Asset Management Outlook to 2025
Asset Manager Outlook to 2025
Growing AUM but squeezed profitability: predicting the next seven years for asset managers.
This report from Bloomberg and Simmons & Simmons is intended to help clients stay ahead of the curve in an industry facing significant change – both structural and cyclical.
Bloomberg, in partnership with Simmons & Simmons, conducted a joint survey of nearly 2,000 global buy-side professionals that unveils asset managers’ expectations for financial performance and wellbeing across the sector over the next several years. For this report on the survey’s findings, Simmons & Simmons provided the analysis with Sarah Jane Mahmud, Senior Regulatory Analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, contributing the regulatory analysis.
While some previous industry surveys have pointed towards aggressive growth in Assets Under Management (AUM), globally we are saving less as a proportion of GDP – a trend that calls into question the drivers for AUM growth and that in the past has signaled economic slowdowns and recessions.
This contradiction raises two crucial questions: given a scenario of lower savings rates, a possible economic slowdown and continued regulatory pressures, would an asset manager’s industry outlook be more optimistic? And how would the industry respond to such challenges in terms of cost control and diversification strategies, including through M&A?
The Asset Management Outlook to 2025 survey tests baseline business projections by asking asset management professionals about their expectations across key elements – growth and drivers of AUM, fee income and costs – over two periods: from now until 2020, and from 2020 to 2025. It also identifies the industry’s risk expectations around those estimates, revealing what factors could drive outcomes that are better or worse than expected.
The resulting report is an indicator of the asset management industry’s expectations for its financial performance and wellbeing over the next several years, combining baseline expectations with its perception of the balance of risks.
A strong and representative sample was crucial to achieve the report’s ambitious objective of delivering an in-depth look at the industry from the inside.
This report is based on a survey of 1,950 buy-side professionals, including institutional fund managers, alternative fund managers and private wealth managers, almost 50% of whom identified themselves as being in and around the C-suite.
By job function, the largest cohort was in Portfolio Management (41%) and geographically the majority was based in Europe (54%), with meaningful responses also from the Americas and APAC.
The report also includes the views of investors in various different fields, ranging from Institutional Fund Management (45%) through Alternative Investment (including hedge funds, private equity, etc) (22%) and Private Wealth Management (17%).
Read our executive summary for a fast overview of asset manager sentiment.
The survey found that asset managers are relatively more conservative in their growth expectations for AUM than in other recent surveys and that they expect the average fee margin to continue its downward path between now and 2025, with a drop of 11%.
Against that backdrop, the industry expects to keep costs under control but anticipates that the cost:income ratio will nonetheless rise 3% by 2025. There may be some modest but welcome relief from a balance of risks skewed mildly to the upside.
As AUM growth outpaces costs and fee margin continues to fall, the survey identified that a significant ‘Fee Gap’ will open up by 2025.
Asset managers expect the average fee margin to drop 11% between now and 2025.
Bloomberg Intelligence and Simmons & Simmons’ Asset Management Outlook to 2025
Global AUM growth expectations in line with GDP
The survey results settle concerns about faster-than-GDP AUM growth.
The survey results settle concerns about faster-than-GDP AUM growth. Between now and the end of 2025, the surveyed asset managers expect 21% growth in global AUM, broadly in line with recent global GDP trends. While that is lower than some other estimates for AUM growth, it seems a safer expectation given the recent trend of falling savings rates.
Geographically, APAC countries are expected to show the fastest growth to 2025, with Europe (ex-UK) and the U.S. a couple of percentage points behind the average. It may be that the U.S. is held back by its larger proportion of large funds with over $400 billion in AUM: when you're that big, it's hard to run faster.
Perhaps the standout result here is the strong showing for the UK, which is close to the APAC growth rate and several points ahead of the U.S. and the rest of Europe. The result is all the more notable given the imminence of Brexit, which likely exerted a dominant influence over the forecast period and was cited as one of the strongest negative factors for AUM growth by respondents.
