|
Fundamental Value had a solid quarter, returning 4.2% on a gross basis. This return slightly trailed the S&P’s 4.4%, and brought gross returns to 35.3% and 22.5% for FV and the S&P 500 respectively since FV’s inception in June 2016. The quarter included a few notable trades. We trimmed our stake in some of our largest positions -- Apple, Samsung, and Berkshire Hathaway -- as they had all appreciated significantly in the preceding year. We continue to believe in their stories and still have material investments in each of them. We entirely sold out of Humana, Inc., one of our best performing investments to date. When we made this investment last year (at about $156 per share), we felt the quality of Humana’s business was overshadowed by the pending failure of its merger with Aetna. We thought that once the merger fog was lifted, investor attention would return to Humana’s focus on the fast-growing Medicare Advantage segment of the health insurance industry. Events played out in a manner consistent with our thesis: the merger was called off on 2/14/2017, yet the stock returned about 50% from our time of purchase. However, given the appreciation in the stock, and our increasing concerns around the long-term health of their Medicare Advantage market position, we decided to liquidate this investment for clients. With the funds from the reduced or exited positions, we made significant additions to two names: Express Scripts and 21st Century Fox. Express Scripts Express Scripts (ESRX) is a company that manages the drug prescription approval and payment process for health plans, companies, and some government entities. In this role they are called the Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM). They pool the negotiating power of their customers and seek pricing concessions directly from the drug manufacturers or wholesalers, allowing clients to achieve better pricing than if they negotiated on their own. They also use their expertise to exclude some drugs from coverage—usually drugs for which there are cheaper or better alternatives. Finally, they are somewhat vertically integrated, operating a large mail order pharmacy called Accredo. We believe the opportunity exists to buy ESRX at a discount to intrinsic value due to a dispute with one of their largest customers, Anthem. This conflict came fully to light in early 2016, when Anthem initiated a lawsuit that claimed $3B in annual overcharging by ESRX. ESRX’s stock price quickly fell from $85 to $65 and has yet to recover, despite the company posting consistently higher EBITDA and earnings since. In fact, with trailing free cash flow (FCF) per share above $6 at the time, this means that the multiple on the stock has collapsed from a healthy ~14x to just over 10x. Since then FCF has expanded and the stock price has declined further, creating a FCF multiple of about 8.5x at the end of the quarter. Recently ESRX disclosed exactly how much EBITDA they make from their contract with Anthem, which expires 12/31/2019. At about 31% of total EBITDA, their profits on the Anthem business are material. However, we feel that a loss of the Anthem business is more than priced into the stock, and calculate they will earn about $4.50 per share in 2021 when Anthem has fully exited the relationship. At that point the core ESRX business, which grew EBITDA 6% last year, would trade at a still-discounted 13x multiple. We think ESRX is priced for above-market returns. Twenty-First Century Fox Twenty-First Century Fox (21CF) is a media conglomerate whose main businesses include: 20th Century Fox Movie and TV Production, FOX Broadcasting, Fox News, Fox Sports (FS1, FS2, and Regional Sports channels such as the YES Network), FX, FXX, SKY TV (European Satellite TV), STAR TV (Indian Satellite TV), National Geographic, and a 30% stake in Hulu. Over the long term, 21CF has seen substantial growth, as their focus on news and sports has proven prescient. Since 2004, Operating Income has grown from $2B to $6.6B, or a 9.8% annual rate. They consistently garner increasing revenues per subscriber from the cable companies that resell their TV channels, and their current contracts (per company guidance) indicate this ought to continue in the future. The company also has some substantial assets that are “hidden” from cursory analysis, in the sense that they do not contribute much to current earnings (or even contribute losses). The most valuable is their ownership of a dominant satellite TV provider in India: Star. Star India is the country’s largest provider of pay TV services, reaching 650m people per month. This translates to substantial revenue, and as recently as two weeks ago CEO Lachlan Murdoch commented that they are “very confident” that Star India can do $1B of profit by 2020. At that point the business would be worth $20B if it garners the 20x EBITDA multiple the market currently places on their main competitor, Zee Entertainment. This equates to greater than $10 per FOXA share, a material amount relative to the $26.4 price at the end of the quarter. We think the value of 21CF’s hidden assets implies that we are paying about 6-8x earnings for the core media business. This is a multiple we are very happy to pay for 21CF’s best-in-class media assets. 