Page 1
STATE STREET CORPORATION 1
Complexities in Transition Management
Abstract
Transition management involves the purchase, sale and transfer of assets, along with the appropriate operations to effect a
change in portfolio allocation. While the concept of selling and buying portfolios may s ound like a simple trading exercise, it is
important to recognize the wide range of intricacies accompanying many transition events.
This paper highlights a series of complexities that can arise in transition management. The topics discussed are not meant to
exhaust all challenges, but rather highlight frequently occurring circumstances. The following subjects are explored herein:
1. Hedging in transitions
2. Trading at the close and challenges in benchmarking
3. Funding/defunding pooled funds
4. Defined contribution (“DC”) transitions
5. ETFs: Create or Trade?
For each subject, we also offer an overview of some of the techniques a transition manager may use to manage risk. Figures and examples provided are theoretical and not based on any actual transition results. In addition, they do not purport to reflect any expectation of specific future outcomes.
Page 2
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 2
HEDGING IN TRANSITIONS
The Observation
Assume that a plan modifies its strategic asset allocation, creating a material variance in one or more broad
allocation categories. Examples of categories include asset class, country, style (value/growth), or market cap,
as well as duration and sector for fixed income transitions. For instance, the table below shows a target portfolio
invested entirely in US small cap equities and a legacy portfolio invested in US large cap equities. This scenario
is used for the remainder of this section to illustrate the transition risk and the impact of potential risk -
management techniques.
The Risk/Challenge
The difference between target and legacy portfolio returns from the benchmark pricing point, typically the market
close on the day prior to the start of trading (“T-1”), to the open on trade date (“T”), is termed “overnight gap”.
This may result in implementation shortfall which can be attributed to the divergence in returns between
respective broad market categories. If the overnight gap is positive (i.e., the target portfolio outperforms the
legacy portfolio), then the actual portfolio would have accumulated a relative unrealized loss before trading has
commenced.
Asset class risk, in this example, may not be limited to the overnight gap. Any security trades that require time to
complete on or after the open on T have the potential to contribute to implementation shortfall. In some cases,
illiquid positions may take days or weeks to execute, resulting in an overweight in large cap US equities and/or
an underweight in small cap US equities for an extended period of time. The issue of appropriate market
exposure can be further complicated when liquidity profiles are drastically different between legacy and target
portfolios. These variances force a transition manager (and trader) to consider both cash exposure and
participation rates in the context of market liquidity.
Legacy Portfolio Target Portfolio
Market Value $125 mln $125 mln
Names 500 1,983
Portfolio Beta 0.99 0.98
Benchmark Index S&P 500 Index Russell 2000 Index
Page 3
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 3
The Strategy
Exposure risk could be reduced via a hedging program that employs futures, options or ETFs (considering plan
guidelines). For example, the transition manager could sell futures which track the legacy holdings (“legacy
futures”) and buy futures which track the target holdings (“target futures”). Assuming minimal basis risk between
the portfolios and index futures, executing these futures trades at the benchmark time and price will better align
the current portfolio exposures with those of the target portfolio. With the hedge, the transition account expects
to earn the target portfolio return as proxied by the target futures contract while offsetting the legacy portfolio
return via a short position in the legacy futures contract.
Below, we extend this strategy to the illustrative example (Legacy: S&P 500 Target: Russell 2000) based on a
hypothetical starting portfolio value of $125 mln. We also assume that each fund’s holdings mirror the underlying
indices (i.e., both funds are passively managed, fully replicated portfolios). The pricing data for equity indices
and futures contracts is provided at the bottom of the page for reference.
The first step is to calculate the number of futures contracts that will provide the correct exposure. This is done
by rounding down the quotient of the legacy portfolio value and the product of the index level and the futures
contract multiplier. For example, $125 mln / (1682.50 * 50) = 1485 contracts. At the market close on T-1 the
hedge is implemented based on the strategy described above, selling legacy futures and purchasing target
futures. On T, the hedge positions are closed via offsetting transactions as securities are purchased and sold.
