Rising or Falling Markets? Roll with it!

Posted By |
Image Outcome/Shutterstock

 

Luck’ll come and then slip away
You’ve gotta move, bring it back to stay
You just roll with it, baby

— Roll with It, by Steve Winwood

 

 

 

 

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

There is never any shortage of pundits opining on what could make markets rise or fall. Tragically, the greatest cheerleading has tended to occur when markets were at their riskiest and the loudest fearmongering has tended to occur when markets have harboured the greatest opportunity. However, this does not change the fact that anything can happen at any time:  markets have and always will continue to periodically present investors with dynamically evolving combinations of risk and reward.

To never suffer losses is an unrealistic objective for those who wish to receive a satisfactory return on their investments. Rather, it is far more efficient (and financially rewarding) to roll with it: which entails adapting to changes to (1) maximize gains when markets offer above-average returns with relatively low risk and (2) to minimize losses when markets offer below average returns with above average risk.

This month, I present a framework for investors to dynamically manage their portfolios to meaningfully participate in rising markets while limiting losses in bear markets.

The Sine Qua Non of Successful Investing

If 100% of your portfolio is sitting in cash, then it is impossible for you to lose money (at least in non-inflation-adjusted terms). However, if markets rise, you will miss the proverbial boat and suffer significant opportunity loss. At the other end of the spectrum, if your portfolio is 100% allocated to equities, while you won’t miss the party if markets advance, you will most certainly suffer substantial losses in the event of a bear market.

The Latin phrase sine qua non means “without which not,” which refers to something that is a necessary or indispensable requirement. The sine qua non of successful long-term investing entails constantly assessing and reassessing the magnitude of potential losses relative to potential gains. When downside risks are elevated and potential gains are muted, you should hold a more conservative portfolio. Conversely, when the risk of loss is eclipsed by potential gains, it is prudent to take more risks with your investments.

Theory, Practice, and Yogi Berra

Baseball legend Yogi Berra stated, “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.”

If you dial up your risk profile when the odds favour doing so and take some chips off the table when the probabilities dictate as such, your long-term performance will inevitably be well above average: so far so good. Unfortunately, accurately assessing and reassessing these probabilities as they ebb and flow over time is no easy feat.

You can’t Predict Behaviour

First the bad news: I don’t believe there is any accurate way to calculate the relative magnitude of upside vs. downside risk over the short term … and by the short term, I mean periods of at least one to two years! One need only to observe markets over the past three decades to appreciate that investors can persist in irrational behaviour for longer periods and with greater voracity than might seem possible.

In hindsight, most investors should have exercised prudence long before tech stocks reached their peak in early 2000 or real estate sung its swan song in 2008” but they didn’t. Similarly, they should have been scooping up bargains en masse either before, during, or not long after markets bottomed in early 2003 and March 2009: but they didn’t.

Excesses and financial aberrations cannot be explained by classic financial theory. Rather, their root lies in human behavioural biases and emotions, which can prove sufficiently powerful to propel asset prices to unrealistically optimistic and pessimistic levels. Greed and fear are impossible to precisely gauge or time and are arguably the largest determinants of prices over the short term. Given these facts, attempting to assess the relative risk of loss vs. opportunity cost over shorter horizons is an exercise in futility.

Valuations are a Proxy for the Margin of Safety

Valuations serve as a proxy for the margin of safety that is embedded in asset prices, and by extension for how vulnerable prices are to delivering subpar or even negative average annualized returns over the next 5-7 years.

Market Responses to Various Environments by Valuation Level

  • When valuations stand near the high end of their historical range, even strong economic and earnings growth may fail to result in higher-than-average annualized returns over the next several years, while anything short of such an environment is more likely to result in anemic performance or even losses.
  • When valuations stand near the middle of their historical range, prices are most likely to track economic conditions and profit growth.
  • When valuations reside near the bottom of their historical range, average or even above-average returns can persist even in the face of subpar economic conditions and/or profit growth, while more favourable or even average conditions are likely to produce strong gains.

