Technology plays a pivotal role in the transition towards a more sustainable world and is a deflationary force. This podcast explores these themes and the investment opportunities.
- Technology is providing solutions to major environmental and social challenges, and as a consequence, providing attractive long-term growth opportunities.
- Tech innovation is inherently a deflationary force, alleviating labour, natural resources and other supply shortages by improving efficiency and productivity.
- Permeating every aspect of our lives, technology is a truly broad sector, offering an opportunity set going beyond the standard classifications of a tech company.
Adam Hetts: Welcome to Global Perspectives. Today we speak again with Richard Clode. Richard is a Portfolio Manager on our Global Technology Leaders Team. We're talking today because I think you'll hear a lot of big claims about how tech is critical for the sustainable world, how tech is a deflationary force in the inflationary world. But it seems no one really knows exactly what that all means, except for Richard here, of course. So Richard, good to talk again. Thanks for joining us.
Richard Clode: Thank you, I will try my best today.
Adam Hetts: My pleasure. So I don't think we're going to talk a lot about the tech that most people think most about, the Facebooks or Apples or Amazons of the world and instead outside of those behemoths Richard, maybe we can start if you could talk about tech and sustainability and which parts of the global tech landscape are really making the world a better place.
Richard Clode: Yes, exactly. And I think you know, sort of well-timed with you know, COP26 [26th United Nations Climate Change Conference] and some of the headlines that are coming out of that, that actually you know generally the media view is quite negative. I mean we'd certainly take the other side of that, that actually there were some clear positives that came out of COP26 that you know, the key one actually came out before COP26 was that you know, China finally gets it, is on board where you know, their carbon peak target by 2030.
But then also, we saw you know beyond carbon you know, talking about methane reduction, deforestation, commitments around that. And then more importantly also, the impact that these environmental goals have on social issues. So there's finally a linking of those two rather than those two issues being siloed. And then the other key takeaway for us is just the urgency that we're seeing. You know, not just waiting another five years to revisit these targets, but revisiting these targets for next year. And I think when we think about you know, the ability of any of these leaders and countries to be able to actually hit any of these goals and our only hope of that you know, we very much see technology is a key enabler of that. You know, technology is the science of solving problems and boy, these are some of the biggest problems out there.
So we think there's a natural synergy for technology that if we are providing solutions to these major environmental and social challenges in the world, you're naturally going to be accessing some of the largest growth markets out there. And then you layer on top of that sort of the demographic trends, I think again, you saw that on the streets of Glasgow around COP26, that younger generations just think about sustainability differently. And as a result, they're going to spend their money differently. They're going to spend their money with different companies than their parents or their grandparents before them. And that's going to lead to significant disruption of the fortunes of companies and therefore stocks. And we think generally, the technology sector is on the right side of that by providing the innovation, those exponential leaps that only technology can provide. And so very much it maps to the opportunity set from all of these grandiose targets and is less exposed to the incumbency and the risks that are represented by changes in regulation that we're inevitably going to see coming off the back of these sort of COP26 high-level targets.
And we've seen this before you know, no one thought that you know, coal production in the US would drop over 50% over the past decade and almost be at levels last seen at the turn of the 20th century. But technology enabled solar and the cost of that solar energy to collapse over 80% and wind over 40%. Again, no one thought that EVs [electric vehicles] would ever sort of take off and again, technology’s enabled EVs to be a real credible alternative to internal combustion engine cars and we're now finally seeing that inflection.
But I think you know for us, I think we look at the investment landscape and we very much feel that there's much more breadth to those opportunities, to those growth areas in technology than is currently being addressed in most sustainable investing today. Because it's not just renewables, it’s not just electric vehicles. We think about a wider sustainable transport revolution. So we think about ride hailing, about autonomous driving because it's not just about the pollution and the carbon emissions, it's also about reducing the number of accidents on the road, the number of fatalities on the road globally.
And then we also think about improved efficiency and productivity. Again, it's just not just by stopping things, we're also trying to reduce the use of our scarce sort of natural resources and we need low carbon infrastructure, we need smart cities to do that as well. So we think there are many technologies that provide solutions to those environmental challenges and then also maybe uniquely also to those social challenges, as well. And again, that was a key takeaway for us from COP26 that you know, there is an impact from these environmental targets to places like India. And you know, we've got to think not just about climate goals, but also about broadening access to quality education if people are going to have to re-train and re-skill to new industries. Access to quality healthcare, to have financial inclusion and again, that's where some of our themes around digital democratisation [making tech accessible to more people], tech health and data security are so exciting.
So we think there are many areas of technology that provide great growth opportunities, some really interesting franchises. And not a sort of FAANG [Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google] acronym between them.
Adam Hetts: And you're talking about environmental linking to social and then you just mentioned educational and healthcare issues and getting higher quality education in healthcare. And people think about that sure, on the social side, but we're talking about this in a tech conversation. So why is education in healthcare central to a tech discussion? Why do you bring that up so early in the conversation?
Richard Clode: Because I think it's a very neglected area of the power of technology doing good. I think there's a huge focus on the mega-caps, when we talk about technology that very much sort of dominates our conversations with clients. And I think there's a lack of realisation of the good that many technology companies do around the world. And obviously, a lot of that good can be not just in developed markets, but particularly concentrated in some of those more emerging markets where you know, if you think about financial inclusion you know, that was very much reliant on you know, the expansion of a bank, a physical bank branch into a second-tier town, then a third-tier town and then in some of the rural areas. You know, that could take 50 or 100 years. Now, that can be done with the swipe of a or a download of an app. And the people that have never had any credit history, could never access credit to start a business or to get that initial loan or some risk capital to actually be able to do something that they wanted to do. Now, they're able to do that because they can be leveraged in terms of data analytics, in terms of you know, what they're doing on an eCommerce site and we've seen that in China, in India, places like Latin America with NuBank and Mercado Pago.
We've seen that in every bit of the world that we've seen a huge acceleration in those financial inclusion. People who've never had bank accounts before, let alone access wider financial services, that's happening today in a scale that we never envisaged five or six years ago. And then obviously, during the pandemic you know, the ‘haves and have nots’ in terms of that digital divide, both on the education side and on the healthcare side, I thought was very, very stark and just another one of the very negative aspects of this you know, tragic pandemic.
But again, there have been some major sort of critical mass and acceleration given to some of the platforms around the world again, often in places that don't have very established healthcare or sort of education systems that have been able to provide that in a much cheaper way, in a much more scalable way, leveraging the cloud, leveraging technologies and AI [artificial intelligence] to make it much cheaper and much more affordable for a greater swathe of the population to be able to access. You know, even actually even in Glasgow you know, they said during COP26, it was so busy, so much security, so much kind of disruption to traffic, that actually they just told everyone to just work from home and to do learning and not go to school for a week or two. They could do that because of all of the changes that took place during the pandemic. That would have been impossible even a few years ago. And obviously, you can imagine what's been happening in some of the sort of more emerging markets out there. So you know, we think we've seen a huge acceleration of these trends out of the pandemic and we needed to because there was a huge rise in inequality around the world. We know this has been an issue for a long time, but it was only exacerbated by the pandemic.
Adam Hetts: I think you're right. Everybody thinks about tech as these mega-caps and I guess that next layer is the environmental piece like you talked about, coal versus renewables or internal combustion cars versus electric vehicles. But then that next layer down, that's thought about less often with tech is the social part, like the education, healthcare, financial access, sure. And then one of the things around the S in social, do you feel it's a bit of a double-edged sword? I'm just curious if you get weary when you mentioned self-driving cars and smart cities and you've got technology invading more parts of people's lives in those ways, driving, walking around the city where they live. How do you think about that part of S around privacy and managing tech and tech data for individuals versus the benefits around cars and cities, for example?
Richard Clode: It's a massive issue and a fundamental human right. I mean you know, the UN [United Nations] has updated the interpretation of human rights to embrace that digital world and that was before the metaverse has taken over the debate more recently. So UN ahead of the game again there. But you know, I think what's very positive for us is the growing up of the technology sector in terms of that responsibility, in terms of their sort of interaction with regulators, with governments. You know, there used to be very much an idea amongst entrepreneurs in the tech sector that they could do no evil you know, they could only possibly do good. And so you know, they had this huge belief that whatever they did was the right thing. And that you know, how could anyone question otherwise?
