Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.
1 September 2022
Recently trending
Reader: “Best innovation I have seen whilst an investor for 25 years. The writers are brilliant. A great publication which I look forward to.”
Don Stammer, leading Australian economist: “Congratulations to all associated. It deserves the good following it has.”
Australian Investors Association: “Australia’s foremost independent financial newsletter for professionals and self-directed investors.”
Eleanor Dartnall, AFA Adviser of the Year, 2014: “Our clients love your newsletter. Your articles are avidly read by advisers and they learn a great deal.”
Ian Kelly, CFP, BTACS Financial Services: “Probably the best source of commentary and information I have seen over the past 20 years.”
Reader: “Congratulations on a great focussed news source. Australia has a dearth of good quality unbiased financial and wealth management news.”
Reader: “I subscribe to two newsletters. This is my first read of the week. Thank you. Excellent and please keep up the good work!”
Reader: “I can quickly sort the items that I am interested in, then research them more fully. It is also a regular reminder that I need to do this.”
Reader: “Carry on as you are – well done. The average investor/SMSF trustee needs all the help they can get.”
Andrew Buchan, Partner, HLB Mann Judd: “I have told you a thousand times it’s the best newsletter.”
David Goldschmidt, Chartered Accountant: “I find this a really excellent newsletter. The best I get. Keep up the good work!”
Reader: “An island of professionalism in an ocean of shallow self-interest. Well done!”
Reader: “Great resource. Cuffelinks is STILL the one and only weekly newsletter I regularly read.”
Reader: “Keep it up – the independence is refreshing and is demonstrated by the variety of well credentialed commentators.”
Reader: “The BEST in the game because of diversity and not aligned to financial products. Stands above all the noise.”
Reader: “Is one of very few places an investor can go and not have product rammed down their throat. Love your work!”
Rob Henshaw: “When I open my computer each day it’s the first link I click – a really great read.”
John Egan, Egan Associates: “My heartiest congratulations. Your panel of contributors is very impressive and keep your readers fully informed.”
Scott Pape, author of The Barefoot Investor: “I’m an avid reader of Cuffelinks. Thanks for the wonderful resource you have here, it really is first class.”
Noel Whittaker, author and financial adviser: “A fabulous weekly newsletter that is packed full of independent financial advice.”
Reader: ” Finding a truly independent and interesting read has been magical for me. Please keep it up and don’t change!”
Steve: “The best that comes into our world each week. This is the only one that is never, ever canned before fully being reviewed by yours truly.”
Professor Robert Deutsch: “This has got to be the best set of articles on economic and financial matters. Always something worthwhile reading in Firstlinks. Thankyou”
Jonathan Hoyle, CEO, Stanford Brown: “A fabulous publication. The only must-read weekly publication for the Australian wealth management industry.”
Reader: “Love it, just keep doing what you are doing. It is the right length too, any longer and it might become a bit overwhelming.”
Ian Silk, CEO, AustralianSuper: “It has become part of my required reading: quality thinking, and (mercifully) to the point.”
John Pearce, Chief Investment Officer, Unisuper: “Out of the (many many) investmentrelated emails I get, Cuffelinks is one that I always open.”
Reader: “It’s excellent so please don’t pollute the content with boring mainstream financial ‘waffle’ and adverts for stuff we don’t want!”
Over 30 years since 1992, both Liberal and Labor Governments have encouraged Australians to save large amounts in super with generous tax concessions as compensation for forgoing present-day consumption. In 1995, for example, the Labor Budget of Treasurer Ralph Willis announced the intention to lift the superannuation guarantee (SG) from 9% to 15% by 2002. In 2007, Liberal Peter Costello encouraged people to add up to $1 million to their super. As recently as 2017, a couple could put up to $1.08 million into super in one year using the bring-forward rule.
As Treasurer in 1991, Paul Keating was the main architect of Australia’s compulsory superannuation system. He said recently:
“I wanted a system where the individual retained the capital and didn’t give it to the government. It was an account with your name on it. The capital is yours and it doesn’t belong to the government.”
