PODCASTS

PARTICIPANTS

Mark Brisley
Managing Director and Head of Dynamic Funds

David Fingold
Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager

PRESENTATION

Mark Brisley: You're tuning in to On The Money with Dynamic Funds, a podcast series that delivers access to some of the industry's most experienced active managers and thought leaders. We're sitting down to ask them the pertinent questions to find out their insights on the market environment and navigating the investment landscape.

Welcome to another edition of On The Money. I'm Mark Brisley, head of Dynamic Funds. I'm really happy to have the guest today that brings over 30 years of business and investment experience to his role as a key member of the Dynamic investment team since joining our firm back in 2002.

Over a diverse career, he's fostered his depth of knowledge in corporate finance, sales, and marketing across industries that include manufacturing, transportation and distribution and of course, investment management. His extensive professional and personal travel has been the bedrock in shaping David's interest in foreign markets and help develop his acute ability to effectively navigate cultural, economic, and political differences across geographies.

He's currently lead portfolio manager for a number of global and US strategies here at Dynamic. I'm happy to be joined today by David Fingold. David, I wanted to start off our podcast today with getting your views and your outlooks on the markets, of course, and separate from that, the economy because we are still having this conversation around the market is not the economy and the economy is not the market but, of course, all of it around the fact that we've been through the US election. We've got really good news on the vaccine front. Wanted to ask for your thoughts with that more recent information frame.

David Fingold: Well, Mark, thank you for that question. I think that people have seen a lot of things this year that disturbed them. It's very important to be sensitive to that psychological state. When I say that what happened this year, even though it seems without precedent is very much consistent with what normally happens when there's a recession.

As we know, some things went wrong at the end of February and there's been a lot of focus on the pandemic, but it's very important to understand that there also was an evolving trade war between the US and China. Interest rates reached a very low level very rapidly which was negative for the financial system. Commodity prices, primarily, oil plummeted and we had a recession.

Now, those were the issues that led me to be very concerned at the end of February and the beginning of March. As we moved through March and got approximately 30% decline in the stock market which is the normal decline that takes place during a recession, the market had priced in a lot of those concerns. Since that time, that is since the beginning of April, there's been a considerable amount of repair in the global economy.

We were told in April that a recession was on, the National Bureau of Economic Research made that call and they're the sole authority that has the ability to do that. They said that it may well be the shortest recession ever, which actually opens the possibility that has already ended, because tying the prior record for shortest ever would be six months and therefore it clearly would have ended with a February 28th start date.

The stock market is trading the way how it always trades when we exit recession. We have seen cyclicals beating defensives. You have seen small-cap beating large-cap, semiconductors beating software, industrial metals beating precious metals. These are all things the stock market does as the economy is accelerating as we are leaving recession. When we look at the whole situation emotionlessly, we are in the first few months of an economic recovery. The first few months of an expansion.

The shortest expansion ever was 12 months. I'm not predicting that we're going to break the record for the shortest expansion ever. I've no information at this time that would indicate anything other than a normal economic expansion. We can see that in industrial production, including automobiles, we can see that in home stocks. The economy is growing very robustly. The people are confused about this because they see that the unemployment rate is still elevated.

They are leaving out and it has significantly recovered from where it was at the end of March. For whatever reason, people gravitate towards the negative. In fact, everything will not be completely okay until we get to the peak of the economic cycle. When everything is okay, and everything is back to record levels, that is when we have less potential growth in the economy, but now we're in a position where there's significant upside to get to the prior record levels in the economy.

The growth is not affected by an overhang from the industries that were hurt by the lockdowns. I think the people look to the unemployment in the service sector and say, this is a huge economic problem, and they're right. They're right, but those people already lost their jobs. They can't lose them a second time until they get a job. Sequentially they're not an overhang on economic growth. They're a pool of untapped labor.

That means that as we grow, they can come back into the labor force and it'll be unlikely that we get inflation because of wage pressure, because there's a good supply of labor. We set a record on the S&P 500 while we were in recession that has happened three times. Those prior three times where we set a record while we were still in recession the stock market had above-average returns over the following 12 months.

Mark Brisley: David, obviously with what we've just seen go on in the US election, or maybe to the extent of what we don't know. Do you think there's going to be areas that are affected differently for certain parts of the equity markets, whether it be in the US or globally?

David Fingold: The effect of the elections, I think is perhaps more important at this time than it has been historically. The reason why is because not so much the issues about whether or not president elected Biden will keep that title after legal challenges, but the control of the Senate. There was a potential before the election for the Democrats to get control of the house of representatives and the Senate.