21CF is currently our largest position. New position: Old Republic International We made one new investment in the quarter, in an insurance company called Old Republic [1]. Old Republic provides several distinct types of insurance: title, worker’s compensation, commercial auto, and others. In their title insurance business, they are the third or fourth largest provider in an oligopoly market that is just starting to fully recover from the Great Recession. The other insurance lines have consistently performed better than the overall insurance industry -- generating large amounts of cash, or “float”, for Old Republic to invest at zero cost to the company. This money cannot be paid out to shareholders, as it must be held to (eventually) satisfy their insurance obligations, but Old Republic is allowed to harvest the investment income in the meantime. Old Republic has $12.8B of float, comprising cash, investment grade bonds, and equities, which generates over $300m per year of interest income. Old Republic trades at about 1.1x book value or <13x earnings, a significant discount to the market and its peers. The book value multiple is particularly low since title insurance has lower capital requirements than other lines of insurance and generates high returns on equity. We think earnings in the title business should continue to improve as they have since 2009, with the excesses and mistakes of the real estate bubble continuing to fade into the background. We can articulate a couple of reasons why this opportunity might exist. For one, Wall Street has largely ignored Old Republic, which has very limited sell-side research coverage. This is probably because management eschews one-on-one meetings with analysts and investors, preferring to do their talking solely on quarterly conference calls. There may also be some confusion around the company’s historical results, which appear extremely volatile due to the presence of a large mortgage guaranty insurance line prior to the financial crisis. With that business in run-off and generating a small amount of income, ORI ought to make consistent and growing profits going forward. We are grateful for your business and your trust, and a special thank you to those who have referred friends and family. There is no greater compliment. -Bireme Capital 1 For a further discussion of this idea, see our post on sumzero.com (membership required for access). Bireme Capital LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor. Registration does not constitute an endorsement of the firm nor does it indicate that the advisor has attained a particular level of skill or ability. This piece is for informational purposes only. If not specified, quarter end values are used to calculate returns. While Bireme believes the sources of its information to be reliable, it makes no assurances to that effect. Bireme is also under no obligation to update this post should circumstances change. Nothing in this post should be construed as investment advice, and it is not an offer to sell or buy any security. Bireme clients may (and usually do) have positions in the securities mentioned.
0 Comments
We’re proud to report that, as of the middle of the second quarter, Bireme has been actively investing for over a year. There have been trying and frustrating times, but by and large, starting a business has been exciting and rewarding. We sincerely thank you for your trust. We couldn’t have done it without you.
We know you have many options when it comes to investment management, and we’re honored and humbled that you have chosen us. That trust comes with an obligation, and it is one that we feel acutely. We will continue to work extremely hard to protect and grow your assets. Returns Fundamental Value (“FV”), Bireme’s US equity strategy, had a solid quarter, besting a strong performance of 3.1% by the market with a 4.7% gross return of its own. This brings gross year-to-date returns up to 11.1% versus a 9.2% return for the S&P 500. Since inception in June of 2016, gross returns are 29.9% for FV and 17.3% for the benchmark. Net returns from inception to date vary between approximately 26-28% depending on fee structure, but in all cases FV has significantly outperformed the S&P 500. New Investment: Cogeco This quarter, there was one major addition to the portfolio: Cogeco, a Canada-based provider of cable internet and TV. We bought shares of both Cogeco Communications, the operating company, and Cogeco Inc., an upstream holding company. Selling internet and TV access through cable lines is a good business. It is often a local monopoly, and where it is not a monopoly it is usually a duopoly, with competition from one other firm with inferior technology such as DSL. This business tends to be more stable and profitable than selling mobile wireless internet access, where there tend to be 3 or 4 scale players ruthlessly competing with heavy marketing and discounting. Many fortunes have been made in the cable business. Over the last 5-10 years, investors have discovered the quality of this industry segment, and significantly bid up the prices of US cable firms, to the point where these capital-intensive businesses trade at 9-12x EBITDA and often 20+ PE ratios. Quality for a discount In Cogeco, we believe we’ve found a business of similar if not higher quality, trading at a much lower valuation of 6-7x EBITDA and a mere 10-12x free cash flow. Cogeco’s cable and internet businesses are very strong in the markets where they compete. With cable assets in Quebec Province, Ontario, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida, they are geographically diversified but focused on North America. Their Canadian cable business generates the majority of EBITDA, and they compete mainly with Bell Canada (BCE) in these markets. They provide internet speeds of 150 Mbps or higher in nearly 100% of the markets they serve. Often, they are the sole provider of speeds higher than 10 Mbps, a level below which many consumers will not even consider subscribing [1]. It is no surprise then that they have been gaining internet subscriber market share in their footprint, from 40% to 44% in Canada and from 35% to 45% in the US, since 2013 [2]. Testing the bear thesis Fundamentally, buying a stock is an arrogant action—you imply that you are more knowledgeable than the seller. But are you? What might they know that you don’t? We frequently try to get into the mind of the seller when we buy a stock, in order to make sure we are not the proverbial patsy at the poker table. In the case of Cogeco, one bearish Wall Street analyst is worried about BCE’s coming fiber build out in Canada. We believe this is a concern likely shared by other sellers of the stock. The thought is that a legitimate competitor to Cogeco’s cable internet will hurt pricing, margins, and customer retention. But to us, the concern seems overblown. For one, Bell’s fiber rollout has consistently been slower and less impactful than expected. Originally, analysts had expected 70% of Cogeco’s Canadian footprint to be serviced by high speed BCE fiber internet by 2017. According to Cogeco management, that number is more like 45% today, almost exclusively in Quebec, and BCE has said they are focusing on major cities like Toronto (not in Cogeco's footprint) for the next year or two. At current rates, BCE’s rollout will take another 6-8 years before it is complete [3]. In fact, BCE’s rollout may fail to reach Cogeco’s full Ontario footprint. This is due to the low population density of towns that Cogeco serves (many of less than 30,000 residents). A further difficulty is presented by Ontario’s requirement that most fiber be installed underground, a much more expensive proposition than hanging it on poles as allowed in Quebec [4]. We believe this combination of expensive underground installation and low population density might making running fiber to these small towns cost prohibitive. Finally, BCE has not been undercutting Cogeco’s pricing even where they have installed fiber. In most cities in Quebec that we studied, they are offering $80 for 50 Mbps vs Cogeco’s $60 for 40 Mbps [1]. This pricing strategy indicates BCE is focused on up-selling their current DSL subscribers as opposed to taking Cogeco’s customers. We think this strategy allows for both firms to generate substantial profits in these duopoly markets. Cogeco Inc and Cogeco Communications combined are roughly a 7% weighting in the Fundamental Value portfolio as of this writing. Conclusion We are grateful for your business and your trust, and a special thank you to those who have referred friends and family. There is no greater compliment. -Bireme Capital 1 Bell / Cogeco internet speeds and pricing collected from multiple cities in June of 2017. Bireme Capital LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor. Registration does not constitute an endorsement of the firm nor does it indicate that the advisor has attained a particular level of skill or ability. This piece is for informational purposes only. If not specified, quarter end values are used to calculate returns. While Bireme believes the sources of its information to be reliable, it makes no assurances to that effect. Bireme is also under no obligation to update this post should circumstances change. Nothing in this post should be construed as investment advice, and it is not an offer to sell or buy any security. Bireme clients may (and usually do) have positions in the securities mentioned.
Apple is currently one of the largest positions in Fundamental Value, Bireme's US equity strategy. Therefore, it was with intense interest that we read a recent short thesis on Apple posted at the Value Investor’s Club. (Note: you must create a guest account at VIC to view.)
We disagree with much of that piece, and thought an effort to refute it could make for an interesting first blog post of our own. To be clear, the point of this post is not to present a full long thesis on Apple, but merely to knock down the bearish arguments in the link above. The VIC post discussed a number of “challenges facing Apple.” Each will be addressed in turn:
The Declining Userbase and Implications for the Moat In the VIC post, the author spends a few pages describing Research in Motion's decline. He then tries to tie this to Apple, pointing to 2016 iPhone unit volume declines: 
The author’s logic regarding Apple’s declining user base seems to be as follows:
#1: 2016 iPhone volumes The author fails to note that not every iPhone upgrade is the same. Generally, iPhone upgrade cycles follow a tick-tock cycle, where one large upgrade (this upgrade gets a new number, e.g. “iPhone 5”) is followed by a lesser “S” upgrade. Full upgrades pull demand forward, away from the “S” upgrade years. Not only was the iPhone 6 of FY 2015 a full upgrade, but it involved a change in form factor (a larger screen) as well. This is important because consumers had been waiting for a larger screen iPhone for years. In China specifically, nearly 50% of the smartphone market had screen sizes of >4.5 diagonal inches in mid 2013 per IDC. The iPhone 5s, released in 2013, was 4 inches across: tiny by Chinese standards. By the time the iPhone 6 was released in late 2014, Samsung was already on the 4th version of the popular and much larger Galaxy Note series. The bigger iPhones satisfied a lot of pent-up demand, and FY 2015 iPhone unit sales were up 37%, a much larger change than FY 2013’s 20% unit increase for the iPhone 5. It is not surprising that 2016 units would decline from such a large peak. Yet despite the decline from 2015, FY 2016 iPhone unit sales were still 25% higher than those sold in FY 2014. Only if 2017 and 2018 unit sales decline from the levels of 2015 and 2016 will an important trend be formed. But we are far from that point. #2: Declining unit sales and ecosystem size But even if unit sales were to consistently decline, that could still mean a growing installed base. To see why, let’s look at the two types of people that buy iPhones:
The percentage of iPhone users replacing their phones (#2 buyer type above) in any one year is called the replacement rate. This rate has a big impact on unit sales, even though replacements have zero direct impact on the installed base. And what we see from usage and subscriber data is that, despite the recent decline in unit sales, there are more iPhone users in 2017 than there were in 2015, with Apple’s share of usage flat or up. This is true even in China, where Apple saw the largest sales decline in 2016.
Other analysts agree that what we are seeing is an increase in the installed base and perhaps a lengthening replacement cycle, despite the slowdown in sales:
While a slowing replacement rate is not bullish for unit sales, a growing installed base is a positive for Apple’s service revenues. This segment consists of revenue Apple gets from iTunes downloads and subscriptions, Apple Care, Apple Pay, and iCloud. It has been growing briskly, further demonstrating the health of the installed base. In fact, this segment is so robust that it alone generates more revenue than some very highly valued software companies. For example, in terms of sales, it is larger than Chinese software giant TenCent, maker of the most popular Android app store in China. 
TenCent’s market capitalization is $231 billion US dollars.
#3: Apple’s moats Apple has significant competitive advantages that are entirely separate from the size of its ecosystem. The biggest one is the lack of fragmentation in their mobile OS and devices. Because Apple manufactures their own hardware and thus controls the final software version in their phones, new versions of iOS can be released to all of their devices concurrently. This is not true for Android, where the handset OEMs must make tweaks to the software to get it to work properly on the hundreds of device models that are in use. Many of them even make additional functional changes, such as HTC’s Sense Android-based user interface. Due to this additional layer of software development, Android users generally have to wait for both the hardware manufacturer, and sometimes the network operator, to put their spin on the latest Android release. This can lead to multi-year delays in Android operating system updates. We can see the results of these two business models by looking at iOS and Android OS version usage. For Android, only 3% of users are on Nougat, the latest version of Android, and 34% are on either of the last two named versions. In contrast, 79% of iPhone users are on the latest release, iOS 10, and 95% of iOS users are on one of the last two versions. There are important implications of Android’s OS fragmentation. The most obvious result is that the majority of Android users must make do with older, presumably less functional software. They are trapped on the Android equivalent of Windows Vista. Fragmentation is also important for app developers. By developing for the latest version of iOS, you can hit most Apple users. Not so if you choose to develop on Nougat. If you want to develop for either of the two most recent versions, Apple’s ecosystem has a ~3x advantage on Android relative to the size of the user base. But an Android developer must deal not just with fragmented operating system software, but with fragmented hardware as well. In terms of form factor alone, Android’s Supporting Multiple Screens guide groups phones into four different sizes and six different pixel densities, creating 24 different combinations of the two. iPhone has 3 sizes (4”, 4.7”, and 5.5”) and 2 pixel densities (326 and 401 ppi) across the iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE. The possible combinations for Android phones gets truly staggering when you consider variances in storage and memory, processor chipsets, and connectivity technology. The ability to develop for one operating system and a small number of form factors makes a developer’s job much easier. One investigation by a software firm found that Android development takes about 30% longer than the same job on iOS. But ease of development is not the only reason to focus on iOS. Developers also make more money on iOS. App Annie estimates that iOS brought in $34 billion in 2016, double the $17 billion generated by the Google Play Store, and also larger than the combined $27 billion from Google Play and third-party Android stores combined. This disparity in both ease of development and financial incentives leads to equal or better applications available on iOS, despite Google’s 4x lead in unit share. This is a big part of Apple’s moat. Even Google itself has been accused of making better apps for iOS than for Android. Apple’s Closed Ecosystem From the original: 
First of all, is Apple’s ecosystem closed where it matters?