Savers with enough money followed the rules – “the capital is yours” – over decades and watched their investments grow with compounding and good returns. No government should now demand they spend it all during their retirement. That was not the deal. Defining the purpose of super as only for providing income in retirement is rewriting history.
Last week, at the annual Superannuation Lending Roundtable, Treasurer Jim Chalmers gave the old hobby horse another run around the track, when many thought the nag had gone to the knacker’s yard. At the event, hosted by The Australian Financial Review and industrialist Anthony Pratt, Chalmers said:
“We see the lack of a legislated objective of super as a source of ambiguity which left the gate open for early access, and so we will legislate one.”
Way back in 2015, the previous Government announced it would enshrine the objective of superannuation in legislation, as recommended by the Financial System Inquiry (FSI). The Government even released a discussion paper entitled ‘Objective of Superannuation’ with background and questions, and received 118 submissions. The intention was to adopt the following:
“The objective of the superannuation system is to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension.”
Now, some seven years later, the Treasurer has made defining an objective a priority for his office. Already, a recommendation of the FSI that was adopted from 1 July 2022 requires all super funds to have a Retirement Income Covenant that includes a strategy that balances:
• maximising retirement income
• managing risks to the sustainability and stability of retirement income
• having some flexible access to savings during retirement.
But however the proposed objective is drafted, a large cohort of investors will have no problem funding their retirement and they have no intention of spending their superannuation.
Like it or not, hundreds of thousands of Australians use their superannuation as more of a tax-advantaged savings vehicle than a source of retirement income.
At a 2015 CSIRO and Monash University Superannuation Research Cluster, a study reported that 90% of the amount an average retiree enters retirement with (including the family home and non-super) remains unspent upon their death.
In a recent 2022 survey by National Seniors and Challenger of 3,345 members, more respondents reported they would ‘maintain most or all of capital’ than ‘spend all capital to fund retirement’, as shown below.
Intention to maintain capital in retirement (n=2713)
As expected, those with over $500,000 in retirement savings have a significantly higher intention of maintaining their capital.
Intention to maintain capital according to wealth (including super but not the home) (n=2361)
When asked why they are maintaining capital, 41% nominated ‘for beneficiaries’. On whether retirement savings are a nest egg or income stream, the Report concludes:
“Super capital was not meant to accumulate and remain unused. In practice, however, many people only spend earnings from their super to preserve the capital or take the required minimum drawdown. This can reduce available spending money by as much as 30%. The results of this survey align with the observations made by the (Retirement Income) Review that many retirees do not want to consume their super as income. Only 1 in 3 people were intending to draw down their capital to generate income from super in retirement.”
Is that first sentence correct? When in the first two decades of SG did Keating, Costello, other Treasurers and Treasury advocate that all super balances must be exhausted in retirement?
Consider the latest SMSF data, recently released by the Australian Taxation Office for June 2020. There is a significant lag due to delays in SMSF tax reporting, and the amount will be higher now. The ATO data reveals $854 billion (of the $3.3 trillion in super) was held in 605,000 SMSFs for 1.1 million members.
As shown below, 17.1% of funds held over $2 million in assets, equal to about 103,400 funds for 188,100 people. This data focusses only on SMSFs as they are likely to hold the largest super balances, but in addition, total super data from the ATO shows 575,000 people with annual incomes above $180,000 hold an average of $575,000 in super each.
As most people enter retirement as a member of a couple, and it’s likely if one partner dies, the entire balance will pass to the other, the data indicates there are at least 200,000 Australians with access to super balances of $2 million or more and far more with $1 million plus. 
Any way these numbers are cut, an enormous number of Australians have more money than they will use to finance their retirement. In the National Seniors data, 81% owned their homes outright with a further 11% owning with a mortgage. It is likely that their homes are worth more than their super, as well as owning considerable other assets. Given the tax efficiency of super, it is prudent to use non-super assets (other than the family home) before drawing on super.
The caps imposed on contributing to super will go some way to eliminating the mega balances of $5 million or more, but they still allow significant wealth to be stored in super. For example, current rules allow:
Plus various schemes such as carry forward concessions and downsizer payments (of $600,000 a couple) which do not count towards the contribution caps.
