affecting markets which can vary over time. The degree of protection afforded by cash and bonds is also far from certain, as it depends on market conditions. As occurred in the 1970s, for example, a period of rising inflation and interest rates - due to, say, an oil price shock - can hurt both equity and bond returns. Such negative supply side shocks can result in equity and bond returns being positively correlated to the downside, limiting the downside protection provided by bonds. Indeed, given today s low level of global inflation and very low global bond yields, investors need to be mindful of the potential downside risks to bond returns in coming years. Should global inflation take off, equities could slump but at the same time bond returns could also fall. By contrast, where negative demand shocks (like the 2008 global financial crisis) push equity prices lower, bonds can offer better downside portfolio protection to the extent these periods are associated with falling inflation and interest rates - which boost bond returns. Indeed, in these cases bonds and equity returns tend to be negatively correlated. Of course, the downside in this case is that when demand eventually improves, some of the portfolio returns from rising equity prices may be offset by lower bond returns due to the associated lift in inflation and interest rates We can summarise this analysis in the chart below. When the correlation between bond and equity returns tends to be positive (as during economic supply shocks) bonds offer relatively less downside protection when equity markets fall, but also detract less from portfolio returns when equity markets then rise. By contrast, when the correlation between bond and equity returns tends to be negative (as during economic demand shocks), bonds offer relatively more downside protection when equity markets fall, but also detract more from portfolio returns when equity markets rise. 5

6 FIGURE 6: PORTFOLIO RETURNS V EQUITY RETURN % BOND-EQUITY WEIGHTING, CONSTANT 2.5% BOND RETURN Portfolio Returns vs. Equity Return 50-50% Bond-Equity Weighting, constant 2.5% bond return 25% 20% 15% positive Portfolio Return 10% negative 5% 0% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% negative -5% positive -10% -15% -20% Equity Market Return area of portfolio returns relaive to equities depending on the correlation in returns between equities and bonds Source: BetaShares Ideally, it would be good to have a risk mitigation strategy that offered relatively high downside protection when equity markets fall, but does not detract that much from portfolio returns when equity markets rise. It would also be preferred if the degree of downside protection afforded by the risk-management strategy could be reasonably predictable ahead of time unlike the case when simply investing in bonds. As we ll see, this is the core attraction of managed risk strategies detailed below. 5. Why not just time in the markets? Of course, some might conclude that an even better solution for the retirement challenge is to simply time entry and exit into the equity market. When equity markets are rising strongly and economic conditions appear favourable, investors might increase their exposure to the market. But when economic conditions turn sour and equity markets start to fall, market exposure could be scaled back. But while there may be some savvy investors able to time markets in this way, in practice this is not as easy as it seems for most. While it sounds goods in theory, simply timing exposure to the equity market is not easy in practise, particularly for relatively inexperienced investors. Studies into the psychology of investing consistently highlight that many investors have a hard time using their discretion or gut feel to time entry and exit into the market. We overestimate our abilities when markets are rising and take on more risk, and are too slow to admit our failings and take losses when markets fall. We then compound this error by capitulating only after markets have fallen a long way, and then wait too long to re-enter the market once it rebounds. The typical cycle of investor emotions is illustrated in the diagram below. FIGURE 7: TYPICAL INVESTOR EMOTIONS OVER THE CYCLE Source: The Big Picture 6