And I think what's happened in the last ten years in particular and especially that maybe the scrutiny in the last five years, has meant that you know, a lot of those, a lot of that thinking has grown up, and very much it's less about just going out there and doing your thing, disrupting some new industry and then kind of worrying about the aftermath of that and the implications of that afterwards and scaling to billions of users. Well, you maybe hadn't got your infrastructure or your data security or your privacy policies 100% right or you hadn't thought about every potential outcome or sort of indirect or unthought of consequence of what you were doing with your technology, product or service. I think there's a much more realisation to maybe think about that in advance because if you don't, you’re going to certainly be hauled in front of [US] Congress pretty quickly or in front of the EU Commissioner [European Commission] pretty quickly.
And we're seeing a lot more engagement proactively from companies with governments, with regulators, with municipalities and cities and governments and sort of on a local and federal level, which means that they're much more working together as part of the solution. We all know, I think we want, we agree in the trends that we want to see that the trends that are, are probably going to happen. There might be some debate about the pace of it and I think that you know, a lot of these sort of governments and municipalities are much more on board now with that happening on a timeframe that's a lot quicker than we've seen in the past so there's less of a sort of disconnect between those timelines, between the technology companies and sort of the rest of the world. But there's a lot more working in partnership towards that. You know, you can even see that in terms of the you know, allowing autonomous vehicles and self-driving vehicles on the roads of the US and some of the states that are much more proactive about allowing that. You know, that would have been unheard of going back sort of ten years, let alone before that.
So I think there's a lot more partnership which I think will, I think maybe open the eyes for some of these technology companies about some of the real-world implications of what they're doing. But also will hopefully create a more sort of stringent sort of framework of rules and regulation that gives them a sort of a level playing field and also protects them from themselves maybe. And that's why even when you look at places like China, I actually think that a lot of the regulation we've seen in the internet sector there is actually very positive and actually leverages much of the learnings that we've seen globally, particularly in the EU with GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation].
So you know, I see globally that these trends are much more grown up and much more thoughtful about the implications of some of these technologies. And we certainly need that because when you start thinking about AI longer term, you certainly need to be thinking about these things in advance of that.
Adam Hetts: And I think those real-world implications are getting more important because as tech is just growing and evolving, it's less of just an app or a website, but there are real-world implications and it's affecting more of the core of our daily life. And I think another example of that is, everybody's talking about this period of inflation whether it's structural or transitory or who knows? But that debate aside, technology then is commonly cited as this deflationary force sort of offsetting it, whether it's the price of goods or it’s labour shortages, technology is pointed towards an answer to fix the inflationary pressures on both fronts. So in your space, can you give us some examples of how you're seeing tech fight inflation and what that dynamic means to you from an investment perspective?
Richard Clode: Sure. You know, I always think you know, that either you have to think about this debate you know, in terms of the history of technology and you know, if you kind of go sort of high-level you know, the foundational block to technology being cheaper, faster, better. I mean that's what drives technologies disruption, taking share of the global economy and the sort of foundational block for that is Moore's Law you know, Gordon Moore's observation. You know, the best part of 67 years ago at Intel that you know, we could at the time, we could double the number of transistors every year, then it was at a rate of every two years, that’s slowed down. And actually, the idea of Moore's Law in terms of number of transistors per square inch has actually slowed down. But there’s many other sort of architectural improvements, and packaging improvements and software improvements that we can do to kind of keep a version of Moore's Law going.
And so that's what means that you know, we're [technology] one of the few sectors where prices actually go down. And that's something that you know, has driven in the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and now you know, call it what you will, but some sort of digital data revolution. But you know, we certainly see, and this was coined in a phrase, I'm borrowing it from someone that you know, “data is the new oil.” And we see technology companies enabling that gathering of real-world data, the analysis of that data and then enabling sort of more efficiency, more productivity, reducing wastage, reducing the need for transportation as we've seen for you know, for generations, for centuries, if you will. But that's certainly the acceleration of those trends. And we need it because we know the inflationary sort of headwinds that we're facing today.
And that comes in multiple forms. You know, that can be software, that can be industrial automation, that can be smart cities like we talked about or smarter factories or asset tracking. There are many technologies that can really be deployed to make the world a more efficient, more productive place. And that's you know, nothing new in terms of the technology sector. But change always needs a catalyst and boy you know, there's nothing like a trade war followed by a global pandemic to break incumbency. And now we've got these labour shortages and cost inflations on top. So I think a lot of companies are being forced to make that decision now. You know, they may be worth thinking about adopting some of these technologies over some you know, undefined sort of period of time in the future.
