Content Provided by Scott Kubie, CLS Senior Portfolio Manager

In 1999, S&P and MSCI jointly created the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS®) codes to classify companies in various groups. Technology was destined to play a big part in the standard because the GICS were created during the height of the technology bubble. It is interesting to think that a firm that makes printers is in the information technology sector and a firm that makes engines is in the industrial sector. As we moved from the high growth era of the late 90’s the nature of information technology has changed.

Compared to ten years ago, technology is much less focused on growth and more on core. Large growth and mid growth have surrendered about 20 percent of their share of technology companies, and large core has grabbed all they’ve lost and more. There are still plenty of large growth technology companies like Google, Qualcomm, Oracle, and Visa (yes, that Visa). But many of the former daring innovators now manage strong brands and business lines. Firms like IBM, Apple, Cisco, Intel, and Microsoft are all in the large blend category.

If an advisor is looking at the style box of a technology ETF, it will still say large growth, just as it has for years. The CLS Investment Research Team drills down further and looks at the information above (and a hundred plus other fields) so we can better understand the portfolios entrusted to us.

This information is prepared for general information only. It does not have regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person who may receive this report. You should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any security or investment strategy discussed or recommended in this report and should understand that statements regarding future prospects may not be realized. You should note that security values may fluctuate and that each security’s price or value may rise or fall. Accordingly, investors may receive back less than originally invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance.