Video ID:
8586
Job Number:
6672
Meta
Description:
Mark Hargraves joins Rob Bailey to provide an update on the AXA Framlington European Fund.
Bookmarks:
30|About the fund manager
90|Sector specialist team
229|Macroeconomic overview of Europe
860|International investors return to Europe
982|Portfolio strategy
1159|Company lifecycle
1253|Style overview
1426|Fund portfolio
1551|Sector breakdowns
1812|Specific stocks in the portfolio
1942|Stock attribution
Duration:
00:34:27
Recorded Date:
8 November 2012
Video Image:
Transcript:
Robert Bailey: Hello and welcome to today’s AXA Investment Managers webcast. I’m Rob Bailey, I’m Head of UK Sales, and today I’m joined by Mark Hargraves. Mark’s the Fund Manager of the AXA Framlington European Fund.
Mark joined AXA, or what was then Framlington back in 2000, and he took over the management of the AXA Framlington European Fund, or the Framlington European Fund as it was at the time, just over 11 years ago. Since then he’s produced a very good track record which we’ll come onto very shortly. Before we start today’s webcast though I’d just like to thank those of you who’ve submitted questions already and if you’re watching the live version we can take further questions during the course of the presentation. We’re going to cover a number of very important areas, talking about the macro situation in Europe, as well as some particulars about the AXA Framlington European Fund.
Just a little bit about Mark first of all. As I said, he joined us back in 2000. The Fund that he’s been running is a large cap biased European fund as we’ll talk about as we go through today’s presentation. And looking at the performance, he’s actually achieved very strong returns relative to the benchmark, and importantly he’s achieved first quartile performance relative to the peer group. Mark, I want to start off by looking at the team. You, as many of the AXA Framlington team, rely very heavily on the sector specialists, so talk to us about the team that you work with and, in particular, the sector specialist support you get.
Mark Hargraves: Yes, thanks Rob. I think what we’ve got is one of the strongest European teams you can get in asset management. And the strength there comes from the portfolio management experience and then the depth we get from the analytical support as well, so there’s two parts to it. So when I started 11 years ago now in Framlington, then we were a much smaller firm and actually on the European desk there were only two/three of us for most of the period. The resourcing obviously on the team has been transformed when we joined the wider AXA group, and this has been particularly noticeable on the European side.
We’ve got a big team based out in Paris, and I work very closely with them and have done over the last number of years, and have built up a really good relationship with my colleagues there. And for me it’s an absolutely invaluable resource, and there’s two parts to that. You can see from a fund management point of view we’ve got some extremely experienced fund managers like Chrysoula Zervoudakis, on the Pan-European side, Gilles Guibout who runs the Eurozone. All very experienced fund managers, long track records, again very high first quartile track records, and it’s great to work with a bunch of individuals with that level of experience. We share a lot of ideas and synergise off each other, so that’s a positive.
On top of that, what we’ve done as a business over the last number of years is to reinforce our in-house analytical capabilities and as you can see on the chart there we’ve got the European team. We have analysts who also sometimes double up as fund managers; it’s a two-pronged approach. I think that works well because that gives them a broader portfolio perspective, but at the same time we’ve got that in-depth expertise at a sector level. And as a generalist fund manager, it’s a great resource to be able to leverage off. I can just phone up one of my colleagues and get a quick update on a sector or explore a particular topic and do it in a very efficient manner. So personally, I find it very useful and it’s been a great resource to develop over the last few years.
Robert Bailey: So moving on to the body of today’s presentation, you can’t have a European presentation without talking about the macro outlook. I guess the last five or six years have been pretty varied in what you’ve experienced. Give us a summary of how you see the overall macro positioning within Europe.
Mark Hargraves: Yes, Rob, it’s been a fascinating time to be a European fund manager over the last few years. It’s obviously clearly been quite volatile and it’s been quite a challenging, as well as, fascinating time. A lot of people talk about it’s all been macro driven, and to a certain extent, yes that is true at a headline level, but the reality is actually when it comes to putting the portfolio together applying good bottom-up techniques has paid huge dividends actually. And what I think has been the critical part of managing European assets over the last few years is that being cognisant of the key macro trends, understanding them, understanding the implications they have for markets and for stocks, but then also not letting that dominate your thought process and going underneath and seeing the opportunities and leveraging off that. And Europe is a huge area.
