1 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

A Guide to Ethical Investing Nicholas Stotz – Investment Research Analyst

2 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

Introduction

Socially conscious investing, whereby companies are evaluated not only by their

investment potential but also by their environmental and social impact, is one of the

fastest growing investment strategies in the world as investors strive to align their

portfolios with their conscience.

The investment community generally identifies ethical investments by evaluating

companies on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Examples of

ESG issues include:

Environmental – Impact of the business on the environment

Environmental degradation, pollution, climate change, sustainability, water/energy efficiency, animal testing, clean energy.

Social – Impact of business on society

Human rights violations in supply chain, exploitation of cheap labour in developing countries, supply of armaments to military, poor labour relations, provision of socially undesirable goods such as tobacco and gambling.

Governance – management structure and behaviour

Undue political influence, lack of diversity on the board, large gender pay gap, lack of board independence, abuse of market share, corruption, use of tax havens.

Different ethical funds focus on different ethical issues. Whilst this means that

socially conscious investors have a wide range of options to choose from, it also

increases the chances of an investor choosing a fund with ethical principles

incongruent to their own.

Would someone wanting to invest in an ethical fund expect it to include banks and

miners? It depends on what their ethical beliefs are.

Many of the top performing ethical funds invest heavily in big banks and

miners, but won’t invest in industries such as tobacco, alcohol, and

gambling. Is it more unethical to invest in a wine distributor than a big

bank or miner?

3 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

What is ethical?

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms” - Socrates

Before we can delve into the world of ethical investing, we need to define what is

ethical in order to differentiate between ethical and non-ethical investments. This

presents a challenge, since every individual has their own beliefs about what is right

and wrong, and often what one thinks is perfectly ethical may be seen as morally

reprehensible by someone else.

Ethics refers to the discipline dealing with what is good and bad, and with moral duty

and obligation. However, what constitutes ethical behaviour is often ambiguous. For

example, take the following thought experiment:

You are walking over a bridge when you notice a train hurtling towards

five people tied onto the train tracks. As it happens, there is an overweight

bystander on the bridge. The only way you can stop the train is by pushing

the bystander over the bridge. What is the ethical decision?

What if there were only two people at risk?

What if there was only one person, but they were a member of your family?

The various justifications for each decision illustrate that what is considered to be

ethical can vary wildly, especially in situations where what constitutes moral

behaviour is unclear. Therefore, it is essential for socially conscious investors to

understand the ethical framework underpinning the investment strategies of ethical

funds. One environmentally conscious fund may invest in nuclear energy as a clean

alternative to fossil fuels, whilst another environmentally conscious fund may deem

nuclear energy unethical due to the environmental effects of nuclear waste.

There may be no right or wrong answer, only the preferences of the investor.

4 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

How do you screen socially responsible investments?

Socially responsible investing is the practice of constructing portfolios aligned with

the ethical beliefs of an investor. There are three main ways to achieve this:

Negative screening Avoid any company that engages in business activities seen as unethical by the investor.

Positive screening Increase weights in companies that engage in business activities deemed to have a positive impact on society.

Impact investing Target specific social or environmental outcomes along with financial returns.

Negative screening is where an investor identifies companies that they will not invest

in due to their ethics. For example, an individual may not invest in companies

involved in alcohol, tobacco, or gambling as a result of their religious beliefs.

Positive screening involves adjusting portfolio weights to increase the portfolio’s

exposure to companies with strong ESG factors. An investor can either attempt to

maximise the overall ESG profile of the portfolio, or they can try to maximise the

portfolio’s profile in one ESG factor (e.g. representation of women on the board,

carbon emissions, etc).

Impact investing refers to the targeting of a specific social or environmental outcome

as well as financial return. A wealthy investor concerned about factory farming could

invest in a company that develops cultured meat.

5 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

Choice of investment product

There are three common approaches to building a socially responsible portfolio:

Exchange Traded Fund

A screening process is used to create an index of ethical stocks to invest in. A portfolio is then constructed with the aim of matching the performance of that index. These investments can be bought or sold like an ordinary share on the ASX.

Managed Fund

A screening process is used to create a universe of stocks to invest in. The fund manager then constructs a portfolio from this universe with the goal of outperforming a predetermined benchmark (e.g. ASX 300).

Direct Investing Investors undertake their own analysis and construct a portfolio of stocks based on their ethical preferences.

Managed funds and ETFs offer exposure to ethical portfolios managed by

investment professionals; however, the onus is on the investor to ensure their beliefs

are aligned with the ethical framework of the fund.

Management fees and ethical incongruence can be avoided if one constructs their

own portfolio of socially responsible investments. Although this strategy is cheaper,

most investors have neither the time nor expertise required to build a sound portfolio.

Effective portfolio management requires constant reviewing and adjustment, and the

ongoing analysis of investments not only on their own merit but as part of a broader

portfolio. Many well-resourced investment professionals are unable to do this

adequately, indicating the difficulty of the process.

6 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

Empirical performance of socially responsible investment funds

Readers should take the findings of the following papers with a grain of salt, as they

often use different definitions of socially responsible investing (SRI), different

benchmarks to measure outperformance, and different data samples of varying

length. This complicates the process of empirically determining whether ethical

investing affects returns. It should be noted that many ethical investors are willing to

accept a level of underperformance in order to have a portfolio aligned to their

values.

The bulk of academic research on the performance of ethical share funds suggests

there is no meaningful difference between the returns of ethical share funds and

conventional share funds. A common theme, however, is that both ethical and

conventional active funds tend to underperform a passive benchmark.

In 2015 three researchers reviewed more than 2000 papers and 3700 study results

relating to the performance of socially responsible investment funds. The authors

found that although there was no meaningful difference in the performance of equity

funds, ESG investing generates outperformance for non-equity asset classes such

as bonds and real estate.

Since the weight of empirical evidence suggests there is no cost to ethical investing,

investors may be able to remove unethical investments from their portfolios with no

material impact on their long-term returns.

Paper Findings

Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): What have we learned? A meta-analysis.

A review of 85 studies and 190 experiments tested the relationship between socially responsible investing and financial performance. The results indicate that consideration of corporate social responsibility in stock market portfolios is neither a strength nor a weakness compared with conventional investments.

Bauer et al (2003) – Ethical investing in Australia: Is there a financial penalty?

From 1992-2003 there were no significant differences in risk adjusted returns between ethical and conventional mutual funds in Australia.

Mackie, Palit, Veeraghavan & Watson (2017) – Is Socially Responsible Investing More Risky? Australian Evidence.

From 1998-2013 there was no significant difference in risk between socially responsible Australian funds and conventional funds of similar investment styles.

Leite & Cortez (2018) – The performance of European SRI funds investing in bonds and their comparison to conventional funds

No significant difference in the returns of European conventional and ethical balanced funds. Ethical bond funds tend to outperform conventional bond funds, mostly due to ethical bonds being disproportionately issued in wealthier nations that entail less country risk.

Henriques & Sadorsky (2017) - Investor implications of divesting from fossil fuels.

From 2005-2016 portfolios of US stocks that divested from fossil fuels and invested in clean energy outperformed portfolios that invested in fossil fuels and portfolios that invested in neither clean energy nor fossil fuels.

Areal, Cortez & Silva (2010) - Investing in Mutual Funds: Does it Pay to Be a Sinner or a Saint in Times of Crisis?

From 2002-2009 socially irresponsible funds (investing in alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc) outperformed socially responsible funds in times of low stock market volatility and underperformed during times of high stock market volatility.

7 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

Choosing an ethical fund manager

When choosing an ethical fund manager, investors need to consider both the

manager’s ethical screening process and the historical returns of the fund to ensure

that both their ethical and investment objectives are likely to be met adequately. The

appendix of this paper details the screening process, top 5 holdings, and historical

returns of ethical funds rated as ‘Recommended’ or higher by the investment

research house Lonsec at the time of writing. The aim of the appendix is to assist

investors in choosing a fund that reflects their personal ethics, whilst providing

adequate returns.

Social Impact Bonds

With an ageing population putting an increasing amount of pressure on the

sustainability of budgets, governments are increasingly looking to alternative sources

to fund their social services expenditure. An area of rapid growth globally is Social

Impact Bonds (SIB), where the money raised from the bonds are used to pay

charities to address social ills, and investors receive coupon payments

commensurate with the success of the program. The NSW and Queensland

governments have pioneered social impact bonds, with each government issuing

several bonds tackling issues including the neglect and abuse of children, youth

unemployment, homelessness and recidivism.

Albeit with a brief track record, SIBs have been resounding successes both socially

and financially. The first SIB in NSW was issued in 2013 to restore children under 6

in foster care to their families. Since then, more than 60% of families in the program

were reunited with their children, compared to the 20% success rate of a control

group. This phenomenal outperformance has netted investors a 13.5% p.a. return

during a period where global bond yields were near all-time lows.

SIBs are attractive for a number of reasons. Firstly, they increase the efficacy of

welfare programs, since only successful programs will receive additional funding

from investors. Secondly, they increase the efficiency of welfare programs, as they

are not administered by bureaucrats who have little incentive to innovate. Thirdly,

they align self-interest with altruism, since investors have a financial incentive to

ensure that the program is meeting its goals.

Despite these benefits, the adoption of SIBs in the near future is likely to be slow.

The alignment of self-interest with altruism, along with the outsourcing of social

services to the private sector, will likely meet resistance members of the community

who are sceptical of the motives of the private sector and/or believe it is unethical to

make profits off charity. Furthermore, workers in social services departments may

resist the rollout of SIBs in the interest of protecting their jobs.

8 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

In conclusion

As our society continues to grow wealthier, investors are increasingly foregoing the

pursuit of maximising returns, aiming instead on constructing portfolios consisting of

companies that are aligned with their core values. Major corporations are responding

to this demand by creating large divisions dedicated to corporate social responsibility

and sustainability, with the conventional management wisdom of ‘the only business

of business is business’ rapidly being replaced by Triple Bottom Line accounting,

which places an emphasis on societal and environmental performance as well as

economic performance.

Shifts towards corporate social responsibility, plus the potential of sustainable

products such as solar energy, should serve as a tailwind for the ethical investors of

today as other investors begin to incorporate ESG principles into their portfolios. The

ascent of ethical investing is likely to be a great force for good in the world, as

hundreds of millions of dollars will flow from unethical and unsustainable companies

to their ethical and sustainable counterparts.

A hurdle many ethically inclined investors fail to overcome is the belief that excluding

unethical investments is likely to result in underperformance. As detailed in this

paper, the consensus from academia is that portfolios constructed with ESG screens

have no significant difference in performance or volatility than conventional

portfolios.

As more ethical investment products are released, investors will have to be

increasingly diligent to ensure that funds marketed as ethical are indeed so. We

hope that after reading this paper you are better equipped to make that judgement,

and hope that ongoing investor education will help spur the sustainable growth of the

ethical investment industry for many years to come.

9 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

About the author

Nicholas Stotz works as an Investment

Research Analyst at Stanford Brown and is

responsible for researching investment

opportunities for inclusion in Stanford

Brown’s model portfolios, in addition to a

number of other functions related to Stanford

Brown’s investment processes. He is also a

member of Stanford Brown’s Philanthropy

Committee.

As the son of refugees, Nicholas has always

felt the desire to give back to those who

weren’t given the same opportunities he was.

Nicholas is particularly passionate about the

empowerment of indigenous Australians.

Nicholas’ passion for finance has its roots as an Occupy Wall Street sympathiser

outraged at the GFC and ensuing bank bailouts. He quickly became fascinated by

the world of finance and enrolled in the Applied Finance program at Macquarie

University, where he found that finance was the perfect marriage of his love for

economics, mathematics, and psychology.

Nicholas is a co-editor of Stanford Brown’s weekly publication “That Was The Week

That Was”, and has been published in the Australian Financial Review, Cuffelinks

and nabtrade.

10 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

References

Areal, Nelson, Maria C. Cortez, and Florinda Silva. "Investing in Mutual Funds: Does

it Pay to be a Sinner or a Saint in Times of Crisis?." (2010).

Bauer, Rob, Rogér Otten, and Alireza Tourani Rad. "Ethical investing in Australia: Is

there a financial penalty?." Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 14.1 (2006): 33-48.

Friede, Gunnar, Timo Busch, and Alexander Bassen. "ESG and financial

performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies." Journal

of Sustainable Finance & Investment 5.4 (2015): 210-233.

Henriques, Irene, and Perry Sadorsky. "Investor implications of divesting from fossil

fuels." Global Finance Journal (2017).

Leite, Paulo, and Maria Céu Cortez. "The performance of European SRI funds

investing in bonds and their comparison to conventional funds." Investment Analysts

Journal 47.1 (2018): 65-79.

Mackie, Ewan, et al. "Is Socially Responsible Investing More Risky? Australian

Evidence." Sustainability and Social Responsibility: Regulation and Reporting.

Springer, Singapore, 2018. 261-305.

Revelli, Christophe, and Jean‐Laurent Viviani. "Financial performance of socially

responsible investing (SRI): what have we learned? A meta‐analysis." Business

Ethics: A European Review 24.2 (2015): 158-185.

11 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

Disclaimer:

The funds included in the appendix below represent ethical funds that were rated as “recommended” or higher by the research house Lonsec

at the time of writing. The views of Lonsec towards the funds are subject to change and do not reflect the views of Stanford Brown. Stanford

Brown does not recommend any of the funds nor are they in its approved product list.

Fund Benchmarks

Asset Class

Benchmark 1y 3y 5y

Australian Bonds

Bloomberg AusBond Composite Index

3.7% 2.9% 4.3%

Australian Shares

ASX All Ordinaries (Accum)

14.67% 12.37% 8.45%

International Shares –

Unhedged MSCI World ex Aust $A 20.8% 12.4% 15.3%

International Shares – Hedged

MSCI World ex Aust $A (Hgd)

12.89% 14.73% 12.58%

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

12 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

Appendix

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

AUS0071AU Altius

Sustainable Bond Fund

Australian Debt

Companies whose primary business

activities include ATG, adult content,

armaments, uranium, coal. Further companies may be excluded if the

Altius Sustainability Committee believes they

are meaningfully involved in certain unjust

practices

General ESG screen

Australian Commonwealth

Government, Victorian State Government, Queensland

State Government, New South Wales State Government,

KfW development

bank

2.1% 2.6% - 0.57% Link

HOW0121AU Alphinity

Sustainable Share Fund

Australian Equities ATG, armaments and

harvesting of old growth forests

Use aggregated ESG scores when evaluating

investments

BHP, CSL, CBA, ANZ,

NAB 21.7% 13.2% 9.5% 1.01% Link

AUG0002AU

Australian Ethical

Australian Shares Fund

Australian Equities

ATG, polluters, deceitful marketing, speculators in

property and commodities,

armaments, exploit labour through poor

wages and/or working conditions, discriminatory

employment practices, inhibition of human rights

generally

Amelioration of wasteful or polluting practices,

development of sustainable land use, preservation of eco-

systems, activities that contribute to human

happiness, dignity and education, well-being of

animals

Macquarie Telecom,

Westpac, NAB, Bendigo,

Contact Energy

8.8% 10.8% 11.0% 2.50% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

13 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

AUG0004AU

Australian Ethical

Diversified Shares Fund

Australian Equities

ATG, polluters, deceitful marketing, speculators in

property and commodities,

armaments, exploit labour through poor

wages and/or working conditions, discriminatory

employment practices, inhibition of human rights

generally

Amelioration of wasteful or polluting practices,

development of sustainable land use, preservation of eco-

systems, activities that contribute to human

happiness, dignity and education, well-being of

animals

CSL, NAB, Westpac, Telstra,

Goodman

14.3% 10.3% 10.1% 2.20% Link

ASX:FAIR

BetaShares Australian

Sustainability Leaders ETF

Australian Equities

ATG, fossil fuels, chemicals of concern,

mandatory detention of asylum seekers, adult

content, armaments, junk food, uranium and

nuclear energy, human rights violations in supply

chain, environmental degradation, gender

diversity, animal cruelty, payday lending

Must satisfy one of the following criteria:

- More than 20% of revenue derived from

socially desireable business activities

- Recipient of an "A" or "B" grade from a trusted ethical consumer report

- Has received a certification from B Lab

Brambles, ResMed, Telstra,

Suncorp, IAG

10.1%* - - 0.39% Link

SSB4946AU

Legg Mason Martin Currie

Ethical Income Fund

Australian Equities

ATG, adult content, fur, genetic modification, nuclear power, coal,

companies non-compliant with

international norms and principals (e.g. UN

declaration of Human Rights, International Labour Organisation

Declaration on Fundamental Principles

and Rights at Work)

N/A

Telstra, Meridian

Energy, ANZ, Woodside

Petroleum, JB Hi-Fi

5.1% - - 0.85% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018. **Return from Oct 17 Inception to Sep 18

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

14 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

SSB0064AU

Legg Mason Martin Currie

Ethical Values with

Income Fund

Australian Equities

ATG, adult content, fur, genetic modification, nuclear power, coal

seam gas, companies non-compliant with

international norms and principals (e.g. UN

declaration of Human Rights, International Labour Organisation

Declaration on Fundamental Principles

and Rights at Work)

N/A

Telstra, Meridian

Energy, ANZ, Woodside

Petroleum, JB Hi-Fi

4.9% - - 0.85% Link

RFA0025AU

Pendal Wholesale

Ethical Share Fund

Australian Equities

ATG, armaments, adult content and companies

convicted of environmental or social offences. The screen

applies only to manufacturers, not

retailers of the completed product

Promote companies demonstrating and/or

offering leading environmental

BHP, ANZ, CSL, Westpac,

Qantas 14.1% 11.6% 8.8% 0.95% Link

PER0116AU

Perpetual Wholesale Ethical SRI

Fund

Australian Equities ATG, armaments, coal

seam gas

Companies with above average rating in factors such as: environmental, human rights, corporate governance, community engagement, corporate

ethics, OHS management

ANZ, Westpac, Shire, NAB,

Qube 6.5% 9.8% 8.2% 1.12% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

15 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

ASX:ETHI

BetaShares Global

Sustainability Leaders ETF

Global Equities

ATG, mandatory detention of asylum

seekers, armaments, junk foods, fossil fuels, uranium and nuclear energy, adult content,

environmental degradation, recent significant fines or convictions, animal

cruelty, human rights violations in supply chain, chemicals of

concern

Companies with a carbon impact >60%

lower than their industry average

Apple, Visa, Home Depot, UnitedHealth

Group, Mastercard

27.6% - - 0.49% Link

ETL8171AU BNP Paribas

Environmental Equity Trust

Global Equities >5% revenue coming

from ATG, nuclear power or adult content

All companies must have an environmental

product or service comprise more that 20%

of revenue. Typically clean energy, water,

sustainable food, agriculture, and

waste/resource recovery

Sealed Air, TE Connectivity,

Siemens, Schneider

Electric, Suez

12.7% - - 1.10% Link

AAP0001AU

Candriam Sustainable

Global Equity Fund

Global Equities

ATG, armaments, adult content, genetic

modification, nuclear power, animal testing,

operations in oppressive regimes

"Best in class" analysis, where companies are

evaluated on their ability to manage the

sustainability issues specific to their sector.

