Seeking Alpha

Kendall J. Ande...'s  Instablog

Kendall J. Anderson, CFA
Send Message
Kendall J. Anderson, CFA is the founder and President of Anderson Griggs Investments. Anderson Griggs manages equity only and balanced separate accounts from Rock Hill, South Carolina. Kendall was recognized by Money Manager Review as the number 1 large cap growth manager for 2004. His... More
My company:
Anderson Griggs Investments
View Kendall J. Anderson, CFA's Instablogs on:
  • John Templeton's 22 Maxims For Investors And 6 Factors For Analysts

    John Templeton was one of the greatest mutual fund managers of the 20th century. The Templeton Growth Fund was established in 1954. From then until Mr. Templeton sold the fund in 1992, a $10,000 investment with dividends and capital gains reinvested would have grown to $2 million.

    Much of what Mr. Templeton shared through his writings and interviews found its way into my own approach to portfolio management. He paid very little attention to the markets, concentrating instead on buying companies throughout the world that were bargains. If bargains were not available, he would hold as much as 50% of his portfolio in cash, knowing that opportunities to invest would become available in the near future. He held on to companies for an average of four years. If his analysis was right, he would earn a "double play" profit from both increased earnings and a higher multiple of those earnings.

    Mr. Templeton died in July 2008 at the age of 95. His wisdom and guidance deserves to be remembered. In 1983, William Proctor published The Templeton Touch and provided us with Mr. Templeton's maxims for individual investors.

    John Templeton's 22 Maxims for Investors

    1. For all long-term investors, there is only one objective - "maximum total real return after taxes."
    2. Achieving a good record takes much study and work, and is a lot harder than most people think.
    3. It is impossible to produce a superior performance unless you do something different from the majority.
    4. The time of maximum pessimism is the best time to buy, and the time of maximum optimism is the best time to sell.
    5. To put "Maxim 4" in somewhat different terms, in the stock market the only way to get a bargain is to buy what most investors are selling.
    6. To buy when others are despondently selling and to sell when others are greedily buying requires the greatest fortitude, even while offering the greatest reward.
    7. Bear markets have always been temporary. Share prices turn upward from one to twelve months before the bottom of the business cycle.
    8. If a particular industry or type of security becomes popular with investors, that popularity will always prove temporary and, when lost, won't return for many years.
    9. In the long run, the stock market indexes fluctuate around the long-term upward trend of earnings per share.
    10. In free-enterprise nations, the earnings on stock market indexes fluctuate around the replacement book value of the shares of the index.
    11. If you buy the same securities as other people, you will have the same results of other people.
    12. The time to buy a stock is when the short-term owners have finished their selling, and the time to sell a stock is often when the short-term owners have finished their buying.
    13. Share prices fluctuate much more widely than values. Therefore, index funds will never produce the best total return performance.
    14. Too many investors focus on "outlook" and "trend." Therefore, more profit is made by focusing on value.
    15. If you search worldwide, you will find more bargains and better bargains than by studying only one nation. Also, you gain the safety of diversification.
    16. The fluctuation of share prices is roughly proportional to the square root of the price.
    17. The time to sell an asset is when you have found a much better bargain to replace it.
    18. When any method for selecting stocks becomes popular, then switch to unpopular methods. As has been suggested in "Maxim 3," too many investors can spoil any share-selection method or any market-timing formula.
    19. Never adopt permanently any type of asset or any selection method. Try to stay flexible, open minded and skeptical. Long-term top results are achieved only by changing from popular to unpopular the types of securities you favor and your methods of selection.
    20. The skill factor in selection is largest for the common-stock part of your investments.
    21. The best performance is produced by a person, not a committee.
    22. If you begin with prayer, you can think more clearly and make fewer stupid mistakes.

    John Train, in his excellent book The Money Masters, shared Mr. Templeton's advice on stock selection.

    John Templeton's Six Factors for Security Analysts

    1. The price-earnings ratio.
    2. Operating profit margins.
    3. Liquidating value.
    4. Consistency and growth rate of earnings.
    5. Flexibility.
    6. Don't trust rules and formulas.

