Give thought to how you give this holiday season

Noreen D. BeamanNoreen D. Beaman, Chief Executive Officer

The holidays represent a time when many Americans express love and affection with gifts. Gift giving serves many purposes in our society. It helps define relationships, express feelings, show appreciation, smooth a disagreement, share good fortune, and strengthen bonds. While the joy of giving is undeniable, excessive spending could put your financial goals in jeopardy and ultimately stand in the way of happiness.

The American Research Group projects that the average person will spend $929 on gifts this holiday season. To put this amount in perspective, consider the following:

  • Last year, the average consumer spent $882, so this year consumers believe they will spend on average $47 more than last.
  • The last time consumers spending exceeded $900 was in 2006.
  • We’ve had a somewhat steady climb in spending since 2009 when the average person spent $417.
  • Gift spending peaked in 2001 when the average person spent $1,052 on holiday gifts.

live-simplyAs with any benchmark, the amount of money “the average person” spends on holiday gifts should bear little relevance on your spending. Whether you spend more or less than this projection is a personal choice that is best made with intention and with your own financial situation and goals in mind. These common holiday spending triggers, however, could get in the way of mindfulness and prompt you to spend more than intended.

Keeping up with others. If you try to match the amounts spent by colleagues, friends, family or peers, you could find yourself spending beyond your means and putting your financial goals in jeopardy.

Trying to be fair. A common cause of spend creep happens to create a sense of balance or fairness. When you overspend on one relative, you may be inclined to create equalization by matching the dollar value of gifts for others.

Just getting it done.  For some, holiday shopping is just another task in an already long list of things to accomplish by the end of the calendar year. It’s easy to overspend if you haven’t committed to a spending budget, decided who to buy for and what to get, and taken the time to seek out the best deals.

Autopilot. Sometimes we gift without considering whether the expenditure aligns with current realities. As families evolve, a discussion about how each member would like to celebrate the holidays may be worthwhile. For example, as your extended family grows, it may make sense to discuss a kids-only gift policy, put monetary limits on spending, or do a gift swap.

Self-purchases. Nearly sixty percent of holiday shoppers (58%) will buy for themselves and will spend on average of $139.61 doing so. This year’s projected self-spending is up 4% from 2015 and is at the second-highest level in National Retail Federation survey’s 13-year history.

The holidays only come once a year. Many people enter the holiday season as they would a free zone. They buy until they get to the end of their ever-growing list of recipients. They decorate until every square inch reflects the feeling of festivity in their heart. Unfortunately, many people do so without regard to the implications on short and mid-range financial goals and thus experience feelings of regret.

The act of gift giving has tremendous intrinsic and extrinsic value. A growing body of research suggests that the most important way in which money makes us happy is when we give it away. Gift giving at the expense of long-term financial goals, however, will bring anything but happiness.

Temptations beset all sides of the path to your financial dreams. During the holidays, temptations may take an altruistic form but still involve spending for today’s pleasures and forgetting about the Future You. This holiday season, give thought to how you give because the Future You is depending on your ability to be mindful, spot (over)spending triggers, and positively influence your ability to endure.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor

Addressing post-election anxiety

Crosby_2015Dr. Daniel Crosby, Executive Director, The Center for Outcomes & Founder, Nocturne Capital

Global events, such as the intensely divided presidential election that we just lived through, are certain to generate some periods of market volatility of varying lengths in addition to a significant amount of stress. However, we urge financial advisors and investors to retain a few dos and don’ts to help manage post-election anxiety:

Don’t equate risk with volatility. Volatility does not equal risk. Risk is the likelihood that you will not have the money to live the life you want to live. Paper losses are not “risk” and neither are the gyrations of a volatile market. Long term investors have been rewarded by equity markets, but those rewards come at the price of bravery during periods of short-term uncertainty.

Do know your history. Despite what political pundits and TV commentators would have you believe, this is not an unusually scary time to be alive. The economy continues to grow (slowly) and most quality of life statistics (crime, drug use, teen pregnancy) have been declining for years. Markets have always climbed a wall of worry, rewarding those who stay the course and punishing those who succumb to fear.

Don’t give in to action bias. At most times and in most situations, increased effort leads to improved outcomes. Investing is that rare world where doing less actually gets you more.

Do take responsibility. Most investors are likely to tell you that timing and returns are the biggest drivers of financial performance, but research tells another story. Research suggests that you are the best friend and the worst enemy of your own portfolio. Over the last 20 years, the market has returned roughly 8.25% per annum, but the average retail investor has kept just over 4% of those gains because of poor investment behavior.1 At times when market moves can feel haphazard, it helps to remember who is really in charge.

Don’t focus on the minute to minute. If you are investing in the stock market you have to think long-term. As mentioned above, you can avoid action bias by not checking your portfolio status all day every day, especially during times of higher volatility. Limited looking leads to increased feelings of security and improved decision-making.

Do work with a professional. Odds are that when you chose your financial advisor, you selected him or her because of their academic pedigree, years of experience or a sound investment philosophy. Ironically, what you may have overlooked is the largest value he or she adds—managing your behavior. Studies put the value added from working with an advisor at 2 to 3% per year. Compound that effect over a lifetime, and the power of financial advice quickly becomes evident.

Source: (1) Dalbar, Inc. Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. Boston: Dalbar, 2015.

Views expressed are those of Brinker Capital, Inc. and are for informational/educational purposes.  Opinions and research referring to future actions or events, such as the future financial performance of certain asset classes, indexes or market segments, are based on the current expectations and projections about future events provided by various sources, including Brinker Capital’s Investment Management Group. Information contained within may be subject to change. Diversification does not assure a profit not guarantee against a loss.

Veterans Day: A time to say thank you

Noreen D. BeamanNoreen D. Beaman, Chief Executive Officer

Today we recognize those who have sacrificed careers, precious time with loved ones, and even their lives to answer our country’s call to service.

Please take a moment out of your busy day today to attend a Veterans Day event in your area or simply say thank you to those who are currently serving or have served in the military.

On this Veteran’s Day, we say thank you to our veterans at Brinker Capital—Chuck Widger, Tom Daley, Jimmy Dever, Lee Dolan, Jay O’Brien, Jim O’Hara, Jeff Raupp and Bill Talbot—and to everyone who has served and protected our country.

To be born free is an accident.
To live free is a privilege.
To die free is a responsibility.
–Brig. Gen. James Sehorn

If you’re looking for additional ways to get involved, click here for ideas.

Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor

Being right for the wrong reasons

Andy RosenbergerAndrew Rosenberger, CFA, Senior Investment Manager

Investors betting on a Hillary win should be grinning ear-to-ear with the outcome of the election. Picture this for one moment. Imagine if I had told you last week who would win the election – but nothing else. Odds are, particularly after listening to the “experts” that you would have sold everything. Maybe if you’re the type who likes to speculate, you would have also used those cash proceeds to short the market, buy some VIX, or perhaps buy long-term Treasuries. After all, the standard meme was Trump = Bad for Markets, Clinton = Good for Markets. Good thing that crystal balls don’t exist. It’s a classic case of being right for the wrong reason. Or, taking the other side of the coin, being wrong for the right reason. As we all digest the outcome of events and try to comprehend what this all means, here are a few ruminations that come to mind:

  • Event-driven investing is REALLY hard. Event-driven investing is the idea of speculating on the outcome of a specific event. It sounds easy. But think about all the factors that go into it. You have to be right on calling the outcome. You have to be right on how the market reacts to that outcome. You have to know how much is already discounted into the market already. You have to have better information than everyone else. You have to structure the trade in such a way that it’s profitable. Like many things in life and investing, it sounds easier than it is.
  • Income relative to duration matters. In one single day, over a year and a half worth of income was wiped out for anyone investing in long term Treasuries. Prior to the election, the 30 year bond was yielding approximately 2.6%. The Wednesday after the election, the Barclays Long Term Treasury Index was down -4.14%. So now investors will have to wait over a year for the income generated on their bonds to make up their losses. Or, maybe they could try out some event-driven investing tactics mentioned above.
  • Volatility is dynamic. When regimes change, low volatility may suddenly be high volatility. It seems like a no-brainer. You can outperform the market with less risk by simply investing in stocks with lower volatility. Forget that it’s the topic du jour. Forget that there are immense amounts of money flowing into this group of stocks. Forget that valuations for these types of stocks have never been higher. It’s worked in the past. Well, until it doesn’t. I acknowledge it’s only one day. But yesterday’s dramatic underperformance of low volatility reemphasizes the point that there’s more to investing than simply investing in what worked historically.
  • Consensus is usually right…until it isn’t. Unlike low volatility stocks, just a few months ago everyone hated financial and healthcare stocks. After all, the yield curve was going to stay flat forever hampering banks and insurance company’s ability to generate returns. Separately, politicians were going to destroy the profitability of pharmaceutical companies by reversing sky-high drug prices. Bad fundamentals. Check. Bad technicals. Check. Market experts agree with you. Check. Unfortunately, when these views reverse, as we’ve seen as of late, they do so extraordinarily fast.
  • In statistics, sample sizes do not represent the overall population. How is it that in an era of big data and interconnectivity that our methods for predicting elections have gotten worse, not better? Certainly the migration away from landline phones and the shy Trump voter effect were both major factors. But anytime we talk about polling, we have to remember that we’re taking small samples of a very large population. I, for one, have NEVER been asked by a polling authority who I’m voting for. With over 119 million voters this election, I would imagine there are quite a few others who weren’t part of the sample size either. Statistics matter but so too does the means with which they are applied.
  • Politics can be very emotional for individuals. Particularly within investing, emotion and outperformance rarely coincide with one another. Investing is hard enough as it is. Billions of dollars of research has been dedicated to the art and science of getting a competitive advantage over other investors. And most haven’t been very successful.

The bottom line is that investors should focus on the long-term outcome knowing that over time, Democrat or Republican, 2% growth or 4% growth, Fed rate hike or no rate hike, that their investments will work for them in the long-term.

Brinker Capital understands that investing for the long-term can be daunting, especially during a time like this but we are focused on providing multi-asset class investment solutions that help investors manage the emotions of investing to achieve their unique financial goals.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor. 

Investing involves risk, including risk of loss. Diversification does not ensure a profit or guarantee against loss. Past Performance is no guarantee of future results. 

Where will you be when the dust settles?

Noreen D. BeamanNoreen D. Beaman, Chief Executive Officer

Since Donald Trump has been elected as the 45th President of the United States, the question we hear repeated most often is “what happens now?” While the immediate focus will be outlining transition of power plans, political appointments and the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, we’d be hard-pressed to find any expert who believes the uncertainty will end then.

Trump campaigned on a platform calling for sweeping change and dramatic deviations from the Obama administration. He wants to overhaul immigration policies, health coverage, taxation, and trade policies, all of which will have significant economic implications. His policies have yet to be clearly defined and we’ll have to wait to see if those policies will meet Congress and the Courts’ approval. There is also much speculation on who will be named to head the Treasury and whether he will follow through on his intention to replace Janet Yellen as Federal Reserve Chair. While these and many other economic dust particles swirl in the air, one thing we know for sure: the post-election uncertainties will create market volatility.

Even the savviest investor or most skilled asset manager cannot predict or control where the markets will land when the dust settles. So, instead of trying to glean actionable insights from uncertainty, we urge investors to focus on matters within control, such as:

  • An understanding that volatility is part of investing. In a recent blog, Dr. Daniel Crosby explained the impact elections have had on previous markets. It is worth re-reading and repeating that election cycles are like any other market cycles. Trends and patterns exist which may allow some securities and asset classes to outperform others. In light of the number and weight of the unknowns associated with a Trump presidency, the patterns of previous election cycles may bear little (if any) relevance to our experiences and decisions today. To put the volatility in perspective, try to repeat the lyrics of the famous Shirelle’s song, “Mama said there’d be days like this.” Volatility is part of investing and should not cause you to question your overall investment strategy. However, investors must seek to reduce volatility in their portfolio while maintaining the opportunity for appreciation.
  • Diversification can bring peace of mind. In addition to the economic benefits of investing broadly in a variety of asset classes, there are emotional gains to be made as well. When your portfolio spans asset classes, geographic regions, business sectors and investment styles, you know that while some conditions may be negative for one sector, they could be positive for others. You become less concerned about the performance of a particular asset class and focus more on how your total-return performance impacts your personal goals and benchmarks.
  • Your reliance on a competent advisor. Studies have shown that the greatest value provided by a financial advisor is behavioral coaching. It is in times of volatility and uncertainty that advisors earn their keep, so don’t be afraid to seek assurances and direction from your advisor.
  • A long-term perspective. Investing for the long-term can be daunting, so it may be helpful to remind yourself that it pays to wait. The worst return of any 25-year period was 5.9% annualized1. Time is on your side. As Crosby cautions, “Markets always have and always will climb a wall of worry, rewarding those who stay the course and punishing those who succumb to fear.”
  • Your goals are your benchmark. You have the power to control your actions, follow a plan, and make investment decisions on merit and not emotions. As John Coyne’s blog mentioned earlier in the week, it is important that you avoid emotions that could wreak havoc on a lifetime of careful planning. The degree with which you can maintain composure and stick with the plan put in place by your advisor is the single biggest predictor of where you will stand relative to your long-term financial goals when the dust settles.

Brinker Capital understands that investing for the long-term can be daunting, especially during a time like this but we are focused on providing multi-asset class investment solutions that help investors manage the emotions of investing to achieve their unique financial goals.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor. 

Investing involves risk, including risk of loss. Diversification does not ensure a profit or guarantee against loss. Past Performance is no guarantee of future results. 

Synthesizing happiness

Crosby_2015Dr. Daniel Crosby, Executive Director, The Center for Outcomes & Founder, Nocturne Capital

On Wednesday, November 9, approximately half of Americans will wake up disappointed. Regardless of which candidate prevails on Election Day, roughly fifty percent of the people that she or he will eventually lead will have voted against them. Those whose preferences were not realized will likely begin a new offensive; painting a dystopian picture of the world to come with President X at the helm. Similar to what John Coyne mentioned on Monday. Markets will crash. Businesses will fail. Wars will rage. The historical precedent is that all of this and more will be the new rallying cry of the vanquished party and it’s easy to imagine that it will only be exacerbated by the ugliness and division that have characterized this contest.

But there is another, more powerful precedent that will have a far greater impact on financial markets than who wins or loses: it is our tendency toward resiliency that exceeds our own expectations.

Imagine I asked you to consider your ability to function in the face of the unthinkable – the passing of a child or partner, a debilitating illness, the loss of a job. Odds are, you would describe yourself as helpless, heartbroken and unable to go on. And while all of the scenarios I’ve just put forth are truly tragic, research suggests that our ability to cope with disappointment and loss are greater than we realize until we are thrust into a moment of trial.

To demonstrate this, I’d like for you to consider two groups that seemingly have little in common – paraplegics and lottery winners. If I asked you whether you would be happier one year out from winning the lottery as Option A and becoming disabled as Option B, you would likely suggest that I was in need of a psychologist rather than being trained as a psychologist. Obviously, we would all hypothesize that one year after the life changing event, lottery winners would be much happier and paraplegics would be much sadder, right? But this is simply not the case.

One year after their respective events, it makes little difference whether you are riding in a Bentley or a wheelchair – happiness levels remain relatively static. So, why is this? We tend to overpredict the impact of external events on our happiness. One year later, paraplegics have found out their accidents were not as catastrophic as they may have feared and have coped accordingly. Similarly, lottery winners have found out that having money brings with it a variety of complications. No amount of spending can take away some of the tough things life throws at each and every one of us. As the saying goes, “wherever you go, there you are.” In much the same way, we tend to project forward to a hypothesized happier time, when we have more money in the bank or are making a bigger salary. The fact of the matter is, when that day arrives, we are unlikely to recognize it and will simply project forward once again, hoping in vain that something outside of ourselves will come and make it all better. Our dreams and our nightmares are never quite as likely as we might assume in the moment and our ability to cope with difficulty as it arrives is far greater than we realize before being tested.