Any developer can make an application for iOS. And millions have. If you are a business thinking about whether you have access to Apple’s customers, the answer is almost always “yes”. You must merely make an application that conforms to Apple’s rules, which protect the security and user experience of its customers. Apple’s system is closed, or as we prefer, vertically integrated, in some ways. They do not let network operators tinker with their software, and they certainly do not let OEMs put iOS in new hardware. The downside for consumers is that iOS software will only be available in a limited number of form factors that Apple chooses to support. So if you would like iOS 10 on a 5.9” phablet, you are out of luck for now. Here they make a conscious tradeoff between form factor choice and user/developer experience. It is this tradeoff that led Google to develop the fully integrated Pixel phone, despite their historical promotion of Android as an open platform. From an article at The Verge discussing the phone’s development: "Fundamentally, we believe that a lot of the innovation that we want to do now ends up requiring controlling the end-to-end user experience," [Google Head of Hardware] Osterloh says. It’s the kind of sentiment you usually hear from Apple, not Google. Google’s efforts (and success!) to control the phone experience end-to-end show the merits of Apple’s approach, and demonstrate that the approach is not “shortsighted” as the VIC author claims. In fact, all of the competitors named by the author except Netflix made an attempt to build a “closed” phone ecosystem, despite their supposed preference for openness. It is telling that Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft all failed miserably in this pursuit. The author then talks about the software output of these supposed competitors: 
The author argues that the phone is becoming a “dumb terminal.”
However local processing power, DRAM memory, flash memory, screen size, and battery capacity have consistently increased over the past 5 years. It seems to me that the “terminal” is actually getting smarter, and mobile networks have a long ways to go before they can reliably and quickly process all of the data that is currently processed locally. Next comes the claim that the iPhone can't compete with cheap Android phones in India: 
High prices relative to income in growth markets such as India are a problem for current sales, no doubt. However it is also an opportunity for the future. India should see 170m new smartphone users in the next 5 years, and Apple is working hard to lower the price to Indian consumers. This includes a rumored shift to local production that would save on taxes and transportation costs. As Apple’s local prices fall and Indian incomes rise, to me it seems inevitable that Apple will sell more devices, not less, in India over the next five years.
Insider selling and Capital Allocation The VIC author mentions $675 million of insider sales the past four years as indicative of negative sentiment. But Apple’s cash flow statement reveals $9.7 billion of stock compensation paid over the last four years. $675m is hardly a material portion of the equity that insiders have accumulated. Return on capital The author purports to show that Apple is “not earning its cost of capital.” Let’s look at his analysis: 
One thing you’ll notice here is that Apple’s invested capital has more than doubled over this time. But, as the author admits, this includes a huge pile of cash. Is that cash really invested in the business? No. It is merely stockholder money waiting to come home, and must be backed out to properly assess the investments Apple has made.
Our analysis assumes that all cash and securities don’t count towards the “assets employed” in the business. We then look at the operating income to determine the pre-tax return on the actual assets. Note that this does not give Apple credit for potential offsetting liabilities such as increases in accounts payable, which would lower the amount of capital they need to achieve a similar increase in operating assets. 
By our estimation, Apple runs at about a 70-80% return on operating assets, or about 50-60% after the same 25% assumed tax rate the VIC author uses.
