#$dbuk

Following the Brexit vote, seven asset managers, so far, have suspended redemptions on their UK real estate funds. Accounting for around £18 billion—more than half of the open-ended British property funds market—these funds apparently have limited cash/liquid options to meet the flood of withdrawal requests from investors.

Heightened uncertainty around U.K.’s business prospects, following the referendum, has jittery fund-holders rushing to offload exposures to U.K.’s commercial property. But, given the relatively illiquid nature of the funds’ underlying assets, such as office buildings/parks, warehouses and other commercial properties, asset managers are suspending redemptions to avoid a real estate fire sale.

Standard Life was the first to halt redemptions. Its 13% cash reserves proved insufficient to cushion the overwhelming withdrawal requests, compelling the fund to suspend trading on its £2.9 billion U.K. Real Estate fund on July 4—barely 11 days since the poll results came out. The next day, Aviva Investors froze its £1.8 billion Property Trust.

Citing mounting liquidity pressures, Henderson halted trading on its £3.9 billion U.K. Property PAIF fund along with feeder funds. Columbia Threadneedle and Canada Life temporarily suspended redemptions on £1.39 billion PAIF/feeder funds and four funds totaling £450 million respectively.

Additionally, many money managers ‘devalued’ their funds to discourage investors from selling at prices deemed too low. Aberdeen Fund Managers Ltd. slashed a property fund value by -17% and stopped redemptions. Henderson cut its fund price by -4%.

Many asset managers want to avert a 2007-like real estate bust, when funds contributed to a more than -40% decline in UK property prices from their peak. Temporarily freezing trade on real estate funds is probably viewed by their managers as the only way to stem a potential self-reinforcing cycle of redemptions and free-fall in British property prices. It doesn’t help that foreign investment in UK commercial real estate was already down -50% in the first quarter this year. Plus, demand for the nation’s residential properties plunged to a three-year low in May, mainly due to the anticipation over the forthcoming Brexit referendum at the time.  

Also, talks of possible U.K. regulatory measures, such as requiring investors to provide a notice period of at least 30 days to six months to liquidate fund positions, and/or allowing sell-offs only at ultra-low prices, are doing the rounds.

Bottom Line for Investors

The Brexit referendum has sparked a drastic change in sentiment, from the post-financial crisis period of skyrocketing London property prices. The fund redemption requests are a sign of increasing apprehensions about the U.K.’s consistency as a business center after its vote to leave the EU—meaning, British commercial properties could experience some price decline in the future, even if temporary withholding of funds’ redemptions prevents it from ballooning into a catastrophic downward spiral. Nevertheless, if prices do manage to fall enough, long-term investors could spot some bargain hunting opportunities for high-end properties in London, especially with an already cheap pound.

On the other hand, the rush to unload British real estate exposure could also shift investor capital towards real estate in the U.S. in the coming months, especially as the latter’s economy is showing signs of resilience.

FREE Download – Zacks Stock Market Outlook Report: July/August, 2016

Theresa May is a highly experienced politician who has already made history by becoming the second longest serving home secretary in the past 100 years, serving six years in one of Government’s toughest jobs. Now, May takes on the role of Prime Minister of Britain. As she takes the reigns, she brings with her a new hope of leadership at a dramatic and tumultuous time for the nation. May is a seasoned career politician and an anti-BREXIT campaigner who is admired for her liberal stances on a number of social issues and strong work ethic.

Who is Theresa May?

Born in the seaside town of Eastbourne (Sussex) on October 1st, 1956, to a vicar (Reverend Hubert Brasier) and his wife (Zaidee), May had a humble upbringing which influenced her political career and imbued her with a sense of public service. She attended a state primary (an independent convent school) and then a grammar school in the village of Wheatley, which later became the Wheatley Park Comprehensive School during her time there. She later attended Oxford University (St Hugh's College) for higher studies where she was introduced to the world of politics.

After graduating with a degree in Geography, she initially started working at the Bank of England and later rose to become head of the European Affairs Unit of the Association for Payment Clearing Services. It was during her 3rd year in college, in 1976, that she met her husband Philip, who was president of the Oxford Union, a well-known breeding ground for future political leaders.

