Three Ways Life Insurance can Protect you from Inflation

Posted By |
Photo courtesy LSM Insurance

By Lorne Marr, LSM Insurance

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Inflation means the prices of everyday things — like food, housing, transportation, and healthcare — increase over time. This reduces the purchasing power of your money and can affect your family’s standard of living. Permanent life insurance can be a powerful tool to help protect your finances against these rising costs.

What type of Life Insurance helps with Inflation?

Permanent life insurance provides lifelong coverage and builds cash value over time. Unlike term life insurance, which only covers a specific period, permanent policies can grow in value and death benefit, helping your family maintain financial security despite inflation.

Main types of permanent life insurance:

  • Whole Life Insurance
    • Provides a guaranteed death benefit and builds cash value.
    • Participating whole life policies pay dividends, which can buy Paid-Up Additions (PUAs)—small increments of additional insurance that increase both death benefit and cash value.
  • Universal Life Insurance (UL)
    • Flexible premiums and death benefits.
    • Option to choose a level death benefit or an increasing death benefit to keep up with inflation.

There are three main ways permanent life insurance can protect you against inflation:

1. Inflation Protection through Increasing Death Benefit Option in Universal Life Policies

How it works: Your death benefit can grow over time to match inflation.

Example (2% inflation):

By choosing an increasing death benefit, your coverage keeps pace with inflation, preserving purchasing power for your family.

2. Inflation Protection through Participating Whole Life Insurance and Paid-Up Additions

How it works: Dividends from a participating whole life policy can purchase Paid-Up Additions (PUAs), increasing both death benefit and cash value over time.

Example (2% inflation, PUAs $12,000/year):

With 2% inflation, the original $500,000 loses value to $452,000 in today’s dollars. PUAs grow your policy above this, effectively protecting your family against inflation. Continue Reading…

What is Market Timing Theory?

Posted By |

Market timing theory attempts to interpret and detect buy and sell signals in trading patterns and history

TSInetwork.ca

Market timing theory is an investment strategy based on the belief that investors can identify optimal times to enter or exit financial markets by predicting future market movements using technical analysis, economic indicators, or other forecasting methods.

The practice of market timing consists of coming up with and acting on a series of guesses (or estimates, or probability assessments) to use in your buying and selling decisions. The aim is the same in 2026 as it was in 1997 when the strategy gained prominence: to buy near a low and sell near a high. Market timing theory attempts to interpret and detect buy and sell signals in trading patterns and history. Some of the decisions you make with the help of market timing will bring you profits, and others will cost you money.

Many investors start out with an exaggerated idea of the value and importance of market timing. Most eventually become disillusioned with it, after they figure out that it’s costing them money.

Market timing can pay off sporadically, of course. Although the results are largely random, successes and failures are apt to come in spurts. The worst thing that can happen to you near the start of an investing career is that you make a series of successful timing decisions. This may lead you to believe that you have a natural talent for market timing, or that you’ve stumbled on a timing process that’s a guaranteed money-maker. Either of these conclusions can spur you to back your future timing decisions with growing amounts of money.

Good timing-based decisions often produce modest profits. They tend to be smaller than the losses you get from bad timing decisions. Needless to say, one of your future decisions is bound to turn out bad. If you’ve invested enough money in it, you could wind up losing much more than your accumulated winnings from prior timing-based decisions.

What are the key principles of market timing?

The key principles of market timing theory include:

  1. Market Predictability: The foundational belief that financial markets follow discernible patterns that can be identified and exploited through various analytical methods.
  2. Risk Management: The goal of reducing exposure during market downturns by moving to cash or defensive assets, potentially preserving capital that would otherwise be lost.
  3. Enhanced Returns: The aim to outperform buy-and-hold strategies by capturing market upswings while avoiding significant downswings.
  4. Signal Identification: Using technical indicators (like moving averages, MACD, RSI), fundamental data (economic indicators, interest rates), or sentiment measures to generate buy/sell signals.
  5. Pattern Recognition: Identifying recurring market behaviors such as support/resistance levels, trend formations, or historical cycles that might predict future price movements. Continue Reading…

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Posted By |
Image by Pixabay

By John De Goey, CFP, CIM

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Over the past number of months, I have become increasingly interested in a series of ideas put forward by a handful of economists who were both iconoclastic and influential in their time.  It seems their ideas are experiencing a bit of a renaissance. Some of these economists achieved moderate fame, and some had more credibility than others.

Here I’d like to explore the related theories and ideas of Joseph Schumpeter, Nikolai Kondratieff, Simon Kuznets and Hyman Minsky.

