We have already seen numerous occasions over the past few years where this has been the case and will continue to see them given current developments. These are just some of the instances where the unintended consequences of our actions already have or will very soon come to dominate the path we end up on:

Greece Bailout

The Greece bailout – a situation where we have yet to witness the unintended consequences, but will for sure in the near future. Greece was able to convince the larger Euro nations and the IMF to provide them with a bailout package to help it through its immediate needs while making lofty promises of improvement intended to pacify those looking for some sort of justification for the bailout. What are the unintended consequences here? The moral hazard that comes with such bailouts is undeniable. When the Euro zone went out of its way to bail out Greece, even though its own constitution disallowed exactly such bailouts, it gave a precedent to all those peripheral countries that are in a similar fiscal situation as Greece. Why would Portugal and Spain now back away from asking the larger European countries for aid? If Greece, then why not us? We have not seen the unintended consequences of the Greece bailout yet, but we will. Portugal has already been downgraded by S&P and Spain is quite likely in the crosshairs as well. If both these countries go cap in hand to the ECB again, there’ll be little that they can do to deny them.

Flash Crash

When high-frequency traders first came about, they were seen as market players that will help improve the liquidity of the market and bring in spreads and transaction costs, and that did happen. The high-frequency trading model became so successful that today about 70% of the volume on the NYSE comes from such firms. But the flash crash of May 6^th showed us the unintended consequences of this change in market structure. When the market confusion and panic set in, most HFT firms backed out of the market to understand what’s going on. But when 70% of the market liquidity suddenly disappears, you are left with a gaping hole that resulted in trades getting executed at inexplicably low prices. The market on May 6^th, contrary to popular belief right after the crash, behaved just as it was supposed to. There was no big malfunction or technical glitch that caused what happened. It was the unintended consequences of the change in our market structure that lead to the flash crash.

Circuit Breakers

This is a case where I believe we were actually spared the unintended consequences. The circuit breakers did not get triggered on May 6^th because the market did not drop enough for the circuit breakers to be activated. But think about this – if the market had indeed dropped the required percentage and trading was halted, what would have happened? The market would have shutdown for the day at a level that would have been 10% below the day’s open. Meaning, investors would not have had the chance to see the huge, sharp rebound following the flash crash that restored some sort of normality. Everyone would have gone home thinking that there is some very solid fundamental reason behind the 10% drop and that they should stay out of the market, which would not have helped the situation when the market opened the next day. As it turned out, the circuit breakers did not get triggered and investors got to see the rebound and realized that what they had seen was only a temporary drop and there was no imminent economic collapse.

Ultimately, you have to ask when all these and other unintended consequences will end? They will only when policymakers realize that their actions are not implemented in the real world in a bubble that affects only the areas for which they were intended.

Disclosure: Long market

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on Young & Invested is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

With an aid package finally being confirmed for Greece, the first dose of moral hazard has been confirmed and the Greek government can look forward to some breathing room now that they don’t have to rely entirely on the market to roll-over the short-term debt that’s coming due. It is still looking to continue with its roadshow in the US in an attempt to get investors for its US$ bond issue, however several Greek officials have already downplayed how much they are hoping to raise. Initial estimates indicated that the Greek government hoped to raise up to $10 billion but now that PIMCO has expressed their disinterest, many other investors are likely to follow their lead and sit out this auction. In response, the Greek officials indicated that they’ll probably only be able to raise $1-4 billion from the issue or they might even scrap the entire issue all together. If the issuers themselves have so little confidence in their own bonds, it’s hard to expect the markets to do any better.

The loan package proposed by the EU will only be given to Greece once it “asks for it”, which is really more a question of when and not if. Greek officials probably felt comfortable coming out in the open with their expectations of the US$ bond issue only because they knew they have a fall-back option in the form of the aid package. The package includes $40 billion in loans that are slated for the first year with the possibility of more loans in the years after that. The loans will be issued at slightly below market rates but will not be very highly subsidised because the EU itself needs to avoid breaking its own rule which states that none of the member countries can be “bailed out” in times of stress. Of course, Greece is indeed being bailed out but only because the definition of “bailout” is malleable enough to allow the passage of this loan package.

The intention of the “no bailout” rule was definitely in line with the notion of free markets and the risk-takers having to bear the consequences of their actions. But clearly when you’re IN the heat of the situation, no one wants to be responsible for the consequences of a failed state that results from a fiscal collapse – thoughts of moral hazard and setting a precedent for future bailouts become a secondary concern. And we saw the consequence of inviting such moral hazard almost immediately after the loan package was announced, as a Greek official said that Greece will likely need loans amounting closer to $80 billion to help it ride out the storm. No one should be surprised. The first bailout is hardly ever the last – what did we see with AIG? Or GM? Or Fannie and Freddie Mac? All of them have had repeated bailouts as the need for money grows exponentially once someone is willing to open up the tap.

