Our open positions include positions in two commodities: gold and wheat.
Gold is in a very attractive position for a host of reasons. Many governments are acquiring gold to be held in their national reserves. Worldwide, many countries are working to expand liquidity and lower interest rates in order to stimulate economic activity and shepherd their banks through a very difficult deleveraging process. This is being done largely through what we like to call “QE-E”: QE Everywhere.
In the U.S., the current administration wants to raise taxes on investment income, and the wealthy are looking for assets that can produce long-term capital gains. The knowledge is growing among investors worldwide that their political leaders are not going to opt for fiscally and monetarily responsible policies. Rather, politi-cians will continue doing what they have been doing in the U.S. and many other countries: carry on the cha-rade that the ‘social welfare’ model can be successful long-term. In an example of flagrant chutzpah, politi-cians in Japan, Europe, and the U.S. are telling their people that it is OK to run trillion dollar annual deficits. Meanwhile, Europe’s 60-year experiment with a social welfare economic model is collapsing under the weight of budget deficits, and in doing so is displaying its feet of clay to the world. Both short and long-term-orient-ed investors seeing this obvious outcome are seeking the security and safety of gold.
We address the outlook for gold in greater detail below in the section entitled August 15, 1971.
Wheat prices have been under pressure for a few months because of U.S. government statistics calling for very large grain production in the current growing season. We do not believe that the U.S. government data is correct. This year’s Latin American grain crops will be impacted by drought, and European and Asian wheat production may possibly be impacted by the very cold weather that both have experienced this winter.
We believe that wheat is an attractive long-term investment for several reasons. First, billions of citizens in the developing world are demanding higher quality food and more animal protein, which is increasing the long-term demand for feed grains: corn, wheat, and soybeans. Second, there is an expanding use of corn, sugar, and other grains to produce energy. Finally, the fact that the arable land under cultivation is growing at
a much slower rate than the demand for food is growing. This means that more productivity per hectare must be realized. The inputs to achieve productivity boosts are: more efficient farming, better transportation and storage infrastructure, and more fertilizers. Since we anticipate demand to continue to grow at a very fast rate for at least the next two decades, we believe that declines in wheat prices provide a long-term buying opportunity.
August 15, 1971
The following historical comparison is offered as a possible guide to the future. We see parallels between the actions of the U.S. government on August 15, 1971 and current actions by central banks around the globe.
August 15, 1971 was an important date for the United States. It was on that date that President Richard Nixon closed the gold window. From 1944 up to that date, the U.S. dollar had been fully or partially convertible into gold. A foreign central bank tendering dollars to the U.S. could convert it into gold at a fixed exchange rate.
This convertibility was a key component of the status that the U.S. dollar gained as the world’s primary reserve currency. So, when Nixon made his August 15, 1971 decision, the financially well-informed — who had savings to protect — saw it as a strong signal to buy gold, commodities, and U.S. stocks.
Why would well-informed investors want to buy these investment instruments? They feared that the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar would erode since it was no longer going to be backed by, or convertible into, a tangible asset. After August 1971, U.S. financial authorities were no longer constrained by having to buy gold whenever they printed new dollars. Since the world’s gold supply grows very slowly, the pre-August 1971 gold standard required slow and modest money supply growth. When no backing was needed, there was nothing stopping the U.S. government from printing money at whatever rate was deemed appropriate by its financial establishment. And so the printing began.
Are We Entering a Period Like the Decade from 1971 to 1980 for Gold, Stocks, and Oil?
Smart investors looked to put their savings into assets that could appreciate. Once strictures on money printing were removed in August 1971, money printing led to a great deal of liquidity in the financial system. This liquidity found its way into housing and commodities, and soon the prices of housing and commodities including food, gasoline, and apparel, were rising. The consumer noticed the rising costs some time before actual government inflation measures began to rise vigorously in the second half of the 70’s. Higher inflation led investors to look for investments that would keep up with or exceed inflation. This search created an even better market for companies which could grow faster than inflation, as well as commodities, real estate, and collectibles which proved to be good hedges against inflation.