Let’s begin with portraits of the four thinkers

Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) — His big idea was ‘creative destruction,’ the notion that capitalism advances through waves of entrepreneurial innovation that destroy old industries and create new ones, driving productivity growth though with upheaval for incumbents.

Nikolai Kondratiev (1892 – 1938) — Held the view that ‘long waves’ (lasting roughly 50–60 years) explain how economies experience ‘super cycles’ that are tied to major technological revolutions (e.g., steam/rail, electricity/chemicals, information) that reshape investment, growth, and prices. The current wave has been dominated by the internet and artificial intelligence and likely started in the mid to late1980s.

Simon Kuznets (1901 – 1985) — Wrote about structural change and long-run growth. He felt that the economy reorganizes itself across sectors and shifts in income distribution accompany growth. He was among the first to write about income inequality and the structural changes he identified matter for things like productivity and living standards.

Hyman Minsky (1919 – 1996) — Is best known for his financial instability hypothesis: stability breeds complacency; credit cycles move through hedge, speculative, and ponzi financing, causing systemic fragility and crises when optimism turns to debt distress, leading to a “Minsky Moment” when it all comes crashing down. Over-extended credit leading to a collapse in prices was a major factor in the dot.com crisis and the global financial crisis of 2007-09.

What these ideas have in common is intuitively obvious from an ‘eye test’ perspective. Still, the concepts are difficult to explain reliably using econometric data. In many instances, these men were mocked because their theories didn’t fit neatly into how the world was perceived, but all four have left a mark on how we interpret information in the 21st century.

The reason I’m running into their ideas more and more these days is that there’s as strong consensus among their adherents that their related theories are relevant again based on recent developments. They seem to be converging and so may ultimately amplify one another if the waves coincide.

The unifying theme is that growth is not just a smooth upward trend, but rather something that is driven by transformative forces that reorganize both production and finance. Innovation and technology have long been accepted as central engines of change, but their effects spill over into organizational forms, institutions, and credit. Furthermore, it seems long-run development is layered, meaning that broad technological shifts (i.e., long waves) interact with shorter sectoral shifts. The overlay of these disparate waves can amplify or dampen economic outcomes.

Bringing together four influential strands in economic thought, we can attempt to sketch a cohesive framework that explains long-run growth, structural change, and financial instability as different facets of a single dynamic process: innovations drive new opportunities, which reshape the economy’s structure and distribution, while finance amplifies and sometimes destabilizes that process.

The four thinkers illuminate different angles of a single dynamic: innovation drives growth and structural transformation; the financial system amplifies this process but can sow instability; long-run waves reflect broad technological revolutions, while distributional changes concern who benefits.

A cohesive Dynamic Innovation–Structure–Finance framework captures how technology, sectoral change, credit, and policy interact across time to produce growth, inequality, and crises. It suggests a prescription of balanced policies that nurture innovation while guarding against financial fragility. The economy evolves through the interaction of four interdependent engines: Technology/Innovation, Structural Change, Finance, and Policy/Institutions.

Let’s look at the mechanisms and phases in more detail

Long Kondratiev Wave:

Each wave is anchored by a broad technological revolution (historical examples include steam/rail, electricity/chemicals, information/communication:  the latest is internet / AI). Each wave drives sustained investment, productivity gains, and demographic/urban changes.

Mid-cycle Kuznets Structural Shifts: Continue Reading…

Vanguard is cautious on behalf of Retirees

Posted By |
Image coutesy MoneySense/Freepik

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published. Click on hypertext for full column: Why Vanguard’s ETF aimed at retirees is currently cautious in its asset allocation.

The column originated from a mid-January Vanguard Canada briefing with two of its economists held for the Canadian media in downtown Toronto. You can find at least two news stories on the web filed shortly after the event by Bloomberg News and Investment Executive.

While the general thrust of the press conference was on the opportunities for Canada in A.I. and materials stocks (chiefly gold and silver miners), the Q&A allowed me to probe Vanguard about something that has intrigued me for the past year: As a semi-retired investor who recently started a RRIF, I regard one particular Vanguard ETF as a big part of my core portfolio, along with low-volatility ETFs from BMO ETFs, and income-oriented ETFs from vendors you may see in blogs  on this site.

After the Liberation Day craziness of April 2025, I became more defensive, though my Asset Allocation is not (yet) to the point the Rule of Thumb that your age should equal your Fixed Income: that would suggest in my case I should have 28% in Equities and 72% Fixed Income.

One core fund for retirees is VRIF, the Vanguard Retirement Income Fund, which is one of several funds often mentioned by the Retirement Club (see this introductory blog on the Club co-founded by blogger Dale Roberts of  . ) It trades on the TSX under the ticker symbol VRIF.

The screenshot below from Vanguard’s brochure shows VRIF’s holdings of Vanguard ETFs and performance to the end of 2025.