With the Greek government providing lofty assurances of deficit reduction and debt controls to the EU and IMF, while its own citizens are completely against the notion of any reform that will reduce their welfare, its quite likely Greece is set for a rough and slow climb out of the hole it has dug for itself. And I have little doubt that this first package is only the beginning. Aside from Greece, you also have Portugal and Spain next in line – why should they be denied of handouts if the money is being doled out to other EU members. All they’ll need to do is duplicate – make strong, even if empty, assurances of future improvements in their fiscal situation, guarantees of debt reduction and of course claims of strong economic growth just beneath the surface.

Disclosure: Long market

Image Credit: Aster-oid under a Creative Commons license

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. None of the material above and elsewhere on Young & Invested is intended to endorse or promote any company or its products. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

Part of Google’s initial entry into the Chinese market was conditional on censorship of certain internet material under the Chinese government’s instructions. However, with recent considerable hacker attacks from China on various websites to stop censorship, largely on Google, the titan ultimately blamed the Chinese authorities for censorship in the first place.

The Chinese authorities obviously like to keep a tight hold of the content its citizens are exposed to. Smells a little like propaganda activity to most people. The Chinese authorities promote the internet for education and business, but keep a tight grip against obvious material such as porn, but interestingly also human rights and pro-democracy material that can expose its citizens to politically sensitive information… and maybe open them to new thoughts. More importantly, Google was on the righteous side of the battle and supported many human rights activists in China whose G-Mail accounts were part of the hackings.

Speaking of propaganda, interestingly, several Chinese newspapers actually counter-accused Google of having its own political agenda and claimed that foreign firms operating in China must abide Chinese law. It’s true – it’s never really clear what Google is up to. It dabbles around in almost every field in business, as this interesting video shows.

But, as far as this story goes, Google boasted the right part of its backbone. Censorship is as outdated as Marxism. The Chinese government will be able to contain the force of the country for only so long, and eventually (although possibly long), like every country, its boarders will open to the rest of the world. I’m not the only one that feels this way. Much support has been heard from the human rights activists whose accounts were hacked, and after Google announced its plea to fight censorship, some Chinese populace placed flowers outside their office in Beijing. Sounds like a plea for freedom to me.

It’s been said Google’s potential revenue in China is $500-600M, or about 2% – 2.5% of its 2009 revenue. In terms of monetary losses, it will be a small step if Google fully backs out of China, but it could turn out to be a big step for the mankind of China and their freedom.

Disclosure: no positions

Looking back at it now, one question still glows in embers – who was responsible? As the worst recession in our lifetime is slowly turning into a memory, millions of people are still suffering in a recovering global economy. The haste of numerous banks in creating toxic securities was not just the result of the US Fed creating a speculative real estate bubble with low interest rates, but also a result of greed. Greed and recklessness.

As most of us are familiar with what happened after, mortgages that should have never been permitted were granted with little financial reason. “No down payments? No credit history? No loan documentation? No problem – we’ll get you a loan”. And the gluttony of the culprits lead to the use of these mortgages to create packaged, yet questionable, debt securities that infected the global financial system. A vaccine was not even available as few people knew the true nature of these “investment vehicles”, the few that unleashed them.

When the truth got out and it was clear that the dreamed-up value of these synthetic instruments was sure to crumble sooner or later, the hurricane began and it destroyed everything in its path. There goes Lehman and Bear Stearns. Complete and utter paralysis ensued – one that had an unfamiliar feel to Wall Street. Nobody knew what to do, so why would institutions make credit available? Credit paralysis lead to the bankruptcy of numerous debt-dependent businesses, showing how hopelessly reliant on debt the US economy is, and the recession stepped in full force. Almost all bank executives were booted, except at Goldman Sachs, the largest producer of toxic synthetic instruments.

Hey – now, it’s not all that bad. Our vehicle manufacturers are stabilizing as Toyota suffers, gold and oil are on the rise, S&P is back up at 10,500 (almost double from a year back), and the US economy grew 5.9% annualized in the 4^th quarter of 2009. Great stuff!

