Australian Secure Capital Fund - Market Update

Australian Secure Capital Fund

June 2025

National housing values rose another 0.5% in May, bringing total growth to 1.7% so far in 2025, with every capital city in positive territory.

The market appears to be responding to recent and anticipated interest rate cuts, with auction clearance rates also picking up post-RBA's May meeting. While annual growth has softened to 3.3%, even previously flatlining cities like Melbourne and Canberra are edging back into growth.

Regionally, SA is leading the charge, up 5.8% year-to-date, while higher-end property segments in Sydney and Canberra are now outpacing entry-level growth.

With values rising across capital cities and regions, many investors are keeping a close eye on how interest rates and housing supply may influence the months ahead.

Property Values as at 31st of May 2025

Median Dwelling Values as at 31st of May 2025

June Edition

Funds operated by this manager:

ASCF Select Income Fund , ASCF High Yield Fund , ASCF Premium Capital Fund , ASCF Private Fund (Wholesale)

Preview of RBA Board Meeting Decision, Friday, 4th July, 2025

FundMonitors.com

July 2025

Summary 

In the lead-up to the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) July policy meeting, Chris Gosselin, CEO of FundMonitors.com, hosted Nicholas Chaplin from Seed Funds Management, and Renny Ellis from Arculus Funds Management to assess the likelihood and implications of a rate cut. Despite soft inflation data for May (2.1%), both urged caution, highlighting the strength of the labour market, rebounding housing prices, and the broader economic stability. 

While markets are pricing in a cut, Chaplin and Ellis questioned the need for further easing given the current conditions, pointing out that GDP softness-not inflation-may be the real concern. They also compared the RBA's stance with the U.S. Federal Reserve, concluding that domestic factors should drive policy, not international pressure. 

Conclusion: 

Both Nicholas Chaplin and Renny Ellis advocate a "wait and see" approach. Despite market expectations, they caution that economic fundamentals do not yet warrant aggressive easing, especially with employment strong and inflation stable. Growth concerns exist, but the RBA has room to observe data and remain flexible in its response. 

Key Points: 

1. Inflation and RBA Mandate 

• May's headline inflation came in at 2.1%, within the RBA's 2-3% target range. 

• Trimmed mean inflation-the RBA's preferred measure-was 2.4%, suggesting inflation is still hovering near target but not significantly below it. 

• Both Chaplin and Ellis noted that inflation alone doesn't justify a rate cut at this stage. 
   

2. Labor Market Strength 

• Unemployment remains just above 4%, indicating a tight labor market. 

• The RBA's full-employment mandate has largely been met, removing urgency for monetary easing. 
   

3. Economic Growth Concerns 

• March quarter GDP growth was 0.2%, or 1.3% annually, which is weak historically but not unprecedented. 

• Chaplin emphasized low GDP growth as a more valid justification for a possible rate cut, rather than inflation. 
   

4. Housing and Asset Markets 

• Housing prices are rising nationally, and the share market is at record highs. 

• Tight credit spreads and a steep yield curve suggest market confidence and financial system stability. 
   

5. Electricity Subsidies and Policy Interpretation 

• Inflation has been distorted by state and federal electricity subsidies. 

• Ellis argued that the RBA should "look through" these temporary distortions, as previously stated by Governor Bullock. 
   

6. RBA vs. Federal Reserve (Fed) 

• Powell's Fed is holding off on rate cuts amid rising inflation and trade policy disruptions in the U.S. 

• The panel agreed that the RBA should focus on domestic conditions, not mirror Fed policy moves. 
   

7. Market Expectations 

• Markets are currently pricing in a 100% probability of a July cut and 90% for August. 

• If the RBA holds, expectations may shift to only one or two cuts for the rest of 2025. 

• A hold could lead to a stronger Australian dollar, flattening of the yield curve, and slight changes in short-term rates. 
   

8. Recommendations from the Panel 

• Nicholas Chaplin: Would hold rates, but if a cut is made, it should be a single 35-basis-point move to avoid signaling multiple future cuts. 

• Renny Ellis: Would also hold, citing the need to see post-subsidy inflation impacts and overall economic data play out before acting. 

Full Transcript: 

Chris Gosselin: 
Welcome. I'm Chris Gosselin, CEO of FundMonitors.com.  

