In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, global financial markets have experienced surprising and outsized moves. U.S. equity markets and the U.S. dollar have soared (especially from the overnight low on the night of the election), international equities have largely been flat, emerging-market equities are down solidly, and global bonds had their worst month in over 25 years (since the inception of the Barclays Global Aggregate Total Return Index in 1990, which tracks global bond returns).

Global bonds peaked after the Brexit vote and have been trending downward since. The question now is whether bond prices will continue to fall or whether there will be some stabilization.

With regards to the economy, the rise in interest rates may be self-limiting. That is, the higher interest rates go, the more likely it is that those higher rates slow our highly-leveraged, debt-laden economy. A slower economy would then likely lead to lower interest rates. For example, we are already seeing mortgage applications decrease as mortgage rates move higher. This jibes with what Ben Bernanke said to a coterie of hedge fund managers at a private dinner shortly after his term at the Fed had ended, namely, that interest rates would not normalize in his lifetime.

Similarly, a stronger U.S. dollar would likely not be good for emerging-market economies and their equity markets, as we have already seen with the latter since the election (EEM, the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF is down 6%). This is because many of those countries have borrowed in U.S. dollars and now the loans they have to repay are more onerous. We saw similar behavior of emerging-market stocks this past January and February after the Fed first raised rates in December 2015. Prolonged stress in emerging-market equities (e.g., China) would likely have a contagion effect to global equities in general.

Earnings for S&P 500 companies would also likely take a hit due to a stronger dollar as their overseas non-U.S.-dollar earnings are converted to U.S. dollars—not to mention the potential reduction in demand for goods and services that are now more expensive in overseas’ currencies. Falling earnings at significantly high valuations would likely lead to an increasingly worse risk-return proposition in equities, which could then lead to a flight to safety in bonds (particularly if any equity selloff is accompanied by talk of further quantitative easing).

On the political front, market participants’ reaction post-election was driven by the vision that fiscal stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending coupled with major tax cuts would unleash growth and inflation. While that may be the case, it’s far from certain that either will happen or come in at the magnitude that investors are currently expecting. Indeed, both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan came out recently as being somewhat cool to the idea of tax cuts if they are not revenue-neutral.

Congressional opposition to tax cuts is logical given the $21 trillion in federal government debt that must be serviced and with no end in sight to the deficit spending. If the bond market makes servicing and rolling over that government spending much costlier, either more debt will have to be taken on or spending on other discretionary items will have be cut (not always a popular activity for politicians, especially when Americans have become accustomed to $1 worth of government spending for 80 cents in taxes). If expectations are reduced for fiscal stimulus and/or tax cuts, interest rates might stabilize and possibly revert to lower levels.

While economic and political speculation is natural, what do the data tell us?

One set of indicators we track with respect to both the equity and bond markets is what we call the “smart-money indicators.” Every Friday the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issues its “Commitments of Traders” report, in which it summarizes the investment positions of three classes of traders in various financial instruments. These classes are the Commercials (big financial institutions or producers of commodities), the Speculators (hedge funds and similar investment firms), and the Non-Reportables (retail investors). Of these classes, the Commercials are thought of as the “Smart Money.”

With respect to the equity and bond markets, when the Smart Money is long the S&P 500 and retail investors are short, equities tend to do much better than average. When the Smart Money is short the 10-year U.S. bond while retail money is long, equities again tend to do better than average. The same is true when the Smart Money is short the 30-year U.S. bond while retail money is long. In the prior two cases, when the Smart Money is short bonds, it’s an implicit statement that they believe equities will outperform. Further, if the Smart Money has a longer position in the 10-year bond than in the 30-year bond, equities likewise tend to do better than average.

Prior to the election and throughout November and into December, all four of those conditions listed above were not in effect. That is, the Smart Money was largely out of equities across all four indicators. Historically, when the Smart Money is not long on any of those four indicators, equities have annualized a loss of 18.1%, while the 30-year bond has annualized a gain of 17.4%.

While the worst equity returns have tended to occur when all four of the smart money indicators are not long equities, the timing of the Smart Money is not always impeccable.  Notably, the Smart Money was completely out of equities for several months prior to the final top of the dotcom bubble, during which time the NASDAQ doubled in price!