Once the U.S. government was free to print money in fall of 1971, the U.S. stock market, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, went down for a few months. However, by December of that year, it began to move up rapidly until it hit a top in January 1973. Then, for two years, from 1973 to 1974, the Watergate scandal and the recession that swamped the country dominated the market news. It wasn’t until October and December of 1974 that the market bottomed, taking stocks to extremely undervalued levels. From this low level, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was volatile but moved higher nonetheless, rising 85 percent by early 1976. In less than a year and half, it rose by over 80 percent.
Gold & Oil
In contrast to the market, gold started its rally immediately. In August of 1971 it was about $42 per ounce in the cash market, and after Nixon’s announcement it reached about $200 per ounce. Then, at the end of 1974, a cor-rection began which lasted until August 1976. At that juncture gold bottomed at $100 per ounce and began its long and volatile run to about $870 per ounce in January 1980. It had some periods of insane volatility, but by 1980 gold had risen twenty-fold.
Oil started the 1970’s at under $2 per barrel. It began its big move up in 1974, going from below $5 per barrel to nearly $40 per barrel by the end of the decade, an eight-fold increase.
Guide to Investments
What is noteworthy about this historical perspective? Stocks, gold, and oil all rose as a result of money printing. Two main points to highlight are:
- Stocks and gold responded first, by rising within the first few months. Of course gold, which had been
undervalued since its price was fixed in 1944 for government transactions, had a lot of catching up to do. Oil rose too, but its rise started later. Ultimately, the rallies in gold and oil passed the major stock averages by a large margin. However, keep in mind that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) represents a small group of large, well-established companies. Many smaller growth companies, as well as those companies in real estate, metals, oil, and gold mining did much better than the DJIA for the decade. So in the broader picture; during the 1970’s, growing stocks, stocks in commodity-related industries, gold, and oil all did very well.
- Markets during the decade trended up, but were volatile. The wise course of action was to buy a core position, hold it, then buy a smaller portion of that core position with which to take profits on spikes and buy on dips.
Gold stocks, oil stocks, growth companies, commodity-oriented stocks, and real estate-oriented stocks all did much better than the stock market averages in the months and years after August 1971. Gold bullion, oil, and minerals also did much better than the stock market averages. The rise in every one of these investment areas began after it became obvious to the investment world that there were no restrictions on money creation by U.S. financial authorities.
Today, we are in a similar situation. Any alert observer must be aware that not only in the U.S. but currencies around the world are being debased as governments provide liquidity. We believe that this will lead to a rise in the prices of many assets including stocks, especially those in the same industries that outperformed in the 1970’s. We believe that in this case, history will be a good guide for the future, and we expect to see all of the sectors that did well in the 1970’s to once again outperform in the current decade.
U.S. Dollar is the Linchpin
The U.S. dollar is the linchpin to our strategy. If the U.S. dollar has a strong decade ahead, our thesis will be wrong. However, we expect that the dollar will continue its pattern of the last several decades, and it will
once again fall versus the currencies of better-managed countries.
A few main points highlighting why we believe the U.S. dollar will continue to fall:
- The Federal Reserve wants a lower dollar. Their zero interest rate policy indicates this desire.
- S. exporters are putting pressure on political powers in Washington for a weaker U.S. dollar.
- A lower dollar will help the U.S. more easily pay back its trillions of dollars in foreign debt. Depreciated dollars lessen the impact of this external debt.
Which Industries Will be Helped, Which Will be Hurt by a Lower U.S. Dollar?
Manufacturing, farming, forestry, metals and mining, technology, and processing industries would benefit from a lower dollar. Why? Because a devalued dollar means more competitive pricing relative to foreign producers and service providers.
Those industries most hurt by a weak dollar would be industries that import foreign goods for sale in the U.S., especially luxury goods, and those industries that have higher costs for imported raw materials would see their margins suffer.