The RBA board meets next Monday, and following two days of deliberations, they're expected to announce their decision at 2:30 PM on Tuesday afternoon. 

To preview that decision, I'm joined today by two experienced fund managers in the fixed income space: Nicholas Chaplin, Director and Portfolio Manager at Seed Funds Management; and Renny Ellis, Director and Head of Portfolio Management at Arculus Funds Management. 

Gentlemen, welcome. 

We're here to unpack what the RBA might decide, with markets almost unanimously pricing in a rate cut from the current 3.85%. Monthly inflation data for May was surprisingly soft at just 2.1%-well within the target range-fueling expectations of a cut. But with unemployment just over 4% and ongoing global uncertainty, is now the right time to ease? Let's dive in. 

Nick, let's start with you. Inflation came in at 2.1%, well below expectations. Do you think that gives the RBA enough justification to cut rates now? 

Nicholas Chaplin: 

I think Michele Bullock addressed this quite clearly on May 20 in her post-meeting media discussion. She stated that the "narrow path" narrative on inflation should be removed from their commentary-they've essentially achieved that goal. Yet interestingly, that didn't stop some banks from forecasting up to three more rate cuts this year. 

The rate cut in May seemed to acknowledge that CPI had reached the mid-to-low twos, which was justified when the 2.1% figure came out. But Bullock also highlighted strong labor market conditions, rising household expenditure, and a rebounding housing market. We're seeing price rises in housing across the country, which will need to be factored in-especially if CBA, NAB, or Westpac are right about a terminal rate around 3% or even 2.85%, and getting there quickly. 

However, the bigger driver for me is the weak GDP figure-just 0.2% in the March quarter and 1.3% annually. That's low by historical standards, though not unprecedented for Australia. That's where my concern lies and why I think a cut in July is justifiable. 

While many predict a 100% chance of a cut in July and 90% for August, I hold a slightly different view, which I'll explain further. But yes, in my opinion, the justification for a cut is there-more due to growth concerns than inflation. 

Chris Gosselin: 
Renny, unemployment is still low, and the RBA has said they want inflation sustainably back within the target band. Would you be more cautious? 

Renny Ellis: 
Yes, I would. First, to clarify, the RBA focuses on the trimmed mean inflation on a quarterly basis. That figure was around 2.4% in May-so not quite as low as the headline 2.1%. We're near their 2.5% target under the new mandate, but not below it. 

I don't see pressing reasons to cut in July. That said, I suspect they probably will-bank bill swap rates are already trading around 3.6%. I agree with much of what Nick said, but I'd add that the RBA has indicated they'd look through the distortions caused by federal and state electricity subsidies, which have significantly impacted inflation data since March last year. 

Asset prices are strong, the share market is at a record high, credit margins are tight, and the yield curve is steep-all signs of a strong economy. Given unemployment is low, I don't see a need to cut. If they do, I doubt they'll follow with another. 

Chris Gosselin: 
So, is there a risk of overstimulating an already resilient economy? 

Renny Ellis: 
Absolutely. And there's a bit of a safety net here. If the RBA cuts and it's the wrong move, they can act more aggressively later. But I don't think we're at that point now. 

Nicholas Chaplin: 
Adding to that, the RBA's mandate includes full employment and financial stability. We're already operating beyond full employment, and the financial system is stable. There's no urgency to cut, unlike during downturns when unemployment is rising. They can afford to wait. 

Renny Ellis: 
Another factor is the strong Australian dollar, which is disinflationary, especially for goods. It has played a major role in keeping us out of recession over decades. Also, Michele Bullock made five key points on May 20 that were quite bullish: 

• Private domestic demand is recovering, 

• Real household incomes have picked up, 

• Financial stress is easing, 

• Employment is growing, and 

• The labor market remains tight. 

The main downside risk she mentioned was geopolitical uncertainty. 

Nicholas Chaplin: 
That's why I was surprised to see forecasts of three more cuts this year. As you said, Renny, it's not all about the CPI outcome. Unemployment isn't at 8%. If you walk through Sydney or Melbourne on a Friday night, restaurants are full. That's not the 1981 or 1991 recession picture. Bullock has time and flexibility. 