Now, you've got to make that decision now because suddenly you can't get the workers or you can, but you're going to have to pay them 20% more and your other sort of cost inputs have also gone up massively. So I think a great example of that would be a company like Impinj. You know, Impinj were one of the inventors of RFID [radio-frequency identification] technology, which is a key kind of asset-tracking technology. And you know, this had a bit of a false dawn going back to sort of 2015 where you know, Walmart was going to put RFID tags on everything and then there were some fairly painful, poorly executed RFID deployments of quite a few retailers. But then it took some of the most successful retailers who adopted RFID, the Nikes, the Lululemon, some of the H&Ms, Zaras of this world to prove that a, the technology worked, and then you needed something like the pandemic where you know again, a lot of retailers were thinking, “I probably should sell online and I probably should have an omni-channel strategy,” but then you know, if you didn't have that during the pandemic and lockdowns, you were basically toast. You know, you were bankrupt. You had no cash flow. And so they had to adopt this technology because if you don't have visibility of your inventory you don't, you can't have an omni-channel strategy. You don't know where that item is to be sent out or to be picked up at a store by a consumer.
So we saw a huge inflection in RFID adoption in the retail sector which is we think, is very positive for the world because it stops overstocking, it reduces wasted stock, it reduces unnecessary transportation. And then that technology is now being evolved to enable self-checkout. So you don't actually need people at the till anymore. Automated returns, loss prevention or security, so again, you don't need a bunch of security guards walking around the retail shop anymore.
And then that retail has certainly seen an inflection, but then we're also seeing that on the logistic side. FedEx have adopted it, UPS are adopting it. We don't need half empty trucks going around anymore or the wrong parcels being sent out. And then we're seeing also a lot of interest in this technology from medicines and from the food side because again, the FDA [US Food & Drug Administration] wants to have traceability of these sort of goods to know where they come from? Have they applied to the right standards? Have they gone through the right checks along the way through that supply chain? So you know, we're certainly seeing many of these technologies finally you know, really seeing that inflection curve that was promised five or six years ago but it took tragically, sort of a pandemic and then also you know, a trade war to really make these companies think about adopting these new technologies.
Adam Hetts: And maybe the RFID is a good example. And maybe it's just me, but I think about RFID, I just think about Apple Pay or contactless payments, but you're talking about this a lot more profound in terms of how it's affecting supply chains and the broader experience. So whether it's me just stumbling around a store or just kind of the average listener, can you unpack that a little bit more, just what exactly RFID is beyond just the contactless payment and how it's affecting other logistics and supply chains you just talked about?
Richard Clode: Exactly. So you know, when we think about contactless payments, that's more of a sort of a near-field communication, NFC technology. RFID is similar in many ways, but it's very different in many ways. So it's a very, very small little tag and antenna that can you know, be sewn into a garment and it costs you know, cents. You know, the holy grail is to get that down to one cent a tag. There's no power source or battery that's required in the tag. It's purely energised by the reader itself. And that reader can sit in you know one, in a warehouse that can then ping out to all RFID tags on every item within that warehouse or in the back of a truck or going along a conveyor belt in an Amazon warehouse and just ping out and know what's there and have information embedded in that tag that tells you what it is, where it's come from, where it's going. And you know, that has huge implications for as we say, kind of as an asset-tracking technology that really creates visibility.
And before that, RFID technology was kind of adopted along certain lines and you still had a person in the store going around just kind of scanning stuff. The technology has evolved to the point where you can just as I said, kind of just ping out in an entire store in an entire warehouse, be able to track parcels going down a conveyor belt that are moving, be able to ping out in the back of a truck. And that's really sort of revolutionised the sort of the use cases for this.
And then when you think about you know, the new functionalities, like self-checkout, self-return, loss prevention, you can't just tag one line. You have to have every item in the shop tagged. Otherwise you know, half the store can be taken out without setting off the alarm. And so that's driving 100% adoption in the retailers that are adopting the sort of new sort of functionalities.