Pricing Data
Index / Futures Contract
Equities
S&P 500 Index 1685.33 1690.47
Russell 2000 Index Close 1040.66 1044.92
Futures
S&P 500 E-mini Futures (ESU3 Index) 1682.50 1687.25
Russell 2000 Mini Futures (RTAU3 Index) 1040.40 1044.10
Futures Trades
Benchmark Date (T-1) Trade Date (T)
Short Sell ESU3, 1485 contracts @ 1682.50 = $124,925,625
Buy to Close ESU3, 1485 contracts @ 1687.25 = $125,278,313
Buy RTAU3, 1201 contracts @ 1040.40 = $124,952,040
Sell RTAU3, 1201 contracts @ 1044.10 = $125,396,410
Page 4
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 4
Portfolio Market Value and Return Calculations
Target Portfolio = $125,000,000 * (1044.92/1040.66) = $125,511,695 (0.41%)
Unhedged Portfolio = $125,000,000 * (1690.47/1685.33) = $125,381,231 (0.30%)
Hedged Portfolio = Unhedged Portfolio + Hedge (below) = $125,381,231 + $91,682 = $125,472,913 (0.38%)
Hedge Return Calculation ($)
Cash P/L Calculation ESU3 = $124,925,625 – $125,278,313 = ($352,688)
Cash P/L Calculation RTAU3 = $125,396,410 – $124,952,040 = $444,370
Total Hedge Contribution = $444,370 – $352,688 = $91,682
125.51
125.38
125.00
125.47
124.9
125
125.1
125.2
125.3
125.4
125.5
125.6
7/29 Close (T-1) 7/30 Open (T)
Mil
lio
ns
Target Portfolio Unhedged Portfolio Hedged Transition Account
Page 5
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 5
Trading at the Close and Challenges in Benchmarking
The Observation
Current transition management market standards dictate that a transition exercise is benchmarked to the market
closing price on T-1 prior to the start of trading on the following business day (T). We refer to this as “current
market standards” henceforth. The benefit of this “pre-trade benchmark”, in addition to facilitating comparability
across providers, is that trading from the open on T cannot influence the benchmark. However, in some
circumstances, transitions may benefit from trading at the market close on the benchmark date (a
“contemporaneous benchmark”).
With heightened fragmentation in equity markets and decreased
average block sizes, the industry has witnessed an uptick in bids
involving “Market on Close (MOC)” strategies and hybrid strategies
as a means to capture liquidity at the benchmark point. These
strategies often fuel the philosophical debate as to the most
appropriate performance attribution methodology when trading and
benchmarking occur concurrently.
The Risk/Challenge
Current market standards, when followed, offer a high degree of performance transparency. However, these
standards also limit a transition manager’s ability to capture liquidity that may be important in managing the risk
of a transition (given that the time-period prior to and including the market close has historically experienced a
significant portion of the day’s total trading volume). This dilemma is not limited to equity markets; it is also a
headline topic in the OTC foreign exchange markets with the WM/Reuters 4pm London Fix.
A case can be made for both trading at the benchmark and for waiting to trade to preserve the benchmark’s
integrity. We would argue that the optimal strategy is often somewhere in between and that it is more important
to recognize the benefits and drawbacks of each while demanding greater transparency in pre-trade cost
estimation.
From a transition bidding perspective, MOC and hybrid strategies can be difficult to compare with strategies that
assume trading begins at the open on T following the benchmark. Take the example on the following page.
Assume transition manager A submits a bid where trading begins at the open. Transition Manager B submits a
bid where 20% of volume is traded at the benchmark with the remainder beginning at the following day’s open. If
the decision to use one manager over another is purely quantitative, Manager B might be selected on the basis
Taking this debate further, one should
question whether the closing price is a
suitable benchmark at all. Please see
our paper dedicated to MOC trading,
“Trading Equities at the Close:
Considerations for Transition
Management”.
Page 6
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 6
of lower mean and opportunity costs. Manager B quoted 25% lower bid/ask spreads and 40% lower market
impact as a result of trading at the benchmark.
Cost Component Estimated Cost (bps)
Transition Manager A Transition Manager B
Commissions 4 4.2
Bid/ask spread 2 1.5
Market Impact 5 3
FX Spread 0 0
Taxes/Fees 1 1
Mean Estimated Cost 12 9.7
Opportunity Costs 21 15
The Strategy
Clearly, the 2 bids presented above are not directly comparable, as Manager B plans to complete 20% of the
transition at the benchmark. One solution to clarify this ambiguity is for asset owners and/or consultants to
explicitly state whether MOC or hybrid strategies are permissible at the onset, allowing transition managers to put
forth their preferred strategy. Manager A may have been withholding a more optimal strategy, assuming that
benchmark preservation was paramount. A base case strategy, perhaps one that adheres to current standards,
could also be requested if a transition manager chooses to submit a MOC or hybrid strategy. In any case, a TM
should clearly outline the assumptions used in deriving a bid. Manager B could have submi tted the following:
Cost Component Estimated Cost (bps) Assumptions
Transition Manager B Bid assumes that equity securities trading in volumes less than 2%
of trailing 60-day average daily volume and w ith positive marginal
contribution to risk are executed at the benchmark close w ith no
market impact or spread. The remaining securities are traded
beginning at the open on T. As a result of these factors, 20% of
security trading (or $120 mln) is assumed to trade at the benchmark
close.
