LPL Research
Last Updated: April 24, 2026

How To Think About IPOs in 2026

Thomas Shipp | Head of Equity Research
Last Updated: April 23, 2026

Additional content provided by Tucker Beale, Sr. Analyst, Research.

With several high-profile initial public offerings (IPOs) expected in 2026, many investors may be wondering whether buying a stock on its first day of trading is a smart move. Historically, stock performance in the first year post-IPO has been a mixed bag of volatility, with a large minority delivering excess returns in their first year of trading, while a slight majority deliver negative returns. In today’s blog, we analyze data on 30 years of selected IPOs and highlight some recent changes that will likely impact some of the coming year’s largest expected new issues.

Starting with the data, we pulled IPOs from the last 30 years that have traded for at least one year, thus approximately April 1995 to April 2025. We filtered the dataset to only include issuances on the NYSE or Nasdaq exchanges and set a floor on the capital raised in the IPO to $50 million. Finally, we included only IPOs of common stocks, excluding REITs, Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), and other non-common equity issues. This left us with about 1,500 IPOs over the sample period (1,494 to be exact) that offered up over $600 billion in equity ownership for new issues.

As for performance, we started with a one-year time horizon from the closing price of the first day of trading. We chose the closing price instead of the offer price because ordinary investors rarely have access to the offer price, as the investment banks often allocate much of the shares they have underwritten to large institutional investors. One can quibble with the rationale here, but given typical volatility on the first day an IPO trades, this approach made the most sense. Getting into the findings, starting with one-year price-based returns from the closing price of the first day of trading, the average return generated was 10.5%. You may be thinking that’s not too bad, about in line with equity market expectations. However, averages in this analysis introduce an upward bias, as hypothetically there is no ceiling on the positive returns, but a floor on the losses, as the most an unleveraged investor can lose on an investment is 100%. The range of outcomes in this dataset is very large, and dispersion (volatility) is high; the standard deviation of the one-year returns is 107%. When we measure the median return of the sample, we get a more realistic picture of the potential outcome, a negative return of -4.7%. Interestingly, the middle 50% of outcomes in the distribution are pretty evenly distributed, with the bottom 25^th percentile landing at -38.9%, and the top 25^th percentile coming in at 36.2%. In terms of a simple distribution of the percentage of IPOs that generated positive returns in their first year of trading compared to those that produced negative returns, the split was relatively close, with the percent positive (46.1% of the sample, producing an average return of 68.7%) slightly below the percent negative (53.9% of the sample, producing an average return of -39.2%). So slightly skewed to the downside, with a very wide distribution of outcomes in the tails.

The large standard deviation tells the story of the variation of outcomes at the finish line, but what about the journey to get there? For that, we calculated the maximum drawdown experienced in the first year of trading for every IPO in our sample. The average drawdown experienced was -48.9%, and the distribution for this dataset was much less volatile than the average one-year return, with the median drawdown coming in at -48%, with a standard deviation of 22%. Said another way, while the variation of outcomes was wide, the variation in the journey was much more similar; that is, it was typically a pretty volatile ride regardless of the ending outcome.

One final bit of data analysis we took on was comparing the one-year returns of the IPO data set to the returns of the S&P 500 based on each IPO’s one-year return window. This allowed us to somewhat normalize the outcomes based on how the broad market performed in the year. We get a slightly more negative outcome, with the average difference in performance coming in at 2.4%, with the median performance difference coming in at -12.5%. The volatility in the distribution was similar, as would be expected. The percentage of IPOs that outperformed the S&P 500 was slightly below the percentage that produced positive returns, with just 40.6% producing one-year returns above the S&P 500 during the first year of trading, while 59.4% underperformed. Finally, in terms of drawdowns, only 6.7% of IPOs in the sample (56 total) experienced a less severe drawdown than the S&P 500 during the one-year period. Diversification does its job yet again.

Understanding why these outcomes occur can help investors avoid common pitfalls and better time entry into newly public companies. IPOs have historically had a few things working against them. First, both management and the investment bank or banks involved in the IPO have a vested interest in maximizing the company’s valuation. Whether driven by hopes and dreams or strong fundamentals, higher valuations imply a higher hurdle for future earnings to keep investors excited and engaged. Taking a private company public also creates a liquidity event for existing shareholders. Insider ownership stakes may be sold on the exchanges after a pre-determined lockup period, which adds to expected selling pressure post-IPO. Compounding all of this from the perspective of retail investors is limited access to the initial offering price. The benefit of any pop in price during the initial hours of trading generally accrues to institutional investors that received allocations from the underwriting investment bank(s).

