The Great Wall of Capital

I frequently wonder, “Does it makes sense to think of EM PE as an industry anymore?”

Two recent research releases — one pertaining to fundraising and one to investment — led me to ponder this question anew.

On the fundraising side, EMPEA Industry Statistics show PE / VC funds targeting Emerging Asia have raised $152 billion over the last three years. Of that:

  • China-dedicated funds have earmarked $70B (N.B. this excludes government guidance funds);
  • Pan-Asia / regional funds have captured $57B; and,
  • Country-dedicated or sub-regional funds constitute the remaining $25B.

During the same period, funds targeting all other EM regions raised only $19B (see below).

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 1.14.10 PM

Last year was a blowout, with nearly $70B raised for Asia-focused PE / VC funds, with a paltry $7B raised across all other EM regions (see below).

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 1.14.31 PM

Asia has gone from capturing 65% of EM PE fundraising in 2012 to 91% in 2018.

Does it make sense to think of a unified industry when there’s an abundance of capital commitments in Asia, and scarcity everywhere else?

And what are these people who are throwing money at China thinking? (~75% of capital has gone to USD funds over the last three years).

This gets to point two. Bain’s Global Private Equity Report 2019 reveals that $81B was invested in Chinese start-ups in 2018 (32% of global VC capital invested).

Yet, EMPEA’s stats show only $28B in PE / VC investment in China for the year.

A gap of $53B is enormous. It may be down to methodology, but I suspect a large part of that gap is due to the wide array of non-financial investors deploying capital in the tech ecosystem (we talked about this in Sep ’17).

If, in fact, EM PE / VC funds aren’t driving the bulk of the activity in China’s new-economy businesses, then what does that tell us about the asset class as a vehicle for accessing private markets opportunities?

One thing it tells us is that the tent is getting bigger. The universe of players and strategies for EM private markets is expanding, such that it’s difficult to shoehorn the multiplicity of actors into the confines of an industry. (See, for example, our newsletter from last May).

But more to the point, I think it suggests that LPs should reconsider whether traditional asset allocation buckets are an appropriate framework for thinking about long-term investments in EM.

What do you think?

Alla prossima,
Mike

———

Очень Плохие Новости

Look, I know nothing about the incarceration of Mike Calvey and his colleagues from Baring Vostok beyond what I’ve read in the press. But I take Mike’s statements about his arrest being a well-connected businessman’s ploy to gain leverage in an arbitration dispute in London at face value.

interviewed Mike six years ago, and initially, I held out hope that his view on the ability to do business in the market might be vindicated — that independent courts would adjudicate a commercial dispute in a “non-strategic” sector, and that he wouldn’t be locked in a cell for seemingly capricious reasons. But, increasingly, it appears like a garden-variety case of state capture.

———

China’s Private Sector

In case you haven’t been paying attention to the evolution of China’s political economy, the FT’s Henny Sender wrote two excellent articles last month that merit your consideration:

Marinate on the following quotes:

Chinese entrepreneurs will privately admit that a bigger motivation for them to sell their businesses [to PE firms] now is the loss of confidence in their own government.

The country’s entrepreneurs have never felt more threatened.

In President Xi Jinping’s China there is no such thing as a truly private company. No corporate entity can say no to Beijing, whether its ownership is in the hands of official or nominally private entities.

What are the actions of the country’s entrepreneurs telling us?

Also, Henny cites a JPMorgan statistic that reveals China’s balance of payments data can’t account for $46B in capital flight outflows per quarter since 2016, “suggesting wealthy Chinese are still finding ways to evade [capital control] restrictions.”

Ruchir Sharma, Head of Emerging Markets and Chief Global Macro Strategist at Morgan Stanley, once shared the helpful heuristic, “follow the locals.” If elites are seeking to get their funds out of the country, what does that tell us?

Reminder: China-dedicated PE / VC funds have raised $70B over the last three years.

P.S. According to the aforementioned Bain & Co. report, Internet / tech companies have been the principal driver of PE growth in Greater China (see below).

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 1.15.10 PM

P.P.S. Bain & Co. say the median EBITDA multiple for deals in China’s new-economy companies is 31x. Not a typo.

