appreciation income 20% 25% 15% · and capital appreciation. in 2017, the total return for all...

Hancock Farmland Investor Fourth Quarter 2017

2017 U.S. Farmland Investment Performance

U.S. farmland properties returned 6.2 percent in 2017, 90 bps below 2016 returns, continuing the downward correc-

tion that began in 2014. U.S. Annual cropland properties returned 4.75 percent in 2017 (4 bps above 2016 levels) while permanent crop properties returned 8.14 percent (199 bps below 2016).

Hancock Farmland Investor Fourth Quarter 2017

(Continued on page 2)

U.S. private farmland investment returns fell 90 bps over 2016 and over 1,400 bps since 2013 (see Chart 1). The decline in returns has been driven by three factors: commodity prices, farmland value, and on-farm profitability. 2017 represented the fourth consecutive year of strong production globally. This boost in production has led to increasing inventories of agricultural commodities and declining prices. The decline in commodity prices has led to lower on-farm cash receipts (revenues) as prices have fallen faster than production has increased. As a result of declines in on-farm revenue, on-farm profitability has fallen off, which, in turn, has led to a decrease in farmland values. As a result, farmland operating income returns have declined from 7.9 percent in 2014 to 4.6 percent in 2017 (330 bps), while land appreciation returns have dropped from 4.5 percent in 2014 to 1.5 percent in 2017 (300 bps) (see Chart 1).

The most recognized measure of farmland performance in the U.S. is the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (“NCREIF”) Farmland Property Index. At year-end, the NCREIF Farmland Property Index included 727 properties valued at $8.5 billion, compared to 2016 when the Index included 743 properties valued at $8 billion. Annual cropland properties account for 67 percent

of total properties in the Index and 56 percent of the total value of the Index as of Q4 20171.

NCREIF provides break-outs of farmland returns by type of operation (annual and permanent cropland) and for eight different regions (Pacific West, Pacific Northwest, Corn Belt, Delta States, Southeast, Mountain, Southern Plains and Lake States). Annual cropland properties need to be planted on an annual basis (ex. corn and soybeans), while permanent cropland properties are dedicated to woody trees, shrubs or vines (ex. almonds, apples, cranberries, wine grapes). At year-end 2017, there were 486 annual cropland properties in the NCREIF Farmland Property Index valued at $4.8 billion, and 241 permanent

U.S. Farmland Returns Fell 90 BPS from 2016 Chart 1: U.S. Farmland Returns (percent per year)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Appreciation Income

Sources: NCREIF Farmland Property Index and HNRG Research as of Q4 2017

2017 represented the fourth consecutive year of strong production globally.

This boost in production has led to increasing inventories of agricultural commodities and

declining prices.

1Hancock Agricultural Investment Group is a participating member in the NCREIF

Farmland Property Index. The Index requires participating managers to report all eligible

properties to the Index. Usage of this data is not an offer to buy or sell properties.

Hancock Farmland Investor Fourth Quarter 2017 2

cropland properties valued at $3.7 billion. In 2017, the largest NCREIF sub-region by market value was the Pacific West (47 percent of the Index by value), followed by the Delta States region (16 percent), the Corn Belt region (9 percent) and the Mountain region (8 percent). The remaining regions combined accounted for 20 percent of the Index value.

Performance Results

In addition to reporting total farmland returns, NCREIF separates returns into two components: operating income and capital appreciation. In 2017, the total return for all properties in the Index was 6.2 percent (Chart 1, page 1), a decrease of 90 bps from 2016’s 7.1 percent return and 600 bps below the 10-year average of 12.2 percent.

The farmland Property Index total return for 2017 represents the lowest return since 2002. Lower crop prices led to declines in operating income in all regions except the Delta which benefitted from strong cotton prices. Low crop prices led to declining revenues and farm profitability which led to declines in farmland appreciation in most NCREIF regions. As a result, 2017 total farmland operating income returns fell by 54 bps, while total farmland capital appreciation returns fell by 32 bps.

The total return for annual cropland properties in 2017 was 4.75 percent, up 4 basis points from 2016 (see Chart 3). The slight increase in total annual cropland performance in 2017 was tied to slight increases in both operating income and capital appreciation returns. Overall, the operating income return for annual cropland properties was 3.62 percent (up 3 bps); while the capital appreciation return was 1.1 percent (up one bps).