They had promised to do several things if they got control, which included being very difficult about regulation, particularly of large technology enterprises and financial institutions. They also threatened to raise taxes and they were also promising their green new deal, and you may recall that both Biden and Harris reiterated that they wanted to close down the oil and gas industry.

The blue wave doesn't seem possible. The Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate right now the worst-case scenario is a divided Senate. I suspect that Georgia will go to the Republicans in which case the Republicans will keep control. I think that takes a lot of the biggest concerns about activism from the Democrats off the table.

Georgia is important. If, for whatever reason, the Republicans lost both seats and the Vice President was able to cast the deciding vote in the Senate, it may make it easier for the Democrats to perceive part of their agenda. I don't normally think that elections are very important. I'm not sure this one is very important. It depends upon your exposures within your portfolio.

We try wherever possible to avoid businesses where a particular political outcome changes the future of the business. Now, something like tax reform, that is repealing tax reform would broadly affect businesses. It's important to understand that there's a very big difference between what a statutory tax rate is and what the actual cash tax rate is that businesses are paying.

In our due diligence, we look to see whether or not companies have been aggressive in their tax planning or if they've been conservative. If they've been conservative, then a change to tax law is not very important, so I'm not very focused on the change in tax rate. It could have a market impact because the market does contain some companies that have been aggressive on taxes.

One positive, by the way, is that if there's the prospect of higher taxes next year, we should expect to see special dividends. We've seen some of our companies come out and do special dividends, because if there is a risk that tax rates will be higher next year, they may choose to return more capital shareholders now. We certainly saw that when there was a small tax increase back during the Obama administration.

On the regulatory side, I don't think it will get to the extreme toughness people guessed about with the blue wave. People were concerned that the Democrats would get enough seats in the Senate, that Elizabeth Warren could actually become treasury secretary and make frustrating financial institutions her full-time job. It just doesn't appear as if they have that kind of a lead in the Senate and if she leaves her seat, a Republican governor will be appointing her successor.

I know there's a lot of news around this. There's a lot of focus on it. I've gone into a lot of detail. I think the most important thing was the control of the Senate and it strongly appears that it is going to remain with the Republicans. The Georgia races would be the ones that we are watching and the market is watching.

Mark Brisley: Yes. As we continue to get pretty positive news on the vaccine front, it doesn't change the fact, and I hope we stop using this word when the pandemic scenario is over, but this unprecedented level of aggressive monetary policy and central bank action that we saw through the course of March up until just recently. I wanted to get your thoughts on how that's impacted how you're investing, if at all, and also, how does that translate into equity market risk just given the volume of stimulus that we've seen pumped into the market.

David Fingold: Well, I think that it's a positive that we saw stimulus that came in counter-cyclically. We went into recession and the Fed responded with ease and the Fed responded by providing liquidity, and those are good things. My experience, the experience that I studied in school, most of our experience going literally back into the late 1950s and the early 1960s, when there have been recessions,

the Fed has responded with ease.

They do that because they should if they are using their policies properly, be removing liquidity from the system when the economy is strong where they're concerned about inflation so then they have some dry powders and fuel in the tank in order to assist the economy when recessions come, because recessions like death and taxes do come. Most of the time we're in expansion but sometimes they need to ease.

I know people are concerned about the withdrawal of stimulus. My view is actually quite different. My view is that if we don't need to be on life support, it means that we're healthier. We should celebrate being healthier. I'm not concerned about this. We are not seeing anything abnormal in terms of the Feds' involvement in the economy. They've been doing it for a very long time.

Mark Brisley: You've talked often about the fact that you follow credit and credit spreads very closely, even to the extent I think sometimes you've been surprised that that's not widely understood, especially of the fact why you follow them as closely as you do. Can you talk a little bit about why it's so important, as an equity manager, that you do that and what your outlook is on credit spreads, and what you do look at specifically when looking at them?

David Fingold: We look at credit on both the macro and the micro basis. The way that we knew something was wrong at the end of February and the beginning of March was the upset in credit markets. There was a dramatic widening in credit spreads. That was a sign of stress.

We can actually follow the history of credit spreads for almost 100 years back into the 1930s. Every time the credit spreads have materially widened, it's led to volatility in the stock market. When credit spreads start to reach extremes, it seems to only happen when there are recessions. It's a good way for us to see what is actually evolving within the economy.