At present, one of the four smart-money indicators wants to be long equities, but only by a small margin and that could easily revert. Meanwhile the Smart Money is currently significantly long the 30-year bond, meaning that the big institutions were buying those bonds as retail investors and speculators were selling in the wake of the election results. Given that markets eventually tend to move in the direction of the Smart Money, we would expect some mean-reversion in interest rates.

One further data point in agreement with the smart-money indicators that suggests that equities might be extended (and hence due for a pullback that would likely support bond prices) is that retail investors poured $98 billion into ETF funds since the election, which is 1.5x more than they had invested in the entire prior year. These fund flows tend to be very contrarian in nature, with the largest flows coming near market tops and the largest outflows coming near market bottoms.

As with many things in life, longer-duration bonds present a tradeoff. Across a hundred years of market history, the longer-duration bond has been the best hedge to falling equity markets, even giving investors the potential to have positive returns when equity markets are deeply negative. On the other hand, periodically longer-duration bonds themselves undergo corrections, often when equity markets are ripping higher, which is not a pleasant experience. While the past is not necessarily prologue, investors have historically done much better in regards to long-horizon overall returns by having exposure to longer-duration bonds than they have with 10-year or even shorter-duration bonds.  It’s for this reason that we incorporate long-duration bonds into our investment strategies.

Given that extreme market moves in either direction are not sustainable at their initial blistering rate, we would expect some back-and-forth market action in both equities and bonds over the next several weeks. During this time we should get a better idea of the trajectory of the economy, of expectations for S&P 500 earnings, of the likelihood that Trump’s policy agenda will come to fruition, and of the effect that a stronger dollar is having on emerging-market economies. This incoming information should help to clarify whether equities and bonds will continue along their current paths or whether substantial reversion is in order. The data suggest reversion is in order (i.e., lower equities, higher bonds), but only time will tell.

AUA Capital Management

AUA Capital Management is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. The firm only conducts business in states where it is properly registered or is excluded from registration requirements. Registration is not an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators and does not mean the adviser has achieved a specific level of skill or ability.

 All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the authors on the date of publication and may change in response to market conditions. You should consult with a professional advisor before implementing any strategies discussed. Content should not be viewed as an offer to buy or sell any of the securities mentioned or as personalized investment advice.

 Different types of investments involve higher and lower levels of risk. There is no guarantee that a specific investment or strategy will be suitable or profitable for an investor’s portfolio. Asset allocation and diversification will not necessarily improve an investor’s returns and cannot eliminate the risk of investment losses.

 Historical performance returns for investment indexes and/or categories, usually do not deduct transaction and/or custodial charges or an advisory fee, which would decrease historical performance results. There are no assurances that a portfolio will match or exceed any particular benchmark.

AUA Capital Management is pleased to welcome Sean Corcoran as an Institutional Sales Associate. Sean has 10 years of experience in the financial services industry including institutional sales and consultant relationship management. Prior to joining AUA, he was a business development associate with SolomonEdwards. His other previous sales and consulting roles were with M.F. Irvine Companies LLC, North American Benefits Company and The Hartford Financial Services/PLANCO. Sean is a graduate of West Chester University.

AUA Capital Management is pleased to welcome Michelle Malloy, Esquire as General Counsel and Director of Family Office Services in its West Conshohocken office.  Michelle has 18 years’ experience working with and representing high net worth clients and entrepreneurs in all facets of their estate and business planning.  Prior to joining AUA, Michelle was a Director in the Wilmington Family Office and a VP and Senior Fiduciary Advisor with the Wilmington Trust Company in Wilmington, Delaware.  She has also worked in private practice in the Philadelphia area.  She received her Juris Doctorate and Masters of Legal Letters (Taxation) from Villanova University School of Law, and is admitted to the Pennsylvania and New York bars and the United States Tax Court.

Last month, we noted that the markets were off to a rocky start in 2016.  We observed that yields on long duration U.S. government bonds fell sharply, as markets began pricing in a possible U.S. recession and a deeper slowdown in global growth.  This theme continued throughout February; returns on the Standard & Poor’s 500 (“SPX”) and iShares Russell 200 Index (“IWM”) were essentially flat in the month — down 41 basis points (“bps”) and 22 bps, respectively — while iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond EFT (“TLT”) increased 300 bps.  The iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund (“EFA”) declined 330 bps despite negative interest rate policy by Japan and quantitative easing in Europe.