As I opened up my news feed this morning, I realized the crisis is just a memory. Bonuses are back up after the year-end earnings reports and investment bankers are once again trying to profit from other peoples’ money. It was nice to hear that the Goldman Sachs that we all know and love kindly helped Greece through complex derivatives. Were the real culprits of the crisis penalized? Did they learn their lesson from the events of just a year or two ago?

As I said, it’s not all that bad. What’s AIG’s $8.8 billion loss compared to last year’s $61.6 billion? Peanuts.

Image Credit: Ani Carrington under a Creative Commons License

If you pick up any finance textbook, it’ll tell you that international diversification is good. International diversification is good because the returns on stocks in different stock markets, in different regions, are supposed to be un-correlated, hence falling markets in one region can be offset by growth in other regions. The key phrase in that sentence is supposed to be. A brief look at the chart below illustrates why:

Click on the chart to enlarge

I compiled monthly returns data on the major indices from 11 different countries around the world for the past decade, going back to Jan 2000. Next, I calculated the correlation between the S&P500 and each of the foreign indices for a rolling 2-year period, starting in Jan 2002 and that is what is plotted on the chart above.

Having seen the chart above, anyone who hears someone extolling the diversification benefits of investing abroad, should be asking “What benefits?”. Yes, investing in emerging markets will likely give you exposure to stronger growth stories – that is not my argument. But the claim that investing in a variety of regions reduces your portfolio risk is no longer as valid today as it was before 2008. If you were holding a core portfolio invested in US stocks and decided to “diversify” into any of these 11 regional stock markets, a correlation with the S&P500 that hovers around 0.8-0.9 is more likely going to result in a concentration of risk, instead of diversification.

In fact, this phenomenon has been recognized by economists and researchers who point out that in times of market stress, correlations break down and go to 1. That is what we see happening in the chart in Oct 2008 as the correlations quite literally “collide”. However, the qualifier “in times of market stress” should be questioned. The past year for stock markets has been one of prosperity and phenomenal growth – nothing that could remotely be labelled as stressful. Despite that global stock market correlations have not declined after that spike in 2008, as would have been expected. Does this imply that global stock markets have now become permanently linked, with correlations flat-lining around 0.85 as seen from the chart? It might be time to re-write those finance textbooks.

Disclosure: Long Market

Image Credit: Katrina.Tuliao under a Creative Commons license

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

When finance professionals learn about investing in the emerging markets, they are taught to look out for certain key statistics that can provide indications of whether those markets are suitable candidates for investment.

Some of the main indicators looked at include the country’s:

1. Budget Deficit to GDP: A general guideline is that ratios greater than 4% indicate substantial credit risk.
2. Debt to GDP: Debt levels exceeding 50% of GDP signal that the country may be over-levered and may cause currency devaluations.
3. Current Account to GDP: Again, anything above a deficit more than 4% of GDP is seen as problematic.
4. Expected GDP Growth: Given an emerging markets’ added risk, investors should expect a growth rate of at least 4% as compensation.

The above indicators are supposed to be helpful in identifying the emerging markets to invest in and those to stay away from. However, if we look at these figures for some major emerging markets today and include the United States (nearly always used as the “benchmark” developed economy) as a comparison, it paints an interesting picture.

The figures may not be 100% accurate, but the implications are clear. If all the countries in this table were considered emerging markets, the United States would be the “emerging market” that most investors would choose NOT to invest in. So much for being a “benchmark” for comparison!

Which brings us to the question lingering in many investor’s minds – have developed markets and economies lost their “superiority” over the developing economies, permanently? In other words, when financial advisors look to invest a retiree’s portfolio, they would traditionally place the segment of the portfolio that they can take more risk with in emerging markets. But today, has the more risky option changed from the developing markets to the developed markets like the US and Britain?

Disclosure: Long Market

Image Credit: jcolman under a Creative Commons license

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

It has been a long time coming, but investors need to start seeing that the C$ belongs at parity to the US$, if not even higher. The C$ first breached parity in late 2007 when it became stronger than the US$ and in subsequent weeks literally skyrocketed to 1.0722 as speculators in the C$-US$ trade came to play. In 2007, the rise was probably premature and happened too quickly to suggest any stability at those levels. Since then, the C$ has dropped to 0.776 in March 2009, in the depths of the crisis, but has continued a steady and measured rise back up to around 0.96, where it stands today.

From a technical point of view, the C$’s upward trend is very strong, given the number of small corrections that it has had along the way, unlike the surge upwards in late 2007 which was clearly unsustainable. Every new high has been higher and every new low has been higher still. There are also numerous fundamental factors that call for a higher C$.