European Sovereign Debt
Let Uncooperative Countries Leave the Euro
After a lot of whining, Greece has agreed, at least in principle, to take some bitter medicine. Until now, we’ve refrained from commenting on Greece’s repeated misrepresentations of its financial condition to the
European community. But the fact is, the European Union has put up with a lot of guff from the Greek government for a decade, and it’s high time that the country is called to account for its financial truancy. We are of the opinion that the best thing for the world economy is for Europe to let any country that refuses to conform to necessary austerity measures drop out of the common Euro currency. Those countries that refuse to act responsibly should be allowed to reap the consequences of their behavior. Allow their bonds to collapse, and let the country survive with its own devalued currency. There is no reason for other European citizens to bear the burden of another country’s irresponsibility. Austerity may be a bitter pill, but it works. Even more bitter is the reality of what will happen if remedial actions are not taken. Continued stubbornness to change will have even greater consequences down the road.
As other nations witness the depth of the suffering caused by such stubbornness, we believe they will be inspired to take on the austerity measures needed to save their own economies from plummeting. The hardship caused by austerity measures is small compared to the standard of living collapse caused by unchecked irresponsibility. The countries that agree to conform to the requirements will see their finances stabilize more quickly.
Ireland, presents an example of a country that has taken its medicine and implemented very conservative fiscal measures. It has not been easy. The business and job market has suffered, but there are signs that the Irish economy has begun to turn around. While the European Central Bank (ECB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other organizations could be praising and applauding Ireland, they are instead attending to Greece, which has been obstinate and irresponsible, yet is getting all the attention and handouts.
Even though the saga is far from over, it will not be the disaster that many television pundits project. As long as the ECB (and other central banks) continue to provide liquidity to the banks that hold Greek bonds, the Greek crisis should not collapse the banking system. Not only do the central banks need to provide liquidity to the banking system, Europe needs to stop lending Greece money. The total amount of Greek debt is currently less than 350 billion Euros, but if Greece keeps getting loans and support, this sum will grow, and the problem will become more difficult to deal with.
It doesn’t really matter which country is failing to repay sovereign debt. What matters is that banks continue to have enough liquidity to withstand the losses that they will take on the defaulting nations’ debt. We see two options for handling the problem of sovereign defaults:
- Repeatedly bail out miscreant countries, and send the message to others with similar tendencies that this is acceptable, or
- Allow uncooperative nations to default on their own bonds, but keep the European banks solid with funds from the ECB and other sources.
In our opinion, option two is not only the recipe for ultimate success, it requires less time and less money.
Missing Customer Money
Last Week, the Amount of Client Funds Missing at MF Global was $1.2 Billion; this Week it’s Up to $1.6 Billion
This $1.6 billion in customer funds is in addition to billions owed by bankrupt MF Global to banks and other
brokers. James Giddens, the trustee for the MF Global bankruptcy, stated last week that he was having difficulty getting money back for U.S. customers from KPMG — the court-appointed administrator for MF Global’s British arm. British MF Global is holding the customer money of U.S. citizens who traded on foreign exchanges. This is disturbing, as it bears a similarity to the cross-border fights that occurred during and after Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy in 2008. In that case, depositor assets were trapped overseas, and the issue has yet to be resolved…three years after bankruptcy was filed. How long will MF Global clients have to wait to get their money?
Lehman and MF Global should serve as lessons for investors everywhere. More care should be exercised when reading the account-opening agreement and margin provisions before depositing money with any institution. Even though knowledge of the asset protections does not guarantee against losses, it is incumbent upon the depositor to be aware of the risks and exposures he/she undertakes.
A Free Service for Our Gold Subscribers
The concern over MF Global customers’ missing money presents more reason than ever to have your lawyers review the legal documents of the custodians of your investment funds. If you are a Gold Subscriber, feel free to contact us. We are happy to share with you what our own attorneys have suggested after reviewing the legal documents of many banks and brokers.
In our continuing search for investable trends, we will highlight and share with our readers some areas that we
identify as potentially attractive. This week, we touch upon the healthy food movement in the developed world.
When it comes to determining what will go into their bodies, more and more people are paying top dollar for what they believe to be more nourishing, wholesome, natural foods.
In the past decade, natural and organic grocers, health food stores, and organic food cooperatives have proliferated throughout North America and Europe. Shopping natural
has gone mainstream with over 20,000 dedicated natural food stores and uncountable locally grown farm-to-consumer outlets in North America alone.
Initially, healthy food consumers were found in upper-income demographics, but as competition and distri-bution networks grow, health food is steadily becoming more accessible to people of all income levels. And with the growing epidemic of obesity in the U.S., especially in children, there is a growing public concern that healthy, whole fruits and vegetables be available to a larger portion of the population.