While these historical patterns are important, they may not be a perfect guide for the upcoming wave of large IPOs. Structural changes in how indexes handle new listings could alter the typical post‑IPO experience.

IPOs also traditionally face hurdles for index inclusion. These requirements vary across indexes but generally include float minimums and a minimum amount of time trading on the exchanges for “seasoning” to ensure stability and liquidity requirements are met. This seasoning period delays the mechanical buying associated with index inclusion when passive funds are forced to buy to mimic the index. In response to heavy lobbying from management teams at large private companies expected to IPO this year, index providers are loosening constraints to speed up index inclusion under the guise of ensuring indexes “are more representative of the U.S. equity market sooner” (FTSE Russell Market Consultation, February 2026).

The takeaway for investors is not to avoid IPOs altogether, but to approach them thoughtfully. As seen in the analysis of 30 years of IPO data, there have been a wide range of outcomes, with some massive home runs driving up the average returns, and many strike outs pulling the median measure of one-year returns lower. We suggest investors proceed with any IPO investment with caution and expect to experience a great deal of volatility.

LPL Financial prohibits the purchase of equity IPOs within client accounts.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1097686

Seven Takeaways from Warsh Confirmation Hearing

Dr. Jeffrey Roach | Chief Economist
Last Updated: April 22, 2026

Kevin Warsh’s bid to become the next chair of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) unfolded amid sharp political tension, legal uncertainty, and pointed questions about his independence from President Trump. During a combative Senate confirmation hearing, Warsh sought to reassure lawmakers that he would not allow political pressure to dictate monetary policy, even as unresolved Justice Department investigation into current Chair Jerome Powell threatens to delay his confirmation and underscores broader concerns about the politicization of the central bank.

Kevin Warsh’s confirmation hearing comes at a moment when U.S. monetary policy is already notably restrictive relative to most other advanced economies, sharpening the political and market sensitivity around the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) next steps.

U.S. Policy Rate Highest Among the G-7

Source: LPL Research, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, Federal Reserve Board, 04/22/26

As of April 21, 2026, the Fed’s target range for the federal funds rate stands at 3.50% to 3.75%, well above policy rates at many peer central banks, including the European Central Bank’s 2.15% policy rate, the Bank of England’s 3.75% Bank Rate, the Bank of Canada’s 2.25% overnight rate, and the Bank of Japan’s 0.75% policy rate. That gap has become central to the political debate surrounding Warsh’s nomination, with President Trump arguing that U.S. rates should be “the lowest in the world,” even as global counterparts face different inflation dynamics, energy shocks tied to Middle East tensions, and divergent growth outlooks. Against this backdrop, lawmakers used the hearing to test whether Warsh would prioritize narrowing the international rate divergence through faster U.S. easing — or adhere to the Fed’s traditionally data-driven approach despite mounting external and political pressure.

Here are 7 Key Takeaways

1. Warsh Emphasizes Fed Independence
Warsh repeatedly stated that he would not cut interest rates at President Trump’s behest, insisting that Trump never asked him to pre-commit to any specific policy actions and pledging to remain “strictly independent” if confirmed.

2. Political Pressure on the Fed Is Intensifying
Lawmakers highlighted that Trump’s actions have gone beyond rhetoric, including an effort to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook and a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into Powell, both of which have raised alarms about threats to institutional independence.

3. DOJ Investigation Could Delay Confirmation
A criminal investigation into Powell’s handling of the Fed’s headquarters renovation has become a procedural roadblock, as Senator Thom Tillis has vowed to block Warsh’s confirmation until the probe is resolved.

4. Powell Could Remain Chair Temporarily
If Warsh is not confirmed by May 15, Powell has said he would continue serving as chair on an interim basis, adding uncertainty to the Fed’s leadership at a sensitive time for monetary policy.

5. Scrutiny of Warsh’s Shift on Inflation and Rates
Democrats pressed Warsh on his evolution from an inflation hawk during his previous tenure at the Fed to a recent advocate for rate cuts, a shift he justified by pointing to balance sheet reduction and potential productivity gains from artificial intelligence.

6. Criticism of Fed Policy Framework and Communication
Warsh argued that persistent inflation overshoots reflect Fed policy errors during 2021–2022 and called for “regime change,” including a new inflation framework and less forward guidance such as scaling back the Fed’s “dot plot.”

