Talk to Us.
In this special bonus episode of the Science of Economic Freedom podcast, “Revisiting Factor Investing,” I speak with Don Calcagni, Chief Investment Officer at Mercer Advisors.
Don is an expert on factor investing, and his breadth of knowledge will educate and enhance your understanding of the subject, and the role factor investing can and likely should play in a well-rounded investment portfolio.
In this podcast, you’ll discover:
Don Calcagni is one of the smartest guys in the industry. And, listening to him speak about markets and factor investing is like sitting in on a maestro’s master class. If you want to get a grip on factor investing, this is the episode for you.
Doug Fabian: What is factor investing and why should you care? How have the different factors performed so far in 2018? How can you put factor investing to work in your portfolio? Today on the podcast, Mercer Advisors Chief Investment Officer Don, Calcagni visits with us on this episode of The Science of Economic Freedom.
Announcer: The Science of Economic Freedom is intended as an investor education resource. The views and opinions expressed on this program should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any specific security. Consult your investment advisor and read any investment perspectives carefully before making any changes to your investment portfolio.
This program is sponsored by Mercer Advisors. Mercer Global Advisors Inc is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and delivers all investment-related services. Mercer Advisors Inc is the parent company of Mercer Global Advisors Inc and is not involved with investment services.
Doug Fabian: Welcome to The Science of Economic Freedom. I’m your host, Doug Fabian. This podcast is about helping you achieve your financial dreams – we call that economic freedom. This program is about your journey to achieve economic freedom for yourself and your loved ones.
Today we want to help you identify your next step on that journey. This is Bonus Episode 10, Revisiting Factor Investing, recorded in July of 2018. This is the third bonus episode we’ve done this month.
Now, bonus episodes are real-time dated discussions about the news, markets, and important events. In this show, we’re going to revisit factor investing in a real-time look with Don Calcagni, the Chief Investment Officer at Mercer Advisors.
Now, I do want to mention episode 14. This was our first show with Don, on factor investing. If you have not heard that episode, please give it a listen at thescienceofeconomicfreedom.com.
Also, download our special report Factor-Based Investing, which contains all of the historical, scientific evidence for this approach. Now to our interview. Don, welcome back to the podcast.
Don Calcagni: Thank you, Doug. It’s great to be here.
Doug Fabian: Let’s begin with an overview of what factor investing is.
Don Calcagni: Factor investing is scientific investing. It’s an investment approach that’s based in science, not speculation, not conjecture.
Factors are how academics study markets to look for characteristics of companies or bonds or even commodities that have been shown to be reliable predictors of positive long-term returns, returns that are higher than that of, say, investing in the broad market through an index or something along those lines.
Factors are quantitative. They’re measurable. Because they’re measurable, it’s fairly easy to build very low-cost investment strategies to capture those factors. So, factor investing is scientific investing.
It is an investment science that has been identified over the years through many Nobel prizes and many academics. It’s what we do here at Mercer Advisors.
Doug Fabian: Now Don, why do we believe in this so strongly versus other approaches?
Don Calcagni: The reason we believe in it so strongly is that it is supported by many, many decades of very robust, very thorough peer-reviewed academic research.
So, when I look at other approaches that are generally pitched by Wall Street investment firms or other mutual fund type families, the problem is, is their strategies just don’t stand up to academic rigor. They tend to be more designed for marketing purposes and not designed to deliver a wonderful investment experience to clients.
So, that’s why we believe in factor investing. It’s grounded in science. It’s, like, if I went in to meet with my physician, I want my physician to be advising me on my health using the latest and greatest science available. I don’t want him going to the far and dark corners of the internet to determine what my prognosis should be and what he should recommend that I do.
It’s grounded in science, and that’s why we are so passionate about it. Everything we do here at Mercer Advisors is grounded in science, hence our podcast here, The Science of Economic Freedom. We’re here to help people achieve economic freedom. In order to do that, we have to rely on the science.
Doug Fabian: Let me just mention our special report, again, ladies and gentlemen out at thescienceofeconomicfreedom.com. In this report, we discuss factor investing, and regarding the U.S. markets, the 89 years of history. Don, what are your observations about that data we have?