New products & markets set to drive AUM growth
The survey identified two main positive factors for AUM growth in the shorter term.
Two of the main positive factors for AUM growth in the shorter term (to 2020) were identified as New Products and New Geographic Markets, with benefits expected to flow also from Technology. The latter likely includes investments that have been made to target new sources of AUM in the retail space more efficiently and to attract new mandates (especially from institutional investors) by offering extended quantitative and big data solutions, as identified elsewhere in the survey.
On the downside, survey respondents ranked New Entrants as the third most important negative risk to AUM growth. Interestingly, New Entrants are also cited as a strong threat to fee income growth, reflecting their agility, use of technology-based solutions and lower cost bases – given they have zero expensive legacy pension liabilities to finance and no embedded legacy IT systems.
The next most-cited negative factors were a tightly clustered trio of Trade Wars, Brexit and Changing Savings Habits – the latter reflecting falling global savings rates and the different savings habits of Millennials compared to the Baby Boomers, whose influence on savings rates is likely waning.
Fee margin falls, opening up the ‘Fee Gap’
While AUM often gets the headlines, the real drivers of asset management profitability are fees and costs.
While AUM often gets the headlines, the real drivers of asset management profitability are fees and costs. As noted in the Executive Summary, despite relatively strong expectations for top-line growth (21% growth in global AUM by 2025), fee income is expected to grow more slowly (rising by only 8% over the same period). That implies further falls in the fee margin (fees as a percentage of AUM), which survey respondents imply will fall by 11% of their recent value by 2025.
Respondents were asked to identify their key positive and negative drivers of fee income over the short term to 2020.
On the upside, largely in line with the drivers of AUM, they cited expected benefits from the introduction of New Products and entry to New Geographic Markets. Perhaps surprisingly, they also pinned hope on rising Asset Prices – presumably for the boost to AUM and thus AUM-based fee income tariffs. Given recent uncertainties in market behaviour in response to geopolitical and secular macroeconomic changes, that hope may be found wanting over the short term.
Indeed, respondents cited New Fee Structures among their top three downside factors: a possible reality check for those hoping that rising asset prices will drive income growth. The impact of Competition – both from existing competitors and new entrants – was cited as the biggest factor squeezing profits, confirming the pessimistic, but perhaps realistic, view that market competition will intensify and lead to a further competitive reduction in fee income.
Cost reductions could cut to the core of asset management
How are firms planning to contain costs?
Given the expected pressures on fee income, which is driving the revenue line for asset managers, the survey endeavored to find out how firms were planning to contain costs and the areas where they nonetheless expected to increase their spending. On balance, as noted earlier, they expect costs to rise moderately faster than fee income to 2025 (a 10% increase in costs versus 8% in income).
Over the shorter term, respondents identified their top three cost increases and cost savings. The largest cost increase is expected to come from Compliance (cited by almost 20%). While that is hardly surprising given the developing regulatory environment, stretching from MiFID II through to SMCR in the UK and similar initiatives elsewhere, respondents are also positioning themselves for the greater use of New Technology and new information sources, with large increases expected in new technology investment and the use of Big Data.
The areas of expected cost reduction were more startling, with anticipated cuts to the heart of the traditional asset management business – Portfolio Management and Dealing and Execution – perhaps reflecting the rise of the robo-advisor and more automated dealing and trading infrastructure.
Trade wars and global growth are key risk factors
The survey identified what risk factors asset managers thought could blow plans off course or produce a better than expected outcome.
In addition to asking respondents about expectations that could be built into their business plans, the survey was also designed to find out what risk factors they thought could blow those plans off course or produce a better than expected outcome.
As noted earlier, the net balance of risks is skewed modestly to the upside. Respondents are building in fairly neutral or mildly negative assumptions which, if the risks fail to materialize, would result in a mildly positive final outcome. The most significant of these assumptions relate to Trade Wars and Conflict. If either issue turns out to be more benign than expected, firms might expect an upside surprise in their performance.