Renny Ellis: 
Exactly. The pressure from markets and media, and even households under financial stress, is real-but doesn't align with what we're seeing on the ground. Stability in unemployment supports the view that the RBA can wait. Historically, a 50-basis-point rise in unemployment precedes recessions, and we're far from that. 

Chris Gosselin: 
What about the Fed? Jerome Powell is facing intense pressure from the White House, yet the Fed appears in no rush to cut. Should the RBA consider that in its decision-making? 

Nicholas Chaplin: 
The RBA should stay focused on the Australian economy. The U.S. has more economic momentum and rebound capacity. Australia needs to focus more on our trading partners. Arguments that we should follow the Fed are weak. 

Renny Ellis: 
I agree. The RBA's mandate doesn't require them to follow the U.S. The U.S. economy, like ours, is at full employment-but their inflation is higher. The Fed follows core PCE, which rose from 2.6% to 2.7% in May and is forecast to hit 3.4% by September. They also face inflationary pressure from tariffs and a weakening U.S. dollar. Their reasons to hold rates differ substantially from ours. 

Chris Gosselin: 
Let's talk market implications. If the RBA cuts, how might bond and equity markets respond? And what if they surprise and hold? 

Nicholas Chaplin: 
Markets are pricing in a cut-100% for July, 90% for August. If they don't move next week, it will make August nearly a certainty for a 25-basis-point cut. If they hold, we might see some adjustment in the 90-day bill rate, though it's already around 3.6%. 

Renny Ellis: 
If there's no cut, we could see the 90-day bank bill swap rate tick back up to around 3.8%, where it was before the May inflation data. Market expectations would likely shift from two or three cuts down to one or two for the rest of the year. 

The yield curve could flatten slightly, particularly in the 5- to 10-year segment. We'd also see a spike in the Australian dollar, which is disinflationary. I don't expect much impact on equity markets from the decision. 

Chris Gosselin: 
Gentlemen, a final question for each of you: if you were in Michele Bullock's chair next Tuesday, would you cut or hold? 

Nicholas Chaplin: 
I would hold. The arguments we've discussed support that. If a cut does happen, I'd recommend one 35-basis-point move over the next three months-not two 25-point cuts. That would simplify expectations and allow for a clearer pause. My primary interest would be monitoring how it impacts GDP in the medium term. Inflation seems under control, though we'll need to watch the Aussie dollar-if it climbs into the 70s, we'll have to reassess. 

Renny Ellis: 
I'd also hold. We should wait to see the full effect of the electricity subsidy roll-off on inflation data. Michele Bullock said last November they'd look through these subsidies. This is the time to follow through on that. 

But keep in mind, she's only one member of the board. The final decision is collective. 

Nicholas Chaplin: 
It's the same with Jerome Powell-people think it's all up to him, but the FOMC has 12 other members. It's not just his or Michele's call, but they're certainly the ones under pressure. 

Chris Gosselin: 
Rightly or wrongly, she's the one in the spotlight-just as Powell is in the U.S., with perhaps a target on his back instead of just pressure. 

Let's wrap it up there. The RBA's new two-day meeting format begins on Monday, with the decision due at 2:30 PM on Tuesday. We'll reconvene then to discuss the outcome. 

Nicholas Chaplin from Seed Funds Management, Renny Ellis from Arculus Funds Management-thank you both for your time. 

Watch the full video here. 

Expert analysis on what the RBA will do next Tuesday, July 8

FundMonitors.com

July 2025

Chris Gosselin, CEO of FundMonitors.com, speaks with  Nicholas Chaplin, Director and Portfolio Manager at Seed Funds Management and Renny Ellis, Director & Head of Portfolio Management at Arculus Funds Management.

With the RBA widely expected to cut rates next week, the discussion explores whether inflation, GDP weakness, and labor market strength justify a move--or argue for patience. Both managers weigh the risks of overstimulating the economy versus acting too late, in the context of local and global dynamics.