It’s hugely diverse in terms of economies; it’s got some of the best economies in the world; and it’s got some of the worst performing economies in the world at the moment. If we take a quick tour around Europe, Northern European, Scandinavia, are some of the best performing economies in the world at the moment. Sweden, Norway, absolutely rock solid economies, continue to do extremely well. I think most people would be very, are very envious of the economy they have. At the other extreme, we have obviously Greece, probably one of the most challenged economies in the world. The great thing obviously being a European fund manager is you can pick the areas you like and you can ignore the areas you don’t like. The area is large enough and diverse enough to allow you to do that.
Robert Bailey: And if we look at the way that the policy has evolved over the last 12 months or so, some of the intervention from Draghi and the way that that’s impacted the economy, how do you see that playing out over the next 12 months or so because we clearly have Merkel’s election campaign to be fought during much of next year?
Mark Hargraves: In reality, we have still a challenging backdrop. There have been number of changes though which are positive. I think if we step back a little bit and let’s take a review of where we’ve come from. Clearly starting back in 2008/2009 we had the global downturn with all economies around the world got impacted by that. While this was obviously led by the decline in the US housing market, which impacted the wider financial sector, Europe obviously suffered that time as everyone else did. We’ve seen many of those issues slowly being addressed over time. So the US housing market, for example, is on the road to recovery although you still have the broader issue of deleveraging globally. So I've always started from the backdrop that in an environment where particularly the developed world is deleveraging, it’s a recovery but it’s not one as we traditionally know it. It’s a slow steady recovery and that general thesis remains in place.
What you’ve also then seen over the last couple of years is that Europe is particularly coming to the headlines because they’ve been dealing with their own issue, which is the challenge of Southern Europe. This in many ways is a another version of what you had globally, namely the imbalances between the US, in particular, but other developed economies spending more, and then obviously the Chinese on the other side supplying the goods and buying the treasuries. Those kind of imbalances in many respects are kind of currently unwinding at the global level. Europe’s got its own mini version of that, which is effectively the dynamic between Northern and Southern Europe and it is only more recently those tensions have manifested themselves.
What you’ve seen over the last 10/12 years is that Southern Europe has steadily lost competitiveness. You’ve had a huge growth in current account imbalances and on top of that in certain markets such as Spain and Ireland you had the massive credit bubble and real estate booms, which has only exacerbated the issue. But the genesis of the issue is that there is this imbalance between Northern and Southern Europe, namely Southern Europe has got uncompetitive. And the usual rule of solving that would be to cut your exchange rate and get competitive, that’s the approach historically that Spain did and Italy used.
Now the reality is obviously in the Euro you can’t do that, and we’ve hit this crisis point where those competitive challenges have reached the crux and they need to be addressed. Combined with that is that these economies are over leveraged, particularly the Spanish and the Irish economies, and the banking systems are weak, so you’ve got this dual issue going on, and that’s really dominated the headlines.
So, what do we need? At the end of the day, simplistically parts of Southern Europe have clearly got unsustainable levels of debt, and that will one way or another need to be written off. Now the debate is, who takes the pain when that happens, but that is dealing with the legacy issue. More fundamentally for these economies going forward is what they need to do is get competitive again, and that is a slow process. Particularly when you can’t devalue your currency, you have to do it through either nominal wage cuts or productivity improvements, and they by their very nature are slow processes. You know, if we look at what’s happened over the last couple of years, you can see that actually some economies have done that quite well.
Ireland’s a good case in point, it’s been very painful for the average person in Ireland and the economy’s taken a lot of pain in the last couple of years, but the reality is now actually they’ve had nominal wage cuts, unit labour costs have been steadily falling, and Ireland is in many respects competitive again globally and in the Eurozone. And you can see that foreign investment has picked up back into Ireland, and looking forward Ireland looks in a much better position. Their only remaining issue is they’ve just got such a huge overhang of debt that clearly something needs to be done there to help them on the way; otherwise, it’s going to take them so long to earn themselves out of that, but actually they’ve done the things that they need to do as an economy.
Correspondingly Southern Europe - Spain, Greece, Italy to a lesser degree - have obviously been much slower at addressing these challenges, and we’re only just starting to see them doing that. Now they’ve taken the right steps but they’re starting a little bit late and it’s a slow process. And the other challenge they obviously have is they’re going against one of the most efficient economies in the world, which is the German economy, which actually isn’t standing still, it continues to be very efficient.
So it’s a challenging path, it’s going to take a long time for these reforms and the recovery to come through, but at least they’re taking the right steps. What’s been a real issue and a real problem over the last 18 months in particular though was that as these more structural reforms were being undertaken I think many policymakers underestimated the impact of the contagion this would have on the banking system and then the whole issue of the sovereign risk infecting the banking system. And what in theory on paper looked like very simple things to do, you just undertake the reforms and the benefits come through is, what policymakers missed was the way that the European banking system was vulnerable and in many respects uniquely vulnerable if we look round the world.
If you look at the European banking system, unlike the US banking system or the Asian banking system which is are very deposit rich, the European banking system is reliant on wholesale funding: they lend more than they have in deposits from Joe Public. And that makes them very very vulnerable from a funding point of view if there’s a crisis of confidence and that’s what we’ve seen over the last couple of years in the European banking system. You saw American investors getting very concerned about what they saw as the slow approach of European policymakers in addressing the issues. As a result US money market funds started pulling their deposits out of European banks. For European banks, this was a key source of U$ funding, and similarly Asian banks also pulled their funding lines as well. So European banks found this very difficult situation where effectively they were short of liquidity.
Now the ECB had been providing some backstop provisions to them but it wasn’t enough. What was needed was a kind of shock and awe strategy really to give markets confidence. Policymakers again were quite slow with dealing with this, but the crux really was if you look back to the third quarter of last year. Then Europe, even though you didn’t see it in the headlines, but effectively European banks were having their own Lehman style moment. There was a massive credit crunch going on in Europe, with funding to both the consumer sector and small and medium sized enterprises being absolutely crushed.
The consequences of that you were going to get in a massive downward spiral and that was the trigger point that has led to what we’ve seen over the last six to nine months, the actions from the ECB in particular, to really try to reduce this tail risk. And it started with the LTRO in December last year - that was another stop gap solution in my view. Markets initially rallied on that but I was always quite sceptical about that, again it was one of the sticking plaster approaches. Indeed, once again in the second quarter of this year that initial euphoria rolled over and reality held again. And it’s only in the summer of this year that we’ve really had the proper shock and awe strategy. And obviously Draghi’s come out and announced the various programmes by the ECB to effectively do effectively unlimited buying. This is what was needed and this has significantly reduced tail risk.
Robert Bailey: So that I guess, I mean because despite all those sort of negative points you’ve drawn out there, you’re still pretty optimistic from everything I can gather. I mean one of the key points you talk about on this slide is the fact that you’re seeing international investors returning to the region again for the first time in some while, have you got some examples of where you’ve seen that?
Mark Hargraves: I think it’s on two sides: it’s on the credit market and on equities. Really, for the last couple of years for many international investors have totally pulled out of Europe. It’s been just easier for them to say just don’t invest. You saw that, as I said with US money market funds, pulling out two to three years ago, that had massive implications on the credit side. And then you’ve just seen international equity investors pull out of the region. It’s one of the reasons why Europe was underperforming relative to other markets during this period. What you’ve seen is that the dramatic reduction in the tail risk side has meant that for many investors Europe is what I’d call investable again. To be honest, I thought it was investable before, but the reality is for many people is that they’ve perceived a huge tail risk.
With that tail risk being reduced you’re seeing, for example, in credit markets funding markets improving dramatically. So funding markets for bank debts, senior bank debt has improved a lot, and in general, you can see it with credit spreads that have come down dramatically over the summer period. So that’s one measure of the stress reduction, and within that you’re starting to see some international investors come back in. Again, it’s hard to work out the exact figures but there are some. And then on the equity side, we clearly are seeing some US investors come back into Europe, just speaking to the investment banks and getting an idea of flows and what they’re seeing, it’s clearly been taken off the restricted list.