In addition to the retail outlets that specialize in natural and organic products, the large grocery chains are re-sponding to consumer demand by dedicating more shelf space to natural foods and healthier products. The big chain stores have noticed that natural foods typically carry higher gross margins for the retailer. Even the large multinational food processing companies — who, for years, stuffed U.S. store shelves with fatty, starchy, salty, and sugary fare — are gradually adding more health-conscious additions to their stock.
In the U.S., nearly $500 billion will be spent on groceries this year. Over $30 billion of that is expected to be spent on organic food. According to the Organic Trade Association, that is up from about $1 billion spent on organic food in 1990. It is easy to impress investors with 30-fold growth in 21 years.
Throughout the developed world, organic and natural food products are selling well as an aging middle class educates itself about diet and nutrition. But, it is not just the search for the fountain of youth that is driving this food trend. Younger generations are even more likely to shop organic than the middle-aged consumers. In Thomson Reuters’ June 2011 NPR Health Poll, an annual survey of over 100,000 American households, 62.8 percent of respondents under the age of 35 preferred to eat organic foods. 60.8 percent of respondents age 35 to 64 preferred organic. The oldest demographic of Americans seem less interested, as fewer than 45 percent of those over the age of 65 said they preferred organic foods.
In spite of higher prices of organic food, 56 percent of lower income households (those under $25,000 in annual income) responding to the survey still preferred to eat organic if given the option.
The healthy food trend is two-pronged: people want fewer toxins in their food and people are becoming more interested in the sources of the foods they eat.
The same Thomson Reuters study found that almost half the people preferring organic cited their desire to encourage more locally grown food. Consumers want to know where their food is coming from. This may help reverse the trend of small, local farms not being able to compete with the prices of the large corporate-owned mega-farms.
More & More U.S. Citizens Reject Pesticides, Antibiotics, & Hormones in their Food
Currently, the country is experiencing a shortage of organic milk, as dairy consumers grow more conscious of the negative health impacts of pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones. Perhaps the most famous of the growth hormones is rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone. rBGH is a genetically modified (GM) hor-mone used for the purpose of stimulating greater milk production. The public is demanding more organic milk. However, the challenge faced by farmers is that producing organic milk requires feeding all organic — pesticide-free and genetically modified-free — feed to their herd, and not milking cows while and for a period after the cows have received antibiotics. It is difficult for farmers to find organic grain to feed their dairy herds, and their output of organic milk is less since they are not using hormones to stimulate milk production. All these factors combine to create demand for organic milk, and in spite of higher retail prices, organic milk prices are rising rapidly.
In its Quest for Improved Food Yield, Has Technology Sacrificed Food Quality?
In their rush to feed the world (and generate profits), scientists, especially at a few large multinational compa-nies like Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Syngenta, and Dow Chemical, have been tinkering with nature’s balance.
Their goal? To engineer seeds and plants that are more pest resistant, drought resistant, more attractive, better tasting, and/or more resistant to the use of herbicides. The scientists’ genetic modifications are designed to alter the DNA structure of the plant so as to produce desired effects at maturity. The companies hiring these scien-tists are the same companies that sell the products — genetically altered seeds — to farmers.
After almost two decades of aggressive promoting and commercialization, 80 percent of the genetically modified food production comes from just four countries: the U.S., Brazil, Canada, and Argentina.
The Western Hemisphere dominates in genetically modified acreage
…but the U.S. produces the most GM crop…
…and eats the most GM food varieties
Not Everybody Embraces this Biotechnology
The nations in the European Union have fought against the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) since they burst onto the scene in the 1990’s. Europeans are among the most skeptical about the safety of the foods created by people in lab coats, which are supported politically and pushed through government approval processes.
Although there has not been a loud cry against GMOs in the four big GM-producing countries, other countries’ citizens have voiced their concerns about their long-term unintended consequences. Last August, India sued Monsanto for ‘biopiracy’, claiming that Monsanto’s genetically engineered version of their native eggplant, the brinjal, were contaminating the country’s supply. China approved studying GM rice in 2009, but has yet to approve its introduction into the Chinese food supply. Nonetheless, illegal GM rice has been found in several Chinese provinces.