    I want to draw your attention to these because I believe they have important implications for investors today. Although we can learn from each one, I particularly want to discuss the sixth factor, "Don't trust rules and formulas." Mr. Templeton employed these maxims and factors before the average person had access to a computer. Today, however, due to the low cost of computing power, formulaic investing has become a norm that is broadly promoted by brokers, investment advisors, and of course those on-line companies who assure you that a computer can manage your money better than any individual. In The Money Masters, Mr. Templeton shares a story that his former partner, from his original investment firm Templeton, Dobbrow & Vance, presented in lectures about investing. In the story, Vance warns the audience about relying upon formulas to select securities.

    Templeton's sometimes partner Vance, then an elderly man, used to enjoy lecturing about investments. Part of his kit was a huge chart plotted on a roll of wrapping paper. It was so big that during his lectures he would have to get a volunteer from the audience to help him unroll it and put it on the wall. This chart plotted the market for the previous twenty years. Then there were different squiggly lines representing the various factors that influence it - industrial production, money supply and so on. One squiggly line was best of all. It worked perfectly. Year after year if you had followed it you could have known where the market was headed and made a killing. When the audience, fascinated, demanded to know what it represented, Mr. Vance told them. It was the rate his hens were laying, in the chicken coop in back of his house.

    Virtually every formula I have ever seen is based on some historical relationship between one or a multitude of factors that proves, without a doubt, if you had just made your investments according to that formula, you would be rich today. Of course, in order for you to get rich based on these past relationships, the future would have to unfold identically to the past.

    It is rare for an investment advisor to work directly with an individual to build and maintain a portfolio of individual securities based on fundamental analysis. As rare as it is, we assure you that we will continue to offer this personal service to each of you for as long as we can.

    Until next time,

    Kendall J. Anderson, CFA

    ___________________________________________

    Anderson Griggs & Company, Inc., doing business as Anderson Griggs Investments, is a registered investment adviser. Anderson Griggs only conducts business in states and locations where it is properly registered or meets state requirement for advisors. This commentary is for informational purposes only and is not an offer of investment advice. We will only render advice after we deliver our Form ADV Part 2 to a client in an authorized jurisdiction and receive a properly executed Investment Supervisory Services Agreement. Any reference to performance is historical in nature and no assumption about future performance should be made based on the past performance of any Anderson Griggs' Investment Objectives, individual account, individual security or index. Upon request, Anderson Griggs Investments will provide to you a list of all trade recommendations made by us for the immediately preceding 12 months. The authors of publications are expressing general opinions and commentary. They are not attempting to provide legal, accounting, or specific advice to any individual concerning their personal situation. Anderson Griggs Investments' office is located at 113 E. Main St., Suite 310, Rock Hill, SC 29730. The local phone number is 803-324-5044 and nationally can be reached via its toll-free number 800-254-0874.

    Sep 30 12:49 PM | Link | Comment!
  • The Prudent Investor's Approach To Retirement Income

    Each day, ten thousand people reach the age where retirement is a possibility. For some the choice is optional, but for others it is mandatory. A lively debate is taking place among academics and professionals in the investment industry regarding what the proper approach is for meeting financial needs in retirement.

    We know that the majority of the average retiree's wealth consists of the value of their home and the balance of their 401(k) s and IRAs. Armed with this knowledge, much of the debate centers on the proper use of these assets to provide income. Should we suggest the sale of a house and downsizing? Should we suggest the use of a reverse mortgage? Should we offer annuities that guarantee lifetime income? Should we use an accepted model that mathematically determines the amount of distributions a retiree can safely draw on their portfolio? Should we suggest an age based approach, where the amount of money invested in bonds relative to stocks is based on age? Should we spend all our interest and dividends without touching principal?

    Outside of the academic debate, practitioners often recommend the approach that best meets the requirements of their agency. In simple terms, if they are primarily a mortgage banker, then a reverse mortgage makes the most sense. A realtor will surely want you to downsize. According to an insurance agent, annuities are the best. A financial planner with a bank of computers will verify that a fixed distribution rate based on probabilities is the appropriate approach. Admirers of Jack Bogel and Vanguard will follow Bogel's lead and age-weight money between stocks and bonds. Many individuals still hold on to the age old idea of separation of principal and interest.

    Not to be left out, investment counselors like ourselves are subject to this same problem. Each counseling firm believes they have an investment philosophy that is far superior to all others, whether they actually do or do not.