7 Even if we could control our emotions, moreover, correctly identifying periods where risk should be reduced is not easy as many market downturns often end up being only temporary in nature. Cutting market exposure only to then find markets rebound is what s known as a whipsaw which can severely hurt long-run portfolio returns if allowed to happen too often. According to the latest publically available survey by US based research firm Dalbar Inc, for example, while the S&P 500 index has returned 9.9% annually over the last 20 years to 2014, the average retail investor switching between US equity managed funds has earned only 5.2% per year. One explanation for this is that investors tend to chase the latest hot performing fund, which then tends to underperform as investment returns eventually regress to the mean of other fund managers. FIGURE 8: S&P 500 INDEX V INVESTOR MANAGED FUND PERFORMANCE (TO END 2014) % Equity Funds S&P yr 10-yr 5-yr 3-yr 1-yr It would be preferable to have a risk management strategy that relied less on human emotion and more on non-discretionary systematic rules. Source: Dalbar Inc Again, it would be preferable to have a risk management strategy that relied less on human emotion and more on non-discretionary systematic rules directly derived from market behaviour. As we ll now see, this is another core attraction of the BetaShares managed risk investment strategy. 6. The BetaShares Managed Risk Investment Strategy The BetaShares suite of managed risk exchange traded investment products aim to provide the exposure to the equity markets needed for achieving adequate investment returns in today s low return environment, while at the same time reducing the sequencing risk and more general investor anxiety that comes from the price volatility associated with such exposure. Equity market exposure is achieved through the traditional process of purchasing equity securities associated with the relevant market (such as Australian or Global securities). The second, managed risk element, then involves selling (or shorting ) relevant equity index futures so that each Fund s overall net-equity exposure is consistent with volatility and downside targets for each Fund. When equity market volatility is relatively high, for example, each Fund s effective netequity exposure is systematically decreased so that overall volatility does not rise above a certain target level. This approach provides a powerful risk management overlay that actively seeks to both reduce each Fund s volatility and defend against losses in declining markets. For more detail on how these rules specifically operate, please see the Technical Appendix. 7

8 As seen in the chart below, back-testing the results of the risk-management overlay over recent years suggests it is capable of generating a smoother ride for investors over time without necessarily detracting from overall return. In particular, the managed risk strategy would have notably outperformed during the global financial crisis. FIGURE 8: S&P/ASX 200 INDEX V S&P/ASX 200 INDEX + BETASHARES MANAGED RISK STRATEGY. (SIMULATED) 1 JAN SEPTEMBER 2015 (INDEXED TO 100) Adviser use only. Not for distribution to retail clients. Chart compares S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation Index with and without the Milliman Managed Risk Strategy (as used by the AUST Fund). Excludes the effects of management costs, transaction costs and cash held for futures margins. Simulated performance results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading, are based on certain assumptions, and are produced with the benefit of hindsight. Also, since the trades have not actually been executed, the results may have under- or overcompensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. No representation is being made that the AUST Fund will achieve results similar to those shown. Past performance, simulated or actual, is not an indication of future performance. Source: BetaShares, Milliman, Bloomberg The strategy s risk-mitigation potential is also evident from the chart below, which highlights that losses (in terms of decline in value from previous peaks) would have been notably lower than for the S&P/ASX 200 Index over the backtested period. FIGURE 9: DRAWDOWN FROM PREVIOUS PEAKS. S&P/ASX 200 INDEX V S&P/ASX 200 INDEX + BETASHARES MANAGED RISK STRATEGY. (SIMULATED) 1 JAN SEPTEMBER 2015 (INDEXED TO 100) Adviser use only. Not for distribution to retail clients. Chart compares S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation Index with and without the Milliman Managed Risk Strategy (as used by the AUST Fund). Excludes the effects of management costs, transaction costs and cash held for futures margins. Simulated performance results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading, are based on certain assumptions, and are produced with the benefit of hindsight. Also, since the trades have not actually been executed, the results may have under- or overcompensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. No representation is being made that the AUST Fund will achieve results similar to those shown. Past performance, simulated or actual, is not an indication of future performance. Source: BetaShares, Milliman, Bloomberg 8