Well-paid executives using these amounts over a long career will accumulate multi-million superannuation accounts long into the future. For example, invest $100,000 at the start and add $120,000 a year for 20 years compounded at 5% gives a balance over $4 million.
In research from Investment Trends, 18% of people over 40 who have not yet retired expect to limit drawdowns for income to ensure most super can be left as an inheritance. Fully one quarter of retirees are already doing this. 
Copyright 2021 Investment Trends. November 2021 Retirement Income Report: Industry Analysis.
Cutting the data by super balances, even among retirees with less than $500,000 in super, 24% plan to leave most money as an inheritance. At larger balances, the proportion rises as high as 31%.
*Small sample, indicative only. Copyright 2021 Investment Trends. November 2021 Retirement Income Report: Industry Analysis.
Superannuation legislation has specific features designed for appropriate bequeathing. Binding Death Nominations (BDNs) ensure superannuation is distributed according to the wishes of the deceased member, not at the whim of another trustee of the fund or executor of the estate. Superannuation is not an asset of the estate and a trustee is not obliged to follow directions in a will, even if super is specifically mentioned in the will. The instructions in the BDN define the money flow.
The superannuation rules facilitate bequests to non-dependants. There is no restriction on withdrawing money from superannuation for anyone who has reached preservation age and satisfied a condition of release (including retiring). However, on death, if it is given to anyone other than a spouse or a dependent child, there is a tax (on the taxable component) of 15% plus the Medicare levy (currently 2% for most people). The obvious approach is to gift it before death, if possible.
Again using Investment Trends research, large proportions of people in every wealth bracket intend to leave substantial parts of their estate to beneficiaries, and in some cases, the total value of all investments. 
Copyright 2021 Investment Trends. November 2021 Retirement Income Report: Industry Analysis.
Treasurer Chalmers will define the objective of superannuation as ‘providing income in retirement’ or similar, ignoring the fact that both Labor and Liberal Governments designed a system which allowed people to accumulate more than they need. As stated above, the current chair of the Future Fund allowed $1 million into super in only one year, and more recently, a couple could put up to $1.08 million into super in only one year.
Unless some much stricter legislation is passed such as requiring all balances over a certain amount to be removed from super, hundreds of thousands of Australians have no intention of running down their super to one dollar on the day they die. As Keating said, “I wanted a system where the individual retained the capital.”
Labor badly misjudged the opposition to its policy on restricting franking credit refunds but would be on safer ground with most voters if superannuation were capped at a high amount, say $5 million per person. There is no knowing, however, how much extra tax this would generate as the very wealthy have other tax minimisation techniques.
Go ahead, clarify the objective of superannuation, but don’t expect those with large balances accumulated by the completely legitimate (and government sponsored) use of the system to change their plans. Their spending intentions extend beyond their lives and beyond their graves. For many, the objective will be flogging a dead horse.
Graham Hand is Editor-At-Large for Firstlinks. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any person.
So Graham, what then is the purpose of a compulsory superannuation system? To build up assets so that we can feel secure and manipulate our children into behaving well towards us? To feed the financial industry? So that the rich can save tax? As I see it, the only argument with any real force is that compulsion cuts the cost of distributing (marketing) retirement savings vehicles, which are otherwise distributed by expensive commissioned salespeople. But once government takes responsibility for designing the system, they have to follow through.
At the very least, the perception of what one "needs" in your super fund to go forward into retirement is a moveable feast – generally it will vary depending upon the eye of the beholder. One of the most common questions asked of me as an accounting practitioner is that very question – "how much do I need in super to retire?" The prospect of a government edict on that question is somewhat frightening. It sort of reminds me of the statement by the then Treasurer of the Commonwealth, Frank Crean, when he said anyone who earns more that a Class 4 in the CPS is a "fat cat". A very low target indeed – but again, in the eye of the beholder. Your comments are well made about the system that has only recently been a little more focussed about how much, rather than leave that to the individual's capacity and tenacity to achieve, rather than a mandated maximum which, no doubt, will change at some future point in time when it is ( once again) reviewed in the eye of the beholder!