Don Calcagni: The great thing about U.S. financial markets is that we have great data. We have many, many decades of data. In fact, the U.S. Stock Market Exchange, the NYSE, was actually founded in 1789. We have really good data and because we have really good data, it allows us to really go back in time and to really look for those factors, to look for those strategies that over time have been proven to time and time again outperform the broad market.
The other thing I would add is the United States, we have standardized accounting principles that have been in place for a very long period of time. So, with that, you can have some confidence that when you go back and you look at a company in the 1930s, the 1940s or the 50s, that they were doing their accounting not materially very different than how we do it today. Obviously, it was more manual. But, because we have such great data, academics, professional market participants can study the past, learn from the past, and design strategies to help clients on a go-forward basis.
Doug Fabian: Don, let’s refresh the five-factor model for the audience. Just quickly go through our five factors and describe them.
Don Calcagni: Yeah, happy to. So, within the equity space, and by that I mean stocks. We’re just going to talk about stocks here for a moment. There are generally five factors that have been shown to outperform the market over time.
This is what we call the value factor. Many of our listeners may have heard of the price to earnings ratio. That is one accounting measure of value. So, value stocks are just those companies that are generally unloved. Maybe they’re not as popular as the big go-go stocks of the day. But, these are good, high-quality stocks, solid earnings that for whatever reason are underpriced by the market. So, the first factor is value.
The second factor is what we call momentum. All of us in our lifetime have experienced momentum, whether it was the dot coms of the late 90s or real estate in the mid-2000s.
We even see momentum in things like Beanie Babies and for those of us who have been around long enough, Cabbage Patch Dolls. Momentum is a human phenomenon that we observe in all markets, all assets, and in all products.
Momentum is quantifiable and momentum has been shown to significantly outperform the market over long periods of time.
The third factor is what we call the quality factor. These are companies that have very, very high sustained, very persistent earnings growth and growth and profits over time.
These are accounting measures. We can easily calculate how persistent a company’s earnings growth is by just simply looking at their financial statements. High-quality companies over time have actually been shown to outperform the market, but also with less downside risk. That’s obviously very important for our listeners who are typically investing for retirement and other life goals.
A fourth factor that I would identify would be what we call defensive or what we sometimes call low beta stocks. These are companies that for whatever reason are less sensitive to downside movements in the broader market.
They generally tend to be companies that have less debt than many of their peer companies. So, there’s a theory that the reason why these companies have some downside protection is because they’re not as heavily indebted as other companies in the market.
Low beta or defensive stocks over time have been shown to outperform the market, but not because they’re doing so phenomenally well from a growth perspective. But, because they just have less downside risk and so those companies do very well over time. That’s the fourth factor.
The final factor that I’ll highlight is what we call the size factor. Smaller companies over time have been shown to outperform larger companies. This is why we have a very robust private equity industry in the United States.
We’ve all heard of venture capitalists funding Microsoft when Bill Gates was working out of his garage. But, there is a lot of evidence that small companies even within the Dow Jones, for example, which is an index of at least a handful of very large companies.
One of the things we see there is that even the smallest of the big companies tend to have higher returns than the biggest of the big companies. So, that’s what we call the size factor.
We measure that by looking at market capitalization, which is just simply calculated by looking at the number of shares that the company has issued multiplied by its current stock price. That gives you what we call the market capitalization and that’s how students of markets measure size. So, that’s the fifth factor.
Doug Fabian: Now, Don, factors can be used in mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or in what are called separately managed accounts. Give us some context on these different vehicles. Wall Street is a marketing machine. They’re always offering lots of things, but sometimes one product doesn’t stand up to another product. So, help our audience in determining how they might put factor investing to work through these different vehicles.
Don Calcagni: Yeah, absolutely. So, you’re 1000 percent accurate Doug. You can invest in factors through mutual funds, through exchange-traded funds or through what we call a separately managed account, which is really just a fancy way of saying owning these stocks directly. So, actually owing GE or Apple or Google or Netflix directly, instead of through a mutual fund product or an ETF product. So, mutual funds have obviously been around for several decades now. I think our listeners are most comfortable with those, so I’ll speak to those for a moment.
A mutual fund, for example, can invest in value stocks. All a mutual fund is it’s a vehicle where investors pool together their savings and a professional money manager goes into the market, takes those savings, and buys lots of value stocks. That’s one way to do it.