But economic data released recently suggests that fears of a recession in the U.S. could be overblown.  4Q15 Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) was revised upward to 1% growth – not robust, but not a contraction either.  Oil has stabilized in the low to mid $30s per barrel.  The labor market remains tight.  Higher housing prices are boosting wealth.  These two factors combined suggest that fundamentals for consumer spending remain very strong.  In fact, personal income spending increased 0.5% in January.  Consumer spending comprises two-thirds of the U.S. economy.

On the manufacturing side (12% of the U.S. economy), activity in February shrank less than forecast and contracted at a slower pace than in January.  This could indicate that the manufacturing industry could soon stabilize.  The Institute for Supply Management (“ISM”) manufacturing index registered 49.5, slightly below 50, which is the dividing line between contraction and expansion.  The January reading equaled 48.2.  Half of the industries included in the index expanded for the first time since August; makers of wood products, textiles, furniture, and chemicals were particularly strong.  Domestic demand boosted by consumers could have contributed to strength in these areas.  Both capital equipment orders and factory output increased in January.    Either the headwinds (soft global demand, strong U.S. dollar, inventory overhang, and weakness in the capital-intensive oil industry) that the manufacturing sector faced in late 2014 and in 2015 are receding or the U.S. consumer continues to propel the U.S. economy forward.

In addition, construction spending surged 1.5% in January, reaching the highest level since 2007.  Private residential construction increased 0.5%.  Private non-residential construction increased 1%.  Public construction spending rose 4.5%.  It is possible, though, that mild winter weather could have pushed demand forward.

In short, upbeat data from consumer spending, labor market, industrial production, durable goods and construction spending indicate the U.S. economy may be regaining momentum at this time.

But what does this mean for equity markets and allocation between stocks and bonds?  Earnings have contracted three quarters in a row, pointing to a recession.  However, earnings are a lagging indicator of economic strength.  If economic growth in 2016 remains anemic and if the Federal Reserve continues on a cautious, measured path of rate hikes, then equity markets have no compelling reason to rally and could remain in a trading range.  In the short term, equity markets may continue to have lackluster performances.

While the data may be pointing towards a stabilizing economy, the growth rate it is still nothing to write home about. Looking beyond the S&P 500, virtually all global markets and the US small caps are in a bear market. Meanwhile, the year over year rate of change in NFP (non farm payrolls) is decreasing and that likely means this economic cycle has peaked.  In a world of negative interest rate policies and deflation, the probabilities seem to be against a sustained rally in equities or a spike in interest rates. In the short term, we suspect there will be a fair amount of volatility in both directions.

Based on an investor’s time horizon and risk tolerance, we continue to maintain a cautious posture with an underweight in global equities in our strategic allocation portfolios.  We believe there is little to justify a sustained robust movement upward in equities and if an investor currently has a full or overweight position we recommend using rallies as potential re-balancing opportunities.

AUA Capital Management is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. The firm only conducts business in states where it is properly registered or is excluded from registration requirements. Registration is not an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators and does not mean the adviser has achieved a specific level of skill or ability.

All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the authors on the date of publication and may change in response to market conditions. You should consult with a professional advisor before implementing any strategies discussed. Content should not be viewed as an offer to buy or sell any of the securities mentioned or as personalized investment advice. References to ETFs are intended to show the returns of an index and should not be construed as the performance of AUA Capital Management. Historical performance returns for investment indexes and/or categories, usually do not deduct transaction and/or custodial charges or an advisory fee, which would decrease historical performance results. There are no assurances that a portfolio will match or exceed any particular benchmark.

Different types of investments involve higher and lower levels of risk. There is no guarantee that a specific investment or strategy will be suitable or profitable for an investor’s portfolio. Asset allocation and diversification will not necessarily improve an investor’s returns and cannot eliminate the risk of investment losses.

Arnold DiLaura, Managing Director

April 2015

Writing covered calls on equity positions in a portfolio is a useful way of generating additional income as the call writer is monetizing a portion of the stock’s potential upside over the option’s 30- or 60-day lifetime.

The risk of covered calls is that at expiry the stock will be higher than the strike price and either the stock will be called away, the short call will have to be bought back, or the option position will be “rolled”– the short call will be bought back and the purchase will be financed by selling a longer-dated, higher-strike price call. Rolling in effect gives the stock further room to appreciate. If a stock is called away, another potential strategy is the use of a cash-secured put which we discuss in more detail below.