———

Factfulness

John Authers had a delightful newsletter that touched upon Factfulness, the last testament of Hans Rosling, the energetic man who used bubble charts to smash preconceptions about the state of the world. John’s punchline is that everyone should probably invest more in EM. (*saved you a click*)

I was so taken by John’s write-up that I immediately purchased a copy of Factfulness and read it in a day. It’s quite fun!

Hans shared 10 “Factfulness Rules of Thumb” to help make sense of the world and its figures. And lo and behold, when I received a copy of KKR’s Annual Letter, I saw: (i) ~50 million retirees and pensioners have exposure to the firm’s investments; and, (ii) it generated ~$1.1 billion in management fees in 2018.

And then I thought: FACTFULNESS RULE #5! Lonely numbers are impressive, so get them in proportion!

Amazing. Using simplifying assumptions, on average, each pensioner is paying KKR $22 each year to manage a sliver of their retirement savings.

———

From the Bookshelf

Consider now an old man who complains
Excessively about his death to come.
Nature would justly cry out louder still
And say in bitter words, ‘Away, you rogue,
With all these tears and stop this sniveling.
All life’s rewards you have reaped and now you’re withered,
But since you always want what you have not got
And never are content with that you have,
Your life has been unfulfilled, ungratifying,
And death stands by you unexpectedly
Before the feast is finished and you are full.
Come now, remember you’re no longer young
And be content to go; thus it must be.’
She would be right, I think, to act like this,
Right to rebuke him and find fault with him.
For the old order always by the new
Thrust out gives way; and one thing must from another
Be made afresh; and no one ever falls
Into the deep pit and black Tartarus.

— Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe (Oxford World’s Classics: 2008)

# # #

Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Sign up now.

# # #

The information presented in this newsletter is for informational purposes only. Portico Advisers does not undertake to update this material and the opinions and conclusions contained herein may change without notice. Portico Advisers does not make any warranty that the information in this newsletter is error-free, omission-free, complete, accurate, or reliable. Nothing contained in this newsletter should be construed as legal, tax, securities, or investment advice.

Copyright © by Portico Advisers, LLC 2019, all rights reserved.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction | ˌlikwəˈfakSH(ə)n | noun
a process that creates a liquid from a solid (basically)

I’ve been wrestling with the idea of entropy in international affairs for the last five years or so. During my travels to London a couple weeks ago, Brexit peppered most every conversation, and I found myself thinking about political instability and its implications for investors.

The global landscape has transformed from solid to fluid, whether at the level of the international system, the state, or the individual. While the “decline of the liberal international order” has been debated ad nauseum, it’s fairly clear that we are transitioning from the post-World War II system to a new one. The problems seem to be that: (1) nobody knows what the new system should be; and, (2) no leaders are guiding us toward one.

That may be due to the fact that national leaders have more pressing priorities. How are leaders meant to identify principles of unity amongst nations when disunity and discord are ascendant at home — and, indeed, actively stoked to win at the polls?

Our populist and reactionary politics are a symptom, not the disease. At bottom, across developed and emerging markets alike, the social contract is broken.

As bleak as things are, it’s worth remembering that one of the benefits of democratic governance is that these fissures are out in the open. People are free to talk about them. The steam can be released. Society and institutions can adapt.

So, amidst all this political instability I’m beginning to think that the greatest risks in this brave new world come from the presumption of stability where none, in fact, exists.

And while I’m at it, I detect an astonishing degree of complacency toward one market in particular: China.

According to EMPEA’s Industry Statistics, $84B of capital has been raised for China-dedicated PE funds over the last five-and-a-half years, with scores of billions in regional funds that will invest in the country.

There seems to be a presumption that, since the country and its currency have been stable, this state of affairs will continue. That’s not how things work. Everyone’s legal disclaimers say as much (“Past performance is not indicative of future results …”).

I shared my rule #1 on China last month (“nobody knows anything about China — especially me”), but China’s fragilities are increasing. And a certain someone in the White House seems to smell it.

Will the country’s political system be able to respond to current and future challenges? In a manner that’s aligned with the interests of international capital?

I have my doubts.

At the very least, confidence intervals should be adjusted.

My conclusion: the most valuable attribute in EM private markets going forward is a flexible mandate.

There will always be a place for focused specialists, especially managers who bring bona fide operational expertise and can genuinely build businesses. However, in a fluid global landscape, flexibility is key — whether geographic, along the capital stack, or even across asset classes.

