EXPANDING THE CASE
FOR STABLE VALUE
New insights into what drives
decision-makers to embrace stable value funds
Gary Ward
James King
John Barrasso
Vice President, Stable Value
Prudential Financial
Managing Director, Stable Value
Prudential Financial
Managing Director, Stable Value
Prudential Financial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For more than four decades stable value investments have
been a core investment option in defined contribution
retirement savings plans, delivering a unique combination
of steady returns and principal preservation guarantees
that many plan participants find highly attractive. Returns
from stable value funds have outpaced those available from
money market funds, their most common competitor, with
no increase in volatility.1
To find out, Prudential surveyed more than 400 plan sponsors
and 300 intermediaries (advisors and consultants who work
with sponsors). We asked which factors they consider when
choosing investment options for their retirement plans, what
drives them to adopt stable value, and what triggers them
to recommend stable value to others. From those who have
not yet embraced the asset class, we learned what’s holding
them back.
Still, the percentage of defined contribution plans offering
stable value funds has been below 50 percent for years,2
leaving significant numbers of plan participants without
access to the asset class. Stable value proponents know
what those participants are missing: the combination
of steady returns and principal protections that only
stable value funds offer, and the comfort and confidence
that can come from including this volatility-dampening
investment in their retirement portfolios. But what about
plan sponsors who’ve elected not to include stable value
funds on their investment menus? What are they missing?
And why?
But our findings go further. They suggest that plan sponsors
and intermediaries who haven’t adopted stable value may
be doing a disservice to their plan participants. Those who
have adopted stable value associate it with improved plan
participation and participant deferral rates, both of which
can drive better participant outcomes
Dr. David Babbel and Dr. Miguel A. Herce, “Stable Value Funds: Performance to Date,” The Wharton School, January 2011. Additional summarization provided by Babbel
and Herce, February 2011, Stable Value Investment Association, Annual Investment Policy Surveys: 2008-2014.
2
Stable Value Investment Association.
1
2
Among the survey’s other key findings:
•• A significant percentage of stable value non-adopters say
they are planning to offer or recommend stable value in the
next three years. At the same time, very few adopters are
considering dropping it from their retirement plan’s list of
investment options.
•• The top characteristics that drive plan sponsors and
intermediaries to adopt stable value are capital preservation
and steady, guaranteed returns.
•• Other adoption triggers include the liquidity of the asset class
for plan participants, and a perception that stable value helps
deliver better returns than other fixed-income investments.
•• Thirty percent of intermediaries who do recommend stable
value say they are doing so more this year than they did last
year, and 35 percent say they expect that trend to accelerate
over the next three years.
•• Key issues that keep some sponsors and intermediaries from
adopting stable value funds include the sense that they are
more complicated and less transparent than other investment
options, that their performance trails that of non-fixed-income
investments and that they have higher expenses.
•• Sponsors and intermediaries alike are receptive to the idea of
making stable value a more common component of targetdate funds, one of the fastest-growing investment options in
DC plans.
•• Both adopters and non-adopters of stable value recognize the
positive attributes of the asset class, but for non-adopters the
perceived negatives register more strongly.
These findings should resonate with plan sponsors and
intermediaries still weighing the benefits of stable value
and seeking to understand its values more deeply. They
demonstrate that:
•• The factors that drive plan sponsors and intermediaries to
recommend stable value funds differ in many cases from
those that drive them to actually adopt stable value—and
aren’t always among the factors they prize most when
considering investment options for their plans.
•• Stable value is not just a niche principal-preservation
product, but can function as the conservative foundation
of a well-designed investment portfolio—and as a core
component of target-date funds.
Encouragingly, Prudential’s survey provides evidence that
growing numbers of plan sponsors and intermediaries may
be open to embracing the asset class.
•• The perceived challenges of stable value are tradeoffs that
can make sense for retirement savings plans and their
participants. In other words, the benefits of the asset class
can justify its costs and distinctive characteristics.
•• Recent Securities and Exchange Commission rule changes
pertaining to money market funds have dimmed the appeal
of those funds and may drive some plan sponsors to replace
them with stable value funds.
•• Stable value can function as a diversification tool for investors
of any age—a tool with protection features that, by helping
participants overcome their investment fears, can boost plan
participation and participant deferral rates. And that can help
drive better participant outcomes.