Her Political Journey

It was during her college years that she conveyed to her close friends her ambition to pursue politics as her career. She began her political career by stuffing envelopes at her local Conservative Association before becoming a councillor in the London Borough of Merton from 1986 to 1994. Later, she moved to Westminster where she made her entry into parliament as the MP for Maidenhead in 1997, after previously failing to win seats in Durham and Barking.

After becoming MP, she was quickly appointed to William Hague’s shadow cabinet and became the first female chairman of the Conservative Party in 2002. Under Prime Minister David Cameron, she became the Home Secretary. 

Key Dates

1986-94: Councillor, London Borough of Merton

1992: Parliamentary candidate, NW Durham

1994: Parliamentary candidate in the Barking by-election

1997 to present: MP of Maidenhead

1999-01: Shadow Education Secretary

2001-03: Shadow Transport

2002-03: Conservative Party Chairman

2003-04: Shadow Transport

2004-05: Shadow Culture Media & Sport

2005-09: Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

2009-10: Shadow Work & Pensions

2010-2016: Home Secretary

2016-present: British Prime Minister

Career Highlights

1. Holding a variety of key shadow cabinet posts from 1999–2010

2. The first female chairman of the Conservatives in 2002

3. Becoming the Minister for Women & Equalities and Home Secretary in 2010

4. Blocking British computer hacker Gary McKinnon’s extradition in 2012

5. Becoming the longest-serving Home Secretary (Britain) in the last century in 2015

6. Becoming the second female Prime Minister in 2016 (following Margaret Thatcher)

Political Thinking

1. Move forward with Brexit referendum toward a ‘win-win’ for both UK and EU

2. Unite UK by values of One Nation Toryism

3. Create a strong, new, positive vision for the future of the nation, a vision of a country that works not for the privileged few, but for every individual

4. Revamp boardroom ethics with workers guaranteed representation on company boards while shareholders vote on executive pay (which will be made binding every year)

5. Promote social mobility and reform

6. Create opportunity for the more disadvantaged in society

Final Thoughts

The Brexit referendum has thrown the UK into one of its worst political crises since 1940. As a result, Theresa May and the government face a daunting task in defining the nation’s new relationship with EU members while uniting the UK as a nation. While the early years of May's time in Downing Street may be dominated by the process of divorcing the UK from the EU, her tenure will surely shape the course of British and European history for the foreseeable future.

Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: July, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss. Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

The aftermath of the “Brexit” vote is sure to create plenty of winners and losers, but perhaps most-watched will be those affected in the realm of trade. At this stage, there’s no sense in speculating how the trade relationship between Britain and the EU will ultimately look— there are far too many unknowns. But, what is worth a closer look is how the Brexit vote has seemingly stirred a movement—one that is bringing into question the benefits of globalization and trade.

 Is Free Trade on the Chopping Block?

Something we learned from those leading the “Leave” campaign in Britain was how effective it was to appeal to isolationism. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage focused their messages on how Britain could do it all on their own—no need for Brussels bureaucracy, no need for a trade deal they felt benefited the EU more than Britain, no need for labor coming from other countries.

Readers may have a strong opinion on the topic of ‘trade’ one way or the other, some even more so who have been directly affected by it with a job loss. The economic benefits of trade are very difficult to measure directly, but the costs are quite tangible (job losses, immigration) and it is easier to see trade hurting more than it helps. In this sense, the emotional argument often trumps the analytical one.

 As a career asset manager, I’m hard-wired to put my weight behind the analytical when it comes to cost/benefit analysis, and for trade I’m convinced that freer is almost always better. There is a relatively new data set available that supports this case. The Organization for Economic Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have created a joint initiative to better measure how countries, in their trade relationships, benefit from and contribute to total output.