Commissions 4.2
Bid/ask spread 1.5
Market Impact 3
FX Spread 0
Taxes/Fees 1
Mean Estimated Cost 9.7
Opportunity Costs 15
Assuming the asset owner and/or consultant permitted MOC or hybrid strategies, this description provides more
information with which to compare bids. If the detailed assumptions are deemed appropriate, Manager B’s
strategy may be viewed as more optimal. Alternatively, the asset owner could determine that Manager B’s
assumptions are overly aggressive (e.g., high levels of MOC trading with minimal market impact) and request a
bid with more conservative assumptions. Finally, the asset owner could request a base case to facilitate direct
comparison with provider A.
Page 7
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 7
Funding/Defunding Pooled Funds
The Observation
Transitions often involve funding or defunding pooled funds with potentially different settlement requirements. For
the purpose of this section, assume an asset owner is liquidating an actively managed separate account and
moving into a passively managed commingled fund that requires a cash contribution.
The Risk/Challenge
The risk is that the asset owner is not exposed to the market during the period between the sale of the legacy
securities and the contribution date into the pooled fund. The greatest challenge is presented when the pooled
fund requires cash on trade date (typically executed at the closing fund price). If the legacy account were to
liquidate with normal settlement (T+3) the asset owners would be out of the market for three days. Even if all
sells were short settled (T+1) the owners would still need to be out of the market for a full day: liquidation on T-1
at the close through contribution on T at the close.
The Strategy
One solution is to sell legacy securities in advance of the contribution date and purchase synthetic market
exposure. In the absence of liquidity concerns, the TM could liquidate all securities at the close on T-1, with 1-
day short settlement, while simultaneously purchasing futures contracts to maintain market exposure. On T, a
small portion of the short-settled cash could be used to fund the futures margin while the remaining cash could
be used to fund the pooled fund contribution. At the close on T, the point at which the pooled fund shares are
priced, the futures contracts could be sold and the pooled fund shares could be purchased. On T+1 the futures
margin could be redeemed, at which point a residual contribution could be made to the pooled fund.
If there is greater flexibility in settlement requirements (i.e., the target pooled fund allows for T+1 to T+3
settlement), the transition will have a greater chance to maintain market exposure without the use of derivatives ,
which typically introduce basis risk. For example, if the target manager permits T+1 settlement, the transition
manager could sell legacy securities for short settlement (T+1) at or around the close on the effective date of the
pooled fund contribution. Trades could settle in time to meet the pooled fund cash requirement.
When there are liquidity concerns, the transition manager or legacy manager may begin selling positions in the
most illiquid names several days in advance in order to complete all sales in line with the effective contribution
date. In the case where futures contracts are used to maintain market exposure, futures could be purchased in
line with these early sales.
Page 8
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 8
Other Considerations
If there are several legacy and/or target managers with differing settlement timing, various strategies to gain
market exposure should be mapped out. As with most strategies, there are pros and cons to consider. The list
below highlights some major considerations when mapping a transition strategy.
1. Settlement timing – TM must ensure that cash obligations are met while maintaining market exposure
as best as possible.
2. Liquidity – Legacy assets may take several days to sell based on the liquidity profile which may
necessitate early trading to ensure that the liquidation is complete by contribution date.
3. Basis risk – Using derivatives to maintain market exposure introduces basis risk, the difference in return
between the derivative instrument and the underlying security or index.
Page 9
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 9
Defined Contribution (“DC”) Transitions
The Observation
From time to time, defined contribution (“DC”) plans restructure their offerings. The restructurings often comprise
several tiers of investment options and various underlying managers and strategies. The structure may entail
some or all of the following: individual participants’ direct ownership of manager-level funds, individuals own
white label or core funds which in turn own manager-level funds, individuals own shares of target date or target
risk funds which in turn own shares of core-level funds and/or manager-level funds.
The Risk/Challenge
For DC transitions, operational risks are often more significant than portfolio risks. For example, the transition
account structure dictates the distribution of implementation shortfall among participants. Typically, one of the
most important issues for a plan sponsor is to avoid contaminating each individual participant’s performance with
the shortfall which is directly attributable to other participants. Additionally, there is the requirement to maintain
daily pricing in order to generate a NAV and provide participants access to transact on their investment options
during the transition period.
Aside from the operational risks are the typical transition portfolio risks. Portfolio risk is primarily a function of
opportunity cost risk, a result of the tracking error that exists between the starting transition portfolio and the
target portfolio (for any account structure). Other examples of contributors to portfolio risk may include, but are
not limited to, currency risk and market impact risk.
The Strategy
A defined contribution transition can be viewed from two distinct angles.
1. Structural perspective – Analysis of the hierarchical organization of the various plans and their
underlying core fund- and manager-level holdings.
2. Portfolio Risk perspective – Review of the anticipated investment and trading risks once we have
broken down the restructure into simplified buy and sell trade lists.
As the portfolio risks are not unique to DC transitions, we focus on the structural perspective below.
Page 10
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 10
In evaluating a DC transition from a structural perspective a TM can add value in the account level organization
of the transition. Typically there are two options, though complicated circumstances often necessitate
customization:
Core Fund/Target Structure – As of the effective date, the legacy funds are mapped to the target funds
and transition accounts are set up for each target fund. Participants in the legacy funds are assigned
units of the new target investment options which hold the new transition accounts. Trading is then
completed in transition accounts and on funding/contribution date the assets are distributed to the
respective managers. The actual custodial/administration accounts used can be either target manager
accounts or newly opened transition accounts.
The implementation shortfall accumulates at the target fund level and is shared by all participants in each
target fund. This structure is typically used when the legacy to target asset class shifts are similar among
participant groups or for the consolidation of various legacy plans into a similarly allocated target plan.
Participant Account/Legacy Structure – Prior to the effective date, assets in the legacy funds are
segregated and placed into separate transition accounts or legacy separate accounts are reassigned as
transition accounts. Restructure trading will occur in each transition account as needed. As of the
effective date the fully constructed portfolios and/or cash from each transition account are mapped to the
new target fund structure.
The implementation shortfall accumulates in the transition accounts for each participant. This approach
is often used when the legacy to target asset class shifts are substantial thus necessitating net cash
outflows from legacy investment options.
Implementation Examples
In the following pages we describe a simplified defined contribution transition plan. Assume the plan sponsor is
combining two legacy plans into a single target plan. Plan A participant assets are spread across six core funds
and Plan B participant assets are spread across five core funds. The target structure contained six core funds
with new managers.
Page 11
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 11
Target Structure Transition:
In this situation, the target core fund offerings are similar to the legacy core fund offerings with respect to asset
class. Additionally, the plan-level asset allocations appear to be consistent between target and legacy. For
example, the allocation to the target Large Cap Value (“LCV”) fund ($9.3 mln) is equal to the sum of the two
legacy LCV funds ($8.2 mln & $1.1 mln). Therefore, the target account structure could be used rather than the
legacy which would entail two transition accounts. On the effective date, the Plan A LCV and Plan B LCV could
be mapped to the target account and each participant would receive a pro-rata share of the new account with
Plan A participants owning approximately 53% and Plan B participants owning approximately 47%.
This structure is “fair” to participants because similar legacy holdings from Plan A and Plan B participants (“Fixed
Income” assets) are being transitioned to the same target portfolio. We can reasonably expect that costs would
be similar for each group if each Legacy plan was transitioned separately.
Core Fund Manager $mln
Fixed Income Manager A 2.5
Large Cap Growth Manager B 4.1
Large Cap Value Manager C 8.2
Small Cap Manager D 3.7 Core Fund Manager $mln
International Manager E 1.1 Fixed Income New Manager U 11.3
Global Manager F 2.4 Large Cap Growth New Manager V 11.8
Large Cap Value New Manager W 15.4
Small Cap New Manager X 9.5
Core Fund Manager $mln International New Manager Y 12.2
Fixed Income Manager G 8.8 Global New Manager Z 2.4
Large Cap Growth Manager H 7.7
Large Cap Value Manager I 7.2
Small Cap Manager J 5.8
International Manager K 11.1
Plan A
Target
Plan B
Page 12
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 12
Legacy Structure Transition:
Below we show a transition plan where a large number of legacy fund offerings are being consolidated into six
target date funds (“TDFs”). Some managers will remain, others will be liquidated, and there are several “new”
managers. In this situation some of the legacy funds may not require any trading and will simply become
holdings of various TDFs. However, we note that the fixed income allocation will grow from $35.6 mln to $55
mln, thus shifting some of the equity funds to fixed income funds. In this case a TM could look at the TDF’s
manager-level allocations and structure the transition accounts by legacy fund. The transition will be traded
within the legacy account structure and the target manager values would be mapped under the corresponding
TDFs after the completion of the transition. Notably, net sell activity would occur in certain legacy equity
transition accounts in order to ensure adequate cash as of the effective date for redistribution to target fixed
income mandates.