On the downside, respondents have benign assumptions about Global Growth and Banking Stability. If either turns out to be worse than expected, the effect on their results would be negative.
Active investing to help tightrope fee margins
Cost control is only one axis of response for asset managers challenged by the Fee Gap.
Cost control is only one axis of response for asset managers challenged by the Fee Gap. The survey also asked what diversification strategies managers expect to use to maximise return and/or minimise risk.
Some of the anticipated strategies are unsurprising and may largely reflect a macroeconomic environment transitioning from an era defined by quantitative easing and rates at the zero bound, to one in which interest rates are rising – however slowly.
Traditional fund managers expect to move from interest-rate sensitive asset classes/types, such as Sovereign and Corporate (HY) Bonds, into Equities and the long-term demand pull of Infrastructure.
Similarly, alternative fund managers anticipate a move from CLOs/Loans, Mezzanine/Distressed Debt and Private Real Estate into ESG/Impact Investing and (private market) Infrastructure.
The biggest increases in exposure were expected to favour China and Other Emerging Markets, funded by reductions in exposure to Russia and – by quite some margin – the UK as international concern over Brexit mounts.
While those moves may be unsurprising given the rate cycle and geopolitics, two other diversification strategies suggested that more significant structural change lies ahead.
Asked about Investment Style, respondents expected the biggest change to be a shift from passive to active investing. In itself that may not be a surprise: active management holds the promise of higher fees and as long as managers are truly able to demonstrate superior returns, their underlying clients will accept those higher charges.
The surprise comes from juxtaposing this response with the earlier one showing that traditional managers expect their biggest increase by asset class to be into ETFs – traditionally associated with passive investment.
Reading across to other results in the survey, it may be that the increases in investment in New Technology, Big Data, Quants and Alternative/Big Data tell a story of an industry seeking to find new, cost-efficient ways to generate excess return for investors. By using lower-cost collective vehicles to minimise stock-specific risk, it appears managers can justify using passive instruments as part of a broader active strategy.
In the second of the more structural changes, almost 60% of respondents, of all types, cited different types of M&A as their most likely diversification strategy involving Corporate Action. Only 40% cited changes brought about by internal reorganisation.
It may be that the bias towards M&A, including the 12% of the sample who expect to Be Acquired, is a fitting coda to the broad narrative arc of our survey. It started with observations about falling savings rates and went on to identify lower growth rates than previous surveys and a Fee Gap, as AUM conversion to fee income becomes ever harder.
In any mature industry, consolidation through M&A is a typical feature. Our survey suggests that we have crossed that threshold and are likely to see an acceleration of the consolidation trend over the next few years with new, more agile and tech-savvy players harrying the more established leviathans.
Investment strategies: Active ETF management the big winner
The landscape of Asset Management 2025 is likely to feature much more active management using ETFs (thus reducing stock-specific risk) allowing more quant-based thematically-driven investment strategies.
One of the biggest changes to investment style, reported above, is the move from passive back to active fund management. Undoubtedly that is motivated at least in part by the perception that active management allows higher fee tariffs to be charged, helping close the the Fee Gap.
While that move may not be greatly surprising (the lure of higher margin) respondents also told us they expected ETFs to see one of the biggest increases in the share of their future asset mix. ETFs have traditionally been treated (wrongly according to some asset managers) as a tool of (lower cost) passive fund management. Our survey suggests a significant shift in that perception as asset managers seek the best of both worlds: the higher fees of active management coupled to the lower cost of ETFs likely to produce a boost in profit margins. The survey also reveals a desire by traditional fund organisations to expand offerings into alternative (unconstrained) investments in a bid to capture higher fees and boost overall margins.