Nowhere has the anti-GM food battle been as successful as in Europe. In the latest victory, Germany’s BASF, the world’s biggest chemical company, announced last month that they were abandoning plans to develop and commercialize genetically modified food in Europe due to opposition from “the majority of customers, farmers, and politicians”.
Despite broader support for GM foods in the U.S., the country still has its share of detractors. We anticipate litigation on the subject of genetic modification will dot the headlines for decades.
An item worth watching will be an important court decision in the GM versus non-GM fight next month. A consortium of organic and small farmers is taking on an agricultural biotech giant, Monsanto. The growers want protection from Monsanto’s royalty claims and infringement suits should the farmers’ non-GM crops be unintentionally contaminated with Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds through natural pollination. Monsanto wants the farmers’ case thrown out.
Monsanto has proven to be a formidable force in the U.S. courts over farmers, food companies, and consumer groups. It has also been successful in Washington, D.C., getting the U.S. to approve more and more varieties of GM grains and vegetables and in getting regulators to not require GM foods to be labeled as such. Monsanto’s strategy has been so successful that shoppers cannot, by reading the label, distinguish GM from non-GM food. Some estimate that over 80 percent of items in traditional U.S. supermarkets contain GM ingredients.
As investors, and as people who have to eat and feed our children, we are compelled to monitor the global food fight closely.
We remain bullish on the same investment areas. Although we do not see an end to the current rally in the near term, after the markets’ recent rise we do expect to see pullbacks that could be used as buying opportunities. To see the recommendations, see the Recommendation Tracker.
Please click the graphic below
5—116,530 shares of Golar LNG (NYSE: GLNG) was purchased between December 2nd, 2011 and January 11th, 2012 between a price range of $43.5017-$46.1647, there was one sale of 15,000 shares on January 11th, 2012 at $44.1006.
General Disclosures about this Newsletter
The publisher of this newsletter is Guild Investment Management, Inc. (GIM or Guild), an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. GIM manages the accounts of high net worth individuals, investment partnerships, trusts and estates, pension and profit sharing plans, and corporations, among other clients.
Your receipt of this newsletter does not create a personal investment advisory relationship with GIM although some recipients may also be advisory clients of GIM. GIM has written investment advisory agreements with all its personal advisory clients, which sets forth the nature of that relationship.
The newsletter makes general observations about markets and business and financial trends and may provide advice about specific companies and specific investments. It does not give personal investment advice tailored to the needs, objectives, and circumstances of individual readers. Whether investment ideas and recommendations are suitable for individual readers depends substantially on the personal and financial situation of that reader, which GIM, as the publisher of the newsletter, makes no effort to investigate.
GIM attempts to provide accurate content in its newsletters to the extent such content is factual rather than analysis and opinion, but GIM relies primarily on information compiled or reported by third parties and does not generally attempt to independently verify or investigate such information. Moreover, some content and some of the assumptions, formulas, algorithms and other data that affect the content may be inaccurate, outdated, or otherwise flawed. GIM does not guarantee or take responsibility for the accuracy of such information.
Please note that investing in stocks, other securities, and commodities is inherently risky, and you should rely on your personal financial advisors and conduct your own due diligence in connection with any investment decision.
A Special Comment for Guild’s Clients
If you are an investment advisory client of GIM who is receiving this newsletter, please note that the fact that a general recommendation is made of a particular security, commodity, or investment area to its newsletter sub-scribers does not mean that investment is suitable for you or should be purchased by you. For example, GIM may already have purchased such securities on your behalf or purchased securities in the same industry (and an increase in the position for you may represent too much concentration in one security or industry), or GIM may believe the investment is not suitable for you based on your risk tolerance or other factors. If you have ques-tions about the recommendations in this newsletter in relation to your account at GIM, please contact Monty Guild or Tony Danaher.