FOMC: projections highlight heightened uncertainty in rate outlook

Nikko Asset Management

June 2025

Funds operated by this manager:

Yarra Global Share Fund , Amova ARK Disruptive Innovation Fund , Amova NZ Cash Fund , Amova NZ Corporate Bond Fund , Amova Core Equity Fund , Amova Global Shares Hedged Fund , GoalsGetter Amova Balanced Fund , Goalsgetter Amova ARK Disruptive Innovation Fund

How A Second-hand Car Salesman Taught Me About Stock Market Psychology

Marcus Today

June 2025

I used to work for a second-hand car salesman called Alex who specialised in Classic Cars. Jaguar XKs, E-Types, Aston Martins, AC Cobras, Trans-Ams, Austin Healeys, anything that an investment banker would impulse purchase (or at least, used to, in the 1980s). The name of the game was a lesson in stock market psychology.

There are two things you had to do right: buy the car and sell the car. But of course, things were different in the 1980s, and the big advantage for a good salesman like Alex was that the "true value" of Classic old cars didn't really exist. There was no internet in those days, and for a second-hand car salesman, the ignorance of his customers was bliss.

It was much like the stock market today, people purport to put a 'value' on a stock but ultimately they rely on a lot of rubbery assumptions which means the valuation is not 'truth' it is simply a negotiating tool in a sale and all that really matters in the end is the price someone is prepared to pay and the price someone is prepared to sell. Making money trading Classic Cars was the same as making money trading stocks; it was all about taking advantage of other people's emotions by creating fear in a seller and selling into a buyer's euphoria.

Buying First - Create Fear

Buying first. For Alex, the main game was to create 'depression' and to do that, you had to know your stuff or at least sound as if you did, and Alex had developed a 'naked script' he could pretty much rely on whatever the car. Confronted by an emotional amateur selling their pride and joy Alex's job, indeed his amusement, was to beat them down from a "Glorious example of a Classic Car" to a rusty old lump of crap owned by a deluded fool.

In the second-hand classic car market, the skill is to generate fear. In the stock market, the money is in recognising it, recognising the points of maximum fear or euphoria.

Selling Was Easy - Wait for the Stars

As far as selling was concerned, that was easier, in fact it was so easy Alex could delegate it to a Muppet like me. All he did was re-spray and re-chrome and tell us to wait for an investment banker with a bonus in their back pocket and (the expression was) "Stars in his eyes" to come along, be blinded by the shiny paintwork and new chrome and pay a lot more than the metal millstone had actually cost. And if someone came in with an Austin Healy owners Club T-Shirt and opened with the comment that "the next thing to go will be the tie rod ends", we were told to simply usher them politely off the showroom floor with a smile. You don't have to sell. Eventually, someone with "Stars in their eyes" always turned up.

The Stock Market Is Just Like a Car Yard

Making money in stocks is the same. It is not about fundamental value, as hordes of finance industry automatons would have you believe; it is about taking advantage of other people. People with stars in their eyes who have inflated a bubble, and people consumed by fear, dumping stocks at any price. It's about inaccurate pricing, not accurate pricing. It's about timing. It's about selling stocks as a bubble bursts and buying them at peak distress. It's about exploiting the herd, not joining the herd.

As the Wolf of Wall Street says, investors are sheep, and sheep are for slaughter. Be the Wolf. Be Alex.

DISCLAIMER: This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute personal financial advice. Please consider your own circumstances or seek professional advice before making investment decisions.

Funds operated by this manager:

Marcus Today Equity Income SMA, Marcus Today Growth SMA

10k Words

Equitable Investors

June 2025

---

Apparently, Confucius did not say "One Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words" after all. It was an advertisement in a 1920s trade journal for the use of images in ads on the sides of streetcars...

Fund managers liking Europe over US; ASX defence thematic flying high; defence spend growth v AI capex; Australasian M&A flying but Aussie business conditions flagging as government spend drives economy; global M&A multiples; hedge funds back in favour; "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO) and the path of the effective US tariff rate.