The metric is known as the Trade in Value-Added (TiVA) and, in the WTO and OECD’s words, it’s “the value added by each country in the production of goods and services that are consumed worldwide.” A look at some of the findings reveal quite a few highlights:

The United States adds more value to China’s exports than China does to ours

Foreign countries add about 15% of value to our total exports, with the rest coming from domestic production

While most people see China as “making everything,” they actually source over 30% of the value of their production from other countries

Even Mexico relies on foreign value adds more than the U.S. does

The OECD-WTO joint initiative examines 61 countries and 34 unique industrial sectors, so one could study the findings all day and night. But, the consistent discovery you’ll make is that very few mass produced goods are made in just one country—the global supply chain is vast and interconnected. To make an iPhone, about a dozen countries are involved, and if that supply chain breaks down or a link goes missing (or is legislated away via tariffs) then the cost effectiveness of the iPhone goes out the window. Just ask any Brazilian (with whom the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement) how difficult it is to acquire an Apple computer at a reasonable price. Citizens in Brazil pay at least double what we do.

Raising tariffs or nixing free trade agreements can easily result in a backlash to protectionism, which could mean the ultimate costs of goods sold rises significantly. Roughly two-thirds of GDP in this country is comprised of consumer spending, and the last thing anyone really wants is the costs of goods skyrocketing. Trade is by no means perfect all of the time, but it’s also one of those things that ‘you don’t really know how much it hurts until it’s gone.’ 

Bottom Line for Investors

Again, I’m not arguing that freer trade is a perfect economic solution and that globalization is the end-all solution for creating the most wealth possible. But, I’d argue that they help more than they hurt. The reason sentiment against trade and globalization is easy to ignite is because the effects are felt by some acutely (those who lose jobs), and that is certainly a problem governments need to work to figure out. Ultimately, the benefits of globalization and trade are distributed throughout society via the lower cost of goods—an iPhone costs $600 instead of the $1,200 it costs in Brazil. If folks were able to see a menu of goods before tariffs and after tariffs, my guess is that free trade wouldn’t get such a bad rap.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: July/August, 2016

Theresa May Assumes Key Role as Britain PM – Theresa May became the second woman to lead Britain since Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990), and the world is watching as she assumes the extraordinarily tricky task of guiding Britain through their separation from the European Union (EU). May is a career politician and actually campaigned against the Brexit, but she appears committed to seeing it through based on the referendum result. Germany’s leader, Angela Merkel, has already stated that Britain should not expect an easy path forward in their relationship with the EU, and May finds herself in a difficult position.

June Jobs Report Surprises to the Upside – after a dismal May jobs report that arguably sent the Fed back into the bomb shelter, U.S. job growth surged in June as manufacturing employment increased. June saw nonfarm payrolls increase by +287,000 m/m, the largest gain since last October, which followed the bleak +11,000 m/m added in May. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate held at 4.9%. One would normally assume that a stronger jobs report might encourage the Fed to revisit their projected course for raising rates, but at this stage Fed forecasting feels like a feckless exercise. Even though the Fed’s dual mandate is employment and inflation, they also seem greatly influenced by global events, like the Brexit.

Maintaining Close Ties with Wall Street – Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, met with some of Wall Street's biggest investors in New York this week to try and encourage them to keep close ties with the U.K. despite the Brexit. It seems extremely unlikely that Wall Street will want to alter its relationship with London following the Brexit, as neither party has any incentive to close-off ties in any way. In fact, once the Brexit has fully taken its course, there could be even more advantageous aspects to the relationship between New York and London, since London will no longer have to abide by regulations set forth in Brussels. Osborne will also visit Singapore and China later this month for the same end.

Bank of England Holds Key Rate at 0.5% - the market has seemingly been wrong in forecasting Britain policy moves lately—first the Brexit, and then this week in setting the expectation that the Bank of England would cut the benchmark rate by 25 basis points and perhaps also boost other stimulus measures, like bond buying programs. Neither outcome happened, perhaps as the central bank elected to hold off on using its stimulus measures until it is deemed essential. With the FTSE trading higher since the Brexit vote, the read is that the markets are perfectly content with the referendum outcome—so why should the central bank act? A 25 basis point cut would be the Bank of England’s first cut in seven years, and would represent an unprecedented low in the central bank's 322-year history.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: July, 2016

Amidst all the gloom surrounding global economic woes this year, many people overlooked some silver linings—one of them being 2015’s record high global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows.

Swelling +38%, global FDI flows (i.e., aggregate investments made by companies/entities directly into overseas businesses versus buying shares on public stock exchanges) peaked to $1.76 trillion in 2015—the highest level since the global financial crisis of 2007-08. And, a quarter of the flows went to North America, outshining the region’s 2000 FDI levels.

The region also registered the sharpest rise at +160% last year from 2014 inflows, driven mainly by more than +250% jump in FDI to the U.S.

Notwithstanding debt woes, the European Union registered a +50% surge and Switzerland received a +886% rise to $69 billion.

Reversing a nearly five-year-old trend, developed economies collectively received the greater share (55%) of global FDI flows in 2015 versus the preceding year’s 41%. The spurt of FDI into advanced economies was largely due to cross-border mergers and acquisitions, particularly in the U.S.

 Data Source: UNCTAD

On the other hand, developing economies (excluding Caribbean financial centers) experienced a +9% increase, but flows to transition economies plunged -38% from 2014 levels.

FDI flows to Developing Asia rose around +16%. On the other hand, commodities and energy price routs discouraged foreign investments in Africa (~ -7%), Latin America and the Caribbean (~ -2%).

Data Source: UNCTAD

Harbingers of Future Growth

Usually a long-term investment, FDI occurs in the following alternative ways—a foreign company acquiring shares of, and/or expanding operations of a domestic entity; the overseas company setting up its subsidiary in the target country; or, a cross-border merger. In the process, technologies and skills exchanged between the two entities can potentially lead to efficiency gains, more employment opportunities and improved profitability—benefits which may not just be restricted to the recipient firm/subsidiary alone.

FDI contributed to around 12 million U.S. jobs in 2013—consisting of 6.1 million directly employed by foreign-owned entities plus 5.9 million jobs indirectly attributable to foreign investments via by-products, like productivity gains and supply chains.

Majority-owned U.S. affiliates of foreign entities accounted for $53 billion investment in R&D in 2013, which is 16.4% of total American R&D expense by businesses that year, underscoring FDI’s importance in sustained economic growth.

Also, emerging countries are fast capturing global investors’ attention owing to their growing market and rapid urbanization. The Indian aviation sector, for example, has reaped substantial gains, with FDI leading to the launch of two airlines, Vistara and Air Asia India, and to Etihad’s purchase of a 24% stake in Jet Airways. The developments have facilitated expansion of international air traffic from the country and operations from several new cities.

Bottom Line for Investors

Even though current global weakness is predicted to slow foreign capital flows globally in 2016, last year’s record foreign investments, particularly in developed economies including the U.S., should potentially provide adequate support for companies’ long-term prospects. Furthermore, by 2018, global FDI flows are predicted to exceed $1.8 trillion on the back of an expected global economic recovery.

As for Corporate America in particular, recent regulatory challenges may have restricted certain cross-border deals this year, but prospects of real growth offered by firming domestic fundamentals and an expected rebound in corporate earnings by end of the fourth quarter augurs well for returns on existing FDIs and add to U.S. companies’ appeal to global investors looking forward.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: July, 2016

Interesting and Positive Developments, Post-Brexit – there’s been a slew of interesting news following the Brexit and, in our view, most of it points to the positive. We’ll just list-off a few here. First, both of the outspoken proponents of the “Leave” vote—Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson—have moved into the shadows. Mr. Farage has resigned and Mr. Johnson has taken his hat out of the ring to become the next Prime Minister. These are fairly cowardly moves by both gentlemen, considering they spearheaded the movement to “Leave” but now aren’t around to see it through. This week saw the initial rounds of selecting the new Prime Minister, and Home Secretary Theresa May gained the most public endorsements and appears to be the frontrunner. Interestingly, she was in the “Remain” camp, and has stated that she wants to have preliminary discussions with the European Union before invoking Article 50 (which sets into motion the actual exit). Could Britain have a chance of remaining in the union after all? It will be fascinating to watch. Meanwhile, the Bank of England has taken steps to support the U.K. economy in the case of any fallout—they pushed the capital buffer requirement to zero, which should free up about 150 billion pounds for British banks to lend. There have also been proposals to slash the corporate tax rate to less than 15% (from the current rate of 20%), which would increase corporate appetite to stay and grow in the U.K. All in all, the reactions to Brexit have leaned to the bullish so far, we believe.