It’s time to think different.

Anyway, Portico has been busy in all corners during this harvest season, but particularly in Latin America, which remains a manifestly underappreciated region (see below).

Things are also a tad hectic on a personal level, as our family’s expecting the arrival of our second son / first little brother next month. If there’s no newsletter in November, well … entropy.

Alla prossima,
Mike

Herd Behavior

EMPEA released its 1H 2018 industry statistics and the concentration of capital in Emerging Asia is astonishing. Across private equity strategies (i.e., buyout, growth, and VC) Emerging Asia captured $24B — 93%! — of EM fundraising in the first six months of the year (that’s up from 77% in full-year 2015).

Only $1.85B was earmarked for PE managers active in Africa, Central & Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Pan-EM.

As usual, it’s worse than it appears.

That $1.85B figure overstates the volume of U.S. dollar investors committing capital to EM managers. Consider that the largest PE funds achieving a close in each region ex-Asia raised only $382m in USD, but $1.1B in local currency vehicles (see below).

Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 11.36.46 AM

I get that political uncertainty has stalled many Latin American managers’ fundraising plans, but $24m in USD? WTF?

Meanwhile, the forward calendar in Emerging Asia (inclusive of closes in Q3) has over $50B of USD-denominated funds in market (e.g., Hillhouse, Baring Asia, CVC, PAG, TPG, etc.).

I’ve disclosed Portico’s interest, but if ever there were a contrarian play in EM PE …

KYC

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures put out a heat-seeking missile of a blog post on Sunday (Who Are My Investors?). You should read it.

Fred’s musings were prompted by a note from one of USV’s portfolio company CEOs, who said:

I need to know if any of your LPs include ……….  entities/interests.

This is a super interesting and welcome development, and I think Fred’s right to conclude that the quality of a fund’s LPs will impact deal flow … at least in U.S. venture.

A few quick reactions:

  • The cynic in me wonders if this sentiment is a luxury of a world awash in capital. But then, maybe founders with vision are the scarcest thing around.
  • For all the asset managers clamoring after Millennial money with impact strategies, it’s notable that founders are saying they want to partner with ethical investors who share their values.
  • We’ve talked a lot about transparency and governance in this newsletter this year, and it’s intriguing to see a dialogue emerge about information flowing down to the portfolio company, and not just up to the fund.

Anyway, in case you don’t click through to Fred’s post, his bold conclusion follows:

It is time for all of us in the startup and VC sector to do a deep dive on our investor base and ask the question that the CEO asked me. Who are our investors and can we be proud of them? And do we want to work for them?

Not all money is the same. The people that come with it and who are behind it matter. That has always been the case and remains the case and we are reminded of it from time to time. Like right now.

Add-Backs

The thing about dealing with leveraged buyout firms is that you always know who the Muppet isn’t.

Let’s say you’re a leveraged lender. A Patrick Bateman clone shows up and presents his bone-colored business card along with pro forma financials showing “adjusted EBITDA” for a company they’d like to lever at 6x.

You ask some questions about his revenue growth and efficiency gain assumptions, which seem slightly … optimistic.

But also, you don’t want to get fired for turning away business from a Very Important Client Who Always Gets What He Wants.

Meh, it’s not your money.

So the loan gets funded, and some teachers’ pension in Dubuque or wherever ends up holding the paper.

A couple years later, as you’re clearing out your desk, you find Bateman’s business card and you remember the discussions about the adjusted EBITDA. And since you’ve just been fired, you have time to look up what happened to that company. Did they grow revenues? Did they capture those efficiencies?

If your research reveals anything like a recent analysis by S&P Global Ratings, you’re likely to find that Bateman’s adjusted EBITDA turned out to be slightly … optimistic.

Says Institutional Investor:

In an analysis of companies involved in deal making in 2015, S&P found that the earnings projections were unrealistically high on average across leveraged buyouts and mergers due to so-called “add-backs” — adjustments made to account for expected cost savings or an anticipated rise in revenue … Compared to companies’ projections, EBITDA … turned out to be 29 percent lower in 2016 and 34 percent lower last year.

The good news is: (1) tallboys of Tecate come with a shot of Fidencio at El Rey’s tonight; and, (2) your mom’s pension invested in the LBO fund.