Fund managers' positioning v. history (net % overweight)

 

Source: Bank of America Fund Manager Survey June 2025

---

Relative price action of ASX defence-exposed stocks & VanEck Global Defence ETF (DFND)

 

Source: Equitable Investors, Koyfin

---

Global defence spending 2020-2024

 

Source: Franklin Templeton, International Institute of Strategic Studies

---

Impact of higher defence spend on level of EU real GDP

 

Source: European Commission

---

Big Tech's capital expenditure driven by AI investment ($US billion)

 

Source: Financial Times

---

Australasia M&A in USD by quarter

 

Source: WSJ, LSEG

---

Australasia M&A in USD by sector

 

Source: WSJ, LSEG

---

NAB business survey show Aus business conditions declining

 

Source: IFM, NAB

 

---

Median global buyout entry multiples (purchase price / EBITDA)

 

Source: McKinsey, @MebFaber

---

Hedge funds experience strongest quarter of net flows since 2021

 

Source: with.intelligence

---

"Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO) stories on the Bloomberg terminal

Source: Bloomberg

---

The shifting effective tarrif rate on US imports (percentage points)

Source: Apollo Global Management

June 2025 Edition

Funds operated by this manager:

Equitable Investors Dragonfly Fund

Disclaimer

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Fund returns are quoted net of all fees, expenses and accrued performance fees. Delivery of this report to a recipient should not be relied on as a representation that there has been no change since the preparation date in the affairs or financial condition of the Fund or the Trustee; or that the information contained in this report remains accurate or complete at any time after the preparation date. Equitable Investors Pty Ltd (EI) does not guarantee or make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information in this report. To the extent permitted by law, EI disclaims all liability that may otherwise arise due to any information in this report being inaccurate or information being omitted. This report does not take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situation and needs of potential investors. Before making a decision to invest in the Fund the recipient should obtain professional advice. This report does not purport to contain all the information that the recipient may require to evaluate a possible investment in the Fund. The recipient should conduct their own independent analysis of the Fund and refer to the current Information Memorandum, which is available from EI.

Market Mechanics: Japan's 40-Year Bond Auction -

A Weak Signal for Long-End Demand

Ardea Investment Management

May 2025

Funds operated by this manager:

Ardea Australian Inflation Linked Bond Fund , Ardea Real Outcome Fund

Important Information

This material has been prepared by Ardea Investment Management Pty Limited (ABN 50 132 902 722 AFSL 329 828) (Ardea IM) for wholesale investors only. It is general information only and is not intended to provide you with financial advice or take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. To the extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage as a result of any reliance on this information. Any projections are based on assumptions which we believe are reasonable but are subject to change and should not be relied upon. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Neither any particular rate of return nor capital invested are guaranteed.

Beginning of the End or End of the Beginning?

Alphinity Investment Management 

June 2025

It's hard to imagine a world where Apple and Google (Alphabet) aren't dominant. These two tech giants have been at the centre of our digital lives for nearly two decades - Apple through its control of the smartphone ecosystem, and Google through its command of online search. But history reminds us that no company, no matter how dominant, is completely immune to disruption. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) could pose the greatest threat these businesses have ever faced and opens a plausible path for this dominance to be challenged.

Google's Grip on Search Is Under Threat

Google has long enjoyed an unshakable position in internet search, capturing more than 90% of global market share. But this near monopoly is no longer as impregnable as it once was. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT and newer players like Perplexity introduces a very different way to access information - one that doesn't rely on the traditional "10 blue links" model of search.

These AI systems offer more direct, conversational answers. They aggregate information across sources and present it in a more human and contextual way. For many types of queries, particularly research, how-tos, and summaries, they can be faster and more useful than Google. And these new LLM's are beginning to take their conversational interface into commercial search, the very core of Google's business. If users increasingly turn to LLMs for commercial queries, ad revenue will begin to migrate with this shift in engagement.

This is important as Search advertising revenue is circa 57% of Google total revenue, and given the high margin attached to it, this would translate into > 80% of Google profitability. While Youtube, Cloud and Waymo are quality and growing businesses, the key to the future value of Google remains inextricably tied to Search and this is currently under threat.

Google is investing heavily in AI through its Gemini platform, but the challenge it faces is not just technological - it's structural. Shifting its business to meet the new paradigm of Ai summaries could cannibalise its existing ad revenues. In short, Google has to disrupt itself while fending off nimbler rivals that don't carry the same baggage - the ultimate "innovators dilemma". To date these moves have been tentative leaving the door ajar for competitive displacement.