However, the net impact is clearly expected to be negative for fee margin (respondents expect fees as a proportion of AUM to drop 11% from recent levels by 2025) and asset managers report that they anticipate being asked to do more with less. The drive to lower costs will continue and managers will increasingly seek to reduce costs through the active use of passive structures and algorithmic strategies.
Expectations of modest AUM and a declining fee margin led respondents to signal a desire to move into higher margin products. The extent to which this will be possible will be fascinating to watch, given it clashes with the shift into largely commoditized, passive investments that has possibly been the biggest feature of the industry in the past 10 years. However, the intent is clear: to move a greater proportion of AUM into assets that protect against shrinking margins.
One way to achieve this shift back to active management is to tie it to a reversal in the focus on bonds over the past decade. Respondents expect investors to move away from fixed income products (and particularly corporate high yield bonds) and into equities. This suggests a risk parity approach that aligns equities with higher risk bonds as assets that boost portfolio return – the difference being that equities are expected to outperform high yield (or junk) bonds in the coming years. This is a logical expectation in response to the ending of central banks’ accommodative monetary policy and rising bond yields.
If savers rediscover their appetite for equities and other potentially higher return assets, then managers’ ability to charge fees to help generate alpha and mitigate associated volatility should improve.
Respondents expect that long only and relative return strategies will fall out of favor as investors seek better returns from more active investment styles, such as Quant strategies, Long/Short, Alternative, Big Data and Smart Beta. Many of these would involve a return to active management, targeting the generation of performance fees that would improve the asset managers’ margins, albeit that such strategies generally involve a higher cost base.
The survey responses more generally challenge the traditional notion that ETFs are passive investments. Strategies such as smart beta should generate higher fees than typical passive ETFs as investors are paying for innovative fund design in expectation of better returns.
However, other respondents see the development of new automated management technologies – with the continued popularity of smart beta funds or automated quant strategies – as minimizing the industry’s ability to effect margin recovery. Active ETFs are also expected to play a greater role in the asset management industry of 2025 than they do today.
The survey suggests that investors will seek newer, higher-risk investment styles for portions of their investment portfolio to boost returns. But as risk appetite rises often so too does reliance on asset managers for advice on specific investments and portfolio balance.
As well as pure equity funds, managers also cite potential for higher fees in managing infrastructure funds. Infrastructure investment can generate large returns but these are longer-term and less liquid investments, and the underlying assets often carry varied and idiosyncratic risks, including political exposure. As investors diversify into areas such as this, asset managers who make successful moves should be able to offset the margin erosion from AUM allocated to more ‘plain vanilla’ investments. ESG investments are also expected to rise as incoming individual investors, notably Millennials, seek these types of sustainable and ethical investments, and investment rules for many institutional investors become increasingly strict.
The alternative investment styles that respondents expect to become less popular with clients are Mezzanine and Distressed Debt, CLOs and Loans, and Private Real Estate. These investments are all interest-rate sensitive and so a migration away from them is a logical expectation. The shift away from real estate is also worth highlighting given the importance that this asset class has typically played in portfolio construction.
All these anticipated changes seem to be in line with expectations for global growth and the rotation away from bonds as the global interest rate environment moves into a hiking cycle. However, the addition of risk (particularly equities) does increase AUM sensitivity to a global growth slowdown – which perhaps explains why respondents cited lower growth as one of the biggest downside risks to future industry performance.
The survey reveals that the best opportunity for new AUM with strong margins may lie in the organic penetration of new products and geographies. Respondents expect to change their investment strategies with regards to geographic exposure. Brexit appears to be driving investments away from UK risk, with 16% of respondents expecting to decrease exposure to this jurisdiction. Meanwhile China and other emerging markets are the most commonly cited beneficiaries of expected flows as respondents diversify the geographical exposure of AUM.
This is in line with other findings in the survey that show investors expect to take a moderately higher (if nuanced) risk-on approach to asset allocation over the next several years.