Mutual funds do not trade throughout the day. Mutual funds trade only at 4:00 p.m. Part of the challenge with traditional mutual funds is that investors have no control over the capital gains distributions.
So, for larger investors or for those who have taxable portfolios, mutual funds from time to time can be a little problematic. They’re not as tax-efficient, but they are very, very good at giving investors very low-cost broad diversification using factors. So, they have a place. They definitely have a place.
The second vehicle would be what we call exchange-traded funds or ETFs. What an ETF is, it’s not too different from a mutual fund, except that it trades throughout the day. It’s a vehicle that has its own price, even though that vehicle owns lots of, say, value stocks. That basket of stocks trades in real-time throughout the day.
On the plus side, ETFs are generally speaking more tax-efficient than mutual funds. They’re also generally a little less expensive than traditional mutual funds. I would put that in the plus column.
That doesn’t mean that they’re perfect. Exchange-traded funds do have some drawbacks. Oftentimes, there’s a bit of a disconnect between the value of the stocks that the fund owns, the exchange-traded fund, and the price of the exchange-traded fund as it’s trading throughout the day.
So, it’s a bit of an esoteric concept, but it’s a very real cost to investors. So, we like ETFs. We like mutual funds at Mercer Advisors. They’re both great diversification vehicles and we make extensive use of those vehicles.
But, I do think it’s important for our listeners to understand that all of these vehicles have their own pros and cons, and working with a professional advisor, they can determine ultimately what makes the most sense for their situation.
The third vehicle, the separately managed accounts, is really where you have an account. You have a professional manager on that account. You deposit your savings to that account and that manager physically goes into the marketplace and purchases those value stocks directly.
Like our prior two vehicles, there’s pros and cons to separately managed accounts. On the plus side, they are the most optimal vehicle from a tax management perspective. The Internal Revenue Code provides the most preferential treatment to owning individual securities than it does, for examples, to mutual funds or ETFs.
So, from a tax perspective, it always makes the most sense to try to own the securities directly and not through a pooled product, if you could avoid it. So, on the plus side, more tax-friendly. There is some evidence that also shows that the return is higher on a going-forward basis than it is with a traditional mutual fund or an ETF.
On the downside, when you have a strategy that goes into the market to buy individual securities, oftentimes your trading costs can be higher. So, you’re not just paying $20, for example, to buy one mutual fund that owns 400 stocks. Maybe you now have to pay $6.95 per trade for each of those 400 stocks.
So, one of the things we do at Mercer Advisors is we control those expenses quite diligently so that it’s advantageous for our clients to use separately managed accounts. But again, I’ll close by saying that it is important to work with an advisor to understand what are all the pros and cons across these three different choices and make sure that you select the choice that makes the most sense for you and your financial plan.
Doug Fabian: Let’s get to the numbers because there’s an interesting story this year behind the markets and factors in 2018. The S&P 500 was up 2.6 percent during the first half of the year, through June 30th of 2018. How did the factor segments perform in the first half of the year?
Don Calcagni: Yeah, factors actually have done very well so far, year to date. The best performing factor is momentum. So, these are high momentum stocks.
We discussed momentum a few moments ago. Momentum is up a positive 6.84 percent through June 30th. Smaller stocks, the size premium stocks that we discussed, the size factor, positive 6.1 percent. Those high-quality stocks that we discussed are positive 3.62 percent.
On the negative side, value stocks have underperformed that are negative year to date through June 30th, about 2.64 percent. So, value stocks are underperforming and that’s one of the bigger themes throughout 2018, and indeed, really since the financial crisis, value stocks have struggled to outperform the broad market.
In fact, they have slightly underperformed the S&P 500 Index. So far, year to date also our defensive stocks, our low beta stocks are positive 1.44 percent. So, defensive and value are both underperforming the market, whereas momentum, small stocks, and high-quality stocks are outperforming the market.
A multifactor portfolio, specifically the MSCI Diversified Multi Factor Index, is actually positive 3.61 percent. One of the things we do here at Mercer Advisors, Doug, as you know, we diversify across factors rather than trying to time when a given factor will outperform the market.
So, we don’t do any timing, but we do diversify across these factors. A multifactor diversified strategy is positive 3.61 percent through June 30th. That’s about a 1 percent outperformance over and above the S&P 500 so far, year to date through June 30th.