When looking at a portfolio, there are two ways to write calls: 1) The first is on a portion of some or all of the individual stocks in the underlying portfolio, 2) The second is to write index call options on the portfolio as a whole. Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Writing calls on the individual stocks will generate more income, all else being equal. This is because the implied volatility of options on individual stocks is almost always higher than the implied volatility on an index which includes the underlying stocks. All else being equal, the higher the implied volatility, the higher the option premium. Figure 1 below shows a comparison of the annualized stand-still returns at various call-away probabilities for an ETF which trades at a 20% implied volatility versus a 38% implied volatility.

Even though writing calls on the index generates less income, it has certain advantages: 1) The first is simplicity, in that the call writer is writing options on one index, not 30 or 40 stocks, 2) The other advantage is that the individual stocks are free to appreciate unencumbered. If one of the stocks in the portfolio is the subject of a takeover and doubles overnight, the stockholder gets the full gain.  If options had been written on the stock, the stockholder would only get the gains up to the strike price.

Figure 2 shows a graphic comparison between writing calls on individual stocks in an illustrative large-cap portfolio, and writing an index call on the same portfolio. In this example, the portfolio is equal capital weighted. In selecting options for individual stocks, one can first calculate the probability that any particular strike price will be in- or out-of-the-money at expiry. One can then look for those options that have a 25% probability or less of being in-the-money (ITM), and that still generate a sufficient annualized return. The specific stocks, option strike prices, premiums, percentages out-of-the-money (OTM), and stand-still returns are shown in Table 1.  Writing a call on each stock will generate about 80 b.p. in premium (relative to the total value of the equity portfolio) over the 60 day period, or an approximate 4.8% annualized return. Table 1 shows that the option strike prices vary from about 3.5% to over 9% OTM. This means that the stocks can appreciate from 3.5% to 9% over a 60 day period without the risk of being called away.

For comparison purposes we selected and sized an index option on the portfolio as a whole which would generate the same amount of option premium, 80 b.p.  As Figure 2 shows, the index strike price is much closer to at-the-money (ATM) than any of the single stocks – about 2%.  This means that the risk of underperformance in a rising market is significantly higher with the index option methodology than the single stock option methodology – 2% vs. 5%.

                                   Table 1

What about Puts?

Until now we have been talking about using covered calls to generate income on an equity portfolio. Put options, which convey the right to sell a particular stock at a particular price at some point in the future can also be used as part of an options overlay strategy.

One way they can be used is for protection: one can use a portion of the cash premium generated by selling covered calls on individual stocks to purchase broad-based ETF or Index puts (or put-spreads) thus providing a degree of downside protection for the portfolio as a whole.

The second use of puts in an overlay strategy consists of selling cash-secured, out-of-the-money (OTM) puts as a way of potentially acquiring a stock cheaper than its current price. For example, let’s say we like XYZ stock at its current price of $50, but we would like it even more if we could get it for $45. We could sell a 60-day, $45 strike put for $1. If the stock declined to $45 or below at expiry, we would then be obliged to buy the stock at $45. But we would have still taken in the original $1 credit, which is a stand-still annualized return of 13%.

This strategy can also be used for stocks which have been called away. For example, if one wrote an 80 strike call on a stock that had been trading in the 70s but which subsequently shot up over 80, that stock would be called away. However, after the stock was called away one would have $80 in cash, and assuming one still liked the stock, they could write an 80, or even 75, strike put, taking in an additional cash premium while waiting for the stock to decline to where they would buy it again.

Overlay Timing

When are the best times to implement options overlays?

1. Anytime an investor or portfolio manager needs to generate more cash than will be provided by the regular interest and dividends from portfolio assets. Selling covered calls can avoid the need to liquidate assets to cover disbursements.
2. When equity valuations are stretched and consequently huge gains going forward are less likely. In this environment, where long term equity returns are projected to be in the low single digits, a covered call program could double or triple those returns.

AUA Capital Management, LLC does not render legal, accounting, or tax advice. This analysis has been prepared solely for informational purposes and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Any performance data quoted represents past performance. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This data is gathered from what is believed to be reliable sources, but we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

AUA Capital Management, LLC blog, white papers and website are made available for information and educational purposes only. The blog, white papers and website give general information and do not provide investment advice. By reading our blog, white papers and website, you understand that there is no advisor-client relationship created between you and AUA Capital Management, LLC. Although the information on our blog, white papers and website is intended to be current and accurate, the information presented may not reflect the most current developments, regulatory actions or investment decisions. These materials may be changed, improved, or updated without notice. AUA Capital Management, LLC is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of the blog, white papers or website or for damages arising from the use or performance of the blog, white papers and website under any circumstances. We encourage you to contact us or other investment advisors for specific investment advice as to your particular matter.