The planned increase in exposure towards Chinese assets contrasts with the stable expected increase in allocation to the U.S. This suggests that investors are sanguine about the longer-term risks of the trade war rhetoric even while respondents cite those trade tensions as one of the most negative global factors for AUM growth.
The survey also finds that, as well as seeking geographic diversification, respondents expect to differentiate themselves in the market through organic growth into new asset classes. Organic growth into innovative risks will generate a premium for asset managers who can bring new ideas to clients – be it by geography, investment strategy, the underlying assets, or a combination of all three.
Fees and other factors
The survey reveals that, for investors in Europe, regulatory pressure is the biggest factor affecting margins: 34% of respondents think that regulation has a positive impact on transparency (good for underlying clients), while 25% say that it has a negative impact on fee income.
Asset managers expect to be impacted by two tiers of regulation in regard to pricing transparency. At the EU level, MiFID II and PRIIPs rules introduce greater disclosure requirements for all fees within bundled offerings, including transaction costs. At the UK level, the FCA plans to improve disclosure on costs, charges and performance fees to enhance product comparability. Combined, these two tiers could see asset managers having to reduce costs or cut low performing products, or even change strategies (for example, committing to fewer trades).
These new regulations will also generate added compliance costs for asset managers – further pressuring profitability.
Interestingly, the potential for increased costs coming from recent equal pay legislation isn’t seen as one of the main likely drivers of increased costs. Equal pay legislation wasn’t even rated one of asset managers’ top People Issues, let alone a leading cause of cost and margin risks. This despite the fact that government-mandated disclosures this year revealed the asset management industry has a wider gender-pay gap than the national average: 28.5% (with a 55.4% bonus gap) compared to the national average of 9.7%.
In response to the ending of central banks’ accommodative monetary policy and rising bond yields, investors are expected to move away from fixed income products and into equities.
Bloomberg Intelligence and Simmons & Simmons’ Asset Management Outlook to 2025
Millennial growth will drive asset class innovation
Millennial participation is expected drive both challenges and opportunities in the industry.
The survey cited changing savings habits as a significant driver in asset managers’ expectations for AUM and fee income growth, and also found growing appetite for ESG and impact investing. The rise of Millennials among the investor cohort may be behind both these trends. In this section we look at other research findings beyond our survey that provides insight into the dynamics of Millennial investors.
First the challenge: typically Millennials save less than previous generations. Some of this is practical: living costs as a percentage of average income are higher than for previous generations during their early working careers, therefore they have less disposable income to allocate to investment plans.
However, research also suggests that AUM growth could be challenged by Millennials’ attitudes to saving. There is evidence that they place a lower priority on long-term savings than workers in previous decades. A large part of this is probably due to the fact that Millennials typically change jobs more frequently than generations in the past. It’s not clear how much of this is down to Millennials’ desire for worker flexibility and how much is due to changing corporate practices, such as less valuable pension arrangements, but what is clear is that private pension AUM is falling from workers of this age – and other types of saving are also falling.
While Millennials pose a structural challenge to AUM growth there are some positive aspects for the industry. The most obvious is the increasing importance of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investments that these individuals as a group are driving. ESG investments are those that meet certain ethical and sustainability standards. According to a recent Morgan Stanley survey, 84% of Millennials cite investing with a focus on ESG impact as a central goal.
Millennials' growing emphasis on ESG as a central goal in their investment strategies makes it 'the next big thing' for fund management.
Bloomberg Intelligence and Simmons & Simmons’ Asset Management Outlook to 2025
Millennials may be driving the growth of ESG products, but there is also growing demand for these investments from other age groups. According to one asset manager, Pictet Asset Management, the compound annual growth rate of all ESG assets as a share of global AUM is 15.5%. At the launch of the report, Luca Paolini, Pictet’s chief strategist, said that ESG is clearly “the next big thing” for fund management, and that its market share gains are similar to those of passive investing a decade ago.