Strong Manufacturing in Europe Ahead of Brexit – data suggests that Europe was on a fine path of expansion prior to the Brexit vote, both in terms of manufacturing and business purchases. Eurozone PMI (Purchasing Managers’ Index) ticked up to 52.8 in June from 51.5 the previous month, and business growth posted a reading of 53.1—well above most estimates. Taken together, the surveys suggest that euro zone GDP growth would have come in at around 0.3% for the year, which is small but at least not recessionary. But, that was before the Brexit vote. Uncertainty could hold back further investment and new activity, which is yet to be seen. Though the terms of the relationship (regarding trade and labor movement) between the European Union and Britain probably won’t change for at least two years, businesses may enter wait-and-see mode.

Breaking Records, Part I: energy independence, anyone? The United States has (somewhat) quietly undergone an energy revolution, having evolved into one of the world’s biggest producers. A new milestone was reached recently (reported in a research study by Rystad Energy) that the U.S. has more oil reserves (264B barrels) than Saudi Arabia (212B) and Russia (256B). This marks the first time in history it has surpassed the world’s biggest exporting nations.

Breaking Records, Part II: in the aftermath of the Brexit, yields continued sliding into record low territory. Earlier in the week, the 10-year hit a record low of 1.378%, and the 30-year also dipped into record territory by falling to 2.15%. Rising demand for Treasuries is likely a culprit for falling yields, as investors flock to safety in the face of uncertainty.

Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: July, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss. Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

Last Friday’s (June 24) Sell-off in Dollar Terms – equities markets plummeted in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, with $2.08 trillion being wiped from global markets. That marked the largest ever one-day sell-off, in dollar terms, for the stock market. Treasury yields also fell as investors sought safety, and U.K. 10-year Gilts dropped below 1% for the first time ever. It all sounds and feels dreadful, but….

Stocks Rallied Just Days after the Vote – a knee-jerk reaction of liquidating a portfolio or reflexive selling would have hurt, as the market rallied some 5% over the last three days of the quarter finishing slightly positive for the three months ending June 30th. Remarkable, but also a lesson that patience in the face of market hysteria is often beneficial. Sometimes the best reaction is no reaction at all.  

Is this the First Corporate Fallout of the Brexit? – the telecom company Vodafone has hinted at the possibility of shifting its headquarters out of the U.K. in light of the outcome of the Brexit vote. From a pure economic standpoint, this could actually be the right tactical move for Vodafone—a majority of its customers and employees are based outside of Britain, and more than half of its earnings come from Europe. The U.K. only accounted for 11% of its profits for this fiscal year. With relations unknown between Britain and the EU, Vodafone may be better served to go where the money’s made.

Lessons for Avoiding Corruption – it was ruled this week that Volkswagen would have to settle lawsuits in America over the scandal involving rigged diesel emissions tests. The penalty for VW is set to be a hefty $15 billion, which is $5 billion more than initially reported and is sure to hammer the balance sheet. The settlement reported VW having to pay $10 billion to buy back 475,000 “polluting” cars and $5 billion for fines and research on clean tech.

Affirming Trade Stances at the ‘Three Amigos’ Summit – as sentiment is tested over the value of trade and globalization, the three North American leaders – Enrique Pena Nieto, President Obama, and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau – will gather to reaffirm the value of the trade relationships established through NAFTA. Before the meeting, in showings of solidarity, Canada dropped its visa requirement for Mexican visitors, as of December 2016, and Mexico agreed to open its markets to Canadian beef. All three nations are participants in the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which has come under scrutiny of late as the election season heats up.