You may print a copy of any part of this blog or white paper for your own personal, noncommercial use, but you may not copy any part of the blog or white paper for any other purposes, and you may not modify any part of the blog or white paper. Inclusion of any part of the content of this blog, white paper or website in another work, whether in printed or electronic, or other form, or inclusion of any part hereof in another web site by linking, framing, or otherwise without the express permission of AUA Capital Management, LLC is prohibited.

Michael Salerno, President
William McGirr, Managing Director
AUA Capital Management

February 2015

It is easy to lose sight of broader market shifts while a constant stream of often-conflicting information barrages us daily. This may be even more relevant for a US based investor experiencing the returns and movements of the S&P 500 over the past 5 years. Since the end of the 2008-2009 crash the US market has moved up relentlessly, with each pause small, benign and over quickly. Before the memory of the crash, or even a much more common 20% correction, recedes completely, it may be helpful to recall that in 2008-2009 diversification alone failed to provide adequate risk management for an investor’s portfolio. Going forward this may also be true for most substantive market down turns.

Traditional diversification is based on dispersion among asset classes and geographies. Traditional asset classes include equities, bonds, commodities and currencies, with the bulk of capital being allocated to equities and bonds, and smaller slices to commodities and currencies. The correlations among these asset classes have been rising and with increased globalization and interdependency of markets geographic diversification is fading. Even investment strategies touted as new asset classes and frequently housed in hedge fund structures may provide limited diversification benefits. Jan Straatman discusses this in his paper “Innovations in Asset Allocation and Risk Management after the Crisis”, CFA Institute, March 2013, and notes that “increasing the number of asset classes in a portfolio does not always increase effective diversification because many of the so-called new asset classes have the same types of risks and exposures as traditional asset classes.” This is especially true in tail risk scenarios as Jan also notes “investors can no longer depend on the correlations of traditional asset classes to provide diversification when it is needed most because correlations during tail events differs from normal correlation.”

While equity returns during the recent past have been inconsistent, over the last 25 to 30 years, a traditional passive 60/40 portfolio (60% equity exposure, 40% fixed income exposure) has benefited significantly from an extended bond bull market. Over the long-term, starting valuations have a substantive impact on future returns and the valuations of both the US bond and equity markets are currently well above their historical averages – based on metrics such as current bond yields and CAPE (cyclically adjusted price earnings) ratios. This poses a serious challenge for investors who require a certain return level and suggests that traditional methods of asset allocation and investment management may not be able to produce their historical long-term results.

The weakness of available diversification options along with high current valuation levels subjects portfolios to the risk of large drawdowns. These drawdowns can severely impact wealth accumulation, particularly in portfolios called upon to make episodic distributions such as pension, endowment and retirement funds.

To address these concerns in liquid asset portfolios we suggest a portfolio management process that includes a combination of strategic considerations – such as valuations and return premium estimates, with tactical considerations – timely factors based on momentum, sentiment and trading patterns, applied to a portfolio of core equity and fixed income exposures, across asset classes, geographies and investment factors. By managing portfolios across not only asset classes and geographies, but also across investment factors, it is possible to create exposures to a broad array of investment opportunities, with mechanisms in place to reduce drawdowns in tail-risk scenarios.

A full portfolio solution could combine this strategic and tactical approach to the liquid markets portion of one’s portfolio along with a dedicated effort to identify potential high return, uncorrelated, concentrated alpha opportunities. These alpha opportunities may arise due to specific market regime dislocations and disruptions.

AUA Capital Management, LLC does not render legal, accounting, or tax advice. This analysis has been prepared solely for informational purposes and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Any performance data quoted represents past performance. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This data is gathered from what is believed to be reliable sources, but we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

AUA Capital Management, LLC blog, white papers and website are made available for information and educational purposes only. The blog, white papers and website give general information and do not provide investment advice. By reading our blog, white papers and website, you understand that there is no advisor-client relationship created between you and AUA Capital Management, LLC. Although the information on our blog, white papers and website is intended to be current and accurate, the information presented may not reflect the most current developments, regulatory actions or investment decisions. These materials may be changed, improved, or updated without notice. AUA Capital Management, LLC is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of the blog, white papers or website or for damages arising from the use or performance of the blog, white papers and website under any circumstances. We encourage you to contact us or other investment advisors for specific investment advice as to your particular matter.