I’m not suggesting that the coming years will be easy, far from it. Humanity’s default setting seems to include plenty of divisiveness and struggle right alongside the moments of altruism. I’m simply suggesting that whatever comes, we, and the institutions that support us, are more capable of coping than we may now realize. Always pithy in his perspective, Warren Buffett said, “In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression, a dozen or so recessions and financial panics, oil shocks, a flu epidemic, and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.”

The future may be in doubt but our resolve is not. It has never paid to bet against America and I wouldn’t start now, no matter who is at the helm.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

The Impact of Student Loans on Your Own Retirement

Roddy MarinoRoddy Marino, CIMA, Executive Vice President
National Accounts & Distribution

An education is one of the greatest gifts a parent or grandparent can give to the next generation. The problem for many, however, is that it comes at the cost of their own retirement.

People over the age of 60 represent the fastest-growing segment of individuals taking out loans for education. Over the past decade, student loans taken out by individuals over the age of 60 grew from $6 billion in 2004 to $58 billion in 2014. To put the dollars into perspective, consider another staggering statistic—the numbers of senior citizens with student debt exceed 760,000. Some have co-signed loans or taken Parent PLUS loans to help children or grandchildren get an education. Other seniors carry old debt from when they returned to school to get advanced degrees or in the pursuit of new skills needed for a career change.

A mistake some retirees make is they incorrectly assume that they will never have to repay their student debt. Only two things can make federal college debt go away: satisfaction or death of the borrower.

shutterstock_44454148Federal student loans aren’t forgiven at retirement or any age after. Bankruptcy won’t even discharge a federal student loan, and the consequences to a senior who defaults on a federal loan are severe. The government can garnish Social Security benefits and other wages. Recent reports indicate over 150,000 retirees have at least one Social Security payment reduced to offset federal student loans. This number represents a drastic increase from the 31,000 impacted in the year 2002.

The government can withhold up to 15% of a borrower’s retirement benefits and can also withhold tax refunds in the event the borrower defaults on a college loan.

If repayment is not possible, you may want to explore a few options to minimize the impact on cash flow once you are on a fixed income. You could stretch out the term of the loan as long as possible through extended payments, or enter into an income-driven repayment plan. Typically, borrowers must pay 10-20% of discretionary income in an income-contingent scenario.

Both strategies could reduce your monthly payments; however, ultimately either strategy will result in higher total payments. To put it simply, debt of any kind is best retired before you retire.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

“Taking Stock” Interview with Bloomberg

Wilson_HeadshotThomas K.R. Wilson, CFA, Managing Director, Wealth Advisory & Senior Investment Manager

Tom joined Bloomberg’s “Taking Stock” with Kathleen Hays and Pimm Fox. They discussed the impact of the upcoming election on markets, fixed income investment options, and the strength of consumers. Listen below:

Wilson_Bloomberg

Video: July 2016 Monthly Market and Economic Outlook

Amy MagnottaAmy Magnotta, CFASenior Investment Manager, Brinker Capital

We’re excited to present Amy’s monthly commentary now in video format. Click the play button below to start watching, or click here to view direct from Vimeo. If you prefer the full text version, please visit the Resource Center at BrinkerCapital.com. Enjoy!

Source: Brinker Capital. Views expressed are for informational purposes only. Holdings subject to change. Not all asset classes referenced in this material may be represented in your portfolio. Indices are unmanaged and an investor cannot invest directly in an index. All investments involve risk including loss of principal. Fixed income investments are subject to interest rate and credit risk. Foreign securities involve additional risks, including foreign currency changes, political risks, foreign taxes, and different methods of accounting and financial reporting. Brinker Capital Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Carousel of Political Discontent

Stuart Quint, Investment Insights PodcastStuart P. Quint, CFA, Senior Investment Manager & International Strategist

Hung parliaments in three recent elections may have investment implications. On this latest podcast, Stuart discusses what’s happening in Spain, Austria and Australia.