A related area is impact investing, a term that refers to investments made into companies or organizations that generate a measurable, beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return. By definition these are active management styles and the social good component is not mutually exclusive from healthy returns. There are many impact investments that can generate private-equity style returns (though by no means all), and management and performance fees can be attractive for asset managers looking to develop new ways to capture AUM.
According to an industry report published by the Global Steering Group for Impact Investing (GSG) the impact investment market is expected to grow from about $138 billion in 2015, with AUM purely through private impact investors, to $307 billion by 2020 – implying a CAGR of 17.3%.
When combined, ESG and impact investing offer strong sources of both AUM and profitability and respondents are clear in anticipating the opportunities the present for asset managers who embrace this Millennial-driven trend. However, this macro outlook is complicated by an anticipated behavioral change from Millennial savers that could become a significant issue for asset management as this generation becomes an increasingly important source of new AUM.
Conclusion: The road to 2025
Testing the industry’s bullish consensus about AUM growth.
The Bloomberg Intelligence and Simmons & Simmons Asset Management Outlook to 2025 report tests the industry’s bullish consensus about AUM growth. The report’s headline findings suggest that recent, optimistic predictions for the industry aren’t validated by the expectations of asset management professionals.
AUM growth is expected to be strong but not stellar at 21% in the next five years and, given the forecasts for global GDP growth at around 3% during that period, the savings multiplier isn’t expected to significantly reverse its current downward trend.
The survey also shows that asset managers think changing savings habits will impact the industry in a number of ways. Those may be driven by shifting generational factors – as Millennials become a larger part of the client base and Baby Boomers’ participation reduces on a relative basis.
However, respondents do seem to suggest that this recent decline in saving rates does not signal a global recession as it has done in the past. Indeed, the survey suggests that the risk to those forecasts for AUM growth in the years to 2025 is skewed to the upside: respondents signal there could be better performance if short term risks from trade wars and conflicts in particular pass without a significant impact on growth and savings.
Another major finding of the survey is the unambiguous signal that the industry expects continuing pressure on profitability. Respondents expect margins to be just 89% of current levels by 2025. The major drivers of these shrinking margins are competition (both from new entrants and existing competitors), as well as the greater industry transparency around fees and costs being driven by new regulation.
Technology is seen as a double-edged sword: while it clearly has the potential to lower costs and boost revenues in the medium term it also represents a significant short-term cost that needs to be absorbed and managed. Those technology investments are also seen as exacerbating the industry’s shifting cost base towards middle- and back-office functions and away from traditional front-office functions.
Technology is seen as a double-edged sword: while it clearly has the potential to lower costs and boost revenues in the medium term it also represents a significant short-term cost that needs to be absorbed and managed.
Bloomberg Intelligence and Simmons & Simmons’ Asset Management Outlook to 2025
Perhaps surprisingly, given this expectation that automation will shrink the relative weight of traditional portfolio management for asset managers in the future, respondents expect a shift to better margin investment products and strategies in the coming years, and also express hope that asset growth will help boost revenues.
Given the industry’s recent shift to lower cost, passive products and increasing automation, the expectation that clients will start allocating to higher margin business – active investment strategies and alternative assets – could be seen as an expression of hope over experience.
However, the survey finds some evidence to suggest an increased allocation to higher fee-based investments could happen between now and 2025. The long-term rally in bonds could be near a secular and cyclical turning point at which investors re-allocate to assets – such as equities – for which active managers are historically well suited to generate alpha.
Respondents also suggest that the industry hopes to increase profitability by expanding into new geographies and products. New funds directed at infrastructure, for example, will offer strong returns for investors and the ability for asset managers to differentiate in terms of their offering and performance, but at the cost of investing in the necessary expertise.
The survey also points to strong expectations from ESG investments. The AUM of investments focused on these ethical and sustainable assets is expected to grow much more quickly than traditional funds – thanks largely (but not exclusively) to demand from Millennials. Given the lack of industry standards around ESG, there will be a significant opportunity for active management in this segment and the survey clearly shows that the asset management industry is focusing on this area for both AUM growth and margin resilience.