7. Personal Wealth and Financial Conflicts Raised Concerns
Senators, particularly Elizabeth Warren, questioned Warsh about his substantial personal wealth and opaque investment holdings. Warsh pledged to divest all financial assets and move to “plain vanilla” investments if confirmed.

Bottom Line

Warsh’s confirmation hearing underscored how deeply debates over Fed independence, inflation credibility, and political influence have become entangled. Even as he sought to project autonomy and a reform-oriented vision for monetary policy, unresolved legal investigations and partisan tensions threaten to delay his path to confirmation. The outcome may not only determine Warsh’s future but also shape how markets and the public perceive the Fed’s ability to operate independently in an increasingly politicized environment. As it relates to interest rate expectations, the hearing strengthens the view that Warsh may tighten conditions via balance sheet normalization while simultaneously loosening conditions by lowering interest rates. These actions may not occur until much later this year as conditions warrant.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1094469

LPL Research examines whether rising U.S. debt threatens Treasuries’ safe-haven status, and why investor demand remains resilient.

Lawrence Gillum | Chief Fixed Income Strategist
Last Updated: April 21, 2026

Concerns about the sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy have moved back into the investment spotlight. Over the past week, both multilateral institutions and prominent policymakers have raised warnings about the potential implications of America’s expanding debt burden for Treasury markets. While these concerns are directionally valid, we believe recent calls suggesting a structural loss of appeal for U.S. Treasuries are premature and risk overstating near-term risks.

Rising Debt Issuance and the IMF’s Warning

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) cautioned last week that the accelerating pace of U.S. Treasury issuance may be eroding the premium traditionally afforded to U.S. government securities. As evidence, the IMF pointed to a narrowing spread between yields on AAA-rated corporate bonds and U.S. Treasuries, implying diminished relative demand for sovereign debt.

Separately, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson echoed these concerns, suggesting U.S. authorities should prepare contingency plans to address a potential future collapse in Treasury demand driven by investor anxiety over the federal debt trajectory.

There is little debate that U.S. debt dynamics are troubling. Deficits remain large, interest costs are rising, and issuance is likely to continue at elevated levels. However, extrapolating these concerns into a near-term loss of Treasury market credibility or safe-haven status is, in our view, a step too far.

Treasury Yields: Elevated, But Not Abnormal

A basic starting point is the level of Treasury yields themselves. At roughly 4.25%, the 10-year Treasury yield sits close to its long-run historical norm. Since 1880, the 10-year yield has generally oscillated within a roughly 3–5% range, with notable deviations only during distinct monetary regimes: the inflationary excesses of the 1970s and early 1980s, followed by the structurally depressed yields of the post–Global Financial Crisis zero-interest-rate era.

Seen through this longer historical lens, today’s yield levels do not signal investor capitulation or an extraordinary risk premium tied to fiscal fears. Instead, they reflect normalization from an unusually suppressed rate environment.

Historically, 3–5% Has Been “Normal”

Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 04/20/26
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Corporate Spreads and a Misleading Comparison

The IMF’s focus on the narrowing spread between AAA-rated corporates and Treasuries deserves closer scrutiny. As we discussed in our October 2025 Rate and Credit View, “Can Investment-Grade Corporate Bonds be the New Risk-Free Asset?,” tight investment-grade spreads are largely a function of elevated all-in yields and persistent institutional demand for income-producing assets. Many large buyers — insurance companies, pensions, and asset managers — are focused less on spread levels and more on total yield and balance sheet efficiency.

Moreover, the comparison itself is imperfect. There are currently only two AAA-rated corporate issuers remaining, making broad conclusions based on this cohort somewhat “apples to oranges.” The scarcity value of top-rated corporate paper, combined with structural demand from liability-driven investors, has compressed spreads independently of Treasury supply dynamics.

Auction Performance and Foreign Demand

It is also worth separating “less-than-stellar” Treasury auctions from outright dysfunction. Recent auctions have occasionally been soft at the margin, but coverage ratios and bid-to-cover metrics do not suggest a market that is failing to clear. Importantly, Treasury International Capital (TIC) data released last week showed that foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities remains robust, undermining the argument that global investors are meaningfully turning away from U.S. government debt. In periods of genuine loss of confidence, foreign official and private-sector demand would be expected to decline sharply. That is not what the data currently shows.