Conflicts of Interest
As of the date of this newsletter, GIM’s investment advisory clients or GIM’s principals owned positions in ar-eas that are the subject of current recommendations, commentary, analysis, opinions, or advice, contained in this newsletter. GIM’s advisory clients or principals are currently long U.S. and foreign equities. Guild Investment Management (acting for its clients) and/or Guild’s principals, purchased 116,530 shares of Golar LNG (NYSE: GLNG) between December 2, 2011 and January 11, 2012 at prices between $43.5017 and $46.1674. Guild also sold 15,000 shares of GLNG on January 11, 2012 at $44.1006. Guild Investment Management (acting for its clients) and/or Guild’s principals, purchased 116,300 shares of iShares MSCI Brazil Index Fund (NYSE: EWZ) between February 1, 2012 and February 7, 2012 at prices between $67.089 and $68.779. Guild Invest-ment Management (acting for its clients) and/or Guild’s principals, purchased 70,700 shares of Technology Se-lect Sector SPDR Fund (NYSE: XLK) on February 6, 2012 and February 9, 2012 at prices between $27.6796 and $28.28. They also hold positions in U.S. and foreign market ETFs, emerging market ETFs, gold ETFs and gold mining ETFs, precious metal mining shares, and foreign currencies.
GIM and its principals have certain conflicts of interest in its relations with its investment advisory clients and its newsletter subscribers resulting from GIM or its principals holding positions for its clients or themselves which are also recommended to its clients. GIM may change the positions of its clients or GIM’s principals may change their positions (increasing, decreasing, and eliminating them) based on GIM’s best judgment at any given time, including the time of publication of the newsletter. Factors that lead GIM to change or eliminate its positions may include general market developments, factors specific to the issuer, or the needs of GIM or its advisory clients. From time to time GIM’s investing goals on behalf of its investment advisory clients or the personal investing goals of GIM’s principals and their risk tolerance may be different from those discussed in the newsletter, and the investment decisions made by GIM for its advisory clients or the investment decisions of its principals may vary from (and may even be contrary to) the advice and recommendations in the newsletter.
In addition, GIM or its principals may reduce or eliminate their positions in an investment that is recommended in the newsletter prior to notifying the newsletter subscribers of such a reduction or elimination. The publication by GIM of a “target price” or “stop loss” for a particular security or other asset does not necessarily represent the price at which GIM intends to sell or will sell any such assets for its advisory clients or the price at which GIM’s principals intend to sell any such assets.
As a consequence of the conflict of interest, GIM’s clients or principals may benefit if newsletter subscribers purchase assets recommended by GIM since it could increase the value of the assets already held by GIM’s investment advisory clients or GIM’s principals. On the other hand, GIM’s principals and clients may suffer a detriment if they seek to acquire additional shares in securities that have been recommended and the price of the securities has increased as a result of purchases by newsletter subscribers.
To help mitigate these conflicts, GIM seeks to avoid recommending the securities of individual companies where GIM or its principals have an ownership position and where the issuer is small or its securities are thinly traded−that way sales by GIM in advance of possible sales by newsletter subscribers would not be likely to cause any significant decrease in the sale price to newsletter subscribers. GIM has a fiduciary relationship with its investment advisory clients and cannot agree on behalf of such clients to refrain from purchases or sales of a security mentioned in the newsletter for a period of time before or after recommendations for purchases or sales are made to its newsletter subscribers.
GIM encourages you to do independent research on the securities or other assets discussed or recommended in the newsletter prior to making any investment decisions and to be especially cautious of investments in small, thinly-traded companies, which are usually the most risky investments that you can make.
Disclaimer of Liability
GIM disclaims any liability for investment decisions based upon recommendations, information, or opinions in its newsletters. GIM is not soliciting you to execute any trade. Nothing contained in GIM’s newsletters is intended to be, nor shall it be construed as an offer to buy or sell securities or to give individual investment ad-vice. The information in the newsletter is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation, or which would subject GIM to any registration requirement within such jurisdiction or country.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: PRINT ONCE —- DO NOT FORWARD—-DO NOT COPY
Guild’s current and past market commentaries are protected by U.S. and International copyright laws. All rights reserved. You must not copy, frame, modify, transmit, further distribute, or use the market commentaries, without the prior written consent of Guild. This email or any download from a secure website is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this email in error, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is similarly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message from your system. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Guild Investment Management for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distri-bution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message from your system. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Guild Invest-ment Management for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. Thank You.