Apple's Ecosystem Fortress Is Showing Cracks

Apple's dominance has long rested on two powerful pillars: its tightly integrated hardware led by the iPhone (which still accounts for more than 50% of revenue), and its faster growing, high-margin services business. Together, they form one of the most valuable consumer ecosystems ever built. But both sides of this ecosystem are now facing meaningful threats from technological disruption, compounded by regulatory pressure.

On the technology front, Apple looks to be slipping behind in the race to define the next user interface. As AI becomes central to how we interact with devices - through voice agents and intelligent assistants - Apple's core interface in Siri is lagging badly. While rivals like Open Ai, Meta and Perplexity are rapidly advancing conversational AI, Apple's Siri updates are continually delayed, with the next major upgrade now not reportedly arriving until 2027. If new device platforms emerge that are built around AI-first interaction, Apple's dominance in hardware could be challenged. We are already seeing a potential alternate device state emerge in glasses, with Meta in development with Essilor Luxottica and Google announcing a deal with Warby Parker. The acquisition by Open Ai of Apple alumni Jony Ive's Ai hardware startup "io" is another strand in the intensifying Ai device competitive landscape.

At the same time, Apple's services business is under legal scrutiny. Regulators in the U.S. are seeking to block its multibillion-dollar search deal with Google; a move that could curtail a major source of annual revenue and earnings. Court documents have put this payment at around $25bnpa or 6% of revenue. Meanwhile, pressure is mounting globally to force Apple to open its App Store to alternative payment systems and third-party downloads, weakening its ability to charge developers a 30% commission (often called the "Apple tax"). Coupled together we have approx. $55bn of high margin Apple Services revenue under threat from a tightening regulatory landscape.

Together, these risks suggest that Apple's once-unshakeable ecosystem is increasingly vulnerable. Just as Apple rose to power during the mobile revolution, the shift toward AI at a time of greater regulatory interventions could open the door for new competitors to disrupt both its hardware and services businesses.

Lessons from History

While it is difficult to imagine a world where Google and Apple are not dominant, the technology sector is littered with examples of once-dominant firms that failed to adapt to technology platform shifts:

• IBM was the world's most valuable company in 1980 but lost its lead as computing moved from mainframes to PCs and then to the cloud.
• Cisco and Intel were titans of the early internet era but struggled as the center of innovation shifted to software and mobile.
• Nokia and BlackBerry were synonymous with mobile phones until Apple's iPhone and Google's Android completely upended consumer demand.

The birth of the internet gave rise to today's giants. The birth of AI may, in turn, create the conditions for new leaders to emerge - or for today's leaders to stumble.

What This Means for Investors

As an investor it's tempting to stick with the familiar and extrapolate what we currently see. Apple and Google have delivered years of strong returns and are still generating exorbitant levels of free cash. But dominance in tech is rarely permanent. Disruption often starts with tiny cracks and by the time it is more obvious, the market has already repriced the winners and losers.

Now this doesn't mean it is definitely "over" for these two giants. They have faced substantial risks before and managed to morph their business to adapt to the prevailing conditions. And there are competing, more positive narratives that the breadth of Google services and depth of Ai skills can see it emerge as an Ai winner while Apple can position as the "on-ramp" for consumer Ai engagement. But for the first time in a while the wind seems to be more in these companies' faces, and while still uncertain, a path to a substantial weakening of the Apple and Google businesses is beginning to open-up. As such a more cautious view on these companies is warranted, and it means staying highly attuned to shifts in user behaviour, the adoption of AI tools, and focusing on where the innovation is really happening.

The companies that succeed in the AI era may look very different from those that have succeeded in the internet era and the potential weakening of Apple and Google could create the space for an Ai native trillion-dollar company to emerge.

Funds operated by this manager:

Alphinity Australian Share Fund , Alphinity Concentrated Australian Share Fund , Alphinity Sustainable Share Fund , Alphinity Global Equity Fund , Alphinity Global Sustainable Equity Fund

This material has been prepared by Alphinity Investment Management ABN 12 140 833 709 AFSL 356 895 (Alphinity). It is general information only and is not intended to provide you with financial advice or take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. To the extent permitted by law, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage as a result of any reliance on this information. Any projections are based on assumptions which we believe are reasonable but are subject to change and should not be relied upon. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Neither any particular rate of return nor capital invested are guaranteed.