So when Bateman & Co. jammed through the inevitable dividend recap, the probability of your mom living on cat food declined by a few basis points. Unlike those sad souls in Des Moines or wherever.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

¡Salud!

Public Companies and Short-Termism

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board conducted a study to investigate the investment tendencies of public and private firms. Using corporate tax returns, the economists determined that — contrary to popular belief — “public firms invest substantially more than private firms.”

Says the study:

Relative to physical assets, publicly-listed firms invest approximately 48.1 percentage points more than privately-held firms … predominantly driven by long-term assets: public firms invest 6.5 percentage points more in short-term assets, and 46.1 percentage points more in long-term assets than their private firm counterparts … The access to capital investment and the ability to spread risks among many small shareholders appears to facilitate heavier investments in R&D, arguably the riskiest of asset classes.

You learn something every day.

And who knew R&D was an asset class?

Impact Investing

I don’t know about you, but I find it a bit difficult to wrap my head around “impact investing.” The term is as slippery as a greased pig.

IFC has stepped into the breach and developed, in consultation with asset managers and investors, a set of Operating Principles for Impact Management. The draft document establishes nine principles across the following five elements:

  • Strategic Intent
  • Origination & Structuring
  • Portfolio Management
  • Impact at Exit
  • Independent Verification

IFC is inviting reviews from stakeholders through the end of the year, so if you have an opinion, please share it. With IFC.

From the Bookshelf

Thus they were able to recall the past in the hope of finding new wisdom rather than in awe of its immutable commands; they could think of the future as a time of promise rather than of certainty; and they could use the present as an opportunity for the exercise of choices rather than for compliance with preordained patterns of life.

— Adda Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton University Press: 1960)

# # #

Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Sign up now.

# # #

The information presented in this newsletter is for informational purposes only. Portico Advisers does not undertake to update this material and the opinions and conclusions contained herein may change without notice. Portico Advisers does not make any warranty that the information in this newsletter is error-free, omission-free, complete, accurate, or reliable. Nothing contained in this newsletter should be construed as legal, tax, securities, or investment advice.

Copyright © by Portico Advisers, LLC 2018, all rights reserved.

 

The Work

September is upon us, and Portico is marking the beginning of its third year in business. We’re not popping champagne bottles to mark the occasion, but it’s pretty dope to be here plugging away. After all, roughly one-third of U.S. businesses close within their first two years.

It’s not all peaches and cream, of course. EM PE is a hard-driving, competitive industry — and it’s one going through hard times.

During a recent discussion with a client, I shared my reservations about launching an advisory firm that caters to a shrinking industry.

“One of the challenges of managing a firm in this business,” he replied, “is that the downcycles are so brutal. Good people get discouraged waiting for the cycle to turn, and they walk.”

If the figures in this EM PE talent management survey are to be believed, fatigue with the industry explains more than 20% of staff turnover. Boy, do I feel that fatigue sometimes — and I’m not even working in an EM PE firm.

All that said, Portico’s still profitable with zero debt. We missed our (über-) aggressive revenue target, but that’s okay. It was at odds with two other goals I had for the year: launching a product (accomplished, but a serious time commitment) and making sure we had happy customers.

On the latter, we conducted a client survey over the summer to gauge our progress. The findings were favorable: all of our clients were “very satisfied” and our Net Promoter Score is maxed out at +100.

The other encouraging indicator is that all of our new clients have come through referrals.

Portico-Net-Promoter-Score

As for new targets, I experienced an epiphany last month. It came to me shortly after I’d achieved one of my personal goals for the year (attaining two stripes on my belt in BJJ). The epiphany was this: the stripes didn’t matter. I still get crushed, sometimes even by people with less experience. The value (and the pleasure) is in the work itself.

So, no hard targets for year three. I’m going to focus on doing the work and being helpful to others.

Entrepreneurship is way overhyped, but the liberty to chart one’s course makes for a gratifying odyssey.

Two closing thoughts:

First, I’m contemplating some content ideas for year three — a podcast (I know, saturated) and / or in-depth interviews with investors, thinkers, writers, etc.

Which of the following interests you most?