Robert Bailey: Right, well let’s talk about how you take some of those ideas and thoughts and put those into your portfolio. You know, your portfolio, like many of the portfolios within AXA Framlington, has a bias towards growth companies, but expand a little bit upon your sort of portfolio strategy.
Mark Hargraves: Yes Rob, the core of the strategy is quality growth. That is the kind of general core bedrock of companies we invest in. There’s two parts of that: firstly it’s in our DNA at AXA Framlington, and it’s in my DNA and it’s what I've done over time. The second part of that is I think it’s very much what you need for these times as well. Going back to what I was saying before this is a slow recovery, being held back by this global deleveraging cycle we’re experiencing. If you refer to the Reinhart/Rogoff school of thought it’s a feature of subsequent debt leveraging recoveries that they typically experience a weaker than average economic recovery - I’m a big supporter of that thesis and I think the evidence is generally supportive of that. We’ve got a long healing process ahead of us, and what you’re seeing therefore from an equity perspective has a number of implications.
Firstly, growth is scarcer and therefore investors are going to be focusing on getter growth where they can, so you want the kind of growth that’s both visible and quality growth. I think the second part of that is, and it’s particularly important for Europe and relevant for Europe, is the strong are getting stronger and the weak are getting weaker. And these trends are getting stronger not weaker. That is one, a function that in a slower growth world pricing for more commodity type products becomes harder. Indeed it risk becoming a vicious downwards spiral, and it’s not a market you want to be in, so you want to be in areas where you’ve got a pricing advantage or a durable kind of pricing advantage. So that favours quality growth per se.
The second part of that is the European banking system has been effectively broken over the last few years, and credit availability has been very restricted. So those companies which have got weaker balance sheets and generally those companies are exposed to more commodity orientated markets, for them life is getting very, very tough, and that is a real challenge. Even within individual markets and sectors it is those weaker players that for maybe from 2000 to 2007 could compete quite happily because they had freely flowing credit, and actually they could be price disruptors in the market, many of those companies are finding it very difficult to exist and are going out of business. That is leaving the market shares for the stronger and that’s really a thesis we’re playing with in the portfolio.
Robert Bailey: So let’s move on and look at one of the ways you sort of value companies and look at companies, the lifecycle analysis, talk us through this slide.
Mark Hargraves: Yes, when you look at the kind of market and universe of stocks you’ve got there, there’s a whole variety of companies in a whole variety of industries, and they’re all in different stages of development. We tend to focus on what we call the proven success and the resurgence of success type of companies. Basically those are companies we think are in a sweet spot from an investor perspective. Those are companies who’ve already proven themselves, and they’re in the harvesting phase of their performance. All industries go through typically a lifecycle of starting up, the harvesting phase of good returns, good reinvestment opportunities, and then maturity is often reached, and then you get the decline phase where those returns get competed away.
Now there is no uniform rule about how long that cycle should be. In many industries it’s been going on for decades; in other industries it’s very cyclical and they’ve very short lived. We tend to focus on those businesses where we think they’re in the best stage from an investor’s perspective. We don’t do so much of what I call the future success companies. Those are the very early stage, because there is a role for some of those companies in a portfolio but I think it’s quite limited because often it’s hard to identify them up front. Hindsight bias works fantastic in those industries.
Robert Bailey: Do you change that strategy though as the economic cycle changes, if you’re in a time of high growth would you move more towards that or is this the sort of solid strategy you employ across the cycle?
Mark Hargraves: I mean if you look at the skyline of the portfolio on the next page.
Robert Bailey: The next slide.
Mark Hargraves: If you look at the typical skyline we’re underweight what you call traditional value factors and we’re overweight growth factors. And if you run that skyline over time over the last 10 years, you’ll see a pretty similar kind of curvature to that. It moderates a little bit over the cycle but fundamentally we retain the kind of underlying bias because those type of companies deliver and keep delivering.