You may print a copy of any part of this blog or white paper for your own personal, noncommercial use, but you may not copy any part of the blog or white paper for any other purposes, and you may not modify any part of the blog or white paper. Inclusion of any part of the content of this blog, white paper or website in another work, whether in printed or electronic, or other form, or inclusion of any part hereof in another web site by linking, framing, or otherwise without the express permission of AUA Capital Management, LLC is prohibited.

Arnold DiLaura, Managing Director, AUA Capital Management
December 2014

We have found some interesting charts regarding the outlook for oil as we head into 2015. The first is from Scotiabank, and shows the break-even price for various US and Canadian oil fields. They range from over $80 to the mid-40s. Crude is currently trading between $55-60 a barrel.

The second chart below is from the IEA and shows a time-series of world production and demand for oil from 2009 projected through 2015. We currently have a 2 million b/d over-supply which is contributing to the price weakness.

The implication of the two charts is that if the Saudis want to take 2-3 million b/d of production capacity out of the market, oil should stabilize at a price in the mid-50’s.  There is however, an additional geopolitical factor to consider:  One of Saudi Arabia’s arch enemies, Iran, and a key adversary, Russia, both depend on high oil prices to fund their governments and activities which are antithetical to Saudi (and other Gulf Arabs’) interests.  If the Saudis (and their allies) were to continue to drive the price of oil down, they would further reduce marginal production capacity worldwide. However, this capacity would not be Iranian or Russian, as they have an imperative to produce almost no matter what the price. The goal would be to curtail funding for the governments that engage in acts (e.g., support for Assad in Syria) which the Saudi’s oppose.

In any event, we had originally thought that prices would need to go lower (between $40-50/barrel) to shake out the higher price producers. Clearly prices could go that low, but if the implications of these charts are correct, then the floor might be at current levels in the mid-50s.  If so, we could expect oil to trade in the $50-60 range over the next 6 months to one year.

AUA Capital Management, LLC does not render legal, accounting, or tax advice.  This analysis has been prepared solely for informational purposes and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Any performance data quoted represents past performance. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.  This data is gathered from what is believed to be reliable sources, but we cannot guarantee its accuracy. 

AUA Capital Management, LLC blog, white papers and website are made available for information and educational purposes only. The blog, white papers and website give general information and do not provide investment advice. By reading our blog, white papers and website, you understand that there is no advisor-client relationship created between you and AUA Capital Management, LLC. Although the information on our blog, white papers and website is intended to be current and accurate, the information presented may not reflect the most current developments, regulatory actions or investment decisions. These materials may be changed, improved, or updated without notice. AUA Capital Management, LLC is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of the blog, white papers or website or for damages arising from the use or performance of the blog, white papers and website under any circumstances. We encourage you to contact us or other investment advisors for specific investment advice as to your particular matter.

You may print a copy of any part of this blog or white paper for your own personal, noncommercial use, but you may not copy any part of the blog or white paper for any other purposes, and you may not modify any part of the blog or white paper. Inclusion of any part of the content of this blog, white paper or website in another work, whether in printed or electronic, or other form, or inclusion of any part hereof in another web site by linking, framing, or otherwise without the express permission of AUA Capital Management, LLC is prohibited.

Welcome to the AUA Capital Management Market Insights page!

AUA Capital Management is an asset management firm that provides investment services for private clients, institutions and enterprising families. We are research intensive, and committed to applying leading edge investment processes and methods to the management of our client accounts.

We believe it is important to know and understand what is going on in the investment world. Our readers can use our Insights page as a reference tool to understand and keep up-to-date on the markets.

Each month the AUA Capital Management Team will be posting our thoughts on the current events that may affect your portfolio.  Our insights will encompass the thoughts and reflections of these events, as well as updates and other information that we believe will benefit our readers.

Feedback is always appreciated and encouraged, so if you have a question, comment, suggestion or would like to speak to a member of the AUA Capital Management Team, you may contact Will McGirr via email at will.mcgirr(Replace this parenthesis with the @ sign)auacapital.com, or go the ‘Contact Us’ page of our website for additional contact information.