    The benefit to those who are near retirement or currently in retirement is that the debate itself will generate new ideas, new products, and new approaches towards solving the needs of retirees, and there will probably be reduced cost due to a highly competitive marketplace. But until these benefits are fully realized, individuals will have to make decisions today given today's choices.

    I have worked with retirees for over three decades, and I know that there is no universal solution to this problem. The solution is different for each individual. The only guarantee I can give our clients is that their financial needs will change with time, and that they will eventually breathe their last breath. Any investment approach that does not consider both of these facts, death and change, will not suffice. As the goals of retirees usually consist of both creating income now and of not running out of money before death, we don't need to look very hard to find guidance for this. These goals are similar to the goals of the vast majority of trust accounts with a life income beneficiary and a remainder beneficiary. Granted, some retirees are only concerned with their current needs and have no intent or need to pass on assets to another person or party. However, my experience has been that the vast majority of people do have a desire to spend some of their money and upon death, pass an estate on to a surviving spouse, children, relatives, or a charity.

    Trusts have been used by individuals for centuries to preserve and grow wealth in order to provide a livable income to current family members without destroying the capital that produces the income. This is the same goal of many of today's retirees. Because the goals are so similar, it seems logical to manage the financial assets of retirees in the same manner that trustees manage the financial assets of a trust. The duties of trustees have been set by law, tested in court proceedings, and modified by the courts over time as needed in order to meet the ongoing needs of both income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries. Because the trustee of every trust has a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust, and can be held personally liable for mismanagement of trust assets, a prudent approach is mandatory and enforced by the law. This approach, then, is a great guide for managing the assets of retirees.

    Current trustees in the state of South Carolina are bound by the South Carolina Uniform Prudent Investor Act when exercising their discretion over the investment of trust assets. South Carolina's Act is based on the Uniform Prudent Investor Act which is followed in part or in its entirety by the majority of states. The many reforms now included as part of this law were driven by the great inflation experienced in the 1960s and 70s, academic research providing a new understanding of the investment process, the globalization of markets, and the availability of new investment options.

    Because inflation has been absent from much of the conversation concerning retirement income, I thought I would share with you some commentary by F Philip Manns, Jr., a professor of Law at the Liberty University School of Law, on a court decision that led to The New Zealand Trustee Amendment Act of 1988. This Act led the common law world of trustee management investment standards away from the English law "legal list" approach to a "prudent person" standard favored in the United States. The prudent person standard revolves around the idea that trustees should invest in a portfolio designed to maximize income, minimize risk, and maintain impartiality between income and remainder beneficiaries.

    In its most narrow sense, Mulligan holds that the trustees failed their duty of impartiality by favouring the life income beneficiary over the remainder beneficiaries. The co-trustees, PGG Trust Limited (PGG) and Mrs. Mulligan, life income beneficiary and widow of the deceased settler, invested solely in fixed income securities, thereby preserving the nominal value of the trust property and not its real value. In 1965 when financial investment by the trust began, the trust property was $108,000; in 1990, when Mrs. Mulligan died, the trust property was $102,000. While the numbers of dollars of trust property (nominal amount) essentially was maintained throughout administration of the trust, inflation in New Zealand between 1965 and 1990 had been substantial. The inflation equivalent value of $108,000 in 1965 was $1,368,000 at the time of trial in Mulligan (In New Zealand dollars. The equivalent adjustment of $108,000 US dollars would be have been $540,000 over the same period of time. - My addition). Quite obviously, deciding whether the trustees were required to maintain either nominal value or "real value" would have dramatic consequences.

    By favoring the income beneficiary over the remainder beneficiaries, both parties were harmed. The remainder beneficiaries received the principal that would purchase less than 1/10th of what could have been purchased when the trust was funded. In addition, the income beneficiary earned a cash flow that lost its purchasing power over time in the same proportion.

    Currently, the memories of the most recent recession and the losses incurred to both real estate values and common stock values are affecting retiree decisions. They are choosing to invest their retirement nest egg into some form of income generating asset with a perceived guarantee of principal, without considering the possibility of changes over the next few decades. However, I can assure you that change will take place in all financial markets, and anyone who does not prepare for change will come to regret their actions.

    The Uniform Prudent Investor Act recognizes that the future will change. You can read the entirety of the Act at your leisure, but for now I want to highlight a few points from the South Carolina Code:

    Section (NYSE:C) (1) A trustee shall invest and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would by considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust. In satisfying this standard, the trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution.

