Posted By 
In mid-April, my monthly Retired Money column for MoneySense looked at the experience of new retirees who have just shifted from RRSPs to Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs), including my own.
Now my followup May column has been published, and it looks in more detail at how such new retirees should handle their Asset Allocation, particularly in light of this volatile Trump Trade War era we are now in. You can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline: How to allocate a RRIF for Secure Income in Retirement.
The column begins with an old rule of thumb that advisor John De Goey says is now obsolete: that your age should roughly equal your Fixed-Income exposure. So, for example, that rule would suggest a new RRIF owner aged 71 might have 71% fixed-income and just 29% stock exposure.
I bounced that off De Goey, who recently aired his views on Trump’s second reign of Error in this recent Findependence Hub blog: The Gangster in the White House.
A new Rule of Thumb for Retirement Asset Allocation
He introduced me to a novel formula that was new to me and perhaps to most readers. “I believe longevity has made that [previous] rule of thumb out of date for at least a generation now. My view, after taking longevity into account, is that you should use age times the decimal of your age until you get to RRIF age (71). This assumes that the client is not particularly risk averse. The portfolio still has to be suitable.”
So under this new rule and assuming the other qualifications apply to your personal -circumstances, a 50-year-old should be 50 x .50 = 25% in fixed income; a 60-year-old should be 60 x .60 = 36% in income; and a 71-year old-should be 71 x .71 = ~ 50% in income. However, beyond that age, De Goey thinks 50% fixed income is the maximum. “People over the age of 71 should be able to withstand having half their money in equities even if they’re in their 90s, because the risk associated with the 50/50 portfolio is quite low.
I was recently interviewed by Allan Small on his Allan Small Financial Show, along with financial commentator and broadcaster Patricia Lovett-Reid, formerly a TD Waterhouse senior vice president and later CTV commentator. Allan, who is Senior Investment Advisor for Scarborough-based IA Private Wealth Inc., probed us about current investor psyche and how to position for the global trade war.
Coping with the Triple T
Patricia coined the term Triple T: for Trump, Trade and Tension. Reviewing past investor panics, she said it is “different this time in that we have an individual wreaking havoc on a global platform.” Even so, she suggested staying the course with quality holdings, albeit being a more defensive with utilities, telecom, financials and Gold. Since we may all spend a third of our lives in Retirement, retirees should not abandon the “stocks for the long run” stance, she said. If you can’t sleep at night, ask your advisor what you can do about it but personally, Lovett-Reid says she has not made any drastic changes to her family’s Asset Allocation.
One focus of the interview, some of which also aired on CFRB 1010 Radio, was our “crystal ball” for markets by the end of the year. All three of us thought they would likely be a bit higher from where they were in late April. Patricia said the TSX should outperform for the rest of 2025, based on its resource and materials stocks (Gold, Oil). My view assumed Trump would partly back down from his harder-nosed Tariff positions but if he doesn’t, I said, “Look out below.”
One observation was that those with Defined Benefit pension plans can consider those to be a form of fixed income. That leaves more room to take risk with equities in other parts of one’s retirement portfolio. In a followup email, Patricia told me that “As someone with a DB [pension], I tend to skew toward more equities. And yet I do like the 60/40 split (equities to bonds). I’m very much about asset protection versus accumulation, so we are erring on the cautious side.”
What role can Annuities play?
The full MoneySense column closes with a look at annuities, which resemble Fixed Income.
In the past, I have referenced retired actuary Fred Vettese’s suggestion in various Globe & Mail columns that – at least for those who don’t have employer-sponsored Defined Benefit pension plans – they should partly annuitize when their RRSP must be converted to a RRIF.
Depending on the timing, Vettese has in the past suggested 20 or 30% of an RRSP or RRIF could be annuitized in these cases. In an email to me, Vettese clarifies that he does “consider annuities to be fixed income. Too bad long term rates are low in Canada (not in the U.S.) since it makes annuities less attractive. Also I think there is an elevated risk of higher inflation in the short term.” So both interest rates and inflation make annuities suboptimal right now, even for this knowledgeable source who is well acquainted with the upside of annuities.
Small doesn’t generally recommend annuities but the column does cite the views of TriDelta advisor Matthew Audrey, who believes in doing a “hurdle rate” analysis for clients before recommending taking the drastic step of annuitizing 20 or 30% of an RRSP or RRIF. Full details in the column.