Robert Bailey: Well moving onto the next slide, and I guess digging a bit more into the style analysis here, we’re looking really and we focused here, we’ve highlighted in the red box some of the key style factors that you focus on: three year sales growth, 12 month sales growth. Explain to us why you attach so much importance to that.
Mark Hargraves: Yes Rob, the chart we’ve got here, I've highlighted the bit you can see, and within that there’s a couple of points to make. The first one is, we focus on quality growth, and therefore we focus on companies that can deliver higher-than-average growth both in sales and earnings. Over time we think that that’s what delivers and gives good returns. We pay a small premium for that in terms of the P/E multiple we pay compared to the market, but we don’t pay an excessive premium. Also, those companies typically have better balance sheets so they tend to be more stable over the cycle, so from a risk-adjusted basis you tend to get a smoother profile as an equity investor as well.
But I think what I’d really like to highlight here is in the red box that you can see is the bottom one, which is the earnings revisions ratio because that is the crux of what we’re trying to do and what I’m trying to do on the portfolio. As you can see that the four year sales growth, three year sales growth and earnings growth looks quite similar for us versus the benchmark; the big difference is on those revisions ratios. We buy companies that deliver and typically exceed in their delivery against what’s forecast for them, whereas the average company typically doesn’t deliver what it’s forecast to achieve and under delivers by quite a meaningful degree. That’s where you get this kind of compounding effect of not simply delivery, but over delivery, from the companies we hold and under delivery from the average company in the market. That’s really what gives the power. Over time you get that compounding effect, the market rewards those companies that over deliver. You pay a small premium up front but you get a massive premium down the line as they deliver, and that’s the big difference.
Robert Bailey: Right, in the last few minutes, let’s drill down a bit into the portfolio. One of the questions we actually had was around the large cap bias and obviously with your preference for growth stocks, in a lot of markets actually finding growth in the large cap is harder than finding value in large cap, what’s your experience of that?
Mark Hargraves: What we found is that in European markets, and I think particularly at the moment, the portfolio has changed over time in terms of if you go back five/six years ago, it had a bigger small and midcap element to it. We’re now much more large cap dominated. It can change a little bit over time but fundamentally as we sit here today is that in large cap companies, there is a huge amount of opportunities, and there are some great companies there. And what you find also in large cap land, at the moment, is there are a lot of companies linked in to not simply the European trends but global growth. And clearly given the weak domestic environment in Europe, we favoured global growth or companies exposed to that. Now those companies are typically more large cap.
So, firstly, we found companies that are delivering and also those companies that are delivering products that aren’t supplied from other areas around the world, such as luxury goods and premium autos; Europe excels in these areas. Correspondingly, with small and midcap stocks we’ve got some companies down there, and we’ve got a bias, when I say large cap here, we’re underweight the mega caps and we’re more in the mid to large cap phase.
But when it comes to small and midcap, at the moment, there are some good opportunities there but at the same time generally small and midcap companies are typically more exposed to domestic economies, which we’re pretty cautious on in Europe. Also typically they are more leveraged. This is particularly an issue, I think, for European companies given the banking system is still being quite challenged and getting funding is more challenging. And what differs in Europe for small and midcap companies compared to the US is that small and midcap companies in Europe are dependent upon bank financing; in the US they use the bond market.
Robert Bailey: I want to come back and talk about stocks in a moment, but just have a quick look at the country and sector breakdown. There’s a couple of interesting ones I just want to pick up on there. Despite what you’ve said you’re underweight Germany?
Mark Hargraves: Yes, the German economy and the German stock market are two very different beasts. It’s a bit like the UK economy and the UK stock market. Fundamentally, we’re in the parts of Germany we like; German premium autos, some selective financials and some selective industrials.
Robert Bailey: And looking at the sector split, it’s interesting to note you’re overweight financials, how do you actually put that bet into play, that decision into play?
Mark Hargraves: That’s been a big change this year. If you look at the portfolio over the last few years the sector weights have been fairly consistent. We’ve been, up until the second quarter of this year consistently underweight telecoms, underweight utilities, underweight financials - those are the sectors which had to me the biggest risk to earnings. The big change this year, and really the only change in the portfolio, is to change our positioning on financials, and there’s been two sides to that.