And then you know, we're seeing that adopted in logistics. We have a lot of interest on the medicinal side and also on the food side. So you know, we're getting to a point where there's about a 20 billion items tagged every year. You know, that could potentially be multiples of that. We could be getting up to a trillion items tagged down the line. We think that's really important because that's going to make the supply chain so much more efficient as we talked about, but it's also going to allow for that traceability, it's going to allow for a more circular economy, it's going to allow for ultimately end of life and recycling down the line. And we're already seeing Nike working with you know, companies like Impinj to be able to embed that information into a tag as to you know, what materials are in that Nike shoe? How are we going to be able to recycle that? Where could you take it to be recycled? And we think that's a very positive technology longer term. We're still in the early days of enabling that circular economy.
Adam Hetts: Well, that's fascinating because we started off talking about that we promised not to really talk about Facebook or Apple or Amazon and these mega-cap tech companies, but something like Impinj and the RFID you're talking about it is so central to life and probably a lot of us don't even realise these huge changes. We just think about the mega-cap tech affecting our lives and changing everything. So how do these different companies, these innovators you're looking at, map out globally? We're not talking about US mega-cap, so I'm guessing we're talking small or mid-cap [small and medium-sized companies] and then just globally, what countries are you looking at? And then kind of what sizes of companies are we really thinking about here most?
Europe, which has not had the greatest track record of developing new companies you know, the ASMLs and Infineons, the great companies of European technology sector have generally been, were founded back in the 1970s and we haven't seen too many newer ones. But we are you know, there is a huge amount of strength in the renewable and electric vehicle side of industries in Europe and you're seeing some of those companies now emerge and really seeing inflection in their growth where you can imagine had huge amount of sort of track record and credibility in terms of their technology in energy storage, which is very much required if we're going to hit any of the renewable targets that we have.
So again, we're seeing more opportunities in Europe than we've seen in the past. And then obviously over in China given many geopolitics, national security, trade war issues as well as obviously some of their newer commitments to peak carbon and being greener you know, there are clearly going to be some opportunities there. And you know, we've looked at some of the sort of IGBT [Insulated-Gate Bipolar Transistor] companies that are trying to be sort of the Infineons of China and they want to be less reliant on some of the European or US semi-providers [semiconductors].
There's some very interesting companies there that are not reliant on having to get leading edge semiconductor equipment from an ASML or reliant on TSMC. So that's very different to what we've you know, you see from what Huawei and HiSilicon were trying to do. So there's much more potential for them to be those companies in the future than trying to compete with an ASML or with a Qualcomm or with an NVIDIA where the US has more sort of ways to be able to stop that advancement. We think that an auto semi [auto semiconductor] company's probably going to have much more chance of doing that and there are some very interesting companies coming through there.
And then on the social side of that digital democratisation trend you know, we're certainly seeing that in many bits of the world, but particularly emerging markets. So you know, you can think. Obviously, there was a company in China that was trying to do that. We’re sort of work coming up for a year anniversary of that IPO being pulled. But you're seeing that in China, in India, in Southeast Asia now as well as Latin America. So we certainly are having to think very globally about that opportunity set.
Adam Hetts: You cited specific examples. When I think about tech innovation, I'm here in the US, so I think about Silicon Valley in California. But what do you think about when you think about centres of tech innovation? Like where else in the globe are those major centres we might not be aware of?
Richard Clode: I think they're the you know, the classic kind of where are the areas of kind of particular technology expertise that have grown up over time? And there are some sort of particular areas of tech that you know, have grown up in other areas outside of Silicon Valley. And so you know, I mentioned some of that precision engineering, electric vehicle, renewable industrial sort of tech strength that you know as you know, Germany has been renowned for but you know, other bits of Europe have been renowned for, as well as the UK.
I think then you sort of think about you know, some other areas of technology that you know, perhaps you would have thought about Silicon Valley before, but I think a couple of things have changed since then. I think you've seen more sort of entrepreneurs willing to return home and look to build businesses in other bits of the world and maybe that's a reaction to some of the sort of the policies of the United States that have been perhaps a little less welcoming to some of those people coming to do the traditional sort of pathway for tech entrepreneurs from globally to the US.