 

I first started a position in VRIF soon after its launch in 2020.  At the time, its Asset Allocation seemed to be around 50% stocks to 50% bonds, spread around all geographies in the normal proportions.

However, as 2025 proceeded I noticed that VRIF had begun steadily to cut back on its equity exposure and raise its Fixed Income, almost to the point of 30/70.  I’ve also noticed various YouTube videos from Vanguard’s U.S. parent that suggest similar caution: a cutting back from the big US growth mega cap stocks and a move more to other developed and emerging economies around the world.

If you read the VRIF launch news release, it emphasizes the objective is to provide income-seeking investors with a “targeted 4% annual payout.” That happens to be in line with William Bengen’s famous 4% Rule, which is “fine with me,” as I quipped at the media briefing.

In response to my query, Vanguard Canada spokesman Matthew Gierasimczuk said VRIF’s asset allocation varies over time” but the goal is the targeted 4% Return: Vanguard sees a “more optimistic outlook on bonds and Fixed Income: better to lock in without risk of equities.”

Kevin Khang, Vanguard

Then Kevin Khang, Vanguard’s head of global economic research  [pictured left] reiterated that the ETF seeks to fund a “certain level of payout: bonds in our view can achieve the desired certain level of payout” and “the US stock market is pretty expensive for obvious reasons: the US is reasonably valued and bonds are very normally valued; which is a new thing.” From 2009 to  2022, since the Great Financial Crisis, bonds in general didn’t pay much, which upset people in 2022-223 when rates went up but now they are reasonably valued: relative to inflation they are paying a decent Real Return.”

Here’s the sector weightings for VRIF at the end of 2025:

Vanguard rates its volatility as “low.” Notice the weightings of certain sectors often overweighted in pure low-volatility ETFs (like those from BMO and Harvest): Health Care, Consumer Staples and Utilities. As you can see above, the weightings in more volatile sectors like Technology and Financials is much higher.

For the MoneySense column I was subsequently referred to Head of Product for Vanguard Canada, Aime Bwakira. The rationale for VRIF’s high fixed-income exposure appears to be one of not taking more risk than you need to take, a stance which is apt for the retirees VRIF caters to. Bwakira confirmed Vanguard “has been leaning more heavily toward bonds — particularly higher quality and corporate bonds — than in past years while staying within its equity guardrails” of a minimum 30% and maximum 60%.  This positioning “reflects the current environment and the results of our capital markets projections.”

3 reasons Vanguard is boosting Fixed Income in VRIF

The rationale is three-fold:

First is higher interest rates. Bonds — especially corporate bonds — are paying more than they did for many years post the 20008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC): “This makes them well‑suited to support VRIF’s 4% income target without taking on unnecessary stock-market risk. VRIF includes corporate bond exposure specifically to help enhance yield for investors.

Second, given today’s market outlook, the fund’s model has shifted toward fixed income because bonds “currently provide a more favourable balance of expected return and risk.”  I was also referred to  Vanguard’s current VCMM 10-year projections (VCMM = Vanguard Capital Markets Model) for various asset classes. It’s also published in the US for US investors Vanguard Capital Markets Model® forecasts | Vanguard.

Dated January 22, 2026, the document states that “Even at current stretched valuations, rising earnings growth could provide momentum for stocks in the near term. However, our conviction is growing stronger that long-term prospects for U.S. equities are subdued. Our model anticipates annualized returns of about 3.9% to 5.9% over the next 10 years.” It adds that “Our muted long-term return projection for U.S. equities is entirely consistent with our more bullish prospects for an AI-led U.S. economic boom.”

The third and most important point raised by Bwakira is that “a higher allocation to bonds helps VRIF deliver reliable cash flows, which is central to its mandate. Because income needs don’t disappear during market volatility, VRIF prioritizes stability and sustainability in its payout. VRIF aims to maintain the value of an investor’s initial investment over the long term. Tilting toward bonds during periods of elevated equity market uncertainty helps protect investors from large drawdowns while still supporting the payout.”

VRIF is one popular source of Retiree income at the new Retirement Club

This common-sense caution has not gone unnoticed by Canadian retirees seeking stable income. VRIF is a well-regarded ETF members of the Retirement Club, founded by Cutthecrapinvesting blogger Dale Roberts and partner Brent Schmidt. One of the club’s monthly Zoom presentations in the autumn of 2025 highlighted VRIF among several other income sources for retirees. Roberts has long championed VRIF, as in this blog on his site originally written after the launch, and subsequently updated: most recently in this version. Continue Reading…

Are your “Diversified” ETFs actually Concentrated ?