This is completely rational by the way, to look at this. 85% of the credit that has been created in the last 12 years was created by non-banks. To make that simple, we mean companies like loan funds, factors, asset-based lenders, cash flow lenders, insurance companies, home loan portfolios. Everybody thinks about credit coming from banks, but credit actually comes from a very broad swath of the credit market.

This is not new. I mentioned the 12-year timeframe. Before that 12-year timeframe, only about half of corporate credit was coming from banks. We need to look to what's going on in the bond market to understand what's going on with the granting of credit, and when credit spreads widen, what it indicates is that foreign fund managers, insurance companies, all those people I've just mentioned are demanding a higher interest rate, a higher spread over US treasuries in order to provide credit.

Well, when that happens, businesses borrow less and the economy shrinks. When credit spreads contract and the availability of credit becomes cheaper to businesses, businesses have the ability to grow. We follow it very, very carefully. It's my most important macro risk indicator and not the only one.

Then on a micro basis, we follow credit very closely for a simple reason. Anyone who's listening to this call who's been in business knows that their ability to grow their business is really dictated by whether or not they're [unintelligible 00:16:12], whether it be banks or whomever is willing to provide them with more credit at lower price or is literally calling their loans.

On a micro basis, we have to watch a company and its creditworthiness, and we want to get out of the way if there's a problem and we will avoid the companies completely that are poor credits. Now as an equity manager, this is critical because think back to finance class, the equity is the bottom of the capital stack. We have to sustain the first loss. It's only after we are completely wiped out should that happen, the bondholders and trade creditors are at risk at all.

We should be doing more credit work than fixed-income investors because we have to sustain the first loss, and that's part of our strategy. It's part of our process. Every company we invest in must tell us all of their covenants. They must help us model their sources and uses of cash. If we can't see how they're going to fulfill their obligations, we don't invest.

Mark Brisley: Let's talk a little bit about the approach you do take then when you are looking at businesses and what you gravitate towards. You've talked a lot about picks and shovels when you're talking about the businesses that you're attracted to, what do you mean by that?

David Fingold: The concept of investing in picks and shovels comes from an expression my late father would always use, which is that the real money in the Klondike was made selling picks and shovels. Some of you may know that history. You may know that miners went to the Klondike. They went to the California gold rush. Most of them didn't find anything, that every one of them had to buy picks and shovels because there was no way anything was going to happen without it.

It's one of the highest probability ways of making money is to focus on where there are picks and shovels. We do this in many, many industries. For instance, we could take an area like genetics which I think everybody is very excited about, the sole business of sequencing the human genome was a major development. That's done using life science tools. In order to build a gene sequencer, you need a device called the photomultiplier because when you're trying to illuminate DNA and read it into an instrument, it emits a very, very low level of light. There's really only one company that makes photomultipliers in the free world and that's Hamamatsu Photonics.

In order to eliminate the DNA strand very frequently, they use something called the deuterium lamp. Very difficult illumination source to produce. Hamamatsu is the largest producer of them. We don't have to take sides. We don't have to decide which gene sequencer is better than the other one. We are their supplier and we have a lot less risk now to be clear about this. It's possible that the gene sequencer, that is the absolute, that's the one that everybody wants to own may well have the best performing equity, but we're not guessing. What we're doing is going where we have some assurance that we're going to have a profitable investment.

Another area that we've talked about very frequently is the area of producing semiconductors. Again, there's a lot of controversy about who's the one to leave that market. I'm sure that everybody's heard about the difficulties at Intel, they've heard about the successes of Taiwan semiconductor or Samsung. There's a lot of change in that industry, but the reality is that there's very few companies you can go to for the equipment that's actually used to produce semiconductors and they're produced in a vacuum.

That means you need to know what the pressure is in the vacuum and if there are any gases or particulate. There's a company called Infocon, which we have owned since 2010, which is really only one of two companies globally and the leader that provides the instruments that do that.

Similarly, leading-edge logic is the one who get produced by a photolithography and the photomasks at the leading edge nodes all come from Hoya in Japan, which is a company we've also owned for over five years.

Mark Brisley: I wanted to ask about a couple other holdings that you have in your top 10 and your mandates. One seems to be holding that definitely as a result of what we've been through in the pandemic has a connection there and that'd be Generac Holdings. The other one would be a biopharmaceutical position that you have with Sartorius Stedim Biotech. Can you talk a little bit more about those?