2017 U.S. Farmland Investment Performance (Continued from page 1)

Market Value of NCREIF Index Increased $500 Million in 2017 Chart 2: NCREIF Properties and Market Value


U.S. Annual Cropland Returns increased 4 bps from 2016 Chart 3: U.S. Annual Cropland Returns (percent per year)

$-

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Mar

ket V

alue

($ B

illio

ns)

Num

ber o

f Pro

perti

es

Number of Properties

Market Value ($ Billions)


0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Appreciation Income

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Appreciation Income

Sources: USDA ERS Farm Income and Wealth Statistics as of Q4 2017

U.S. Permanent Crop Returns fell 199 BPS from 2016 Chart 4: U.S. Permanent Cropland Returns (percent per year)

(Continued on page 3)


Although permanent cropland performed better than annual cropland in 2017, with total returns reaching 8.1 percent, permanent cropland returns continued to fall from their peak level reached in 2013 (see Chart 4). Total returns for permanent cropland fell 199 bps from 2016. Operating income returns were 5.95 percent (down 122 bps from 2016 and 1,262 bps from the 2013 peak); while capital appreciation returns were 2.11 percent (down 67 bps from 2016 and 803 bps from their 2013 peak).

On a regional basis, farmland performance varied significantly across regions with properties in the Pacific Northwest, Corn Belt and Delta States showing significant gains and properties in the Lake States, Mountain, Pacific West, Southeast, and Southern Plains regions experiencing declines from 2016 (see Table 1). In the Pacific Northwest, Corn Belt, and Delta States, return gains were driven by capital appreciation. These capital appreciation gains were driven by increases in annual crop land values. Operating income returns in 2017 in the Pacific Northwest declined from 2016 levels and were relatively stable in the Corn Belt and Delta States.

The most significant declines in farmland returns were experienced in the Lake States, Mountain and Pacific West regions. The vast majority of the decline in returns in these regions came from capital appreciation returns. In the Lake States, permanent crop properties have

experienced significant declines in capital appreciation, largely due to the fact that cranberry prices have dropped off substantially which has hurt on-farm profitability and decreased competition for farmland in the region. Capital appreciation in the Mountain states have suffered from declining hay, alfalfa, and wheat prices, while capital appreciation in the Pacific West has suffered due to declining prices for permanent crops, especially tree nuts.

Looking Ahead

In 2018, it is expected that farmland returns will remain low. Strong production over the last four years has led to rising inventories and declining agricultural commodity prices. While demand has been growing at a relatively strong clip since 2014, it has not kept pace with supply. Based on USDA production figures for the 2017/18 crop year harvested last October, this trend towards higher inventories and lower prices is expected to continue as the U.S. experienced a stronger crop year than initially expected. As a result, farmland return expectations for 2018 remain muted due to:

Yet another strong production year in the U.S. and

globally;

Potential strengthening of USD due to tax reform

measures leading to an inflationary environment for the U.S. economy. This will make U.S. agricultural commodities less competitive in export markets;

Potential trade disruptions (NAFTA, trade relations

with China); and

Four consecutive years of commodity price declines,

leading to declining on-farm profitability, operating returns and farmland values.

2017 U.S. Farmland Investment Performance (Continued from page 2)

Regional U.S. Farmland Calendar Year Performance, 2017 Table 1: Debt to Equity Ratio


Strong production over the last four years has led to rising inventories and declining agricultural

commodity prices. While demand has been growing at a relatively strong clip since 2014, it

has not kept pace with supply.

Pacific

West

Pacific

Northwest Corn Belt

Delta

States Southeast Mountain

Southern

Plains

Lake

States

Income 6.16% 1.19% 2.98% 3.29% 4.76% 4.10% 4.80% 2.79%

bps change from 2016 -49 -285 2 17 -7 13 -30 -352

Appreciation 1.81% 11.23% -0.83% 0.81% 1.71% -0.30% 2.45% -6.04%

bps change from 2016 -224 661 652 116 -117 -591 -19 -443

Total Return 8.04% 12.52% 2.13% 4.11% 6.52% 3.79% 7.34% -3.36%

bps change from 2016 -290 372 669 134 -129 -596 -50 -799


Record Level of World Corn Production in 2016 Expected to Ease in 2017 Figure 1: Annual Corn Production Estimates, Major Producers (Million Metric Tons)

Record Level of World Soybean Production in 2016 Expected to Moderate in 2017 Figure 2: Annual Soybean Production Estimates, Major Producers (Million Metric Tons)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