Posted By |

By Erin Allen, CIM, BMO ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

For the most part, when searching for a passive index ETF, you’ll typically encounter products that are weighted by market capitalization. In a market-cap-weighted ETF, a company’s size (calculated by multiplying its share price by the number of outstanding shares) determines how much influence it holds within the index1.

You can see this clearly in widely held U.S. equity ETFs. Take BMO S&P 500 Index ETF (ZSP) as an example. After accounting for the top 10 holdings, the remaining 490 companies make up about 59.49% of the portfolio. That means the top 10 stocks alone represent roughly 40.51% of the ETF’s total weight2.

The concentration becomes even more pronounced in indices like the Nasdaq 100 or the BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ) which already has a reputation for heavy exposure to technology companies. In that case, the remaining 90 stocks together account for only 48.58% of the index, while the top 10 holdings make up over half of the entire portfolio3.

Chart 1 Compares top holdings of ZSP – BMO S&P 500 Index ETF to ZNQ – BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF

Source: BMO Global Asset Management as of January 30, 20264

Supporters of market-cap weighting say it allows winners to keep running. As a company grows and becomes more valuable, it naturally takes up more space in the index. Over long periods, this approach has benefited from the success of dominant firms that continue to compound.

At the same time, that same feature can make some investors uncomfortable. In the context of 2026, buying a broad market ETF can effectively mean committing a large share of your capital to a relatively small group of mega-cap stocks that are trading at expensive valuations.

Fortunately, the choice is not limited to market-cap weighting or sitting in cash. Equal-weight strategies offer a different way to construct an ETF. Instead of assigning weight based on size, equal-weight ETFs give each constituent the same allocation, regardless of how large or small the company is.

Understanding how these two approaches differ, along with their respective advantages and limitations, is key to choosing the structure that best fits your goals.

How Equal-Weight ETFs work

To see how equal weighting works in practice, it helps to look at a concrete example. Rather than staying in the U.S. market, consider the Canadian utilities sector and compare two different index construction methods applied to the same group of stocks.

A common benchmark is the S&P/TSX Capped Utilities Index. This index tracks 14 Canadian utility companies and weights them by market capitalization, subject to a 25% cap on any single holding.

As of January 31, 2026 the four largest holdings dominated the portfolio. Fortis accounted for 23.35% of the index. Brookfield Infrastructure Partners made up 14.47%. Emera represented 12.61%, and Hydro One came in at 10.84%. Together, those four companies made up more than 60% of the entire index.

Utilities are often viewed as defensive businesses with sensitivity to interest rates and stable cash flows. But instead of making a sector-wide allocation, most of the portfolio’s risk and return ends up tied to a small handful of companies.

An equal-weight approach produces a very different result. The Solactive Equal Weight Canadian Utilities Index holds a similar group of utility stocks, but each company is given the same weight at each rebalance. With 13 holdings, BMO Equal Weight Utilities Index ETF (ZUT)5 allocates roughly 7.7% to each stock, regardless of company size5.

The practical effect is a more balanced exposure across the sector. Smaller or mid-sized utilities receive the same attention as the largest incumbents, and portfolio outcomes are less dependent on the performance of one or two dominant names.

Equal-Weighting for U.S. Stocks

Equal weighting is not limited to Canadian sector ETFs. Entire equity markets can be constructed this way, including the U.S. market. There is a long history of data comparing the S&P 500 Total Return Index with its equal-weight counterpart – the S&P 500 Equal Weight Total Return Index .

Chart 2: Comparing the S&P 500 Total Return Index vs the S&P 500 Equal Weight Total Return Index.

Source: YCharts, as of January 21, 20266 Index returns do not reflect transactions costs or the deduction of other fees and expenses and it is not possible to invest directly in an Index. Past performance is not indicative of future results

Over time, both versions have gone through periods of outperformance and underperformance relative to each other. But from the start of the available data through today, the equal-weight version has delivered higher cumulative returns.
That outperformance tends to show up during periods when smaller and mid-sized stocks outperform large caps.

On the downside, they are also less exposed to drawdowns driven by a small group of very large stocks at the top of the index. However, equal weighting does not have to mean owning a modified version of the S&P 500. Canadian investors also have access to broader U.S. market solutions.

One example is the BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF – ZEQL. This ETF tracks an index that includes the same companies as the MSCI USA Index, but weights them equally rather than by market capitalization. At each quarterly rebalance, every stock is reset to the same allocation. The practical effect, generally speaking, results in higher yield and lower valuations.

Chart 3: MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index (USD) Index Performance and Fundamentals

Source: MSCI as of December 31, 2025 7  Index returns do not reflect transactions costs or the deduction of other fees and expenses and it is not possible to invest directly in an Index. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Continue Reading…