Doug Fabian: One of the things I wanted to mention to the audience is that when you look at the historical data that we have in our special report out at thescienceofeconomicfreedom.com, small-caps outperform large-caps over the long-term.
Just to give you some context from 1926 to 2016, small-caps were up 12.15 percent versus large caps 9.7 percent. Now, you might ask yourself the question, “Well, why don’t we just invest in small-caps?” The challenge and I want you to comment on this Don as well, the challenge with small-caps is they are like the big rollercoaster ride.
You get these periods of time when everything is going great and they’re just going to the moon and then you get these periods of time where there is significant underperformance of small-cap stocks.
Right now value stocks are underperforming. small-cap stocks are outperforming. This is why we have a multifactor approach because one of our premises is we have to control investor behavior, specifically, bad behavior.
If you just invested in small-caps, when small-caps historically…there have been many times small-caps have been down much more than the market as a whole, and more than 50 percent small-cap stocks have been down.
This is why we just don’t choose one factor and hope for the best. Don, your comments on that.
Don Calcagni: Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. At any point in time, you can look at over the last 90 to 100 years, you can find long stretches when any of these factors were in a pretty serious drought.
So, there have been long periods of time when small-caps have underperformed. There’s been long periods in the past where value stocks underperformed. This is why we diversify across factors
It’s the same reason why somebody wouldn’t go into the market today and just buy one or two stocks that have done phenomenally well over the last five or ten years. I recently wrote an article on General Electric.
General Electric was one of the darlings of the 1990s under Jack Welch. The company did phenomenally well. I had so many clients telling me back in the 1990s that they really didn’t need to diversify. All they needed to do was own GE because it was so big, so diversified, and so highly profitable. Many clients, unfortunately, did buy lots of GE stock in the late 90s because GE had done so well.
Well, since 2000, GE has collapsed in value by over 60 percent. So, for the last 18 years, GE has been in the doghouse and in fact was just recently delisted from the Dow Jones Industrial average of the index. It was the last remaining initial company that was added to the index when it was started back in 1896.
Point being is that this is why we don’t pick just one factor or one stock and then hope or pray for the best. That’s not a strategy. Diversification is a strategy. It does work. It reduces risk and the great thing about diversification is you’re not giving up upside return.
As I’ve explained already if you look at just year to date returns, the multifactor index is outperforming and certainly, that same multifactor index, if you look over the 89-year time horizon, Doug, that you’ve referenced has outperformed quite significantly, sometimes 2 to 3 percent per year, which is a very significant outperformance.
Doug Fabian: Let’s talk about the international markets for a moment because we really believe in international investing as a part of our strategies here at Mercer Advisors. There has been a headwind. The headwind has been a rising dollar in the second quarter of 2018. That has caused international markets to underperform the U.S. What have factor-based international industries done so far this year?
Don Calcagni: So, if we just look at a multifactor index. Specifically, I’m going to reference the MSCI Non-U.S. Multifactor Index. That particular index is negative only six basis points for the year to date, through June 30th.
What does that really mean? That is six one-hundredths of one percent. So, said differently, the Non-U.S. Multifactor Index is basically flat through June 30th, despite the fact that non-U.S. stocks across the board are pretty much negative when you look at, for example, the MSCI EAFE Index, which I think most of our listeners would recognize.
The EAFE Index is negative 2.75 percent through June 30th. So, this is another way in which your factor-based strategies can outperform, even though we’re flat year to date in the Non-U.S. Multifactor parts of the market, which is what we invest in. The rest of that market is negative 2.75 percent. So, pretty significant outperformance year to date for factors in non-U.S. markets.
Doug Fabian: Don, let’s talk about some asset allocation for a moment, and let’s just look at, again, stocks to begin with. I continue as I do my wealth coaching exercise with listeners as I look at portfolios that are being brought on to us by other advisors, I find that many investors continue to be under-allocated to international.
So, just talk about the philosophy here at Mercer Advisors relative to our international exposure for our clients.
Don Calcagni: We believe quite strongly in non-U.S. investing. If we just step back for a moment and look at the global economy. As investors, we need the global economy to grow. For all of us who are investing for retirement or to pass our wealth on to the next generation, regardless of what our goal is, we need to be able to invest in companies that can tap into and benefit from high economic growth.
Let’s be candid, even though the U.S. economy is doing very well at the moment, long-term most of the economic growth on earth is going to come from emerging markets and non-U.S. markets.