Firstly, and this is combining the macro and the micro, from the micro side is what you’ve seen over the last three to four years is European financials have taken great steps from the bottom-up perspective to improve their positioning. They’ve been cleaning up balance sheets and deleveraging. We all know about the regulatory higher capital ratios that are required: they’ve been responding to that. They’ve got a long way to go but they’ve made huge strides from where we were three/four years ago. Yet they’ve been steadily underperforming consistently through the period. We’ve been underweight because while they’ve been doing that from the micro point of view it hasn’t been enough to offset the macro risks, and clearly the macro risks have been dominating.
I felt really in the second quarter, before even the “Draghi put” came out, that actually there was a fundamental change in the macro side. I’d always been very cautious when the LTRO was announced and we did not change our underweight then. However, I felt though that actually in the second quarter there was a change. There was a change in rhetoric from the Germans: they were more willing to address the more fundamental issues of the Eurozone rather than necessarily kick the can down the road. And it was a subtle change, a gradual change, but I felt that it was enough actually when you combine the two together that it made sense. The financials have been hugely derated.
When you look at financials there are certain areas you don’t want to touch: Southern European domestic exposed financials, those where the balance sheets are a concern. We’ve seen for example this morning once again with Dexia being recapitalised for the third time. You can see these landmines they’re actually floating on the surface and they’re pretty visible nowadays. So you don’t want to go near those. But the reality is there are some great quality banks that have been heavily derated, trading at 0.3 or 0.4 times book value - SocGen, BNP are good examples of this. They have been massively derated and to a certain extent, some of that was deserved, but they’ve taken the steps from internally to improve their returns. They will get back to their cost of capital over time, and therefore they should go back to price to book of one times, or close to that, so there is huge upside. So the risk reward really was getting more and more favourable.
Robert Bailey: And the other notable overweight is consumer discretionary.
Mark Hargraves: Yes, I mean it seems slightly strange when we look at Europe and I say from a domestic point of view it’s struggling, but the reality is consumer discretionary is a huge sector, and I’m very geared into global growth there. That is a sector where Europe excels itself in many areas. We’ve talked of German premium autos doing fantastically well. It’s a two tier market, it’s a great example of the strong getting stronger. VW, BMW are doing fantastically well, while weaker players like Peugeot and Fiat struggle. So you’ve got to make sure that within the sector you pick the right stocks, but it is very interesting. Correspondingly, luxury goods continues to do extremely well, and actually you’re seeing the US market pick up and even Europe do quite well, so Europe isn’t doing bad everywhere, it’s just being selective.
Robert Bailey: The final slide then, just go back to the portfolio on a stock specific basis and looking at your overweights and underweights relative to the benchmark, you’ve touched on SocGen and BNP as two of your large overweights, which are the other maybe two stocks within that portfolio that you would focus on as really exciting growth opportunities?
Mark Hargraves: Two is difficult to pick because there are lots there. I mean the reality is there’s bedrock of quality growth is in the portfolio and we can pick a load. To pick one Novo Nordisk is obviously the biggest weight in the portfolio from an absolute point of view. It’s a great company that can deliver strong top line growth probably over a 10 plus year view, and what’s really powerful about Novo is that it returns 100% of its free cash flow to shareholders via dividends and buybacks.
So you get huge top line growth and huge cash return. It’s a pretty unique beast for an equity story and it’s very powerful. We’ve held it for a number of years; it continues to do very well; we had great news out this morning on them getting US approval on one of its drugs and the stock has responded well to that – its a core holding in the portfolio. Inditex, Zara is the headline brand that people know. Again for many retailers going international has been their r deathbed, and they’ve failed. Inditex is a rare example of a business that is able to translate its footprint across the world. And it’s doing extremely well at that, and it’s got huge opportunities.
Again, you’ve got at least 10 years of growth without even struggling. This is a prime example of looking at the micro and not letting the macro dominate your thoughts. This stock is based in Spain, 35% of sales still come from Spain but again in Spain they’ve been gaining market share. So while it’s a tough environment, they still do well and they’ve been growing internationally. The stock has done phenomenally well over the last couple of years despite being based in Spain.