David Fingold: The Generac is an interesting one because theoretically, nobody needs home standby generator. However, we don't live in the theoretical world we live in the real world and anyone who's ever had to live through a blackout knows that all of their modern conveniences fail. Now once upon a time, we didn't do very much work from home. We had to work in an office or a factory. It was very unusual for somebody to work at home.

When I think back to my own experiences, I graduated from business school 32 years ago, and there's no question I had to be in the office or in the mailing order to get work done. Today, it's possible to work from wherever you are 24/7, and if the power goes out, you can't work. We get natural disasters that includes earthquakes, forest fires, storms.

For whatever reason, there's some very little investment in the reliability of the electrical grid and more households and more businesses have chosen to install standby generators. I don't see that getting better anytime soon. I haven't seen any concrete plans to dramatically upgrade the grid. To be clear about this, if the money was actually spent, all of our power bills would be significantly higher. If we had to fund a gold plated power grid and nobody's volunteering to pay higher electrical costs, but increasingly people are volunteering to buy standby generators.

The other thing that's interesting about their business is that they've been in business for about 20 years. What that means is that over time they're seeing more and more in terms of spare parts and services because this is moving equipment that- when I say moving, I mean rotating equipment that people use for very long periods of time, it's literally like owning an automobile.

A lot of the components in the drive train are similar. With that growing installed base, we're seeing a growing amount of recurring revenue as people repair their equipment. The other thing that we're just starting to see is, with the machines that are 15 to 20 years old, people are actually upgrading these. Very much like you may not want to put money into a car that's 15 or 20 years old and you might want a new one.

There are people who are actually buying their second generator and they could be getting a faster start or they could be getting more power output, or they could be getting monitoring on their smartphone. We're starting to see the first replacement cycles. I consider that to be a pretty interesting development as the recurring revenues build.

Now, the next stock you asked about what Sartorius Stedim Biotech. This is a company we've owned for the last three or four years. They're a French company. They are not surprisingly in the biotech business, but unlike most of the companies you think of in the biotech business, they don't actually make the drug. That's not what they do.

This is a pick and shovel company. They supply growth media because biotech drugs are cells like antibodies that have to actually be grown. They supply growth media, they supply process control software. They supply filtration systems. They supply single-use consumables, things like the sterile bags in which the antibodies are actually fermented, and because it's effectively a razor-razor blade business, they are exposed to the overall growth of the entire biotech industry.

In fact, there are very few choices for the drug companies, some who call themselves pharmaceuticals, some who call themselves biotechs that when they're producing these drugs they have very few supplier choices. They can buy, for instance, from Danaher and some of our portfolios on Danaher and they can buy from Sartorius. It's a very limited list of companies they can go to for those consumables.

This is a business that has been growing strongly. The vaccine business was growing strongly before its current circumstances which lead to some of the strongest, potential vaccine demand we've ever seen. It's important to understand that the vaccines that people are looking to develop aren't just around COVID or Influenza, they're also around other indications, for instance, in our ecology.

When we think that the development of the life sciences industry is very interesting, there's a lot of growth potential there. Our hope has been that we have got some of the companies that really are the ones that the pharmaceutical, the biotech industry must partner with for success.

Mark Brisley: David, as a global manager outside of North America, you do have positions in Europe. There's been a lot of commentary over the last week, given what appears to be accelerating concerns with a second wave of COVID in Europe, the markets have been volatile and declined to some extent. What does that mean for the companies that you invest in the region and European markets in general?

David Fingold: Mark, I've been reading the same newspapers everybody else has been reading. I think, first of all, the newspapers want to, for whatever reason, report things in the most pessimistic way possible. For instance, they go and use words like lockdown, but then they're never specific as to exactly which businesses have closed.

There is no question that in the parts of Europe where they've seen a resurgence in the case count that where restaurants and bars were open, they either closed restaurants and bars, or they restricted the number of people who could go or the hours that they could operate. I don't want to minimize those industries in terms of their size relative to the economy, but it's important to understand that it is much more important that the industrial economy is continuing to recover, and that is going on.

The recession that we saw in March, April, and May was a product of lockdowns. It actually closed factories and led to lower industrial production. We simply aren't seeing those kinds of lockdowns today. They didn't produce the benefit they were supposed to produce, and they in fact produced record levels of unemployment. I don't believe that unless we get really significantly negative news that requires factories to be closed again that it will happen, simply because it was so costly and it didn't eradicate COVID.

The point that I'm making is with the factories open and with very little inventory, the economy should continue to grow and the restaurants and the bars weren't doing so well before they were closed anyway. I want to be sensitive to those impacts there, but understand that recessions-- I was taught recessions were caused by an excess of inventory. That's what they told us in business.