9 From a portfolio perspective, the strategy has specific advantages over traditional asset allocation strategies. For starters, the strategy may be more efficient at hedging downside risk as less upside return potential is given up in the process. The chart below, for example, shows the results of simulations of how the BetaShares Managed Risk Australian Share Fund (ASX: AUST) would have performed for each of 10,000 daily price return scenarios for the S&P/ASX 200 Index over the course of a given year. FIGURE 10. AUST VS S&P/ASX 200 RETURNS. RESULTS OF 10,000 TRIAL SIMULATIONS 50% Compared to the traditional approach of simply investing in cash and bonds to limit market risk, the BetaShares risk management strategy offer the potential of relatively more upside market returns for a given degree of downside protection. AUST 1-Yr Price Returns 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% -10% A -20% Source: Milliman -30% -40% B S&P/ASX Yr Price Returns As evident, the results suggest that in the case of large market declines (say 40% over one year), a strategy similar to the one being applied by AUST would decline by only around 15% (point A in chart), protecting the portfolio from around two-thirds of the equity decline. By contrast, in the case of large market gains (say 40% over one-year), AUST would gain by around 30% (point B in chart), meaning investors would lose only around one third of the market s gain. By contrast, were an investor to seek similar downside protection by, say, investing two thirds of their portfolio in cash, they would as a consequence also be required to give away two thirds of market gains compared to only a one third of the market gains under the managed risk approach. To examine the impact on specific portfolios, the chart below reproduces the case above whereby an investor has an equal weighted bond-equity portfolio, with bonds still producing a constant 2.5% real annual return. Also included in the chart below are the portfolio returns if the equity component of the portfolio were replaced with managed risk equity returns implied by the line of best fit associated with the simulated results above. 9

10 FIGURE 11. PORTFOLIO RETURNS VS. EQUITY RETURN % BOND-EQUITY WEIGHTING, CONSTANT 2.5% BOND RETURN Portfolio Returns vs. Equity Return 50-50% Bond-Equity Weighting, constant 2.5% bond return 25% Pure equity exposure Managed-risk equity component 20% 15% Portfolio Return 10% 5% 0% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% -5% -10% -15% Source: BetaShares -20% Equity Market Return As evident, in the case of a 30% decline in equity returns, the managed risk portfolio would lose only 5%, protecting investors from two-thirds of the 15% loss for the non-managed risk portfolio. By contrast, in the case of a 30% equity market gain, the managed risk portfolio would gain 12%, meaning investors only give up one quarter of the 16% return from the non-managed risk portfolio. Using the above example, moreover, if we replaced the pure equity component of the equally-weighted bond plus equity portfolio (that endures an equity market crash then recovery) with the managed risk equity return implied by the simulations above, the maximum sustainable annual withdrawals over the 10-year period rise to $62,309 compared to only $57,221 without the risk management overlay. These results are summarised in the table below. FIGURE 12. MAXIMUM REAL ANNUAL DRAWDOWN OVER 10-YEARS Maximum Drawdown a) Smooth equity returns $ 61, 669 b) Volatile equity returns $ 57, 221 c) Managed-risk equity returns $ 62, 309 Assuming bond equity portfolio rebalanced annually Note, moreover, due to the benefits of re-balancing in a volatile diversified portfolio discussed above, the maximum sustainable withdrawal when using a managed risk overlay is even higher than in the case where real equity returns were a constant 7.5% each year and no-risk management was in place - $62,309 versus $61,669. When combined, portfolio rebalancing in the face of market volatility together with a risk management overlay to limit downside losses appear to be powerful strategies for investors facing the need to make withdrawals from their investment capital regularly. Of course, as noted above, an investor that could perfectly time markets could likely produce even better outcomes though this is much harder in practice than in theory. In this regard, a second benefit of the BetaShares managed risk strategy is that it is a rules-based non-discretionary approach that avoids being trapped by the psychological investment biases that can affect investors over the cycle. A second benefit of the BetaShares managed risk strategy is that it is a rules-based non-discretionary approach that avoids being trapped by the psychological investment biases that can affect investors over the cycle. 10