Quick hits:

  • Recent elections in Spain, Austria, and Australia highlight that voters are divided and unable to render a clear mandate for government.
  • Other parts of Europe appear vulnerable.
  • Politics pose risk to financial markets; loose monetary policy likely to persist in many places.

What do Spain, Austria, and Australia have in common? (No, this is not a trivia question nor the opening line of a bad joke.)

Each country in recent weeks has held elections, all of which failed to elect governments backed by a majority of the vote (with one case leading to yet another election).  Tepid economic growth has led to divided voters that could make it more difficult for governments to enact policies needed to stimulate economies. They each are riding “a carousel of political discontent”.

Starting in Spain

On June 26, Spain held general elections for the second time in six months (results of which were overshadowed by the Brexit referendum).  Both elections failed to confirm one party with a sufficient majority to form a government.  In fact, the two centrist-right and left parties lost parliamentary seats to smaller fringe parties. However, the June election did result in a higher seat count for the ruling center-right party.  Hope exists for the incumbent center-right party to be able to form a coalition, though most likely without support of a majority of parliament.[1]

Sobering developments in Austria

In May, Austria tried to elect a president, an office with more ceremonial functions than real political power.  The two final candidates came from the Greens and the far-right Freedom Party, parties not belonging to the traditional establishment.  After a very slight victory (50.3% to 49.7%)[2] for the Green candidate, the Austrian Constitutional Court annulled the results and rescheduled the election for October.[3]  Austria potentially might be the first country in the EU to elect a president from the far right, a sobering development in light of populist antipathy to the Euro project.

Instability in Australia

Elections that were intended to solidify the ruling coalition in Australia could end up having the opposite effect.  The ruling Liberal-National party coalition has lost seats in both houses of Parliament and faces the risk of forming a minority government.  Yet again, fringe parties siphoned off votes both from the incumbents and main opposition party Liberals. Australia has already suffered through five different Prime Ministers in the last six years. The last thing it needs is another unstable government and the risk of political paralysis and potential new elections.

Notable similarities

Three different countries with three different cultures still share some common themes. Slow economic growth has contributed to disillusionment with establishment parties. The new wrinkle is that cohesion in the traditional opposition, as well as incumbent parties, is unraveling. Fringe parties representing both ideological (far right and left) as well as parochial interests are gaining. Though unable to govern themselves, these fringe parties potentially could play greater roles as “kingmakers” for establishment parties to form ruling coalitions. More focus would be spent on holding together the coalition and catering to parochial issues rather than carrying through reforms to stoke confidence in the economy. Weak coalitions are prone to collapse and thus, new elections.

What’s the impact on other countries?

Other candidates for this cycle of discontent stand out in Europe, particularly countries in the Euro.  With its past history of rotating governments, Italy might reemerge as the popularity of incumbent PM Renzi has taken a hit from reform setbacks and lack of economic growth. The fringe opposition party Five Star enjoys significant popularity as shown in victories in recent municipal elections. The party espouses holding a referendum on Italy’s membership in the Euro. It might see opportunity to challenge Renzi in October when a referendum on voting reform is scheduled. If Renzi were to lose that vote, early elections are likely to ensue.

France also stands out with a vigorous populist far-right opposition party in the National Front of Marine LePen.  General elections in 2017 with the incumbent government suffering from depressed approval ratings could introduce additional market volatility. Along with a stagnant economy, France has also suffered backlash against efforts to reform labor markets.

What needs to change?

Political malcontent with economic growth has the potential to continue and add to market volatility. It also could lead to paralysis on fiscal and structural reform needed to accelerate growth. One consequence is likely: central banks will not be retreating from active monetary policy anytime soon in the face of weak growth, even if much of their dry powder has already been spent. Government inaction will still be replaced by central bank stimulation unless the situation changes.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, a Registered Investment Advisor.

[1] http://www.abc.es/espana/abci-rajoy-cita-manana-moncloa-201607051229_noticia.html  accessed on July 5, 2016.

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/independent-van-der-bellen-wins-austrian-presidential-vote/7439372  accessed on July 5, 2016.

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/01/austrian-presidential-election-result-overturned-and-must-be-held-again-hofer-van-der-bellen accessed on July 5, 2016.