And then you've seen you know, huge evolution of the private equity in VC [venture capital], that means that you know, you don't have to just come to Silicon Valley to get that funding. You can get funded in China or in Latin America now. You can get that funding. You don't have to beat your path to the doors of a VC sitting in in the Valley anymore. So I think they're quite a few things that have changed you know, where technology is going, the particular markets that it's addressing as well as kind of that sort of capital markets kind of evolution that means that that's more global, which enables more global startups to evolve. So you know, we see that sort of around the world, many more opportunities sort of globally. So we would imagine that you know, when we think about our investments longer term, that will come down in terms of that US exposure, but it’s still going to have a substantial amount of US exposure just given that their lead in so many technologies that we look at.
Adam Hetts: Yes, we started out talking about how we try to avoid talking about the US focus and I think we've done that pretty successfully. It's pretty global as far as all your examples and all the centres of innovation. And then I think we did a good job covering the environmental and social aspects and how tech is very central to those sustainability issues and even down to the day-to-day concerns on inflation, how central tech is to that conversation as well. So this was a great update, Richard. Anything else that we hadn't covered that you want to get into today?
Richard Clode: Yes and also maybe just thinking you know, think about clients' perception of what is a technology company? So you know, when we think about you know, we certainly don't rely on GICS [Global Industry Classification Standard] and MSCI [index provider] classifications or what sort of technology company we think is a key player in sort of connecting the physical and digital worlds. They have sort of geospatial technology that basically digitally maps and tracks everything from forests to coral reefs to agriculture and construction. Now you know, a lot of people would view that as an industrial company, but we very much feel that that's a technology company, they have high revolution mapping, kind of Caribbean coral reefs for the first time you know, protecting the biodiversity there, but also protecting the livelihoods of local people. And their technology is key to you know, improving efficiencies in yields and water efficiency in agriculture. So you know, don't just think about the sort of the classic definition of a technology company. We always think about do these companies have proprietary technology which is the key to their right to make money? And when we think about that sort of way of a prism of looking through to think about a technology company, that really opens the door to many other companies in other sectors that aren't formally defined by GICS, MSCI as tech. And you can also find tech businesses within other non-tech businesses. So you know, maybe not venturing too far away from the Canadian telecom company you know, they own one of the largest tech health platforms in Canada. But perhaps more uniquely, they also have one of the largest agri-tech platforms globally which you know again, leverages some of that Canadian agriculture strength. But they have you know, over 160 million acres under active management, under their technology and they're collecting data from over a billion acres. So you know, they really have a mission of creating better food outcome by digitalising agriculture and improving yields and efficiency and traceability. And we think that you know, that is something that you know, you can get exposure to within a telecom company. So again, another opportunity that you know, not just thinking about the big tech companies, but also within tech, don't just think about the sort of classic definitions of technology. There are opportunities you can find in other areas.
Adam Hetts: This is a great reminder of how broad technology really is as a sector and how wide that investment opportunity set is and how it's touching all these parts of our lives these days. So this was great, Richard. Thanks for all of this, very helpful.
Richard Clode: Brilliant, thanks Adam.
Adam Hetts: I think we'll close it out there. If you want to hear more from Richard and his team as well as Janus Henderson's other investment teams and thought leaders, please check out our websites on the Insights section and we look forward to bringing you more global perspectives in the near future.
References made to individual securities should not constitute or form part of any offer or solicitation to issue, sell, subscribe or purchase, and neither should be assumed profitable.
Mega cap: typically refers to companies with a market capitalisation (market cap) above $200 billion. Market cap is the total market value of a company’s issued shares and is used to determine a company’s size.
Metaverse: a virtual world for immersive experiences that is persistently available where users can explore vast numbers of experiences concurrently such as meet, play, watch, trade and learn, enabled by technology, including virtual reality, augmented reality and video.
The views presented are as of the date published. They are for information purposes only and should not be used or construed as investment, legal or tax advice or as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security, investment strategy or market sector. Nothing in this material shall be deemed to be a direct or indirect provision of investment management services specific to any client requirements. Opinions and examples are meant as an illustration of broader themes, are not an indication of trading intent, are subject to change and may not reflect the views of others in the organization. It is not intended to indicate or imply that any illustration/example mentioned is now or was ever held in any portfolio. No forecasts can be guaranteed and there is no guarantee that the information supplied is complete or timely, nor are there any warranties with regard to the results obtained from its use. Janus Henderson Investors is the source of data unless otherwise indicated, and has reasonable belief to rely on information and data sourced from third parties. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal and fluctuation of value.