In some ways the survey’s findings around the impact of Millennial savers on asset management is a microcosm of the industry’s entire challenge: potentially slower AUM growth but an opportunity to arrest margin declines. The strategies that asset management companies and the industry adopt to meet these challenges will be fascinating to follow – and will be tracked in detail by future surveys from Bloomberg Intelligence and Simmons & Simmons.
Sarah Mahmud, Bloomberg Intelligence
Ms Mahmud specializes in EU financial regulation, having previously worked as a Legal Analyst for Bloomberg Law and BNA. Prior to joining Bloomberg, Ms. Mahmud led the anti-bribery and corruption programme for BMO Financial Group, across the UK and Europe. Before that, she worked as a solicitor at Quastel Midgen and Davis & Co. handling a mix of corporate commercial projects and litigation.
Waheed Aslam, Simmons & Simmons
Waheed leads the marketing & business development strategy for asset management sector. He has worked in commercial and alternative research for over 20 years and has lead on a number of market leading research studies across various sectors including the joint Bloomberg and Simmons & Simmons study, Asset Management Outlook to 2025.
Colin Leaver, Simmons & Simmons
Colin is head of the asset management and investment funds sector and a partner in the corporate group in London. He specialises in the asset management sector and leads the corporate team providing advice to the firm’s asset management clients. Colin is a member of the core team dedicated to start-up hedge fund work.
Andy Hartwill, Simmons & Simmons
Andy is an independent Research Consultant to Simmons & Simmons working with the Asset Management and Investment Funds Division to design and deliver this survey. Andy has over 30 years institutional research experience on both the sell-side and the buy-side and has held titles including Research Director and Global Strategist
The data included in these materials are for illustrative purposes only. The BLOOMBERG TERMINAL service and Bloomberg data products (the “Services”) are owned and distributed by Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“BFLP”) except that Bloomberg L.P. and its subsidiaries (“BLP”) distribute these products in Argentina, Australia and certain jurisdictions in the Pacific islands, Bermuda, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. BLP provides BFLP with global marketing and operational support. Certain features, functions, products and services are available only to sophisticated investors and only where permitted. BFLP, BLP and their affiliates do not guarantee the accuracy of prices or other information in the Services. Nothing in the Services shall constitute or be construed as an offering of financial instruments by BFLP, BLP or their affiliates, or as investment advice or recommendations by BFLP, BLP or their affiliates of an investment strategy or whether or not to “buy”, “sell” or “hold” an investment. Information available via the Services should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. The following are trademarks and service marks of BFLP, a Delaware limited partnership, or its subsidiaries: BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG ANYWHERE, BLOOMBERG MARKETS, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BLOOMBERG PROFESSIONAL, BLOOMBERG TERMINAL and BLOOMBERG.COM. Absence of any trademark or service mark from this list does not waive Bloomberg's intellectual property rights in that name, mark or logo. All rights reserved. © 2019 Bloomberg.
Bloomberg Intelligence is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance L.P. and its affiliates. Bloomberg Intelligence shall not constitute, nor be construed as, investment advice or investment recommendations (i.e., recommendations as to whether or not to “buy”, “sell”, “hold”, or to enter or not to enter into any other transaction involving any specific interest) or a recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. No aspect of the Bloomberg Intelligence function is based on the consideration of a customer's individual circumstances. Bloomberg Intelligence should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. You should determine on your own whether you agree with Bloomberg Intelligence.
Bloomberg Intelligence is offered where the necessary legal clearances have been obtained. Bloomberg Intelligence should not be construed as tax or accounting advice or as a service designed to facilitate any Bloomberg Intelligence subscriber's compliance with its tax, accounting, or other legal obligations. Employees involved in Bloomberg Intelligence may hold positions in the securities analyzed or discussed on Bloomberg Intelligence.