From Crikey today:
"The wealth of Australia’s top self-managed super funds (SMSFs) continues to grow. There were 32 funds worth more than $100 million in 2020, up from 27 in 2019, new documents reveal.
Information about the top 100 largest SMSFs in the 2019-20 financial years has been released by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in response to a Crikey freedom of information request. The data reveals how Australia’s richest people are taking advantage of the favourable superannuation tax concessions.
Australia’s largest SMSF had $401 million in the 2020 financial year compared with $544 million the year before — each fund is identified only by its position in the top 100, meaning that the top fund may not be the same one as the year before. The next two largest had $371 million and $273 million in 2020, respectively. The smallest had $53 million, up from $52 million the year before."
These few funds hardly represent the majority position , probably the top 0.3% or less (all super funds not just SMSF's). Yes, it's an anomaly against the intent of superannuation but is unlikely to be repeated going forwards with newer funds.
Clamping down on these few mega funds might yield a little for the government, after taking into account tax minimisation manoeuvres.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater though!
Hi Graham,
I think we should try and understand as to how we got to where we are regarding superannuation and particularly the rule changes that allowed the acceleration of contribution amounts.
Here is my reflection on the position.
First, there was not a lot of thought ( at conception ) around the pros and cons of the “account based” pension scheme structured by Keating and Kelly. For instance – was it really for the benefit of the average person and was there a better long term solution?
Second, as the system developed over its first twenty years, Commonwealth and State governments persisted with non contributory pension schemes that were highly beneficial to the recipients and highly detrimental to the average tax payer. The Future Fund was born out of this dilemma as it sought ( and still seeks) to create a funding mechanism for unfunded indexed pensions;
3. The changes to superannuation contribution rules accelerated around the time of the creation of the Future Fund ( 2005/06) as a means (arguably a bribe) to limit criticism of the creation of the Future Fund and ensure the maintenance of excessive pension benefits to ex public servants that included politicians; and
4. Despite the forecasts made in 2006 and the near $50 billion contributed by taxpayers, the Future Fund ( today) at about $200 billion is still underfunded against its assessed liabilities. The Future Fund is not expected to pay its first pension until 2027 and it remains an aggressively managed accumulation fund chaired by the ex-treasurer whom oversaw its creation and the allowance of excessive contributions to SMSFs as a tax minimisation scheme.
My point is simple. Superannuation ( including the Future Fund) is designed to look after a small part of the population ( arguably described as elites) . The broader population whom contributes to their super account and pays taxes to pay ex public servant pensions, provide the necessary mechanism to facilitate and somehow justify a system that was deeply flawed at its inception.
Near forty years later we are battling to provide advice and investment solutions to people whom really just want and simply need a contributory national pension scheme that provides adequate income to them in retirement and facilitates their care if age or health overwhelm them, and ( importantly) endures no matter how long they live.
Regards
John Abernethy
If we are talking about public service defined schemes, the employees did contribute a percentage of their wages. The reason we now have the Future Fund is that for decades, the Governments didn't invest the employees' contributions, rather treated them general revenues funding general expenditures. Also, when Superannuation Guarantee came into effect, those with defined schemes didn't get the 9% employer contribution, but still had to contribute their own monies. Lastly, the final payout was based on final average wages and years employed. If an employee had a material balance, the growth compared to a market linked fund was poor, which is probably one reason why they stopped taking on new members.
Totally agree, John.
The opportunity to 'fix' super disappeared when it was locked into industrial relations negotiations.
Had any government initiated a national scheme with a legislated purpose of establishing a retirement income and lump sum on earlier death or disability – then it would have the benefit of massive scale, and could offer innovative insurance and even guaranteed retirement income options at extremely low unit cost.
There are those who cry out against "government control"; the Industry Funds angst at loss of control of the nation's capital (and boardrooms); banks and retail funds would have lobbied to get their super gravy train back. Unfortunately, such a logical answer would please no-one and annoy everyone.