This effectively rules out coal and other fossil fuel

manufacturers

Amazon, Home Depot,

Microsoft, Procter &

Gamble, Oracle

17.1% 10.2% 13.0% 1.07% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

16 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

DFA0042AU

Dimensional Global

Sustainability Trust Hedged AUD

Global Equities

ATG, armaments, greenhouse emissions,

involvement in toxic spills/releases,

operational waste, factory farming

N/A

Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Verizon,

UnitedHealth Group

12.6% - - 0.47% Link

DFA0041AU

Dimensional Global

Sustainability Trust Unhedged AUD

Global Equities

ATG, armaments, greenhouse emissions,

involvement in toxic spills/releases,

operational waste, factory farming

N/A

Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Verizon,

UnitedHealth Group

21.3% - - 0.47% Link

SLT2171AU Nanuk New World

Fund Global Equities

Climate change, fossil fuels, environmental

degradation, armaments, ethical values and

human rights. Ethical values includes ATG, coal, oil, gas, uranium

and adult entertainment

Energy efficiency, clean energy, industrial

efficiency, waste and pollution, food and agriculture, water,

healthcare

Valeo, Lenzing, Carlisle, Siemens,

Waste Management Inc

14.1% - - 1.21% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

17 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

HOW0002AU Pengana

International Fund - Ethical

Global Equities

Armaments, tobacco, gambling, animal

farming, animal testing, activities that give rise to human rights violations,

unremediated destruction of the

environment, uranium mining, fossil fuels

N/A

Bharti Infratel, Cigna, CME

Group, Dollar General, Heineken

11.3% 4.3% 9.4% 1.35% Link

HHA0002AU

Pengana International

Fund - Ethical Opportunity

Global Equities

Armaments, tobacco, gambling, animal

farming, animal testing, activities that give rise to human rights violations,

unremediated destruction of the

environment, uranium mining, fossil fuels

N/A

Bharti Infratel, Cigna, CME

Group, Dollar General, Heineken

16.4% - - 1.50% Link

HHA0007AU

Pengana WHEB

Sustainable Impact Fund

Global Equities N/A

Companies with at least 1/3 of profits or

revenues directly exposed to one of the following sustainability

themes: resource efficiency, water management,

sustainable transport, education, well-being, health, safety, clean

energy, environmental services

Agilent Technologies, AMS AG, CVS,

Danaher

16.9% 1.5% 4.3% 1.35% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

18 | A Guide to Ethical Investing

APIR Product Asset Class Negative screen factors Positive screen factors Top 5 holdings 1y 3y 5y ICR Fund info

FSF0047AU

Stewart Investors

W/S Worldwide Leaders

Fund

Global Equities

No screening process. Focus on sustainable development (i.e. products and services that

contribute to economic, social and environmental improvements)

Unilever,

Henkel AG & Co,

Beiersdorf, Merck, Cerner

17.5% 11.3% 12.9% 1.22% Link

FSF1675AU

Stewart Investors

Worldwide Sus Fund -

Class A

Global Equities

No screening process. Focus on sustainable development (i.e. products and services that

contribute to economic, social and environmental improvements)

Unilever,

Henkel AG & Co,

Beiersdorf, Tata

Consultancy, Merck

15.1% 11.5% - 1.01% Link

VAN1579AU

Vanguard International

Shares Select

Exclusions Index Fund

Global Equities

No screening process. The investment tracks the return of the MSCI World ex Australia, ex Tobacco, ex Controversial Weapons, ex Nuclear Weapons

Index (with net dividends reinvested).

Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook

21.0% - - 0.20% Link

*Past performance is no guarantee of future results, returns as at September 30 2018

^ATG: Alcohol, Tobacco & gambling

23

Disclaimer

Any advice contained in this document is general advice only and does not take into consideration the reader’s personal circumstances. This report is current when written. Any reference to the reader’s actual circumstances is coincidental. To avoid making a decision not appropriate to you, the content should not be relied upon or act as a substitute for receiving financial advice suitable to your circumstances. When considering a financial product please consider the Product Disclosure Statement. Stanford Brown is a Corporate Authorised Representative of The Lunar Group Pty Limited. The Lunar Group and its representatives receive fees and brokerage from the provision of financial advice or placement of financial products. The Lunar Group Pty Limited ABN 27 159 030 869 AFSL No. 470948 © 2018 Stanford Brown.

24

Level 8, 15 Blue Street, North Sydney NSW 2060 PO Box 1173, North Sydney NSW 2059

Telephone +61 (0) 2 9904 1555 Fax +61 (0) 2 9904 1973 www.stanfordbrown.com.au

Stanford Brown is a Member Firm and Corporate Authorised Representative of the Lunar Group.

ABN 27 159 030 869 AFSL No. 470948 ©Copyright 2018 Stanford Brown

Unless otherwise specified, copyright of information provided in this document is owned by Stanford Brown Group Pty Ltd. You may not alter or modify this information in any way, including the removal of this copyright notice.