Strong Financial Sector

In many investor’s view, that the C$ will continue its rise to parity and beyond is a given because in 2009, the Canadian economy has proven itself to be one of the most resilient in the face of economic challenges. To use the most popular quote about Canada in 2009, “Canada was one of the few countries that did not have to bailout its banks”. Whether or not that’s entirely accurate is debatable but it’s been clear that Canada’s financial sector fared better than most and so did its companies.

Resource Powerhouse

Aside from that, the fact that Canada provides a huge amount of resources to the world also acts in its favour. There is no shortage of demand for commodities like oil, timber, potash etc, all of which are so essential to the needs of the growing developing world and as long as that is the case, there will continue to be demand for the C$.

Capitalist Economy

As Dennis Gartman likes to say very often, capital moves to where it’s treated well. And at the moment, that place is not the United States. With Obama cracking down on financial institutions as if they have committed treason by attempting to make profits, investors are looking to move their money to more “free market” regimes. To imagine several years ago that capital would be flowing out of the US because markets are not “free” enough would have been unimaginable, but such is the situation now. Yes, the amount of exposure taken on by banks needed to be reigned in, yes the systemic risk they pose needs to be controlled, but not by killing the appetite for profit making! In comparison, Canada now looks like the more open and “capitalist” economy and so that’s where capital flows.

Risks to Parity

There are two main short-to-medium term risks that I see which might lead to a reversal of the C$ strength.

1. Flight to Safety: In 2008, the C$ collapsed vs the US$ due to the panic in the markets. The VIX shot up to all time highs and money flowed into safe havens in US$ treasuries from essentially all other markets. If a similar situation arises as a result of the debt crisis currently unfolding in the European Union, then we could be in for another ride down. If Greece’s situation is not contained effectively and contagion leads to similar debt problems in Portugal and Spain, then all bets are off.
2. Canadian housing bubble: In another complete contrast to the US economy, the Canadian housing market now appears to be in a bubble, with the average home in Toronto, Canada’s largest city, selling in January for 19% more than last year. In reply, Canadian banks responded in a most un-American way, and urged the government to cool down the market by imposing tighter mortgage rules even though they would benefit from rising prices. That should be a positive indication, but if despite this the Canadian real estate market undergoes a collapse, then the C$ could also suffer heavily.

Disclosure: Long Market

Image Credit: Talie under a Creative Commons license

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

A few weeks ago, the SEC passed a vote that will require publicly accountable entities to disclose information pertaining to climate related matters to external stakeholders. Whereas a good amount of companies were already disclosing information such as carbon emissions and ISO compliance voluntarily, the move will not be welcomed by many reluctant organizations. But, regardless of the added expenses that about 75% of the companies in the S&P (who neglected any mention of “green” items in the annual reports to date) will incur to provide the respective disclosure, the SEC is making a move that goes beyond finance and investing, and delves into global conservation.

Although the SEC move was taken because of the belief that such “green” information will affect investor decisions, whereas the effects of this disclosure will influence investor behavior is another question. Investors typically already have a good sense of what industries contribute more to pollution and which don’t, and some investors couldn’t care less. But as with most change, those that embrace it will flourish, and those who resent likely aren’t too proud of sharing their story with the public. It was refreshing to note that some of the biggest players in the oil industry, including Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, were already voluntarily disclosing carbon emissions and other climate-related statistics prior to the SEC vote.

Furthermore, as a specialist at accounting guidelines and regulations, I believe the effects the new SEC requirements will have on financial statements and notes are strictly qualitative. Accounting principles (both current US and Canadian GAAP, and the upcoming global IFRS standards) have strict requirements for companies to assess known and potential liabilities in both likelihood and magnitude. For example, if a potential liability for environmental accidents or environmental clean-up costs will be incurred, there’s a good chance any company must recognize a liability on their balance sheets, or at least disclose it in their notes. For years now, these accounting standards have considered environmental costs such as the one the SEC is concerned with, so the effects of the upcoming regulations will be purely qualitative. Yes, companies affected by the SEC vote will have to provide opinion on how they are influencing global warming and the environment, but financial statements will likely remain the unharmed.

Although minor investment opportunities present themselves at the corner of this milestone, the effects of the SEC vote will have minimal impact. Companies that have already been voluntarily disclosing this information will benefit from the already-absorbed costs of tracking the necessary detail and may be presented in a more favourable light to the investing community. Consider global organizations like Coca-Cola, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Wal-Mart who have been voluntarily disclosing carbon emissions and climate-related risks for a number of years now; yes, there may be a positive image that comes with such disclosure, but their financial statements will remain unaffected. I strongly commend the SEC for going through with a vote that has responsibility and forward-thinking attached to it, but, will such information affect investing decisions? Not likely; most investors will remain focused on financial statements, and since they will not significantly change from the decision, the effects from the SEC vote will remain buried in notes to the financial statements.