Fund Offering Asset Class Manager(s) $mln Core Fund Asset Class Manager(s) $mln
Select US Short Duration US FI A 15.1 Equity H, K, L 13.3
Intermediate US Corporate US FI B 4.1 Fixed Income A, C, E, New FI1 3.3
Total Return Bond US FI C 8.2 Equity F, G, J, New EQ1 11.7
Global Strategic Bond INTL FI D 4.7 Fixed Income A, B, D, New FI1 5.0
Foreign Bond Fund INTl FI E 3.5 Equity H, J, K, New EQ2 8.3
US Strategic Income US EQ F 6.3 Fixed Income A, B, C, D, E 8.3
US Passive Equity US EQ G 16.8 Equity F, G, H, J, K, L 6.7
World x US Passive Equity INTL EQ H 7.5 Fixed Income C, D 10.0
Global Growth INTL EQ I 7.2 Equity G, H, K 3.3
Emerging Markets IMI INTL EQ J 5.8 Fixed Income A, B, C 13.3
Global REIT INTL EQ K 9.7 Equity F, G, H 1.7
Total Return Equity INTL EQ L 11.1 Fixed Income New FI2 15.0
TDF 2030
TDF 2035
TDF 2040
TDF 2045
Legacy Plan Target
TDF 2020
TDF 2025
Page 13
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 13
ETFs: Create or Trade?
The Observation
ETFs are often part of an asset owner’s target allocation (directly or indirectly via sub-advisor portfolio holdings)
or part of an interim exposure strategy. When seeking ETF exposure, an asset owner may have several options,
summarized as follows:
1. Purchase ETF shares in the open market
2. Purchase the underlying basket of securities and create ETF shares via an authorized participant (“AP”)
3. Execute with a 3rd party, often a market maker in the referenced ETFs, to deal the ETFs at an agreed
upon benchmark (e.g., 3 cents away from the inside bid/offer)
The Risk/Challenge
The risk is that purchasing ETF shares in the open market may cause greater shortfall than one of the other
methods outlined above. Additionally, purchasing ETF shares also requires cash raised by selling legacy
portfolio securities. To the extent that legacy holdings are held in the ETF, those securities can result in cost -
savings in building a creation unit. Lastly, the relative size of the ETF purchase as compared with the daily
trading volume is often too large to complete within a single trading day, resulting in potential opportunity costs.
The Strategy
When evaluating an ETF purchase (or sale) a transition manager should estimate the total cost, both explicit and
implicit, of each of the available strategies. Below we show an example where a $100 mln legacy portfolio
containing the S&P 500 Growth Index securities is being transitioned into the SPY ETF. As shown in the table
on the following page, where there is a large amount of overlap between the legacy holdings and the ETF
creation unit, it is often less expensive to create ETF units.
Portfolio Characteristics Legacy Target
S&P 500 Grow th SPY
Market Value $100,000,000 $100,000,000
Underlying Securities 336 500
Shares 1,470,600 1,828,640
Page 14
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 14
Only 1.3 million shares would be traded under the creation strategy (#2) as compared to 2.1 million shares in
strategies 1 and 3, resulting in significant savings. As this example demonstrates, the preferred strategy will
depend on various inputs, but most importantly on the composition of the legacy portfolio relative to the target.