South Africa Argentina

China Brazil

United States

2016/17 global corn production, projected to reach 1.1 billion MT, is a 10.5 percent increase over 2015/2016 are driven by Brazil (+47 percent), U.S. (+11 percent), Argentina (+39 percent) and South Africa (+113 percent). Brazil and South Africa gains in 2016/17 are driven by improved weather conditions from 2015/16. 2017/18 global corn production is expected to decrease slightly from 2016/17 driven by U.S. farmers switching to more profitable soybeans and as a result of the drought in Argentina.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Argentina Brazil United StatesGlobal soybean production is expected to increase by 12 percent in 2016/17 to 351 MMT with increases in Brazil (18%), the U.S. (9 percent) and Argentina (2 percent). The U.S. and Brazil are expected to achieve record production levels, at 117 MMT and 114 MMT respectively. Argentina’s 2016/17 soybean production is not expected to increase as much as production in Brazil and the U.S., as elimination of corn export taxes has made soybean production less attractive than corn production. In 2017/2018, global soybean production is expected to decrease slightly, as a result of a drought in Argentina weighing on soybean yields.

Source: USDA WASDE as of February 2018. 2016 and 2017 are forecast.

Source: USDA WASDE as of February 2018. 2016 and 2017 are forecast.

Farmland Market Indicators


Sources: FAS GATS, Aliceweb and Ministry of Agroindustry as of Q4 2017

U.S. Dollar Appreciates Against Some Competing Currencies in Q4 2017 Figure 3: Quarterly Exchange Rates Between USD and Agricultural Currencies (Indexed to 1 at 2006: Q1)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2006Q1

2007Q1

2008Q1

2009Q1

2010Q1

2011Q1

2012Q1

2013Q1

2014Q1

2015Q1

2016Q1

2017Q1

Brazil Russia Canada Argentina Australia

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2011Q1

2012Q1

2013Q1

2014Q1

2015Q1

2016Q1

2017Q1

Argentina Brazil USThe U.S. 2016/17 marketing year began in September 2016, while Brazil and Argentina’s corn 2016/17 marketing year began in March 2017. The U.S. experienced a sharp decline in market share of corn exports as record breaking South American 2016/17 production came online in Q4 2017. U.S. volume of corn exports in Q4 2017 averaged 13.2 MMT (a four quarter moving average), a decrease of 5 percent since last quarter and a 6 percent decrease since last year.

Brazil’s export volume of corn at 7.3 MMT in Q4 2017 (a four quarter moving average), is an increase of 48 percent from last quarter and a 34 percent increase from last year. Corn export volumes from Argentina increased by 4 percent from last quarter to 5.9 MMT (a four quarter moving average) and increased by 0.07 percent since last year.

When comparing the strength of the USD to competitive currencies between Q3 2017 and Q4 2017, the USD appreciated against most competing currencies:

The USD appreciated slightly against the

Canadian and Australian Dollar

The USD appreciated by 4.5 percent against the

Brazilian Real

The USD continued to appreciate relative to the

Argentinian Peso, gaining 8 percent in Q4 2017, a trend that has continued ever since the Peso’s devaluation

The U.S. depreciated slightly against the Russian

Ruble.

U.S. Corn Loses Market Share to Strong South American Production Figure 4: Four Quarter Moving Average Corn Exports, Major Producers (Million Metric Tons)

Source: Macrobond as of Q4 2017



Sources: FAS GATS, Aliceweb, Ministry of Agroindustry as of Q4 2017

Wheat Prices Rise Year-Over-Year Figure 6: Row Crop Prices ($US per bu)

The U.S. 2016/17 soybean marketing year began in September 2016, while the Brazil and Argentinian soybean 2016/17 marketing years began in February 2017 and April 2017 respectively. As more record South American 2016/17 soybean production came online in Q4 2017, the U.S. market share of soybean exports declined. Soybean exports volumes from the U.S. reached 13.9 MMT (a four quarter moving average), -8 percent below last quarter and -4 percent below last year. Brazil exported 17 MMT of soybeans in Q4 2017 (a four quarter moving average), an increase of 8 percent from last quarter, and up 32 percent from last year. Soybean exports from Argentina, at 1.9 MMT (a four quarter moving average) increased by 7 percent from last quarter, and decreased by 14 percent from last year in part due to competitive pressure from Brazil’s record 2016/17 soybean crop and in part to producers holding back supplies to wait for export tax reductions. Starting in January 2018, the Argentinian government will lower the soybean export tax of 30 percent by 0.5 percent every month until December 2019.