Disclosure: no positions

Image credit: tellytom through a Creative Commons license

And so, as expected by most, the major Western European economies are talking about what they can do to resolve Greece’s fiscal problems. Contagion has already caused anxiety to spread to the fiscally “un-sound” European nations. Specifically, the PIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. PIGS is an acronym that was first used by in 2008 by journalists to refer to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. All these 4 economies suffer from similar problems such as fiscal indiscipline, current account deficits, and high unemployment. However, in Pat Buchanan’s view, Ireland deserved a spot in this demeaning group more than Italy did which apparently has a stronger balance sheet that its counterparts.

Contagion

This contagion has already caused the sovereign CDS spreads of these countries to rise with investors fearing that Greece is the just the first in a line of dominos that could fall across the EU. Greece has seen its yields on government debt sky-rocketing, with its latest 5-year bond issue having a coupon of 6.1%, as investors demand more compensation for the risk they are taking by purchasing those bonds. Very soon, the other countries in the PIGS acronym could see their own yields being elevated. The higher interest costs will be of help to any of these governments as it may start a vicious cycle of rising costs and an increasing inability to service the debt burden.

However, many are of the opinion that France and Germany will not let the Greece go down because that could be the first step on the path leading to dissolution of the European Union itself. Seen in fast forward, the scenario plays out something like this. Greece is not bailed out, and due to its inability to manage its debts, it defaults. Contagion leads to fear spreading through other weak economies and they start to experience higher interests costs and pressure, which could lead to more defaults. Those countries that have defaulted will likely have little incentive to continue being a part of the EU, with Brussels imposing constraints on what kind of monetary and fiscal policies those nations can utilize.

Why not me?

To avoid even starting down that path, Greece will be bailed out, but the question is what are the un-intended consequences? Once Greece is pulled up out of the hole with the help of French and German money, the other PIGS countries will have all the right to ask, why not me? The moral hazard that accompanies such action is very often glossed over in crisis situations that demand current situations be addressed immediately before deteriorating further.

But the real problem arises when the un-intendend consequences of those actions start becoming bigger than the problems those actions were supposed to solve in the first place.

Disclosure: Long Market

Image Credit: enggul under a Creative Commons license

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.

Note: See important disclaimers below article.

Another month, another year, another attempt at a correction and another inevitable bounce. The chart below highlights the sentiments carried by many investors.

All the believers of the mantra that “Nothing ever goes up in a straight line”, have been forced to challenge their beliefs when every attempt at a correction in July, August and September gave way to higher highs and higher lows. Every time the market attempted a correction the blogosphere will be awash with claims of the baseless rally finally ending.

And so here we stand again, in the middle of the most recent bounce from a seemingly major correction when the markets fell for close to 6% in the span of two weeks from Jan 20-29. Is this time any different than every other attempt? Sure, there seem to be more solid, fundamental reasons this time for a proper correction – Obama is attempting to regulate the banking sector into submission, sovereign debt problems around the world occupy the headlines, existing and new home sales came in lower than expectations. But so what? Is this time really any different?  The believers of the above-mentioned mantra, the value investors, the Buffett followers, all gain hope at every market inflexion point that maybe this time the valuations will finally come closer to fundamentals. But as they wait by the sidelines for new lows to buy in, the market bounces and just keeps on going in a straight line.

The winners in the past 9 months have very much been the people who have believe that the market has little to do with fundamentals and will continue to remain disconnected from them. The winners have been those that have used different barometers from traditional fundamentalists in assessing the markets. But will that logic continue to hold weight into the future? Most likely only till the real big correction is upon us. But wait, can that even happen? Have investors already forgotten what it feels like to be in falling market?

For their sake, I hope not, because this time it might be different.

Disclosure: Long stocks, for now.

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed on above are those of the author alone and do not in any way represent the official views, positions or opinions of the employers – both past or present – of the author in question, or any other institutions and corporations associated with the author. Neither the information nor any opinions contained or expressed above and elsewhere on Young & Invested constitutes or should be construed as a solicitation or offer by Young & Invested to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments or to provide any investment advice or recommendations. Young & Invested shall not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature, arising indirectly or directly from use of the information on or accessed through the site. Please see full disclaimers here.