  • Podcast exclusively on EM private markets
  • Podcast on EM private markets + other topics
  • Transcripts of interviews exclusively on EM private markets
  • Transcripts of interviews on EM private markets + other topics

Second, I will be in London in October. Please drop me a line if you’d like to grab a coffee.

Alla prossima,
Mike

Advent + Walmart Brazil

Advent International completed its acquisition of 80% of Walmart Brazil, and it’s reportedly planning to invest an additional $485m across its existing stores. As we discussed in February (Always Low Prices), Walmart’s footprint of 471 stores generated revenues of $9.4B in 2016, but delivered seven straight years of operating losses. Why? “[P]oor locations, inefficient operations, labor troubles and uncompetitive prices,” apparently.

Advent purportedly plans to convert Walmart’s hypermarket formats into cash-and-carries, a format that is growing in popularity amongst local consumers. This should help the company improve one of the 5Ps — Price — by extending steeper discounts to customers.

But I’m curious as to how Advent will address another P — Place. Allegedly, Advent does not expect to roll out new stores; how will they address the so-called “poor locations”?

No clue, but it will be one of many interesting stories to watch in Brazil in the months to come.

African PE: Quo vadis?

Earlier this year, EMPEA released a report on The Road Ahead for African Private Equity. It’s quite good and it contains some refreshingly candid observations on the region.

There is a compelling exhibit that hits at one of our biggest frustrations: the concentration of capital in larger segments, and the relative scarcity of capital available for small and mid-size businesses (see below).

EMPEAAfrica

While the chart includes only a handful of countries (and excludes South Africa), I think it’s directionally accurate — the featured countries accounted for roughly half of the investments that took place in Sub-Saharan Africa between 2015-17.

Five additional findings jumped out at me:

  1. Growth equity deals have evaporated, declining by 45% from 2016 to 2017, reaching the lowest total since 2009.
  2. Managers need to bring more than money to the table — operational capabilities are required.
  3. Deal structuring needs to be more flexible and sophisticated. As one endowment representative lamented, “Many GPs are inclined to throw common equity into companies and call it a day.”
  4. Tech-enabled business models are appearing across verticals, creating a richer landscape for VC and PE alike.
  5. Permanent capital vehicles may be a better fit with the investable market than the traditional PE model.

Creador + Goldman Sachs on Asia

Brahmal Vasudevan — founder and CEO of Creador — recently shared some views on PE in Southeast Asia (where performance has been “quite poor”).

Of course, he’s talking his book at a time when Creador is marketing its fourth fund (which it will undoubtedly close at or above target).

Nevertheless, several observations jumped out at me, including:

  • The diversification benefits of regional funds;
  • The merits of maintaining discipline on fund size;
  • The relative scarcity of “high-quality companies that are growing rapidly and need private equity capital” in select markets; and,
  • The potential for adverse selection in control deals.

It’s an interesting contrast with this recent Exchanges at Goldman Sachs discussion about PE in Asia.

Goldman focuses on the “scale and sophistication” of managers, especially in China. But following all the bullishness and capital flooding into the region’s large / megacap funds, I wondered, “who’s the Muppet?”

Like, I don’t have any original insight on this. My rule #1 on China is: nobody knows anything about China — especially me.

But in my passive reading of the headlines from Zhongguo, I’m left with the impression that the winds of change are in the air. Maybe investors have grown complacent.

Mr. China Meets the Mekong

There are few laugh-out-loud books in the world of finance, but Tim Clissold’s Mr. China is one of them. So many instances of an investor being outwitted and outmaneuvered by a crafty operator.

One of the more memorable bits revolves around an acquisition of a Chinese brewery that (naturally) involved a joint venture partner tied to the central government. A few weeks after wiring $60 million to the JV, $58 million appeared to be missing.

Oops.

Missing funds are not at all the issue in this story about a deal-gone-wrong in Vietnam, but as I read the gossip piece, I couldn’t help but laugh.

I mean, it’s not funny … but it is.

Poultry firm Ba Huan JSC has sought the Prime Minister’s intervention in terminating its six-month-old investment partnership with Ho Chi Minh-based asset management firm VinaCapital. The firm said it agreed to investment terms it now claims to be unreasonable because they were initially stipulated in English.

In February, VinaCapital’s flagship fund Vietnam Opportunity Fund (VOF) had invested $32.5 million to acquire a significant minority stake in Ba Huan.