Source: USDA NASS as of Q4 2017

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2011Q1

2012Q1

2013Q1

2014Q1

2015Q1

2016Q1

2017Q1

Argentina Brazil US

U.S. Soybean Exports Lose Market Share to Strong South America Production Figure 5: Four Quarter Moving Average Soybean Exports, Major Producers (Million Metric Tons)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

Q12006

Q12007

Q12008

Q12009

Q12010

Q12011

Q12012

Q12013

Q12014

Q12015

Q12016

Q12017

Corn Wheat Soybeans U.S. soybean and corn prices have remained relatively stable since Q2 2016, while the wheat price has risen. The wheat price has risen by 21 percent from last year to $4.63/bu, while the soybean and corn price declined by 2 percent each to $9.23/bu and $3.21/bu, respectively. The price of soybeans relative to corn made soybeans a more attractive crop for U.S. farmers to produce in the 2017/18 marketing year and soybean acreage increased over 6 million acres while corn acreage has declined.



U.S. Row Crop Cash Receipts Forecast to Decline Slightly in 2017 and 2018 Figure 8: NCREIF Row Crops Total Return (percent per year) and USDA Row Crops Cash Receipts (y/o/y percent change)

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Pistachios (in shell)Walnuts (in shell)Almonds (shelled)

Sources: USDA NASS as of August 2017 and HNRG Research as of Q4 2017

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

USDA Row Crop Cash Receipts

NCREIF Row Crops Quarterly Total

Sources: NCREIF, USDA Farm Income Team and HNRG Research as of Q4 2017

Record Nut Production Resulted in Price Declines in 2016 Figure 7: Annual U.S. Average Grower Tree Nut Prices ($US per lb.)

Favorable weather in California has allowed U.S. tree nuts to set new production records in the 2016/17 marketing year as a result of steady demand. As a result prices for almonds and pistachios declined. Despite the production record for walnuts, walnut prices increased slightly as a result of strong demand. Global almond production is forecast to set a new record in 2017/18, however prices are expected to remain relatively unchanged from the 2016/17 marketing year. The 2017/18 U.S. pistachio crop looks to be below par in quantity and quality from last year but still the second largest in U.S. history, prices are expected to only increase slightly from 2016/17 marketing year prices and will be highly dependent on the amount of navel orange worm damage. Global walnut production is forecast lower in 2017/18 and prices are expected to increase significantly from 2016/17 levels.


U.S. row crop cash receipts increased by 4.10 percent in 2016 from 2015, to $166 billion as higher soybean cash receipts offset declines in feed crop and food grain receipts. In 2017, U.S. row crop cash receipts are forecast to decrease by 0.01 percent as higher cotton, tobacco, vegetable, and melon receipts are not enough to offset declines in the other row crops receipts. In 2018, row crop receipts are forecast to decline by 0.56 percent as a result of declining row crop receipts for all crops except tobacco and soybeans.

The low commodity prices were also felt in the NCREIF returns. The Q4 2017 annual return for The NCREIF Farmland Property Index for U.S. row crops was 4.75 percent, which is the second lowest annual return in NCREIF’s history. The NCREIF Annual-Commodity index (which is made up of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton), had negative appreciation returns for the past 3 years, returning -0.21% appreciation in 2017. The NCREIF Annual-Commodity Index had a total return of 3% for 2017.


Notes Farmland Market Indicators

Figure 1. Corn production is charted on a calendar year basis and updated on a marketing year basis. The corn marketing year is from September to August for the U.S., from May to April for South Africa, and from October to September for China. The corn marketing year is from March to February in Argentina and Brazil. Corn Production data and forecasts are updated on a monthly basis by the USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report (WASDE). Figure 2. Soybean production is charted on a calendar year basis and updated on a marketing year basis. The soybean marketing year is from September to August for the U.S., from February to January for Brazil and for April to March for Argentina. Soybean Production data and forecasts are updated on a monthly basis by the USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates Report (WASDE). Figure 3. Exchanges rates are updated on a daily basis by Macrobond Financial AB. Figure 4. Argentina’s agricultural exports are published on a monthly basis by the Argentinian Ministry of Agroindustry. Brazil export data is published on a monthly basis by Aliceweb. U.S. exports are published on a monthly basis by the U.S. Census Bureau. Export data is reported on a 4 quarter moving average to adjust for seasonality. Figure 5. Argentina’s agricultural exports are published on a monthly basis by the Argentinian Ministry of Agroindustry. Brazil export data is published on a monthly basis by Aliceweb. U.S. exports are published on a monthly basis by the U.S. Census Bureau. Export data is reported on a 4 quarter moving average to adjust for seasonality. Figure 6. Row Crop Prices are published on a monthly basis by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). Figure 7. Permanent Crop Prices are published on a annual basis by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). Almond, Pistachio and Walnut price estimates for the current year are calculated by using the percent annual changes for the crop year in the prices from HNRG sources. Figure 8. USDA Cash Crop Receipts data is published three times a year in February, August and November by the USDA’s Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. The U.S. level calendar-year forecast is first published in February. The August release converts the previous year’s forecast to estimates and the November release updates the current year forecast. NCREIF Farmland Total Return data is published on a quarterly basis. NCREIF quarterly total row crops returns are aggregated to form the total return for the year. The total return as seen on the bar chart may not equal the annual total return as reported by NCREIF, because the NCREIF annual return is calculated by multiplying instead of adding quarterly returns together.