THE CASE FOR EXPANDING STABLE VALUE’S REACH
Stable value’s performance through the financial crisis has
been lauded for good reason. When returns from virtually
every other asset class were tumbling in 2008, stable value
funds delivered returns of more than 4 percent for their
investors on average—then continued to deliver positive
returns in each succeeding year.3 Not only did stable
value perform as designed during the crisis, it became
fundamentally stronger in its aftermath. Since 2009, stable
value investment guidelines on the synthetic side of the
business have been further strengthened, and stable value
fees have increased commensurate with the risks assumed
by stable value providers. While several wrap issuers exited
the business in the immediate aftermath of the crisis, new
3
4
players have since entered, resolving a wrap-capacity
shortage that could have threatened the industry’s viability
had it gone unaddressed. It took a significant effort by market
participants—plan sponsors, stable value managers, wrap
issuers, consultants and advisors, attorneys and others—to
retool and rebuild the stable value market. But those efforts
paid off. Today wrap capacity is abundant, and the stable
value market has never been in better structural shape.
It’s also growing, albeit not quite as fast as the defined
contribution plan market overall. From December 2009
through December 2014 assets in insurance company
general account stable value products grew to $375 billion
from $220 billion, a gain of 70 percent.4 Meanwhile, assets
Stable Value Investment Association, Annual Investment Policy Surveys: 2008-2014.
Stable Value Investment Association annual and quarterly Stable Value Investment & Policy Surveys of SVIA members, 2009-2014.
3
in the wrap sector of the market grew to more than $380
billion from $313 billion, a gain of 22 percent. By June
2015, total stable value assets had reached $770 billion,
representing about 11 percent of all assets in defined
contribution plans.5 Nonetheless, the number of defined
contribution plans offering stable value funds has continued
to hold at about 50 percent.5
Certainly the growing popularity of target-date funds explains
some of what has been happening. But Prudential’s newest
stable value survey provides additional insights into why more
plan sponsors and intermediaries are not taking advantage of
the asset class. It finds, for example, that stable value is less
well known than some other investment options, including
money market funds and mutual funds—and familiarity is a
key driver of acceptance in the marketplace.
On the surface, this utilization rate seems illogical. Stable
value funds historically have delivered better returns than
money market funds, their closest competitors, with no
more volatility.6 They offer reassuring book-value withdrawal
guarantees that aren’t available from other asset classes. They
can function as an important diversifier, and conservative
foundation, in investment portfolios for retirement savers
of all ages, including risk-averse millennials who otherwise
might be leery of investing. And strictly from a plan sponsor’s
perspective, stable value can help plans comply with section
404(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
which provides a fiduciary safe harbor to plans that offer
participants a broad range of investment options with varying
levels of risk.
Meanwhile, even sponsors and intermediaries who are
familiar with the product sometimes focus more on its
perceived challenges than on the very real benefits it delivers.
This paper takes an in-depth look at these and other issues
relating to how plan sponsors and intermediaries view
stable value. It identifies what those who are using the asset
class like about it, and what those who are not cite as their
concerns. Finally, drawing from this point forward on the
survey results, it shows why more widespread use of stable
value by plan sponsors who have not yet adopted it could
help more Americans realize their retirement savings and
investing goals.
ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS FOCUS ON DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES
OF STABLE VALUE
Plan sponsors and intermediaries who have adopted
stable value cite two principal reasons for doing so: capital
preservation and steady returns. Among these adopters,
more than half of plan sponsors and nearly three-quarters
of intermediaries identify these as stable value’s most
compelling benefits. But they say they also appreciate stable
value for delivering a wide range of secondary benefits,
including guaranteed returns and “better” returns than
other fixed-income investments. A quarter or more also say
the asset class helps to increase plan participation rates and
boost the amounts participants save.
may be difficult for plan participants to understand. Nonadopting plan sponsors also cite the restrictions embedded
in stable value contracts, which can impact factors such as
when plan participants can move money from a stable value
fund to a competing fund.
To be sure, few if any plan sponsors or intermediaries see
stable value in black or white terms; each associates both
positive and negative attributes with stable value funds.