Acknowledging the Long-Term Risk — Without Overreacting

None of this is meant to dismiss the broader concerns surrounding U.S. fiscal sustainability. The trajectory of deficit spending and debt accumulation is unsustainable over the long run, and higher issuance will continue to exert upward pressure on term premiums over time.

However, structural risk and imminent crisis are not the same thing. Treasuries continue to function as the global risk-free asset, anchoring pricing across capital markets and serving as the foundational collateral of the global financial system. That status does not disappear simply because supply is rising.

The Bottom Line: It’s About Price, Not Viability

Despite a growing mountain of debt and rising interest costs, the U.S. government is not on the brink of financial collapse, nor is the Treasury market at risk of losing its haven status in any fundamental sense. As long as Treasuries are treated as risk-free assets — legally, institutionally, and operationally — there will be buyers, and deficits will be financed.

The more relevant question is not whether Treasuries will be bought, but at what price. To date, the evidence suggests that investors have not balked at current prices. Concerns about U.S. debt are real, and deserve attention — but declarations of the end of Treasury exceptionalism remain, for now, exaggerated, in our view.

As well, despite the ongoing conflict in Iran, market-based indicators do not currently suggest rising stress in the Treasury market. Interest rate volatility, as measured by the MOVE index, spiked sharply at the onset of the conflict but has since retreated to levels below those observed prior to the war. Similarly, the Treasury term premium — the additional compensation investors demand to hold longer‑dated Treasury securities — is hovering near its average level over the past year and remains well below recent highs.

Historically, the combination of declining interest rate volatility and a subdued term premium is consistent with a market environment characterized by increasing confidence in central bank policy, diminished recession risks, and adequate market liquidity. Put differently, investors are currently requiring less compensation to hold long‑term Treasuries because they perceive a lower probability of extreme rate volatility or sustained inflation surprises.

All that said, given the considerable uncertainty surrounding the depth, duration, and potential spillover effects of the Iran conflict, markets may be underpricing upside risks to the 10‑year Treasury yield. As a result, while Treasuries continue to function as a core portfolio anchor, we remain neutral on duration relative to benchmarks.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1094468

LPL Research
Last Updated: April 17, 2026

LPL Research provides its Weekly Market Performance for the week of April 13, 2026. Markets posted a strong weekly advance as easing geopolitical tensions, solid earnings reports, and better-than-expected inflation signals fueled a risk-on tone. U.S. equities notched record highs on optimism around Middle East ceasefire developments and abating energy supply concerns, alongside upbeat artificial intelligence (AI) related takeaways. International equities were boosted by the same dynamics, broadly, while Treasury yields fell alongside crude oil prices. Commodities were mixed, with oil prices weighing on benchmarks for the complex, while gold gained ground.

Stock Index Performance

S&P 500 Index Sectors

Fixed Income and Commodities

Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 4/17/26 @3:13 p.m. ET
Disclosures: Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly.

U.S. and International Equities

U.S. Equities: Contrary to the popular saying, good things came in threes this week as the S&P 500 put together three straight record highs on its way to a third straight weekly 3%+ weekly advance, broadly on the back of upbeat geopolitical takeaways. Stocks quickly shrugged off U.S.-Iran talks over the weekend that failed to yield a resolution, running with a positive spin on Monday’s developments around Washington seeking a second round of negotiations. Reports of both sides mulling a ceasefire extension helped the equity benchmark punch back through the 7,000-point mark before the White House and Tehran agreed in-principle to extend the temporary truce and Israel and Lebanon secured a ceasefire agreement. Both agreements drove equities to build on gains before accelerating Friday after Iran reportedly made key concessions around giving up its enriched uranium stockpile and “fully reopening” the Strait of Hormuz for the duration of the ceasefire.

Market chatter also continued to surround positive positioning and flow dynamics, while cooler-than-expected wholesale inflation results were also among constructive talking points. Meanwhile, earnings season kicked off with America’s largest financial institutions delivering first quarter results over the last five days. Among those besting Wall Street’s earnings forecasts were JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Wells Fargo (WFC), Bank of America (BAC), Citi (C), and PNC (PNC), with key takeaways around strong loan growth and improving credit quality. Mostly higher big tech and index heavyweights were supportive amid bright artificial intelligence (AI) headlines, while a big bounce in recently beaten down software names also helped propel the tech sector to the top of the weekly leaderboard.