So, by definition, if we want to benefit from that as investors, we need to invest in those markets. We need to invest in companies that do business in those markets. If we look at the global stock market, about 54 percent of the global stock market is the U.S. stock market. Part of that’s because the U.S. economy is just so large, so successful, and our financial markets are very successful.
So, by a long shot, the U.S. stock market is the largest stock market on the planet. About 46 percent of the global stock market, obviously, is outside of the United States. But, at Mercer, we don’t invest 46 percent of our portfolios in non-U.S. stocks. We have instead decided to dial that back a little bit to 32 percent.
So, why did we do that? We did that because if you actually look at the U.S. stock market if you look at very successful large U.S. multinational companies, think of J.P. Morgan and General Electric, who I just referenced a little bit ago. Our companies are so large that they are doing a significant amount of business outside of the United States.
So, by just owning U.S. stocks, you actually do have pretty significant exposure to non-U.S. markets already. About 43 percent of every dollar earned by the S&P 500 companies, the Fortune 500, about 43 cents of every dollar that they earn is earned from outside of the United States.
So, those companies already have very significant non-U.S. exposure, which is why we’re comfortable dialing down from a 46 percent to a 32 percent allocation to non-U.S. stocks. But, I do agree with your point. Most investors who come to us are woefully under-allocated to non-U.S. stocks. I do believe that that puts their economic freedom in jeopardy.
Don Calcagni: So, the first step when we construct a portfolio is we break out. So, if we decide that we’re going to put 100 percent in equities for a moment, just to keep the math simple.
The first thing that we do is we determine how much is going to go into small-cap, how much is going to go into larger companies, large-cap, and mid-cap. What we do is we basically break that into 90 percent for U.S. large-cap and small-cap and about 10 percent for small-cap.
Once we go through that exercise, within the large-cap and mid-cap segment, that 90 percent that I referenced, we then equally diversify for our capital appreciation portfolios across momentum, quality, and value. We do that in equal weights.
There’s a lot of academic work that strongly supports that approach from University of Chicago, from Columbia, as well as many other places. So, we take equal weights within the U.S. large and mid-cap space across value, momentum, and quality.
And then, we take the same approach within the small-cap space, that ten percent that I referenced. That’s for our capital appreciation portfolios. Those are for clients that are looking to build wealth over time to achieve economic freedom.
We also have a series of portfolios that are more defensively structured and they’re really designed for clients who are on retirement’s doorstep. What we do there is a little different.
So, we equally diversify in our defensive portfolios across those low-beta defensive stocks, value stocks, and high-quality stocks.
Again, we’re doing that in equal weights. Again, why are we doing that? We’re doing that because there is substantial academic research that strongly suggests that that’s the optimal way to do it.
Doug Fabian: Don, let’s talk about the current market environment. One of the things that I’ve heard from many conversations with people is the valuations of the market right now are quite high. Could you comment on that?
Don Calcagni: Sure, happy to. I disagree with the comment that the market on average is overvalued. The reason I say that is if you look at the S&P 500 Index, it’s currently trading at about 16 times earnings. That’s what we call the PE ratio. So, the S&P has a price to earnings ratio of 16 times earnings. Over the last 25 years, the average price to earnings ratio for the S&P has been 16 times earnings.
So, we are trading almost spot on where the index has traded in terms of valuation for the past 25 years. But, we have to be careful about averages. It’s, like, if somebody came to you and said, “Look, there’s a river and it’s on average three feet deep.” That doesn’t mean that you should walk across the river, right? It’s probably going to be deeper in the middle. So, averages can be misleading.
I bring that up to highlight a very special point. So far this year, at least as of yesterday, the S&P is positive 6.41 percent. So, a novice might look at that, a layperson may look at that and say, “Oh, well that’s pretty darn good.” However, over 70 percent of that return is directly attributable to only three stocks, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft.
Amazon is trading at 280 times earnings. Microsoft is trading at 29 times earnings, almost twice the average valuation of the market. Netflix is trading at 240 times earnings. These are nosebleed valuations that are just not sustainable.
These are great companies. I’m not making a negative comment regarding these companies. I love Amazon. I think it’s a great company. I love Netflix. But, these prices are unjustifiable given where these companies are at currently with their earnings.