The pre-tax return on incremental assets employed since 2012 is about 16%, a very respectable number. Summary and Conclusion In conclusion, we reject that Apple’s installed base or its moat are shrinking. In fact, Apple’s vertically integrated model has durable competitive advantages, most notably software and hardware harmony among its installed base. Google’s success with and comments around the Pixel validate Apple’s approach. The failure of Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft to create their own closed smartphone ecosystems has left them more as partners than as competitors for Apple. Even Google is best described as a partner, with over ten billion in revenue from the iOS platform. India and other markets with low incomes should be seen as opportunities for Apple, not problems. And yes, Apple IS earning their cost of capital on new investments. Unfortunately, Apple is not as cheap as it was last year. But at about 14x earnings after backing out our estimate of net, after-tax cash, we think it provides substantially better value than the rest of the US stock market. We are grateful for your business and your trust, and a special thank you to those who have referred friends and family. There is no greater compliment. - Bireme Capital Bireme Capital LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor. Registration does not constitute an endorsement of the firm nor does it indicate that the advisor has attained a particular level of skill or ability. This piece is for informational purposes only. If not specified, quarter end values are used to calculate returns. While Bireme believes the sources of its information to be reliable, it makes no assurances to that effect. Bireme is also under no obligation to update this post should circumstances change. Nothing in this post should be construed as investment advice, and it is not an offer to sell or buy any security. Bireme clients may (and usually do) have positions in the securities mentioned. FV edged out the market in Q1, returning 6.1% before fees vs 5.9% for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY). This brings the portfolio’s annualized outperformance, after typical fees, to 10.9% since inception.1 
We made one new investment in the quarter, the French holding company Bollore SA. We had been following Bollore for about two years, ever since a positive report on the firm was released by noted short seller Muddy Waters. In this report, a rare buy recommendation for the outfit, Muddy Waters claimed that the effective share count of Bollore was less than one half of the official number. This is important, as a halving of the share count doubles the value per share, all else equal. If Muddy Waters was right, and other investors were relying on the public share count, the stock might be undervalued indeed. 
When excluding treasury shares, we estimate that Bollore trades at roughly ten times 2016 earnings per share, less than half the median of this group. We think Bollore SA will see strong returns to investors if a portion of the discount closes. 1 Net calculations assume a 1.75% management fee. Fee structures and returns vary between clients. FV inception was 6/6/2016. Bireme Capital LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor. Registration does not constitute an endorsement of the firm nor does it indicate that the advisor has attained a particular level of skill or ability. This piece is for informational purposes only. If not specified, quarter end values are used to calculate returns. While Bireme believes the sources of its information to be reliable, it makes no assurances to that effect. Bireme is also under no obligation to update this post should circumstances change. Nothing in this post should be construed as investment advice, and it is not an offer to sell or buy any security. Bireme clients may (and usually do) have positions in the securities mentioned. Fundamental Value (FV) had an exceptional 2016, returning 16.8% before fees vs 7.5% for the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY). The majority of FV’s return came in the fourth quarter, as it gained 10.1% vs a 4.0% return in the benchmark. This brings the portfolio’s outperformance, after typical fees, to 8.3% since inception.1 
We made three significant trades in the fourth quarter: selling Qualcomm, selling Viacom, and purchasing Time Warner. 
Samsung’s shares deserve an earnings multiple consistent with its dominant industry position. But even after meaningful appreciation in 2016, Samsung’s common shares trade at 13 times earnings, a sharp discount from the roughly 20x PE of our benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The preferred shares are even cheaper than the common, trading at a 20% discount despite equal economic ownership. Samsung Electronics Preferred Shares continue to be one of Bireme’s largest investments. If you are interested in learning more about why an investment in Samsung Electronics is so compelling, we encourage you to read Elliott Management’s detailed presentation on the company. 1 Net calculations assume a 1.75% management fee. Fee structures and returns vary between clients. FV inception was 6/6/2016. Bireme Capital LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor. Registration does not constitute an endorsement of the firm nor does it indicate that the advisor has attained a particular level of skill or ability. This piece is for informational purposes only. If not specified, quarter end values are used to calculate returns. While Bireme believes the sources of its information to be reliable, it makes no assurances to that effect. Bireme is also under no obligation to update this post should circumstances change. Nothing in this post should be construed as investment advice, and it is not an offer to sell or buy any security. Bireme clients may (and usually do) have positions in the securities mentioned. |