Disclosures Investing involves risks, including the loss of principal. Financial markets are volatile and can fluctuate significantly in response to company, industry, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. These risks are magnified for investments made in emerging markets. Currency risk is the risk that fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect the value of a fund’s investments. The natural resources industry can be significantly affected by events relating to international political and economic developments, energy conservation, the success of exploration projects, commodity prices, and taxes and other governmental regulations. The information provided herein does not take into account the suitability, investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any specific person. You should consider the suitability of any type of investment for your circumstances and, if necessary, seek professional advice. This material, intended for the exclusive use by the recipients who are allowable to receive this document under the applicable laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdictions, was produced by and the opinions expressed are those of Manulife Asset Management as of the date of this publication, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. The information and/or analysis contained in this material have been compiled or arrived at from sources believed to be reliable but Manulife Asset Management does not make any representation as to their accuracy, correctness, usefulness or completeness and does not accept liability for any loss arising from the use hereof or the information and/or analysis contained herein. The information in this material may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, management discipline or other expectations, and is only as current as of the date indicated. The information in this document including statements concerning financial market trends, are based on current market conditions, which will fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Manulife Asset Management disclaims any responsibility to update such information. Neither Manulife Asset Management or its affiliates, nor any of their directors, officers or employees shall assume any liability or responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage or any other consequence of any person acting or not acting in reliance on the information contained herein. All overviews and commentary are intended to be general in nature and for current interest. While helpful, these overviews are no substitute for professional tax, investment or legal advice. Clients should seek professional advice for their particular situation. Neither Manulife, Manulife Asset Management™, nor any of their affiliates or representatives is providing tax, investment or legal advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This material was prepared solely for informational purposes, does not constitute a recommendation, professional advice, an offer or an invitation by or on behalf of Manulife Asset Management to any person to buy or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy, and is no indication of trading intent in any fund or account managed by Manulife Asset Management. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee returns or eliminate risk in any market environment. Unless otherwise specified, all data is sourced from Manulife Asset Management. Hancock Agricultural Investment Group Hancock Agricultural Investment Group is a division of Hancock Natural Resource Group, Inc., a registered investment advisor and wholly owned subsidiary of Manulife Financial Corporation. © Hancock Natural Resource Group, Inc. Manulife Asset Management Manulife Asset Management is the global asset management arm of Manulife Financial Corporation (“Manulife”). Manulife Asset Management and its affiliates provide comprehensive asset management solutions for institutional investors and investment funds in key markets around the world. This investment expertise extends across a broad range of public and private asset classes, as well as asset allocation solutions. The material issued in the following countries by the respective Manulife entities - Canada: Manulife Asset Management Limited, Manulife Asset Management Investments Inc., Manulife Asset Management (North America) Limited and Manulife Asset Management Private Markets (Canada) Corp. Hong Kong: Manulife Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited and has not been reviewed by the HK Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). Indonesia: PT Manulife Aset Manajmen Indonesia. Japan: Manulife Asset Management (Japan) Limited. Malaysia: Manulife Asset Management Services Berhad. Philippines: Manulife Asset Management and Trust Corporation. Singapore: Manulife Asset Management (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Company Registration Number: 200709952G). Taiwan: Manulife Asset Management (Taiwan) Co. Ltd. Thailand: Manulife Asset Management (Thailand) Company Limited. United Kingdom and European Economic Area: Manulife Asset Management (Europe) Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. United States: Manulife Asset Management (U.S.) LLC, Hancock Capital Investment Management, LLC and Hancock Natural Resource Group, Inc. Vietnam: Manulife Asset Management (Vietnam) Company Ltd. Manulife, Manulife Asset Management, the Block Design, the Four Cube Design, and Strong Reliable Trustworthy Forward-thinking are trademarks of The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and are used by it, and by its affiliates under license.

HNRG Research Team

Court Washburn Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer [email protected] Keith Balter Director of Economic Research [email protected]

Mary Ellen Aronow Associate Director, Forest Economics [email protected] Bill Devens Associate Director, Agricultural Economics [email protected]

Elizabeth Shestakova Economic Research Analyst [email protected] Keith Goplerud, CFA Economic Research Analyst [email protected]

appreciation income 20% 25% 15% · and capital appreciation. in 2017, the total return for all...

Documents