Risk and Reward: Probability Distribution by Valuation

 

As valuations increase, the probability distribution shifts to the left, indicating a lower likelihood of gains and a higher probability of losses. Similarly, a decline in valuations results in a rightward shift in the distribution, portending an increased chance of gains accompanied by a lower risk of losses. At extremes, when markets are priced to perfection, there is almost no amount of good news that can prevent subpar returns over the next five to seven years, and when they are priced for Armageddon, strong returns are likely to ensue over the same timeframe in all but the most cataclysmic circumstances. Continue Reading…

Inflation is Kryptonite to anything but Short-term Bonds

Posted By |

By Dale Roberts, Retirement Club/Cutthecrapinvesting

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Bonds may be the adult in the room, but they are certainly afraid of inflation. Bonds usually do their thing: they go up when stock markets get hit hard. They provide ballast. During periods of expected high inflation, or during rising inflation bond prices go down. That can create and contribute negative returns. The bonds can contribute to a portfolio decline.

But not all bonds are the same. Ultra-short bonds carry no price risk, while long-term bonds can carry extreme price risk. It’s crucial that investors understand the ‘types of bonds.’ To intermediate- and long-term bonds, inflation is Kryptonite. How do we battle that force?

As always, the following is not advice.

As a refresher, be sure to have a read of:  Stocks are the unruly kids. Bonds are the adult in the room.

Too funny, a rare case when Cut The Crap Investing actually ranked high on search.

Inflation up. Bonds down.

Bond yields rise during inflation primarily because investors demand higher returns to compensate for the reduced purchasing power of future fixed interest payments. Furthermore, inflation often prompts central banks to raise interest rates, which directly drives up yields, while existing bond prices fall to align with new, higher-yielding securities.

As interest rates rise due to inflation, new bonds are issued with higher coupon rates to attract investors. Existing bonds, which pay lower interest rates, become less attractive and must drop in price to remain competitive, which simultaneously increases their yield.

Join us at Retirement Club

We’ve had some recent experience with the inflation scare of 2021 and into 2022. The bond market (XBB-T) experienced one of its worst performances in 2022, losing around 11% or more as inflation surged, reversing a four-decade bull market in fixed income.

In the above chart we see that bonds provided no ballast. Quite the opposite. That said, we have to keep in mind that bonds have done their thing in every major recession. They stink the joint out, one time, and investors turn on them.

Traditional global stock and bond portfolios have delivered wonderful returns …

Asset Allocation ETF Page – to the end of December 2025

Inflation fighters and the all-weather portfolio

In mid-March we had a refresher on what works during inflation with:  How do we defend against stagflation?

If you have dedicated inflation fighters in the portfolio you’re not too worried about bonds delivering negative returns. We know that stocks don’t always go up. It’s the same for bonds.

In the following chart, we’ll start in 2021. Markets think ahead, of course, and enough investors loaded up on inflation-fighting assets as inflation storms gathered in 2021. The Purpose Real Asset ETF (PRA-T) is a nice one-stop inflation-fighting shop.

PRA-T was up 23.5% in 2021 and 15.9% in 2022.

Add 20% PRA-T to 80% XBAL-T and we have annual returns over 10% with no negative years from 2021 through 2023.

Continue on into 2026 and it gets even better. PRA-T is up almost 16% in 2026.

Go short and clip the inflation price risk

Ultra-short-term government bonds (CBIL-T) do not carry price risk: they are cash-like. In fact, they will provide greater and greater income as inflation expectations and yields rise. Continue Reading…

IMAX: A World of Opportunity for International Equity ETFs

Posted By |
Image source: Hamilton ETFs

By Hamilton ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

International equities continue to be in focus. As global market leadership broadens, Canadian investors are paying closer attention to geographic diversification and opportunities beyond North America. International stocks, which outperformed the U.S. stock market in 2025, have continued to attract attention as the geopolitical landscape evolves.

So far this year, Canadians have poured $22.8 billion into international equity ETFs, according to National Bank of Canada Capital Markets[1]. In contrast, they directed just $13.4 billion to Canadian equity funds and $11.3 billion to U.S. equity funds, over the same period.

Recent market performance has helped reinforce this trend. Since December 31, 2024, the MSCI EAFE Index rallied 40.5% compared to 24.6% for the S&P 500[2].

This combination of improved relative performance and more attractive valuations has helped bring international equities back into focus for investors looking to broaden exposure beyond North America. This shift has also been reflected in market commentary. Yardeni Research began recommending a “Go Global” approach in December 2025, after more than a decade of favouring a “Stay Home” allocation. “So far this year, the U.S. has been among the laggards in the global performance derby,” he wrote in a research note published April 27, 2026.

Canadian investors have plenty of options for accessing international equity exposure. Yet for those seeking attractive, tax-efficient monthly income from developed markets outside North America, the available solutions have been far more limited. That’s why we’re closing that gap with the Hamilton International Equity YIELD MAXIMIZER™ ETF (IMAX).

Introducing IMAX

IMAX is designed for investors seeking diversified international equity exposure paired with attractive, tax-efficient monthly income. To achieve this, IMAX holds ETFs that provide exposure to both the MSCI EAFE Index and MSCI EAFE IMI Index and overlays a covered call strategy on a portion of the portfolio. The MSCI EAFE Index captures developed markets outside the U.S. and Canada.

International and global covered call ETFs remain relatively limited in Canada. The few available strategies often have significant geographic concentrations, such as Europe or the U.S., or provide exposure to a narrower group of companies through concentrated portfolios. By contrast, IMAX offers broad developed market exposure specifically outside North America. Through this approach, investors gain exposure to more than 2,500 large-, mid- and small-cap equities across markets including Japan, Britain, Switzerland, France, Germany and Australia.

To help generate monthly income, IMAX employs an actively managed covered call strategy overseen by our experienced options team. Like the other ETFs in our YIELD MAXIMIZER™ suite, IMAX utilizes an income first approach that primarily writes at-the-money call options in an effort to generate higher option premiums to provide enhanced cash flow potential. The strategy also maintains a flexible coverage ratio, allowing the portfolio management team to balance monthly income generation with long-term capital appreciation potential.

Importantly, IMAX helps provide tax efficient income, as options premiums are generally taxed as capital gains and/or return of capital.

Going Global with IMAX

Diversification is one of the most important principles of portfolio construction, and it applies not only across asset classes (stocks, bonds, commodities etc.), sectors and market capitalizations, but also regions. Continue Reading…

Vanguard Canada launches two new Dividend ETFs

Posted By |

 

ETF TSX Symbol Management Fee1
Vanguard Developed ex-North America Dividend Appreciation ETF VIGG 0.28%
Vanguard U.S. High Dividend Yield Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) VUDH 0.28%

On Monday (June 1),  Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. announced two new income-focused Dividend ETFs. The same day, they started trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX):  Vanguard Developed ex-North America Dividend Appreciation Index ETF (TSX: VIGG) and Vanguard U.S. High Dividend Yield Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (TSX: VUDH).

The two new funds are focused on high-dividend yield and dividend growth respectively, said Sal D’Angelo, Head of Product and Marketing, Vanguard Canada, in a press release.   VIGG tracks  a market cap-weighted index focused on companies located in developed markets excluding Canada and the U.S., with a history of increasing dividends over time.  Management fee is 0.28%. The Vanguard fact sheet describes VIGG as being medium risk.

VUDH tracks a market cap-weighted index focused on common stocks of U.S. companies with higher-than-average dividend yields, hedged to Canadian dollars; management fee is 0.28%. It is also rated medium risk.

In March, Vanguard also launched the Vanguard U.S. High Dividend Yield Index ETF  (VUDV, TSX).

In a backgrounder released with the ETFs, Vanguard said Dividend Income ETFs account for $42 billion or 5.4% of total ETF assets in the Canadian market. They include passive funds, fully active mandates and covered call options.

Dividend-focused ETFs have historically shown resilience across many market environments, the document says: “They can also provide stability in uncertain and inflationary environments through reliable cash flows which can partially offset inflation. The companies included in these portfolios tend to be more defensive during periods of market volatility, supported by steady earnings and stronger balance sheets.”

The backgrounder focuses on two main types of Dividend ETFs: those that generate high Dividend Yield, and those that grow their Dividends over time.

High-Dividend Yield ETFs

Vanguard says High-Dividend Yield ETFs are best suited for “investors looking for more immediate income including retirees drawing from their portfolios or those supplementing current cash flow.”  Higher starting yields provide more immediate income as the portfolio invests in mature, stable and value-oriented companies, with a higher allocation to sectors like energy, utilities and financials. Continue Reading…

Small ETF Fees matter more Near Findependence

Posted By |

By Callum Melville, WealthRadiant.com

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Most Canadian ETF investors already know that fees matter. The harder question is how much attention they deserve.

Early in the Accumulation years, the honest answer is often less than people think. If someone has a $15,000 portfolio and is still building the habit of investing every month, the difference between a 0.06% ETF and a 0.20% ETF is not the main thing deciding their future. Saving rate, asset allocation, behaviour, and simply staying invested usually matter more.

But the math starts to feel different as a portfolio approaches retirement size.

A 0.14 percentage point fee gap sounds tiny. On $25,000, it is about $35 per year before compounding. On $1,000,000, it is about $1,400 per year before compounding. Over a long retirement or semi-retirement period, that difference can become large enough to be worth a second look.

That does not mean every investor should chase the lowest possible MER. It does mean investors near Financial Independence (Findependence) should translate fee percentages into dollars before deciding that a small-looking fee difference is irrelevant.

Why MERs are easy to ignore early on

Management Expense Ratios are strange because investors rarely pay them as a separate bill. The fee is embedded in the fund’s return. You do not log in and see a line item saying, “ETF fee paid today.”

That makes MERs easy to underweight. A 0.20% fee looks almost invisible beside the normal movement of the market. One ordinary trading day can move an equity ETF by more than the annual MER.

For newer investors, this is not always a bad thing. The biggest investing mistakes at the beginning are often behavioural: waiting too long to start, holding too much cash for no clear reason, changing strategy every few months, or building a portfolio that is too complicated to maintain.

If an All-in-One ETF helps someone invest consistently, rebalance automatically, and avoid tinkering, the slightly higher MER can be a reasonable price for simplicity. A cheap portfolio that someone cannot stick with is not really cheap.

Why fees feel different near retirement

Near Findependence, the same fee percentage applies to a much larger base.

Consider a simple example. A 0.20% MER on a $1,000,000 portfolio is roughly $2,000 per year before compounding. A 0.06% MER on the same portfolio is roughly $600 per year. The gap is about $1,400 in the first year.

That is not life-changing by itself, but it is no longer abstract. It might be a month of groceries, a short trip, part of a property tax bill, or simply money that could stay invested.

The compounding effect is what makes the check worth doing. Using a simplified 25-year projection with a 6% gross annual return, a $1,000,000 portfolio at a 0.06% MER grows to about $4.23 million. The same portfolio at a 0.20% MER grows to about $4.09 million. The difference is roughly $138,000 over 25 years.

That example is deliberately simplified. It ignores taxes, trading costs, changing returns, withdrawals, and Asset Allocation differences. Real life will not move in a smooth 6% line. But it shows why a basis-point difference that looked harmless early on can deserve attention once the portfolio is large.

What a recent Canadian ETF fee snapshot showed

I recently reviewed MERs and historical fee anchors for 30 popular Canadian-listed ETFs across Vanguard, iShares, BMO, and Global X. The goal was not to find the “best” ETF. It was to see where fees have compressed, where they remain higher, and where investors may be paying for convenience or product structure.

The broad pattern was clear:

  • Canadian total-market ETFs in the sample were extremely cheap, with VCN, XIC, and ZCN all at 0.06%.
  • S&P 500 index ETFs were also tightly clustered, with VFV, VSP, XSP, and ZSP all around 0.09%.
  • The all-in-one ETF category was more expensive, with the funds in the sample sitting roughly between 0.17% and 0.24%.
  • More specialized products, such as covered-call or sector ETFs, could be meaningfully more expensive.
  • Fee compression has not been even. Some plain index categories already look highly competitive, while other product types still carry a visible cost.

The average MER across the 30 ETFs was 0.178%, with a median of 0.140%. That is already low compared with many traditional retail mutual fund fee levels, but the spread still matters when applied to large portfolios.

For example, an all-in-one ETF charging around 0.20% may be perfectly reasonable for an investor who values simplicity. But compared with a plain Canadian equity ETF at 0.06% or an S&P 500 ETF at 0.09%, the dollar cost of convenience becomes visible as portfolio size grows.

The All-in-One ETF tradeoff

All-in-one ETFs are a good example because the fee conversation can easily become too rigid.

An investor can often build a lower-MER portfolio by holding separate Canadian, U.S., international, and bond ETFs. But the all-in-one fund handles asset allocation, rebalancing, and ongoing maintenance in one product.

That can be valuable. Retirees and near-retirees may not want more moving parts. Some investors do not want to rebalance manually. Others know that if the portfolio becomes too fiddly, they are more likely to second-guess it.

So the right question is not, “Is this ETF the cheapest?” Continue Reading…