The average person is now being asked to decide between a host of competing super fund offers and somehow make a decision that even a financial planner finds a bit tricky. Just ask ASIC or APRA to provide a written document for a bunch of different people to help them each decide between any of the industry super funds (you can't use all of them, so which one is best?). The foolishness of this idea is extreme.
Legislation and regulation is worked on the assumption that everyone is either wealthy, well-informed or has access to affordable advice. My assumption is that legislators and regulators are now out-of-touch with the average Australian.
Add in the regulatory mess that's removed any decent financial advice from the reach of the median (not average) super member, and you can see that not much is going to change.
The end result is that it is only the wealthy who get to make an informed decision. Not exactly egalitarian, is it?
Fair solution? Just include at least some of the home value (eg value above average dwelling value) in the assets test for the aged pension. This would get a large number 40% of wealthier retirees who don't touch their super to make the decision to spend their super more aggressively and/or downsize.
Many high net wealth retirees want at least a part pension because of the $5-6K of annual benefits (reduced rates, car rego, power bills etc etc)
The other option is to defer income tax unpaid on super plus interest as a estate tax duty on passing. P. The ATO is now keeping data on incomes and super each financial year for everyone so it can do a fairly accurate calculation. Probably more palatable than applying it to PPOR.
Retirees with high super balances won't change their spending habits because a politician changes a rule or a definition. They spend what they like & their super balances still grow over time.
Graham, sorry to be pedantic but it’s an important point. Costello did NOT “encourage” people to contribute $1 million into super. It was a compromise between the previous arrangement and what he was proposing to legislate. Prior to 2007 non-concessional (after-tax) contributions were unlimited. These contributions were then turned it into tax-free pensions. We are talking of multi-million funds here. Costello limited those after-tax contributions to $180,000 per year after 2007 as part of the suit of other changes. In response to the howls of protest, his compromise was to allow $1 million contribution but for one year only. Those extremely large super funds are perfectly legal and still exit but the tax concessions they attract, distorts the whole discussion about tax concessions going to super, leading to suggestions that all super pensions should be taxed. And that would be contrary to Keating’s key promise. Incidentally, the Transfer Balance Cap in 2017 was the first time the tax concessions on large super pensions were limited. That TBC is now $ 1.7 million per person.
If my memory serves me well, the number of people who went ahead and did contribute $1,000,000 to their super funds was far higher than expected. I believe it shocked some in the financial world who were surprised that so many people could get their hands on this sum in such a short time.
Plus I think the year that this munificence was allowed happened just before the GFC – which would have wiped out much of the value of the $1,000,000 that had been tipped into super.
If I could see into the future and know what I will need for aged care and future health needs, I would be more inclined to draw down my super capital.
I firmly believe one of the biggest reasons people “under-spend” in retirement is simply the fear of running out of capital early. If the government could find a means to provide a realistic (meaning similar returns to a conventional super fund) annuity that one could use to fund spending, this will remain a problem. Current annuity payments are simply pitiful and much of the monthly “income” they provide is simply returning your own capital to you (ie the earnings are actually woeful due to the ultra conservative nature that assets from annuity providers are forced into).
Super has more wrinkles than a prize Marino ram.
All the fault of means tested Age Pension.
Were Age Pension paid to all living beyond a certain age (Kiwi-isation), then there would be no need for super.
Those wanting more cash in retirement than provided by Age Pension could invest after tax savings and be taxed on the earnings.
Adjust the tax rate on income and earnings to fund Age Pension.
"Were Age Pension paid to all living beyond a certain age (Kiwi-isation), then there would be no need for super.
Those wanting more cash in retirement than provided by Age Pension could invest after tax savings and be taxed on the earnings."
The problem is a vast majority of people do not save and live pay to pay! Saving and investing requires discipline, a long term plan and the ability to ignore consumption desires beyond one's sensible means. We live in a rampant consumer society that constantly encourages spending. Most find going against the herd difficult!
Superannuation forces people to save and offers some hope of a better retirement income (including access to accrued capital for one-off expenses, that just having a pension does not provide), even if just supplementing the meagre pension.
"people do not save and live pay to pay!":
As is their choice; plenty find it possible to 'get ahead' of their mortgages; some save and buy homes with cash.