LIQUIDATION LIQUIDATION LIQUIDATION
Traded Shares 1,512,594 Traded Shares 510,761 Traded Shares 1,512,594
Traded Market Value $99,984,406 Traded Market Value $33,674,968 Traded Market Value $99,984,406
Cash $15,594 Cash $15,594 Cash $15,594
Commission $15,126 Commission $5,108 Commission $15,126
Spread (est.) $24,996 Spread (est.) $8,419 Spread (est.) $24,996
Market Impact (est.) $12,998 Market Impact (est.) $4,378 Market Impact (est.) $12,998
ETF SHARE PURCHASE PURCHASE ETF SHARE PURCHASE
Traded Shares 552,486 Traded Shares 805,380 Traded Shares 552,486
Traded Market Value $99,999,966 Traded Market Value $33,660,237 Traded Market Value $99,999,966
Cash $34 Commission $8,054 Cash $34
Commission $5,525 Spread (est.) $8,415 Commission $5,525
Spread (est.) $18,000 Market Impact (est.) $4,376 Spread (est./quoted) $34,575
Market Impact (est.) $14,000 CREATION Observed Market Impact (est.) $0
TOTAL COST $90,645 Shares (unit size = 50,000) 550,000 TOTAL COST $93,219
Flat Fee (SPY) $3,000
AP Fee 0
RESIDUAL ETF SHARE PURCHASE
Residual Shares 2,486 1. SPY is fully replicated S&P500
Residual Shares Market Value $449,966 2. Commissions: 1 cps for US equity trades
Cash $34 3. bid/ask: 2.5 bps for legacy, 1.8 bps target
Commission $25 4. Avg MI: 1.3 bps for legacy, 1.4 bps target
Spread (est.) $81 5. All prices as of November 30, 2013
Market Impact (est.) $63
TOTAL COST $41,918
Estimated Implementation Shortfall Comparison
1. Purchase ETF Shares 2. Creation 3. Third Party Negotiated Deal
Assumptions
Page 15
PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS STRATEGY: COMPLEXITIES IN TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
STATE STREET CORPORATION 15
Important Legal Information
This document is for marketing and/or informational purposes only, it does not take into account any investor's particular investment
objectives, strategies or tax and legal status, nor does it purport to be comprehensive or intended to replace the exercise of a clien t’s ow n
careful independent review regarding any corresponding investment decision. This document and the information herein does not constitute
investment, legal, or tax advice and is not a solicitation to buy or sell securities or intended to constitute any binding contractual arrangement
or commitment by State Street to provide securities services. The information provided herein has been obtained from sources believed to be
reliable at the time of publication, nonetheless, w e cannot guarantee nor do w e make any representation or w arranty as to its accuracy and
you should not place any reliance on said information. State Street Global Markets hereby disclaims all liability, w hether arising in contract,
tort or otherw ise, for any losses, liabilities, damages, expenses or costs arising, either direct or consequential, from or in connection w ith the
use of this document and/or the information herein.
Clients should be aw are of the risks of participating in trading foreign exchange, equities, f ixed income or derivative instruments or in
investments in non-liquid or emerging markets. Derivatives generally involve leverage and are therefore more volatile than their underlying
cash investments. Clients should be aw are that products and services outlined herein may put their capital at risk. Further, past performance
is no guarantee of future results and, where applicable, returns may increase or decrease as a result of currency f luctuations.
This communication is not intended for retail clients, nor for distribution to, and may not be relied upon by, any person or entity in any
jurisdiction or country w here such distribution or use w ould be contrary to applicable law or regulation. This publication or any portion hereof
may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed w ithout the prior w ritten consent of State Street Global Markets.
United Kingdom and European Economic Area. The products and services outlined in this communication are offered to Professional Clients
or Eligible Counterparties in the United Kingdom and other Member States of the European Economic Area through either (i) State Street
Bank Europe Limited or (ii) State Street Bank and Trust Company, London Branch, both of w hich are authorised by the Financial Conduct
Authority of the United Kingdom and regulated by the Prudential Regulatory Authority or (iii) State Street Bank GmbH, London branch, w hich
is authorised and regulated by the Bundesbank and German Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) and subject to regulation by the
Financial Conduct Authority for the conduct of UK business, with each of the foregoing hereafter referred to as the “Distributor”. This
communication is not intended for and must not be provided to retail investors. This communication is intended for distribution by the
Distributor in the United Kingdom and other Member States of the European Economic Area w ith respect to w hich the Distributor has
exercised passporting rights, where applicable, to provide cross-border services.
This document, w hen made available in certain provinces and territories of Canada, has been made available by State Street Global Markets
Canada, Inc. (“State Street Global Markets Canada”), a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada.
This communication has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment
research, and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research. The informat ion in this
communication has been prepared to ensure that it is fair, clear and not misleading. How ever, the Distributor makes no repres entation as to
the independence or impartiality of the information that is contained in this communication. The recipient should not view this communication
as an objective report. GMPS-0159.
© 2015 State Street Corporation - All Rights Reserved