In its petition to the government, the poultry firm noted that VinaCapital is seeking an internal rate of return (IRR) of 22 per cent per year. It claims that the terms of the deal stipulate that in the event of the IRR not being met, Ba Huan will be fined or required to return the investment capital, along with a 22 per cent interest, or it must transfer to VinaCapital (or its partner) at least a 51 per cent stake in the company.

It also alleged that the partnership restricts it from engaging in any other business except chicken and eggs. Its litany of grievances includes what it claims is VinaCapital’s tendency to veto all board decisions, despite it being a minority shareholder.

So many layers.

I don’t know what’s true here … I don’t even have an opinion. I just take the chuckles when they come.

 

A Most Damning Indictment

Several years ago, I was in Marrakech for the UN African Development Forum. As I waited for a car to take me to the airport, a young man in a black suit was lingering nearby, and he was staring at me in a most uncomfortable way.

It got so awkward that I turned to him and asked:

Tatakallam engleezee?

Yes.

Hey man, how’s it going?

I am good, sir. Where are you from?

The United States.

America. I love the United States. I have applied for a fellowship there.

Where?

MIT.

MIT? Are you an engineer?

An economist. I have a master’s degree in applied economics.

Oh. Do you work for the UN here?

No. I am a volunteer. There are no jobs for applied economists in Morocco. Just with the government. I presented my thesis, which [something something labor market, econometrics, etc.]. But they don’t have any jobs. So, I want to go to America to get my PhD and find a job there. It is very nice there.

Have you been?

No.

[Chitchat about Atlanta and T.I. before car rolls up]

Now, as I rode to the airport, I thought about that young man and how frustrating it is to be underemployed — to have knowledge and skills that can be of value to companies and your country, and yet find yourself unwanted. And I thought about the fickle finger of fate that dictates the range of potential life outcomes based on where one’s born and to whom.

I thought about the PE firms pursuing higher education deals in Africa and across the emerging markets. And I thought about all these students (and their parents) paying tuition to get a handhold on the ladder to a better life, and the risk that new graduates might end up like this young man, with a degree that the market doesn’t value.

In development economics, increases in human capital are vital to long-term economic growth. But what happens if the gap between expectations and reality for newly minted college graduates becomes a yawning chasm? I think we know the answer …

Anyway, these musings came to mind recently after I read a most damning indictment of PE investments in for-profit universities. The academic study, When Investor Incentives and Consumer Interests Diverge: Private Equity in Higher Education, explored 88 investments in U.S. for-profit colleges.

What did they find? In summary, following the buyout:

  • Profits↑ by upwards of 3.3x, driven by higher enrollments (↑ 48%) and tuition increases (↑ 17% relative to mean);
  • Graduation rates↓ by 6%;
  • Earnings of graduates↓ by 5.8% relative to a mean across all schools of ~$31k;
  • Per-student debt↑ 12% relative to mean;
  • Educational inputs↓ in absolute number of faculty, with 3% ↓ in share of expenditures devoted to instruction; and,
  • Rent seeking: revenue from public sources (e.g., federal grants and loans) ↑ from 60-70% prior to the transaction to 80%+.

Basically, students end up paying higher prices for inferior products and shittier prospects. Presumably agriculture isn’t a popular field of study, otherwise customers would know where to find the pitchforks.

There are many interesting findings in the paper, such as the nugget that “the returns to for-profit education [for the consumer] are zero or negative relative to community college education.” So, dig in. The online appendix with even more data is available here.

Or, you can look at slides 2, 10-15, and 20 in this presentation to the NY Fed.

From the Bookshelf

In every venture the bold man comes off best, even the wanderer, bound from distant shores.

— Athena in Homer, The Odyssey (Robert Fagles, trans.; Penguin: 1996)

# # #

Haven’t signed up for our newsletter yet? Sign up now.

# # #

The information presented in this newsletter is for informational purposes only. Portico Advisers does not undertake to update this material and the opinions and conclusions contained herein may change without notice. Portico Advisers does not make any warranty that the information in this newsletter is error-free, omission-free, complete, accurate, or reliable. Nothing contained in this newsletter should be construed as legal, tax, securities, or investment advice.

Copyright © by Portico Advisers, LLC 2018, all rights reserved.