"Superannuation forces people to save":
Compulsory saving is not nice, and not supportive of the "rampant consumer society" in the short term.
"supplementing the meagre pension":
Due to the means testing of Age Pension, the majority, who have between $419,000 and ~$1,200,000, have smaller incomes that those with less. Age Pension of $38,708.80 / y plus deemed earnings on $419,000 gives around $50,000 / y income. Munificence, not meagreness; exceeding cost of living by ~$25,000 / y. Plenty for an indulgent retirement.
“Age Pension of $38,708.80 / y plus deemed earnings on $419,000 gives around $50,000 / y income.” My point exactly! Most people will not have saved anywhere near $419,000 were it not for compulsory superannuation. Deemed income of $7,556 (Centrelink) + $38,708.80 = $46,264.80. Data a little old, but ASFA superannuation account balances by age and gender 2015-2016 in the 60-64 year old cohort shows men with a mean super balance of $270,710 and women $157,050. Mixed mean is $214,897. Are not people better of income wise then, because of some superannuation savings, enabling access to capital if needed for unexpected expenses plus likely returns in excess of Centrelink deemed income adding to the full pension? If superannuation were abandoned, many would have nothing (savings) but the pension in retirement!
ahhh, us good old taxpayers solve all the problems right ?
"consume their super as income"? err 'consume their super capital' perchance?
Super withdrawals are of capital, not income.
Income is earnings on capital, not capital itself.
One problem with defining a single and universal purpose of superannuation is that people have contributed to super for years, even decades, with different ideas and intentions.
Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement, or CIPRs, are almost a reality and there is much excitement around what this means for superannuation and retirement outcomes.
Senator Jane Hume presented at the SMSFA conference this week, and we reproduce the full transcript as a guide to what the Government is thinking on superannuation reforms as we head into the next election.
The number of financial advisers in Australia has almost halved at a time of greater need than ever. What has happened to the industry and its clients as yet another Quality of Advice Review takes place?
A new standard argues the majority of Australians will never achieve the ASFA ‘comfortable’ level of retirement savings and it amounts to ‘fearmongering’ by vested interests. If comfortable is aspirational, so be it.
It’s like magic. Compound at 7% for 10 years and an investor will double their money. So when a major bank security hits that level, it’s worth understanding exactly what it means, then considering where it fits.
Billionaire fund manager standoff: Ray Dalio thinks investing is common sense and markets are simple, while Howard Marks says complex and convoluted ‘second-level’ thinking is needed for superior returns.
Faced with confusing complexity which often fails to improve investment outcomes, a former managing director set himself the task of writing a one-page introduction to investing for his 18-year-old grandkids.
When inflation was close to zero, it was not as important to think about markets and returns in real terms (that is, nominal returns less inflation). But factoring in inflation, a total return of 6% on an investment may only preserve purchasing power. Leaving money in cash at 1% now comes with a significant opportunity cost.
As the Treasurer dusts off the files and instructs his office (yet again) to define the purpose of super, it will mean little to hundreds of thousands of Australians who have no intention of spending most of their super.
When a business that manages funds worth three times the entire Australian superannuation system enters the market, it’s a sign of yet more change coming to the sector. How do its plans fit into a long-term strategy?
Investment in the energy sector has dropped significantly but demand continues to rise. Higher prices normally trigger more spending and increased supply. If this is not the case, it creates investment opportunities.
Not long ago, globalisation seemed on a relentless growth path, promising to bring everyone into a global economy. But with politics, pandemics and the Ukraine war, ‘geoeconomics’ will lower living standards for all.
Facing multiple headwinds, analysts braced themselves for poor results in the latest reporting season, but companies are in better shape than expected. Costs were an issue but most passed them on in higher prices.
Most Australian investors chasing the extra yield on major bank hybrids, or T1 securities, limit their activity to the domestic market, but there is a disconnect in pricing creating better opportunities offshore.
All investors understand going ‘long’, but how does ‘shorting’ work, and what are some common myths about the impact on markets? Many of our major funds short stocks so it’s worth a quick primer on how they work.
Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.
© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.
About Author