So, one of the things we see, Doug, when we look into the market, our listeners should be aware of the fact that there are large segments, especially in the technology space, that are I would argue very overpriced.
So, when people are bringing up valuations, I think it’s important just to be a little bit more precise. On average, the market is trading at its average valuation, but be careful. Averages can be dangerous. There are definitely segments, there are definitely companies that are trading at nosebleed valuations that just aren’t sustainable.
Doug Fabian: Don, in the few minutes we have left here, I just wanted you to kind of address some of the headlines that are out there. As we mentioned in this podcast through the end of the second quarter the S&P 500 up 2.6 percent, but here two weeks later, the S&P 500 is up almost 6 and a half percent.
We have rising interest rate environment. We have a lot of talk right now about trade wars, maybe even some tariffs. The market seems to just continue to push higher. Just give us some commentary and context as investors, what we should be thinking about going forward for the second half of the year.
Don Calcagni: So, I agree. The market continues to push higher, I would argue, because the U.S. economy is doing so phenomenally well. They’re now predicting 4 percent GDP growth for the next quarter or two.
That’s definitely in the cards. That’s definitely a real possibility. So, the U.S. economy is doing well. Earnings are doing well. I think the economy is still benefiting from a sugar rush, really tied to the tax-cuts that we benefited from earlier this year.
But, eventually, that’s going to burn off, as all sugar rushes ultimately do. You referenced rising interest rates. We now have tariffs with not just the Chinese, but also the European Union, Canada, Mexico. These are our closest trading partners. The United States conducts more trade with Canada and Mexico than any other countries. So, tariffs are definitely a major headwind.
I think we’re going to see the full effect of that tax, because that’s what a tariff is, probably by the end of this year. The federal reserve is also anticipating another 3 to 4 interest rate hikes on a go-forward basis. The economy is already at full employment. The economy is now creating more jobs than we have applicants to fill them.
While that may sound good if you are a worker, obviously, that is going to put downward pressure on future economic growth. So, going forward, in my personal view, I certainly dislike making forecasts because the market can always prove you wrong quite easily.
But, I think if we just look at the math. The U.S. economy is going to be slowing down sometime in 2019. Most professional economists would agree with that statement. I do think that’s going to put downward pressure on stocks, especially those overpriced stocks, the stocks that I was referencing a few moments ago that are trading at multiples of many hundreds’ times their earnings.
I think we’re going to see a slowdown here by the end of the year into 2019. I’m certainly not hoping for that. We always hope for great returns for our investors, but I think we also have to be candid that this sugar rush from tax-cuts is ultimately going to come to an end and investors should just be prepared for that.
Doug Fabian: Well, that’s why we follow a diversified approach and this is also a period of time when you could get some of these other factors starting to perform much better in the future for our clients than they have in the recent past. That can even be less performance on the downside.
So, that’s what we have to look forward to. Don Calcagni, Don, your podcast with me, every time I have you on the podcast they are the most popular podcasts. So, I thank you for your contribution to our program and I just appreciate having you back again and we look forward to your next visit.
Don Calcagni: Thank you, Doug. It’s an honor to be here. I appreciate the opportunity.
Doug Fabian: Ladies and gentlemen, I always like to close a podcast out with some action steps.
If you’re new to the podcast, new to factor investing or you want to just get more detail about factor investing, I want to encourage you to listen to episode 14 at thescienceofeconomicfreedom.com. It’s very easy to find content out there and check out episode 14, which was an interview with Don, our first interview on factor investing.
Second, I would encourage you to download our factor investing special report which contains all of the historical evidence on factor investing.
Then lastly, if you have comments, questions, show ideas, send me an email. My email address is [email protected]. If it makes sense, if you’d like to have some personal wealth coaching, we can arrange that. You can send me an email or you can fill out the form at thescienceofeconomicfreedom.com. This is Doug Fabian. Thank you very much for joining us today.
Announcer: The Science of Economic Freedom is intended as an investor education resource. The views and opinions expressed on this program should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any specific security. Consult your investment advisor and read any investment prospectus carefully before making any changes to your investment portfolio.
This program is sponsored by Mercer Advisors. Mercer Global Advisors, Inc. is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and delivers all investment-related services. Mercer Advisors, Inc. is the parent company of Mercer Global Advisors, Inc., and is not involved with investment services.