Interestingly, stable value adopters and non-adopters
recognize the strengths of stable value to roughly the
same degree, but non-adopters are more sensitive to its
perceived challenges. For example, non-adopters are
more likely to associate high expenses and a perceived
lack of transparency with stable value funds. Non-adopting
plan sponsors also are more sensitive to the contractual
restrictions that come with stable value funds.
Plan sponsors and intermediaries who haven’t adopted
stable value focus less on the positives that matter most to
adopters and more on the perceived challenges of the asset
class. These perceived challenges include the cost of stable
value funds, their performance relative to equities and other
non-fixed-income asset classes, and the notion that they
Stable Value Investment Association.
Dr. David Babbel and Dr. Miguel A. Herce, “Stable Value Funds: Performance to Date,” The Wharton School, January 2011. Additional summarization provided by Babbel
and Herce, February 2011, Stable Value Investment Association, Annual Investment Policy Surveys: 2008-2014.
5
6
4
STABLE VALUE ADOPTION
Capital preservation, steady returns drive adoption of stable value
TRIGGERS OF ADOPTION
PLAN SPONSORS
INTERMEDIARIES
Preserves capital
54%
75%
Steady returns
54%
70%
Guaranteed returns
47%
34%
Better returns vs. other fixed income
44%
30%
Helps increase participation rates
38%
36%
Helps increase savings rates
34%
25%
Can be easily liquidated by participants
29%
30%
Expenses, performance, complexity and transparency keep some from embracing stable value
TRIGGERS OF NON-ADOPTION
PLAN SPONSORS
INTERMEDIARIES
Tighter contractual restrictions
54%
34%
Does not perform as well as other non-fixed-income investments
54%
66%
Higher expense ratio
53%
69%
Not as transparent
53%
51%
More complicated
45%
58%
Addtional burden on fiduciaries
41%
23%
5
STABLE VALUE RECOMMENDATION DRIVERS DIFFER FROM
ADOPTION DRIVERS
Ironically, the factors that drive plan sponsors and
intermediaries to recommend stable value to others often
differ from those that drove them to adopt the asset class in
the first place. As noted, adoption decisions tend to focus
on the ability of stable value to deliver capital preservation
and steady returns. But recommendations often flow from
the returns stable value funds deliver versus other fixedincome investments, their role in boosting plan participation
and participant deferral rates, and, for intermediaries, their
liquidity for participants.
Drivers of stable value adoption, recommendation, can differ
STABLE VALUE DRIVERS
PLAN SPONSORS
Adoption
Capital preservation

Steady returns in all market cycles

Guaranteed returns

Recommendation
INTERMEDIARIES
Adoption
Recommendation


Better returns vs. other fixed income


Can be easily liquidated by participants


Helps increase participation rates


Helps increase savings rates


STABLE VALUE VIEWED MORE FAVORABLY THAN MONEY MARKET FUNDS7
Stable value is viewed more favorably than its main competitor, money market funds—especially among intermediaries.
About a quarter of plan sponsors and intermediaries could be considered “promoters” of stable value, meaning they rank
themselves highly likely (9 or 10 on a scale of 0 to 10) to recommend the asset class to others. By contrast, they’re not
nearly so keen on money market funds. 32 percent of sponsors and 56 percent of intermediaries could be considered
“detractors” of money market funds, meaning they rank themselves unlikely (0 to 6 on a scale of 0 to 10) to recommend the
products. That compares with 27 percent and 36 percent of sponsors and intermediaries, respectively, who are detractors of
stable value funds.
An easy way to visualize these differences is by netting the two extremes to create a “net promoter score,” or NPS, for each
asset class. To do that, simply subtract the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters. Viewed this way,
stable value has an NPS of 23 among larger plan sponsors who currently use it and 4 among larger intermediaries. Money
market funds, by contrast, have NPSs of 10 and -29, respectively, among larger plans and intermediaries who use them.
7
Prudential Retirement, Stable Value Adoption Research. Among plan Sponsors and Intermediaries with between $250<$500M in assets
6
WHEN CONSIDERING INVESTMENT OPTIONS, SOME MAY OVERLOOK
STABLE VALUE
Survey results suggest that in some cases, sponsors and
intermediaries may be overlooking stable value because
they don’t strongly associate the asset class with the
factors they focus on most when considering investment
options. Specifically, sponsors and intermediaries prize
investments that are easily understood by plan participants
and offer higher long-term returns and lower fees—attributes
not strongly associated with stable value.