    Section (C) (2) A trustee's investment and management decisions respecting individual assets must be evaluated not in isolation but in the context of the trust portfolio as a whole and as a part of an overall investment strategy having risk and return objectives reasonably suited to the trust.

    Section (C) (3) Among other circumstances provided in item (1) of this subsection which a trustee shall consider in investing and managing trust assets are such of the following as are relevant to the trust or its beneficiaries:

    (a) general economic conditions;

    (b) the possible effect of inflation or deflation;

    (c) the expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies;

    (d) the role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio, including financial assets, interest in closely held enterprises, tangible and intangible personal property, and real property;

    (e) the expected total return from income and the appreciation of capital;

    (f) other resources of the beneficiaries;

    (g) needs of liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation or appreciation of capital; and

    (h) an asset's special relationship or special value to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries.

    Section (C) (4) trustee shall make a reasonable effort to verify facts relevant to the investment and management of trust assets.

    Section (NYSE:D) A trustee shall diversify the investments of the trust unless the trustee reasonably determines that, because of special circumstances, the purposes of the trust are better served without diversifying.

    Section (NYSE:G) Compliance with the prudent investor rule is determined in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time of a trustee's decision or action and not by hindsight.

    Academics and investment practitioners will continue to search for one simple solution to meet the needs of current and future retirees. I don't believe this is possible unless a miracle happens and we are suddenly given the ability to tell the future with 100% accuracy. Until this gift of foresight is given to us, we all would be served better by concentrating on what we can control in the management of our financial assets, including our retirement funds. The list set forth in the Uniform Prudent Investors Act is a great guide in helping us accomplish this.

    Until next time,

    Kendall J. Anderson, CFA

    Tags: retirement, 401k, IRA
    Jul 07 10:38 AM | Link | Comment!
  • Views Of The Insane On Diversification

    "Building and staying with a broadly diversified portfolio is the only sane approach for long-term investors."

    I recently read this quote from Craig L. Israelsen, a Financial Planning contributing writer in Springville, Utah. Granted, I have never met, nor have I had any conversations with Mr. Israelsen, but he seems to be a competent professional. According to his bio, he is an executive in residence in the personal financial planning program in the Woodbury School of Business at Utah Valley University. However, his statement still bothers me a bit, as he is saying that any other investment approach must be insane.

    We all know the common sense version of diversification: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." This is a basic tenant of portfolio management. Yet the question of how many baskets we really need still remains. I will share my own views with you shortly, but first let's take a look at what a few others from the insane asylum have said about diversification over the years.

    Gerald Loeb

    Gerald Loeb rose to fame in the 1930's from his work with E.F. Hutton and from his book, The Battle for Investment Survival, first printed in 1935. Loeb was a media darling following the great crash of 1929 and shared his thoughts in short and simple phrases. When it came to diversification he said "The greatest safety lies in putting all your eggs in one basket and watching the basket." He also laid down his thoughts on asset allocation:

    I think most accounts have entirely too much diversification of the wrong sort and not enough of the right. I can see no point at all to a distribution of so much percent in oils, so much in motors, so much in rails, etc., nor do I see the point of dividing a fund from a quality angle of so much in "governments," and so on down the list to that so called very awful, speculative, non-dividend-paying common stock.

    Benjamin Graham

    In the year before Gerald Loeb's book was published, Benjamin Graham and David Dodd published Security Analysis. This book became the bible for the new field of security analysis, but it wasn't until Graham's book The Intelligent Investor was published in 1949 that individuals were exposed to the concept of value investing. Graham, unlike Gerald Loeb, saw the benefits of asset allocation for the conservative investor. He said, "The other side of the coin shows the advent of common stocks as an integral and important part of a sound investment program. The proportion of the total funds to be placed in common stocks will now range ordinarily from say, 20 percent to as high as 50 percent."

    In the last edition of The Intelligent Investor, he added this statement concerning the number of companies held in a defensive portfolio of common stocks: "There should be adequate though not excessive diversification. This might mean a minimum of ten different issues and a maximum of about thirty."