11 A final point to note about this approach is that it involves the use of futures to manage netequity exposure without having to trade in and out of each Fund s underlying core holding of equity securities which would otherwise involve brokerage costs and capital gains tax implications. Instead, net-equity exposure is varied through the use of highly liquid futures contracts, a process which, while effective, may be difficult for many individual investors to manage on their own behalf. Conclusion Due to reduced returns on typical retirement assets, combined with rising life expectancy, investors face increasing challenges in seeking to live off their investment capital during their post-work lifetime. The trade-off between investing safely and preserving one s investment nest-egg versus taking on more risk in the search of higher returns is becoming much more acute. New challenges require new approaches. This paper has hopefully demonstrated how managed risk investment products can potentially offer a superior solution or at least a handy complement to traditional asset allocation approaches to managing investments as we approach retirement. By investing in products that offer the potential for superior returns to bonds, yet lower volatility than traditional equity assets, investors may be able to more effectively reduce the risk of prematurely running down their investment capital during retirement and/or enjoy a somewhat higher investment return. About BetaShares BetaShares Capital Ltd ( BetaShares ) is a leading Australian manager of exchange traded products ( ETPs ) which are traded on the Australian Securities Exchange. BetaShares offers a range of ETPs which cover Australian & international equities, cash, currencies, commodities and alternative strategies. As at 30 June 2016, BetaShares has approximately $2.8 billion in assets under management. BetaShares is a member of the Mirae Asset Global Investments Group, one of Asia s largest asset management firms. Mirae currently manages approximately US$90B T: (Australia) T: (ex Australia) info@betashares.com.au 11

12 Technical Appendix: Risk Management Strategies in More Detail The BetaShares managed risk investment strategy essentially involves two elements: volatility management and a capital-protection strategy. With volatility management, effective portfolio exposure to the relevant equity market is dynamically adjusted over time so as to maintain overall portfolio volatility around a target level. If equity market volatility rises beyond normal levels, net-market exposure is reduced (though selling futures) to maintain overall Fund volatility at its target level. As and when market volatility declines, this effective market hedge is unwound though buying back (or short-covering ) the equity index futures position. Apart from the direct benefit of lowering return volatility per se, the other advantage of this strategy is that it usually also tends to provide some downside price protection. As seen in the chart below, this is because periods of market weakness tend to be associated with (and are often preceded by) heightened price volatility. Selected periods when increased market volatility was associated with market declines Source: Milliman Financial Risk Management LLC, 31/12/ /12/2013. The chart above is historical and for illustrative purposes only. It does not represent actual performance of any investment. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The risk management strategy employed by these Funds is run in conjunction with Milliman, one of the largest institutional risk managers in the world, assisting clients in hedging US$500B worldwide and employing over 2,600 professionals, including more than 1,300 qualified consultants and actuaries. Milliman s risk management strategies have been used for the last 15 years by some of the largest firms and institutional investors in the world. Strategies used by Milliman helped their clients navigate the tech bubble and global financial crisis. The BetaShares Managed Risk Funds provide investors access to such a strategy, which was previously primarily confined to large institutional investors. Important This publication is for licensed financial adviser use only. It is not for distribution to retail clients. This information has been prepared by BetaShares Capital Ltd (ACN AFS Licence ), the responsible entity of the BetaShares Managed Risk Funds. It is not a recommendation to buy units or adopt any particular investment strategy. You should make your own assessment of the suitability of this information. It is general information only and does not take into account any person s particular circumstances. Before making an investment decision regarding the Managed Risk Funds, investors should consider the relevant PDS and their circumstances and obtain financial advice. The PDS is available at. Investors may buy units on ASX through a broker or financial adviser. An investment in the Managed Risk Funds is subject to investment risk including possible delays in repayment and loss of income and principal invested. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any views or opinions in this document are subject to change without notice and actual events may differ materially from those reflected in any views, opinions or other forward looking statements. To the extent permitted by law BetaShares accepts no liability for any loss from reliance on this information. 12