That said, attributes that are strongly associated with
stable value play a secondary role in driving consideration
of investment options. These include capital preservation,
protection against market volatility, guaranteed returns, and
liquidity for participants.
Factors considered when evaluating investment options
PLAN SPONSORS
IMPORTANCE TIER INTERMEDIARIES
TIER 1 (60%+)
TIER 1 (60%+)
•• Less complex for participants
•• Higher long-term returns
HIGHER
IMPORTANCE
•• Less complex for participants
•• Lower fees for clients and participants
•• Lower fees (for organization and participants)
TIER 2 (50%+)
TIER 2 (50%+)
High
•• Less fiduciary burden
•• Higher long-term returns
•• Liquidity for participants
•• Less fiduciary burden
•• Capital preservation
•• Fewer contractual restrictions
•• Advisor recommended
•• Market volatility protection
•• Liquidity for participants
High
•• Less contractual restrictions
•• Guaranteed returns
TIER 3 (40%+)
•• Strong brand
TIER 3 (40%+)
Low
Low
•• Capital preservation
•• Widely used
•• Part of recordkeeper’s platform
•• Strong brand
TIER 4 (30%+)
TIER 4 (30%+)
Lowest
•• Market volatility protection
LOWER
IMPORTANCE
•• Widely used
•• Highly recommended by other brokers
•• Guaranteed returns
7
TRADEOFFS: KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR NON-ADOPTERS
•• Returns vs. non-fixed-income investments. Stable value
returns historically have been comparable to those available
from intermediate-term bonds and significantly higher than
inflation or money market returns. That said, the expected
return of stable value funds is lower than the expected return
of non-fixed-income investments such as equities. At issue
here is the adequacy of returns over a lifetime of savings.
While it’s true that a highly concentrated investment in stable
value by a young plan participant probably wouldn’t provide
the returns necessary for a quality retirement, that doesn’t
mean stable value can’t function as a foundation asset class
in a broadly diversified portfolio for plan participants of all
ages. In fact, data from the Investment Company Institute
and the Employee Benefit Research Institute show that there
is age-appropriate use of stable value by plan participants.
Those in their 20s hold, on average, about 8 percent of their
retirement assets in stable value, while those in their 60s hold
about 28 percent.8 While stable value does not provide the
same level of expected return to investors as equities, it does
work as a diversification tool and is not used inappropriately
by most individuals.
The factors plan sponsors and intermediaries cite for not
adopting stable value suggest they may not fully appreciate
the role those factors play in making stable value work. If so,
the stable industry must recognize the opportunity to better
make the necessary connections. The stable value attributes
that non-adopters consider challenges are, in many cases,
critical to delivering the benefits that make the asset class
so appealing to their peers who have adopted it. Among the
issues that bear further exploration and discussion:
•• Contractual restrictions. The restrictions common to
stable value contracts create a stronger, more sustainable
product that allows stable value to deliver what investors
want from it: steady returns, low volatility and guaranteed
withdrawal benefits. Restrictions on competing funds, for
example, discourage arbitrage between stable value funds
and money market funds during periods of rapidly rising
interest rates, minimizing the chances that stable value
funds might have to liquidate some of their assets when their
values are depressed. Restrictions on withdrawals during
corporate events, such as a plan termination, provide similar
protections.
•• Expenses. No investment product should be judged on
expenses alone; benefits also must be considered. Stable
value delivers unique book-value withdrawal guarantees that
can serve multiple objectives. They can assure preservation
of principal for highly risk-averse investors, including those
near or in retirement. And as noted earlier, they can give
younger investors the confidence to invest a portion of their
retirement savings in higher-risk asset classes, such as
equities, that they’ll likely need to achieve their retirement
goals.
•• Returns versus other fixed-income investments and inflation.
Numerous studies have shown that stable value funds have
delivered steady, bond-like investment returns with low
volatility through all types of investment environments and
economic cycles. Most recently, a Prudential analysis of the
16-year period from 1999 through 2014 showed stable value
returns outpacing both money market returns and inflation.