Robert Bailey: Now there is one other slide I just want to squeeze in at the end, which is the attribution slide, which is really, it’s more about explaining the way that you’ve achieved the first quartile performance that you’ve got within this Fund, it’s showing not just from a couple of ideas. Looking at this slide here, do you just want to give us a quick 30 second overview of how that breaks down?
Mark Hargraves: Yes, this is showing year-to-date until the end of September, and clearly it’s been a good year, compounding the good returns we’ve had over recent years. What I focus on is stock selection as the main driver of returns, and I would hope to get over 75% return from stock selection, and then I think also you can get a benefit from allocation as well. This slide shows the mirror image of that. Stock selection has dominated returns this year, a bit of asset allocation benefit as well, but I think really what’s pleasing for me is that stock selection is positive across every sector.
Clearly, we’ve got a couple of areas such as industrials where we’ve particularly excelled this year, but it’s not a one-trick pony. We’ve shown consistent performance across all sectors, and that shows the strength of the expertise, and the repeatable nature of hopefully what we do.
Robert Bailey: Brilliant, I have to stop you there, thank you very much Mark, and thank you very much for joining us today. This presentation will be repeated obviously on Asset.tv and available on the AXA IM website. If you want further information on the AXA Framlington European Fund you also gain that from our website, which is axa-im.co.uk, but in the meantime thank you very much for joining us today.
Important Information
This communication is intended for Investment Professional use only and should not be relied upon by retail clients. Circulation must be restricted accordingly. Any reproduction of this information, in whole or in part, is prohibited.
This communication does not constitute an offer to sell or buy any units in the Fund. Information relating to investments is based on research and analysis undertaken or procured by AXA Investment Managers UK Limited for its own purposes and may have been made available to other members of the AXA Group of Companies which, in turn, may have acted on it. Whilst every care is taken over these comments, no responsibility is accepted for errors and omissions that may be contained therein. It is therefore not to be taken as a recommendation to enter into any investment transactions.
This communication should not be regarded as an offer, solicitation, invitation or recommendation to subscribe for any AXA investment service or product and is provided to you for information purposes only. The views expressed do not constitute investment advice and do not necessarily represent the views of any company within the AXA Investment Managers Group and may be subject to change without notice. No representation or warranty (including liability towards third parties), express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information contained herein.
Information relating to investments may have been based on research and analysis undertaken or procured by AXA Framlington for its own purposes and may have been made available to other expertises within the AXA Investment Managers Group, who in turn may have acted upon it. Information in this document may be updated from time to time and may vary from previous or future published versions of this document.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The value of investments and the income from them can fluctuate and investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Changes in exchange rates will affect the value of investments made overseas. Investments in newer markets and smaller companies offer the possibility of higher returns but may also involve a higher degree of risk. The price of units and the income from them can go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amount originally invested. An initial charge is usually made when you purchase units. Your investment should be for the medium to long term i.e. typically 5-10 years. Changes in exchange rates will affect the value of trust investments overseas.
AXA Framlington is an expertise of AXA Investment Managers UK Limited. Issued by AXA Investment Managers UK Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England and Wales No: 01431068 Registered Office: 7 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7NX. Telephone calls may be recorded for quality assurance purposes.
16042 11/2012
Links:
Download Webcast Summary
Download Presentation Slides
Slides:
0|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
81|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide03.jpg
90|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
116|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide04.jpg
141|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
262|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide05.jpg
284|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1014|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide06.jpg
1065|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1181|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide07.jpg
1227|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1271|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide08.jpg
1292|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1318|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide09.jpg
1371|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1451|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide10.jpg
1500|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1573|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide11.jpg
1581|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1598|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide12.jpg
1612|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1840|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide12.jpg
1870|http://files.asset.tv/slides/generic/none.jpg
1965|http://files.asset.tv/new/uploads/files/slides/8586/8586_Slide13.jpg
Advanced
Slide Mode:
On
Structured:
Nonstructured
Company info:
Contact: AXA Investment Managers