Not all products or services are available in all jurisdictions. This material or information contained in it may be restricted by law, may not be reproduced or referred to without express written permission or used in any jurisdiction or circumstance in which its use would be unlawful. Janus Henderson is not responsible for any unlawful distribution of this material to any third parties, in whole or in part. The contents of this material have not been approved or endorsed by any regulatory agency.
Janus Henderson Investors is the name under which investment products and services are provided by the entities identified in the following jurisdictions: (a) Europe by Janus Capital International Limited (reg no. 3594615), Henderson Global Investors Limited (reg. no. 906355), Henderson Investment Funds Limited (reg. no. 2678531), Henderson Equity Partners Limited (reg. no.2606646), (each registered in England and Wales at 201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AE and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority) and Henderson Management S.A. (reg no. B22848 at 2 Rue de Bitbourg, L-1273, Luxembourg and regulated by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier); (b) the U.S. by SEC registered investment advisers that are subsidiaries of Janus Henderson Group plc; (c) Canada through Janus Capital Management LLC only to institutional investors in certain jurisdictions; (d) Singapore by Janus Henderson Investors (Singapore) Limited (Co. registration no. 199700782N). This advertisement or publication has not been reviewed by Monetary Authority of Singapore; (e) Hong Kong by Janus Henderson Investors Hong Kong Limited. This material has not been reviewed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong; (f) Taiwan R.O.C by Janus Henderson Investors Taiwan Limited (independently operated), Suite 45 A-1, Taipei 101 Tower, No. 7, Sec. 5, Xin Yi Road, Taipei (110). Tel: (02) 8101-1001. Approved SICE licence number 023, issued in 2018 by Financial Supervisory Commission; (g) South Korea by Janus Henderson Investors (Singapore) Limited only to Qualified Professional Investors (as defined in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act and its sub-regulations); (h) Japan by Janus Henderson Investors (Japan) Limited, regulated by Financial Services Agency and registered as a Financial Instruments Firm conducting Investment Management Business, Investment Advisory and Agency Business and Type II Financial Instruments Business; (i) Australia and New Zealand by Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Limited (ABN 47 124 279 518) and its related bodies corporate including Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Institutional Funds Management Limited (ABN 16 165 119 531, AFSL 444266) and Janus Henderson Investors (Australia) Funds Management Limited (ABN 43 164 177 244, AFSL 444268); (j) the Middle East by Janus Capital International Limited, regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority as a Representative Office. No transactions will be concluded in the Middle East and any enquiries should be made to Janus Henderson. We may record telephone calls for our mutual protection, to improve customer service and for regulatory record keeping purposes.
Outside of the U.S.: For use only by institutional, professional, qualified and sophisticated investors, qualified distributors, wholesale investors and wholesale clients as defined by the applicable jurisdiction. Not for public viewing or distribution. For promotional purposes.
Technology industries can be significantly affected by obsolescence of existing technology, short product cycles, falling prices and profits, competition from new market entrants, and general economic conditions. A concentrated investment in a single industry could be more volatile than the performance of less concentrated investments and the market as a whole.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) or sustainable investing considers factors beyond traditional financial analysis. This may limit available investments and cause performance and exposures to differ from, and potentially be more concentrated in certain areas than, the broader market.
Emerging market investments have historically been subject to significant gains and/or losses. As such, returns may be subject to volatility.
Foreign securities are subject to additional risks including currency fluctuations, political and economic uncertainty, increased volatility, lower liquidity and differing financial and information reporting standards, all of which are magnified in emerging markets.
Smaller capitalisation securities may be less stable and more susceptible to adverse developments, and may be more volatile and less liquid than larger capitalization securities.
The financials industries can be significantly affected by extensive government regulation, can be subject to relatively rapid change due to increasingly blurred distinctions between service segments, and can be significantly affected by availability and cost of capital funds, changes in interest rates, the rate of corporate and consumer debt defaults, and price competition.
Use of third-party names, marks or logos is purely for illustrative purposes and does not imply any association between any third party and Janus Henderson Investors, nor any endorsement or recommendation by or of any third party. Unless stated otherwise, trademarks are the exclusive property of their respective owners.
Janus Henderson is a trademark of Janus Henderson Group plc or one of its subsidiaries. © Janus Henderson Group plc.