Stable value modestly underperformed an intermediate-term
bond index largely because the index incurred no trading
costs and had a slightly higher duration. Money market
funds, by contrast, failed to keep pace with inflation, resulting
in negative real returns for investors.
•• Transparency of Underlying Investments. Transparency can
vary among the three main types of stable value products:
pooled funds using wrap contracts, individually managed
accounts using wrap contracts, and insurance company
general account products. Many wrapped stable value
products offer investors a direct view of the products’
investment composition. Some stable value products—
primarily insurance general account products with fixed rates
set in advance and guaranteed for a specific period—may
be viewed by some as less transparent. Here again, however,
plan sponsors and participants enjoy some potentially
beneficial tradeoffs, as insurance general account products
sometimes offer higher crediting rates and guarantee a return
above 0 percent. These are factors plan sponsors, along with
their consultants and advisors, can consider when making
informed choices about which stable value products to offer.
Stable value: a history of bond-like returns with
low volatility
AVERAGE ANNUAL
RETURN 1999-2014
STANDARD DEVIATION
OF RETURNS 1999-2014
Intermediate-Term Bonds*
4.82%
3.15%
Stable value**
4.35%
1.23%
Inflation***
2.27%
1.06%
Money market funds****
1.93%
2.08%
ASSET CLASS
* Barclays U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index (12-month total return)
**SVIA Net, 12-month return (12-month average), from Stable Value Investment Association Annual Stable Value Investment Policy Survey, 1999-2014
***Consumer Price Index 1999-2014, Bureau of Labor Statistics
****iMoneyNet MFR Money Funds Index (annualized returns)
8
Employee Benefit Research Institute, “401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity in 2013,” December 2014.
8
Non-adopters also may be overlooking the role stable value
can play in improving participant outcomes. Thanks to their
protection features, which address many plan participants’
fears, stable value funds can give participants the courage
to participate earlier in retirement savings plans and elect
higher deferral rates. This can yield long-term benefits for
plan participants of all ages—namely, a bigger nest egg
when they stop working—and can be especially helpful for
millennials, whose plan-participation horizon is longest.
Access to an asset class that can assuage fears about
investing is particularly important in the current investment
climate. A 2014 study9 found that a substantial proportion
of consumers remain anxious about the stock market and
would benefit from a safety net to regain confidence and
start investing again. Specifically, 40 percent of affluent
consumers said they disagree with the idea that the economy
has recovered since the 2008 recession. They also disagree
that they no longer have to fear another crash in the near
future. For investors with these concerns, stable value offers
an attractive value proposition.
MULTIPLE FACTORS POINT TO GREATER USE OF STABLE VALUE IN
THE FUTURE
Plan sponsor and intermediary attitudes toward broader
use of stable value are favorable. Among plan sponsors,
55 percent of non-adopters plan to offer stable value in
the future, while only 9 percent of adopters are at risk of
getting rid of it. Similarly, among intermediaries, 67 percent
of non-adopters say they plan to recommend it in the future,
while only 3 percent of adopters are at risk of stopping
recommending it. Finally, 30 percent of intermediaries
who recommend stable value to clients are doing so more
often today than they did a year ago, and 35 percent
expect this trend to accelerate over the next three years.
The changing regulatory environment for money market
funds could boost demand for stable value funds. More
than half of sponsors and intermediaries who currently offer
or recommend money market funds are familiar with recent
SEC rule changes that, beginning in October 2016, will
allow those funds to impose redemption fees, or temporarily
halt redemptions, when the funds fall below certain
liquidity thresholds. A third of those sponsors—and half
the intermediaries—say the changes have had a negative
impact on their view of money market funds. What’s more,
63 percent of sponsors that currently offer money market
PLAN
SPONSORS
SELECTING)
funds
and 49 (%percent
of intermediaries who currently
recommend them say this is likely to drive changes in their
28%
Government money market
allocation
to money market funds. That could lead to market
share gains by stable value. Among sponsors, 39 percent of
Short-term bonds
21%
those who moved money out of a money market fund in the
past year, or plan to do so in the next three
years, switched
39%
Stable value
some of it to stable value funds or plan to do so. Among
intermediaries,
some of the proceeds
Target datethe percentage moving 35%
from money market funds to stable value was 52 percent.