There's no access to inventory today. If you want to get an automobile, automobile inventories are very low. If you want to buy a new home there are very few empty new homes for sale. There are long waiting lists for appliances. I read an article that said that certain refrigerators are back-ordered over six months. We've had household formation really explode after a long-term period of lower household formation.

Unless everybody's literally ordered to shelter-in-place, I don't see what's going on as an issue. Now, I want to be clear about this. I did not predict the lockdowns as of February, I don't think the market predicted it either, which is why you saw part of the reaction you saw during the month of March. When we saw it happen, we responded accordingly. We defensively positioned our portfolios and we preserved capital.

If my forecast is wrong and I'm forced to shift towards preserving capital gain, I will. I'm not getting any indication on that basis right now. I think the media is blowing out of proportion what's going on in Europe.

Mark Brisley: One other area that's generating some headlines since our last conversation and certainly among a lot of market commentators, is this conversation around the disparity between value and growth investing or what I see often called as the rotation from growth to value. I think it would be beneficial, David, for our listeners to hear from you on, first of all, why is this conversation taking place? Second of all, from your perspective, your commentary on will value come back or did value even go away?

David Fingold: My view has been that value has never gone away but understand that the way how we're investing, what we call value investing is what Mr. Buffet and Charlie Munger called value investing, which is buying very high-quality businesses that are well-managed and well-financed when they're on sale.

The people who construct the value index don't agree with us. We don't know where they came from, we don't know how they decided they were going to divide the market into growth and value. They made the decision that primarily growth was the top half of the market on a price to book basis. Value was the bottom half of the market on a price to book basis, and they said this is growth and value. They've hijacked the conversation.

Growth and value ETFs are generally put together using those methodologies, but that's not the way we manage money. Low price to book companies, I was taught in business school, are companies that have low profitability, inconsistent profitability, and high financial leverage. That is they owe a lot of money.

We saw a strong run in those companies off of the lows at the end of March into the middle of June. They have since given a significant amount back relative to the market. Every once in a while they get some thrust and they move up, but they've been in a trend of underperformance other than that strong bounce that they had off the bottom.

By the way, the time when a recession bottoms and the economy is improving at the fastest possible rate is the rational time for the lowest quality companies to outperform, but we think that time is behind us. I think that a lot of this obsession about growth versus value just comes from dividing the market into halves. That idea that you can just divide it into two pieces is incredibly versatile.

I would go so far as to say that what has really been working continuously since the lows of March has been cyclical versus defensives. I think that that it is really the overriding phenomenon right now. I think, again, that's completely rational, defensive businesses, things that should be able to have resilient growth, even in a recession are highly desirable during a recession. When you're coming out of recession, companies that can grow along with the economy become incrementally more desirable.

Of course, what we would like to find ideally are companies that are benefiting from an improving economy, benefiting from being in growing industries, and also that have lower financial risk and lower operational risk than their peers. Then if we do hit a bump in the road that they'll hold up better and that's what we think it is value. Some people call it quality, but I think that the public discourse about growth versus value is way off base. Dividing the whole market into two pieces is just way too simplistic that it doesn't lead to a coherent understanding of what goes on within the marketplace.

Mark Brisley: Many investors also think a lot about the risk within currency, not a portfolio. Now you don't hedge currency, but you certainly do have a unique perspective on currencies. Can you talk a little bit more about those views and your perspective?

David Fingold: Currency is definitely a risk when you invest, even if you're investing in Canada, anybody who's been an exporter knows there's a risk in and around the Canadian dollar. Currency is always part of investing. There is no way to separate currency from investing.

What we do is we just take responsibility for it. We recognize it as a risk and like the other risks that our clients face, we take responsibility for it, we do our research and we take a view. Let me explain that to you. I spoke earlier about some companies we like, we talked about Sartorious, which is a French company. It trades in Euros. We talked about Hoya, Hamamatsu, they're Japanese companies. They trade in Japanese yen. We have to analyze their currencies before we can make the investment.

If I thought that the Euro had a significant downside, I would have to take that into account in figuring out if we're going to be able to make money in Canadian dollar terms from owning a company that's in France. The same thing is true, we have to take a view on the Japanese yen to invest in Japan. If we decide we don't like a country, we'll just leave the country.