Oil Prices Rebound Nicely Over the Quarter – oil prices steadily rebounded over the course of the second quarter, as stockpiles fell and supply disruptions in Canada (Fort McMurray wildfires) and Nigeria helped shift the supply-demand relationship. Oil prices over the quarter rose some 30%, marking the biggest quarterly advance since 2009.

Banks Clear a Hurdle – the Fed’s first round of stress tests are now complete, and nearly all banks proved to be capitalized well enough to issue dividends or conduct share buybacks with the extra capital on hand. Two banks did fail however – Deutsche Bank and Santander – and must create an approved plan before they can engage in actions to boost shareholder equity. This is the second year in a row these banks have failed.

FREE Download – Zacks Economic Outlook: July, 2016

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss. Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

On June 23rd, Brits will vote in a referendum on whether to remain in the European Union (EU), or leave. Depending on which news story you read, leaving the EU could devastate the UK’s economy or free it from the shackles of EU regulation.

So which is it? The only answer is: it’s neither. That’s because any argument you hear is either purely academic—meaning, it’s making assumptions to draw theoretical conclusions—or it’s political. Or, it’s some fuzzy combination of the two, like the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s assessment that a Brexit would assuredly mean a UK recession (he was hired by Prime Minister David Cameron, who is in the “Remain” camp).

My conclusion? The decision to “Remain” or “Leave” will not impact my forecast for modestly positive returns from equity markets in 2016, and I do not think it will dramatically affect the growth trajectory for the U.S. and the world.

In the near term (next 6 – 12 months), my view hinges on the fact that a “Leave” vote does not mean that Britain leaves overnight. A “Leave” vote actually just triggers a 2-year exit process, where the UK would almost surely retain market access while renegotiating the terms of trade, tariffs and labor movement. That is not to say the EU will be keen to make a new deal with Britain, or that they’ll be friendly about the terms, but at least there will be time.

Possible Impact of a “Leave” Vote

I’ll focus analysis on the impact of a “Leave” vote, since a “Remain” vote means that essentially nothing changes.  

1.     On Trade and Tariffs:

“Leave” proponents argue that a Brexit would allow the UK to unilaterally pursue better trade deals, which could theoretically mean more favorable trade terms with countries outside the EU, like China and India. This could open up huge new markets for exports. Trade deals are not simple transactions, however, and worker’s unions could emerge as fierce domestic opponents to deals. The EU has negotiated trade deals for the UK for the better part of 20 years now, so Britain would have a long way to go to re-establish relationships. 

Nearly half of the UK’s exports went to the EU. Additionally, Germany, Ireland, Spain, and Poland each count the UK as one of their top three trading partners. These relationships could be compromised with the “Leave” vote.

2.     On Labor Markets:

Leaving the EU might benefit local labor markets by stemming immigration, which has been a hot button political issue given the current refugee crisis in Europe. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 942,000 eastern Europeans, Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK, along with 791,000 western Europeans. That’s significant. A “Leave” vote may turn this on its head.

3.     On Corporations:

Many global businesses have, until now, chosen the UK as their hub for connecting them to the greater EU. But, in the event of Brexit, new restrictions and duties may be thrust upon their cross-border operations with the rest of the EU, leaving multinationals with an undesirable quandary. The worst case scenario would be multinationals rethinking operations in the UK, which could stifle foreign direct investment flows—a key source of growth (not to mention losing key sources of tax revenue).

On the other hand, a vote to “Leave” could empower local corporations to regain a stronghold, which in theory would benefit local citizens more than multinationals.

Bottom Line for Investors

History suggests that when voters are faced with a huge decision questioning sovereignty, they tend to want to maintain the status quo. Looking back at the Quebec referendum in 1995 or the Scottish one in 2014, in both instances voters decided to “Remain,” and the issue passed. If I were a betting man, I’d guess the same happens here.

At the end of the day, it’s not really investors like you who should fear the Brexit; it’s the businesses in the UK and EU that are heavily reliant on the single market. The restructuring and reshuffling based on policy and trade changes could be costly and arduous, and would take time. But remember, even “Leaving” means there’ll be time.

Download Zacks Latest Stock Market Outlook Report

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.