    Richard H. Jenrette

    In 1964, Dick Jenrette, a leader in the creation of standards for institutional investors and founder of Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette, the first publicly traded investment firm in the country, shared his views with the New York Society of Security Analysis in Portfolio Management: Seven Ways to Improve Performance. This is what he said regarding portfolio diversification:

    Over-diversification is probably the greatest enemy of portfolio performance. Most of the portfolios we look at have too many names. As a result, the impact of a good idea is negligible. Moreover, the greater the number of companies in the portfolio the more difficult it is for the fund manager to stay on top of developments affecting these companies. In our opinion, 25-30 companies is enough diversification even for a fund of $100 million. For a $1 million portfolio seeking to outperform the market, we believe the number of holdings might be as low as 10-15. We have yet to find an institutional investor who had more than 10-15 investment ideas that he really liked at a given time.

    Warren Buffett

    As we skip forward a couple of decades, a famous investor most of us know, Warren Buffett, had this to say about diversification: "Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing." He has also said "I can't be involved in 50 or 75 things. That's a Noah's Ark way of investing - you end up with a zoo that way. I like to put meaningful amounts of money in a few things."

    As to the benefits of risk reduction due to diversification, he shared this in his 1993 letter to shareholders:

    We believe that a policy of portfolio concentration may well decrease risk if it raises, as it should, both the intensity with which an investor thinks about a business and the comfort-level he must feel with its economic characteristics before buying into it. In stating this opinion, we define risk, using dictionary terms, as "the possibility of loss or injury."

    Jim Cramer

    Jim Cramer, the wildly popular host on CNBC's Mad Money, is no lightweight in the world of influencing investors. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and the author of several very successful books on investing. He claims that as a hedge fund manager he produced an average annual return of 24% for the 14 years he managed the fund.

    A portion of Mad Money shows are often set aside for individuals to call and share with Cramer their own portfolios, asking the question "Am I diversified?" It seems that Cramer answers yes if the individual owns five different companies from three to four industry groups. Cramer also freely publishes his holdings in his charitable trust. The trust as of this writing holds 28 companies. It looks as if Cramer, according to his comments on his show and his own charitable trust, agrees somewhat with both Benjamin Graham and Dick Jenrette.

    Harry Markowitz

    I have hand-picked these comments on diversification from active and very successful investors, and we should add some thoughts from Nobel Prize winner Harry Markowitz. In 1952, young Markowitz authored a short academic paper titled Portfolio Selection. This paper could be considered "the shot heard round the world" for the portfolio management industry. His thoughts led to modern portfolio theory and firmly entrenched the use of technology into the practice of investment management. This paper and the ongoing research it created was the driving force behind the idea that "Building and staying with a broadly diversified portfolio is the only sane approach for long-term investors."

    His paper starts with a description of the process that the majority of investors, both professional and non-professional, apply when building an investment portfolio:

    The process of selecting a portfolio may be divided into two stages. The first stage starts with observations and experience and ends with beliefs about the future performances of available securities. The second stage starts with the relevant beliefs about future performance and ends with the choice of portfolio.

    He goes on to explain the purpose of his paper:

    This paper is concerned with the second stage. We first consider the rule that the investor does (or should) maximize discounted expected, or anticipated, returns. This rule is rejected both as a hypothesis to explain, and as a maxim to guide investment behavior. We next consider the rule that the investor does (or should) consider expected return a desirable thing and variance of return an undesirable thing. This rule has many sound points, both as a maxim for, and hypothesis about, investment behavior. We illustrate geometrically relations between beliefs and choice of portfolio according to the "expected returns-variance of returns" rule.

    This basic concept is valid for most of us. Each of us would like to have the greatest rate of return we can, with little risk of loss. Yet most of us know that very little gain is likely without accepting the potential for a loss. How much risk each one of us is willing to take is relative to our own individual situation. Markowitz appreciates this, but the ability to measure everyone's risk acceptance is near to impossible, so he substitutes historical volatility as a measure of risk.

    The ups and downs of the overall market value surely drive many people to join the age old "buy high sell low club." Diversification does not, nor will it ever, protect one against the volatility of market prices. However, a portfolio of two different investments, both of which have market volatility that differ from one another, would reduce the overall ups and down of the total value of the portfolio, as long as one went up in value and the other went down in value at the same time. In other words, diversification by itself will not protect you against market risk, unless it is the right kind of diversification.

    Markowitz addresses this:

    Not only does the E-V hypothesis (Expected Returns-Variance of Returns rule -added by me) imply diversification, it implies the "right kind" of diversification for the "right reason." The adequacy of diversification is not thought by investors to depend solely on the number of different securities held. A portfolio with sixty different railway securities, for example, would not be as well diversified as the same size portfolio with some railroad, some public utility, mining, various sorts of manufacturing, etc. The reason is that it is generally more likely for firms within the same industry to do poorly at the same time than for firms in dissimilar industries.

    Our Thoughts

    I believe that almost every investment manager thinks there is some benefit of diversification. Most portfolio managers, if given a choice, would apply the ideas of Dr. Markowitz to their trade. Some will place more emphasis on their ability to determine "future performance," while others will pay little attention to future performance and instead hope to receive the "free lunch through diversification" as promised by modern portfolio theory. Our beliefs are at the intersection of these, where we rely on our ability to calculate an expected rate of return and attempt to apply the "right" type of diversification in order to meet individual needs. In essence, we want to own the fewest number of companies we can to obtain the excess returns available from superior analysis, yet spread between all major economic sectors of the world economy.

    As far as the number of companies, we believe that 30 to 40 are the most needed to minimize the impact of a large loss on a single company on the overall portfolio, yet also few enough where a large gain on a single company would materially increase the overall portfolio return. There is a little common sense to this: If you have 40 companies, with each representing 2½ percent of your portfolio, the portfolio can only lose that 2½ percent if a single business fails. At the same time, a single company could, if all things were perfect, produce unlimited profits.

    To add a little historical certainty to this, all we need to do is compare the annual volatility of the Dow Jones and its 30 individual companies with the annual volatility of the Standard and Poors (S&P) and its 500 companies. The annual average volatility is almost identical over a long period of time. Even in short time periods, the average volatility is close. If we look at the last five years, the standard deviation (a measure of volatility) of the S&P 500 was 13.96 while the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 12.94, so little of a difference that it would probably not be noticed by the vast majority of investors. The Dow is price weighted, and the S& P 500 is cap weighted, so you could make the claim that I am comparing apples to oranges. However, if I took the view that diversification alone should reduce volatility, then the S&P should be far less volatile than the Dow - but it's not!

    Standard & Poors also does each of us a favor by identifying and affiliating the majority of publically traded companies into ten major economic sectors. By owning a representative position in each of the ten sectors, you can obtain the "right" kind of diversification as mentioned by Harry Markowitz in Portfolio Selection.

    We started this letter with Craig Israelsen's comments on portfolio construction. According to him, the "only sane approach" for long-term investors is to build and keep a broadly diversified portfolio. He suggested equal weighting of seven asset classes; large and small U.S. stocks, non-U.S. stocks, commodities, real estate, U.S. bonds and cash. This may work out fine, but are you willing to take the chance that future returns will be the same as they have been in the past?

    I have seen countless portfolios constructed that emphasize asset class diversification only, without any determination of expected returns. This may reduce volatility, as many claim, but all of us invest to make a positive rate of return. Because of that, I believe that the first step to any successful investment program should be to calculate an expected return, even though it will not always be right. We diversify for this reason only. Our goal is to maximize after tax profits for an acceptable level of risk. To reach our goal we need to have some estimate of both our expected returns and the risk we take. If that is insane, so be it.

    Until next time,

    Kendall J. Anderson, CFA

    Anderson Griggs & Company, Inc., doing business as Anderson Griggs Investments, is a registered investment adviser. Anderson Griggs only conducts business in states and locations where it is properly registered or meets state requirement for advisors. This commentary is for informational purposes only and is not an offer of investment advice. We will only render advice after we deliver our Form ADV Part 2 to a client in an authorized jurisdiction and receive a properly executed Investment Supervisory Services Agreement. Any reference to performance is historical in nature and no assumption about future performance should be made based on the past performance of any Anderson Griggs' Investment Objectives, individual account, individual security or index. Upon request, Anderson Griggs Investments will provide to you a list of all trade recommendations made by us for the immediately preceding 12 months. The authors of publications are expressing general opinions and commentary. They are not attempting to provide legal, accounting, or specific advice to any individual concerning their personal situation. Anderson Griggs Investments' office is located at 113 E. Main St., Suite 310, Rock Hill, SC 29730. The local phone number is 803-324-5044 and nationally can be reached via its toll-free number 800-254-0874.

    May 02 10:04 AM | Link | 2 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Most Commented
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.