Money leaving money market funds might move to stable value
28%
Government money market
8%
Short-term bonds
39%
56%
52%
Stable value
35%
Target date
Others
Government money market
21%
Stable value
7%
INTERMEDIARIES (%(%SELECTING)
INTERMEDIARIES
SELECTING)
PLAN SPONSORS
SPONSORS (%(%SELECTING)
PLAN
SELECTING)
Short-term bonds
Others
29%
Target date
7%
Others
6%
INTERMEDIARIES (% SELECTING)
9
2014 Phoenix Affluent Consumer Audit. Audience demographics: 35-64 years old with HH income and investable assets of $100K+.
Government money market
8%
9
Short-term bonds
56%
Target-date funds, which continue to grow in popularity in
defined contribution plans, present a special opportunity
for stable value. Plan sponsors and intermediaries alike say
that adding a stable value component to target-date funds
would provide investors with additional protection against
market volatility and loss of principal. Among plan sponsors
who already offer target-date funds in their plans, 74 percent
say they are somewhat or very likely to consider incorporating
a stable value component into those funds. Sixty percent of
intermediaries say they feel the same. Finally, 48 percent of
sponsors say that adding stable value to target-date funds is
“very valuable” because it provides participants with a fixed
income guarantee through retirement.
Incorporating stable value in target-date funds makes
sense for both plan sponsors and plan participants. As
noted earlier, plan sponsors and intermediaries associate
stable value with improved plan participation rates and
higher participant deferral rates. Incorporating stable value
into a target-date fund also can add a positive absolute return
component to the fund and improve the fund’s Sharpe ratio,
a widely followed measure of risk-adjusted returns.
Automatic enrollment, and use of QDIAs, strengthen argument for pushing to incorporate stable value in
6%
21%
28%
45%
target-date funds
PLAN SPONSORS THAT HAVE AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN THEIR PLANS
6% 6%
Don’t28%
know
21%
No plans
28%
No, but plan to in next 3 years
45%Don’t know
Yes
No plans
85%
45%
21%
INTERMEDIARIES THAT RECOMMEND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT
PLAN SPONSORS
21%
85%
10%
Stable value
6%
No, but plan to in next 3 years
28%
Yes
45%
Target date
30%
43%
Balanced funds
17%
Managed account
DEFAULT INVESTMENT FOR AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT
Others
Among Plan Sponsors that have automatic enrollment and a
default option. (Single select)
PLAN SPONSORS
10%
Stable value
Target date
30%
43%
Balanced funds
Others
1%
Others
35%
Stable value
Target date
66%
50%
Balanced funds
27%
3%
50%
27%
Managed account
INTERMEDIARIES
Others
66%
Balanced funds
17%
Managed account
35%
Stable value
Target date
Managed account
1%
Among Intermediaries that recommend automatic enrollment
and a default option. (Multiple select)
INTERMEDIARIES
10
3%
CONCLUSION
Stable value’s long role as a core investment option in defined
contribution plans is admirable. But with approximately half
of plans not offering the asset class, its ability to help improve
participant outcomes is limited. Expanding the ranks of plan
sponsors and intermediaries who use and recommend stable
value funds could help millions more plan participants reach
their retirement savings and investing goals.
Fortunately, the environment is conducive to broadening
stable value’s role:
•• Regulatory changes are prompting some plan sponsors and
intermediaries to rethink their use of money market funds
and could drive them to adopt stable value funds instead.
•• Intermediaries are recommending stable value more this year
than they have in the past, and expect to continue doing so
in the years ahead.
•• Target-date funds present special opportunities for growth.
In short, expanding the use of stable value isn’t just desirable,
it’s also doable.
11
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
prudential.com
Insurance products are issued by Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (PRIAC), Hartford, CT, or The Prudential Insurance
Company of America (PICA), Newark, NJ. Both are Prudential Financial companies. Each company is solely responsible for its financial condition
and contractual obligations.
© 2016 Prudential Financial, Inc. and its related entities. Prudential, the Prudential logo, the Rock symbol and Bring Your Challenges are service
marks of Prudential Financial, Inc. and its related entities, registered in many jurisdictions worldwide.
0286268-00005-00STABLEWPRE1
08/2016