International Equities: European markets also traded with U.S.-Iran geopolitics on center stage for the STOXX 600’s weekly advance. The upbeat takeaways around the Persian Gulf easily overshadowed the region’s own earnings season kick off with investors sniffing for signals of how the Iran conflict may affect estimates and commentary. Luxury names led off reports with Paris-based luxury conglomerate LVMH missing revenue expectations while fellow French luxury designer Hermes offered weak first quarter sales. Elsewhere, a beat and raise from Dutch chip equipment maker ASML failed to excite investors. Outside of earnings, U.K. shares lagged to end the week on political uncertainty surrounding Prime Minister Starmer potentially misleading Parliament in a 2024 U.S. ambassador appointment.

The Asia-Pacific region also gained ground, with tech enthusiasm driving gains for outperformers. South Korea added over 5.5%, boosted by positive AI takeaways from around the globe, as well as macro data revealing a jump in April exports thanks to semiconductors. Taiwan outperformed with some support from Taiwan Semiconductor earnings takeaways, while Japan’s tech-heavy Nikkei outpaced the Topix, with the latter still facing a headwind from exporter names and chatter around yen levels before later week currency strength. In greater China, news of fresh AI models and quantum computing headlines aided risk appetite, alongside better-than-expected first quarter economic growth.

Fixed Income, Currency, and Commodity Markets

Fixed Income: Core bonds, measured by the Bloomberg Aggregate Index, traded higher this week on upbeat geopolitical takeaways and Friday’s slide in crude oil prices, sending Treasury yields lower. Falling Treasury yields also placed corporate credit markets into focus as after widening to their highest levels since last April, spreads across both investment grade (IG) and high yield (HY) markets have retraced meaningfully, returning to more compressed levels as volatility has subsided. The combination of tighter spreads and the recent decline in Treasury yields has reduced all-in borrowing costs for issuers — particularly for higher-quality IG borrowers — prompting a wave of issuance that had been deferred after the Iran conflict temporarily sidelined primary market activity. For the week of April 6, gross issuance was roughly 20% higher than last year’s already elevated pace and despite the heavy supply calendar, investor demand has remained robust and new deals were oversubscribed.

Within this supply surge, issuance from so-called AI hyperscalers has been particularly notable. Of the $673 billion issued year to date, roughly $93 billion has come from this cohort as they continue to fund large-scale capital expenditures related to data centers, cloud infrastructure, and AI compute. Hyperscalers  growing presence, especially in longer-dated maturities, has materially increased their weight in high-quality long-end indexes, rising from approximately 12% in 1H25 to roughly 14% currently. At the issuer level, spreads have widened for tech companies. Although macro-driven risk events have played a role, the sustained wave of supply since last September has been a key technical driver.

Taken together, the backdrop remains one of strong demand absorbing elevated supply, but issuer-specific technicals — particularly among large, frequent hyperscaler borrowers — are increasingly shaping relative spread performance across the corporate credit landscape.

Commodities and Currencies: The broader commodities complex retreated Friday, reversing week-to-date gains on volatile crude prices. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil succumbed to downside pressure amid a steady stream of de-escalation headlines from the Mideast, sinking on Friday in response to Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is “completely open,” easing concerns around a prolonged energy supply shortage. Remarks from Washington around Iran surrendering its uranium stockpile added to decreasing geopolitical risks, but oil prices remained floored due to Iran warning against a continued U.S. naval blockade of the waterway and, despite the reopening of the Strait, a world that must wait for energy shipments to arrive. Elsewhere, gold prices jumped to end the week on hopes that a stable U.S.-Iran agreement may reduce inflationary pressures and limit the need for tighter monetary policy from central banks — a positive for the non-yielding yellow metal. In currencies, the U.S. dollar weakened for the second straight week on easing tensions in the Persian Gulf and traders nearly doubling bets on a Federal Reserve (Fed) rate cut this year, while other major currencies such as the yen and euro strengthened against the greenback.

Economic Weekly Roundup

U.S. wholesale prices highlighted a relatively light economic calendar, arriving cooler than expected for the month of March, based on Producer Price Index (PPI) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Headline figures roughly matched a 0.5% increase in prices indicated by revised February data, with energy easily contributing the most amid the bottleneck in the Strait of Hormuz, while services and goods inflation eased from the previous month. Increases in core wholesale prices, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, dropped to just 0.1% last month.

On an annual basis, however, producer prices rose to 4.0% from 3.4% a year prior. Surging oil and gasoline prices were the natural culprit, and warrants continued attention in the April report, but the modest rise was smaller than markets expected. On another note, Wall Street continues to monitor data for visibility on how companies are passing tariff-related effects on to consumers, and trade service costs (a general proxy for profit margins) dropped for the second straight month in March after rising in December and January.

The Week Ahead

The following economic data is slated for the week ahead:

• Monday: No economic releases scheduled
• Tuesday: ADP Weekly Employment Change (Apr 4), Philadelphia Fed Non-Manufacturing Activity (Apr), Retail Sales (Mar), Business Inventories (Feb), Pending Home Sales (Mar)
• Wednesday: MBA Mortgage Applications (Apr 17)
• Thursday: Chicago Fed National Activity Index (Mar), Initial Jobless Claims (Apr 18), Continuing Claims (Apr 11), S&P Global U.S. Manufacturing, Services, and Composite PMIs (Apr preliminary), Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Activity (Apr)
• Friday: University of Michigan Sentiment Consumer Sentiment Report (Apr final), Kansas City Fed Services Activity (Apr), Bloomberg U.S. Economic Survey (Apr)

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1090754

Tactical Positioning Update: From Preparation to Action

George Smith | Portfolio Strategist
Last Updated: April 16, 2026

Over the past year, LPL Research’s Strategic and Tactical Asset Allocation Committee (STAAC) has emphasized that tactical investing does not require constant activity. Instead, it requires preparation, patience, and the discipline to act only when the expected benefit of a change clearly outweighs the risks. We have made some changes to our Tactical Asset Allocation (TAA) guidance but continue to reflect that disciplined philosophy.

STAAC has updated our TAA to move portfolios to modestly overweight equities and underweight fixed income. Importantly, this adjustment builds on positioning decisions made well before volatility increased, rather than reacting to market stress after the fact. In our view, the recent increase in volatility has improved the prospective risk‑reward for taking incremental equity risk, allowing us to translate preparation into action while remaining within our established tactical framework.

Our Growth with Income (GWI) portfolio, which tracks most closely the traditional 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, is shown below, and compared to our GWI Diversified benchmark.

LPL Research Growth with Income (GWI) Tactical Asset Allocation (TAA)

Source: LPL Research 4/16/2026
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

What Changed?

The recent adjustment reflects two related allocation changes:

• Neutralizing the existing underweight to U.S. small cap value, which results in a modest equity overweight
• Reducing exposure to mortgage‑backed securities to fund that change

From a portfolio construction perspective, this shifts the Growth with Income model slightly above benchmark equity exposure while keeping overall portfolio risk well within the intended tactical range. The adjustment reflects an improvement in expected forward equity returns following recent market weakness, coupled with a more restrained outlook for select areas of core fixed income where valuations and technicals appear less supportive.

This is not a wholesale change in positioning or a reversal of longer standing views. Large cap equities and growth‑oriented exposures remain preferred within U.S. equities, and quality remains a central theme across asset classes. However, as dispersion has increased and valuations have reset modestly, we believe the relative opportunity set for equities has improved compared to mortgage‑backed securities.

Why Add Small Value Here?

Our upgrade of small value to neutral is primarily driven by our quantitative analysis work indicating durable technical trends that have developed since the start of the new year. With a path to ending the Iran conflict emerging and related lessening risk of extreme negative outcomes, we expect equities to broadly outperform fixed income. Fundamentally, small value stocks are supported by attractive valuations, bank deregulation, and robust capital investment. In an environment that is likely to get more supportive of risk-taking, eliminating the small cap underweight and moving to an overall overweight equities position seems prudent.

Why Reduce Mortgage-Backed Securities?

Our multi-year overweight position in MBS has served us well in terms of relative performance vs. the broad bond market. However, over that time, spreads have tightened meaningfully and remain below longer-term averages, diminishing the relative attractiveness of the asset class. While near-term momentum of lower interest rate volatility and constrained net supply may continue through the first half of the year, already tight spreads and the eventual likelihood that lower mortgage rates will increase prepayment risks may potentially cap returns.

What Are Our Other Tactical Views?

Following this update, our Tactical Asset Allocation reflects the following underlying themes:

• A slight overweight to equity risk expressed through domestic large cap growth
• An emphasis on balance sheet quality and earnings durability
• Continued caution in fixed income (MBS and Corporates) amid rate volatility and changing supply and demand dynamics
• A continued overweight to diversifying strategies / alternative investments, specifically multi-strategy and global macro strategies, funded from cash.

Why This Is Our First Tactical Trade of the Year

Coming into 2026, we made a deliberate and somewhat contrarian decision to position portfolios more defensively and with greater diversification than was broadly expected at the time. That decision was grounded in the view that market conditions were unusually complacent and that the range of potential outcomes was wider than reflected in asset prices. While that positioning ultimately proved to be early, it has been beneficial on a relative basis as volatility has increased and correlations have shifted.

That preparation matters. Because those diversification decisions were made earlier, we are not being forced to de‑risk or reposition under pressure today. Instead, we are able to evaluate opportunities from a position of strength, with the flexibility to adjust risk as expected forward returns improve. This trade reflects that dynamic. It represents a measured re‑engagement of equity risk when conditions became more favorable, rather than a reaction to recent price action.

Periods like this highlight the risks of being overly active. Tactical investing does not mean frequent trading. Highly reactive decision‑making in volatile environments can easily result in being whipsawed, such as reducing risk near market lows or adding it back after prices have already rebounded. It can also introduce unnecessary transaction costs and tax inefficiencies. We believe restraint, when warranted, is often the most effective expression of tactical discipline. Tactical does not mean frequent. It means nimble, but selective.

Final Thoughts

This TAA update reflects the progression of a disciplined process. Preparation came first. Patience followed. Action comes only when the expected benefits justify the risks. We will continue to monitor economic conditions, market developments, and technical signals closely. Volatility can be uncomfortable, but it is also what creates opportunities for investors who remain disciplined and avoid the urge to overreact.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1093790

Best Performing Sector During the Iran Conflict May Surprise You

Jeff Buchbinder | Chief Equity Strategist
Last Updated: April 15, 2026

In what should be a surprise to no one, energy has been one of the better performing sectors since the joint U.S.-Israel airstrikes on military targets in Iran on February 27, although it has given up some ground since a two-week cease fire was announced last week. The S&P 500 is up slightly during this period (+1.2%) while the energy sector has gained 0.4% (price appreciation, excluding dividends).

What may surprise you is that gain is only good enough for fifth place in the sector rankings since February ended. Technology is on top with a 5.9% gain. Technology beating energy during an oil price spike is surprising enough, but it comes amid selling pressure in the software industry due to fears of artificial intelligence (AI) disruption. The application software group is down about 5% and some widely held names like Salesforce (CRM) and Workday (WDAY) are down more than 10%.

Technology a Surprising Sector Leader During Iran Conflict

Source: LPL Research, FactSet 04/14/26
Disclosures: Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

How Surprising Is This Technology Strength?

How surprised should we be by this strong performance from technology? Not much, based on the following analysis. Using a hypothetical study of sector performance during oil price spikes over 30%, we find that energy fares best (no surprise). But technology was second in this hypothetical scenario, suggesting that the sector’s relative strength during this period is not an outlier. Technology companies are not a heavy oil users, mitigating the effects of higher oil prices.

Energy Estimates Have Popped, But the Technology Estimate Increases Aren’t Too Shabby

The next question you might ask is whether the strong performance by the technology sector is justified by fundamentals. Fueled by the AI buildout, the technology sector will likely grow earnings at least 44% year over year for the soon-to-be-reported first quarter (source: FactSet). But a strong growth outlook didn’t help sector performance from November 2025 through January of this year when technology underperformed.

We would argue technology strength is justified based on the improvement in the earnings outlook in recent weeks. As shown in the accompanying chart, earnings per share (EPS) estimates for technology in 2026 have increased by more than 6% since March 1. Earnings were expected to grow at a strong clip, but analysts again underestimated the sector’s earnings power. Excellent earnings growth has been anticipated, but we don’t think the market was prepared for a possible 50% increase in technology earnings in the first quarter.

It’s Not Just Energy Helping to Boost Earnings Estimates

Source: LPL Research, FactSet 04/14/26S
Disclosures: Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Estimates may not materialize as predicted and are subject to change. EPS is earnings per share.

Tech Sector Valuations Have Become Attractive, If Not Compelling

We also believe recent strength in technology is justified by attractive valuations. The underperformance late last year and early in 2026, coupled with booming earnings growth, brought the sector’s forward (next 12 months) price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) down to near the market at the recent lows. The latest bounce leaves the sector at about an 8% premium to the S&P 500 forward P/E, about in line with the long-term average and still attractive given the strong outlook for earnings growth and robust profit margins.

Relative P/E of the Technology Sector Has Become Attractive

Source: LPL Research, FactSet 04/14/26
Disclosures: Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Estimates may not materialize as predicted and are subject to change.

Conclusion

Technology’s leadership during an oil shock is not particularly unusual, nor is it unjustified. History shows technology tends to perform well during periods of sharply rising energy prices, and today’s fundamentals appear consistent with that pattern, though past performance does not guarantee future results. Improving earnings expectations, driven largely by the AI buildout, have helped restore investor confidence after a period of underperformance. At the same time, valuations remain reasonable relative to both the market and the sector’s history. Technology appears well positioned to remain a relative winner if earnings momentum continues and is a strong candidate for an upgrade on a tactical basis.

EPS stands for earnings per share. This metric tells investors how much money a company makes for each of its shares. EPS is one of the most common ways to gauge a company’s profitability.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1090739

Michael McClain | Alternative Investment Research Analyst and Due Diligence
Last Updated: April 14, 2026

Asset-Based Lending

While headlines related to private credit’s direct lending sector have captivated market participants over the past month, there exists a meaningful investment universe, each with distinct characteristics, under this broader umbrella. Following direct lending, the asset-based lending (ABL) industry has experienced consistent growth and renewed investor interest.

ABL is a form of lending in which loans are primarily secured by a borrower’s tangible assets rather than by cash flow or earnings. Common forms of collateral include accounts receivable, inventory, equipment, and, in some cases, intellectual property. ABL is most often used by middle-market companies with meaningful working capital needs, seasonal cash flow patterns, or business models where asset values provide more reliable support than earnings. As many ABL borrowers are capital-intensive businesses, there exist working capital gaps and seasonality related to inventory builds that ABL lenders can bridge. This financing is not related to poor operations, rather, how certain firms convert assets into cash over time. The amount a borrower can access is typically determined by a borrowing base, which applies an advance rate to eligible assets and adjusts as collateral values change. From a structural perspective, ABL typically sits senior in the capital structure and benefits from first-priority liens on collateral. This seniority and asset coverage often results in lower loss severity and stronger recovery rates in stressed scenarios compared with unsecured or cash flow-based lending.

ABL vs. Direct Lending: Risk, Liquidity, and Cycle Sensitivity

Risk: At a high level, the main difference between direct lending and ABL centers on the type of risk a lender is underwriting. Direct lending focuses on cash-flow lending to middle-market firms, with credit risk primarily assessed on EBITDA, free cash flow, and margin stability. In contrast, ABL considers the age and quality of accounts receivable, liquidation value, and inventory turnover. Meaningful risk will always be present in both; however, the origins of any credit problems will be unique.

Liquidity: ABL portfolios feature shorter loan durations and self-liquidating structures. In contrast, direct lending is often characterized by longer-dated loans tied to sponsor-backed transactions, where exit timing depends heavily on refinancing or merger and acquisition markets.

Cycle Sensitivity: Earlier in an economic cycle, direct lending often benefits from expanding leverage capacity, stable or growing EBITDA, and accommodative refinancing conditions. In these environments, cash‑flow‑based underwriting can support returns as sponsors pursue growth and acquisition activity. However, later in a cycle, earnings volatility typically increases, refinancing windows narrow, and forecasting future cash flows becomes more challenging. While ABL may offer slightly lower yields than direct lending, it may provide more downside risk mitigation and greater resilience across economic cycles. As a result, ABL is often viewed as a defensive or stabilizing strategy within the broader private credit market, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty.

LPL Research Takeaway

From a portfolio construction standpoint, we believe both direct lending and ABL may provide attractive risk/return profiles for suitable investors and offer complementary characteristics. Neither is inherently superior; rather, investors should consider which private credit sector best aligns with their goals, provides portfolio diversification, and meets their liquidity needs. ABL may serve as a stabilizing complement to traditional direct lending, potentially smoothing volatility, and enhancing downside risk mitigation in late-cycle environments. ABL appears well positioned, not as a replacement for direct lending, but as a differentiated tool within the larger private credit universe.

Looking ahead, in the same manner that investors consider which public equity or bond styles/sectors are more appropriate at a given point in the market cycle; when investing in private markets, product development has evolved to the point where investors may tailor their desired exposure, rather than relying on one-stop solutions featuring broad private market beta.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1090738