The example on this, the evidence, if you want to go back and look is we exited our investments in the United Kingdom when the referendum went in favor of leave, that is, they voted to leave the European Union. We left the United Kingdom, we sold our companies in Great Britain. We then waited for the British pound to fall to the bottom end of its 20-year range and when we decided that the British pound had limited downside and had some upside ahead of it, then we reentered the United Kingdom and we made investments there. That's our strategy. We have to like Pound Sterling to invest in Britain. We have to like or at least be neutral the Euro to invest in France.

Now there's one other aspect to currency and that is currency and its role in risk. Since 1970, whenever there's been a stock market correction. Again, I know everybody knows this, but I'll remind people, a stock market correction is when the S&P 500 falls 10% or more, 9.9% doesn't count. When there's a correction, three things have been true since 1970. One of them is the US dollar goes up. The other one is Japanese yen goes up and the other one is the Swiss Franc goes up.

We do take that into account when we're picking stocks and we allow currency to be a tie-breaker. If we're looking at a Korean company and we think it's a great company, but they have a Japanese peer that's just as good, we might choose the Japanese company because the yen goes up when the stock market corrects.

By the way, I can't find a correction where the Korean won went up, the Korean won goes down when the stock market corrects. We will use it as a tie-breaker and we always have more exposure to those three currencies than we normally would because you are literally packing a parachute when you invest in a company that is an American company, a Swiss company, or a Japanese company.

Mark Brisley: David, it's becoming quite common for you and I to always close off our conversations with the same question, and I'm going to do it again today. It's the fact that you've often said you can't be a good investor unless you're at least optimistic. I wanted to talk to you about with everything that's going on and what we've discussed today, why you continue to be optimistic about the future direction of the markets and the opportunities for yourself as an investor in your mandates?

David Fingold: Thank you for pointing out I'm an investor in my mandate. It's important to take into account here that everybody has an opinion. My opinions are backed up by money, and by that, I mean my money. I have no long-term investments other than the firms I manage, no equities other than the firms I manage. I take a significant part of my compensation in units from the firms that I manage. When I make a decision I'm literally making it for myself.

My results are identical to the results my clients get except for one difference, which is, I imagine my clients have more than one manager and I do not. When I say that I'm optimistic I mean I really am. The time for pessimism was back in March, and again the firms are recording issuers. It's no problem to go back and look at all the cash that we raised when bad things were happening.

More importantly, David Goodwin always told me I have to be right twice when you raise cash. We're pessimistic when we have to be pessimistic for a short period of time and then we put the cash to work and got to buy some great bargains. We're optimistic most of the time because to quote, Ned Goodman, our founder, said that he was an optimist because he never met a rich pessimist.

I'm also a conservative investor. Bad things will always happen at some point in the future. There's an inevitability to it. I think that if we are conservative and optimistic, we can benefit from the good things that are happening most of the time. When something bad happens, because we've been conservative, in the worst-case scenario, we pick ourselves up, we brush ourselves off and we move on.

The time for pessimism was in March. There will be another time for pessimism, but I'd like to remind people the bull markets last longer than bear markets. I imagine the time for pessimism is well into the future. When we have to be pessimistic we will, but right now I don't see any reason to be anything other than optimistic tempered by our conservatism because there's always a chance that we're wrong.

Mark Brisley: David, insightful as always. Really appreciate those comments. I certainly hope our investors listening today have got a lot of takeaways for that. We'll very much look forward to being able to chat again in the near future.

David Fingold: Thank you for having me on.

Mark Brisley: You've been listening to another edition of On The Money with Dynamic Funds. For more information on Dynamic and our complete fund lineup, contact your financial advisor or visit our website at dynamic.ca.

Speaker: This audio has been prepared by 1832 Asset management LP and is provided for information purposes only. Views expressed regarding a particular investment, economy, industry, or market sector should not be considered an indication of trading intent of any of the mutual funds managed by 1832 Asset Management LP.

These views are not to be relied upon as investment advice, nor should they be considered a recommendation to buy or sell. These views are subject to change at any time based upon markets and other conditions and we disclaim any responsibility to update such views. To the extent this audio contains information or data obtained from third-party sources, it is believed to be accurate and reliable as of the date of publication, but 1832 Asset Management LP does not guarantee its accuracy or reliability.

Nothing in this document is or should be relied upon as a promise or representation as to the future. Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses all may be associated with mutual fund investments. Please read the prospectus before investing. The indicated rates of return are the historical annual compound total returns including changes in unit values, and reinvestment of all distributions does not take into account sales, redemption, or option changes or income taxes payable by any security holder that would have reduced returns. Mutual funds are not guaranteed. Their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated.