All posts by Financial Independence Hub

Simple Interest mistakes

Image courtesy Pexels: Monstera Production

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub

I’ve heard a few times over the years that one of the disadvantages of making an extra payment against your mortgage, or any other debt, is that saving this way only earns simple interest rather than compound interest.  This is nonsense, as I’ll show with an example.

Flawed Reasoning

The reasoning behind the claim that paying down a mortgage only earns simple interest goes as follows.  Each month, your payment pays all of the interest plus some of the principal.  Therefore, there is no interest accruing on previous interest, so there is no compounding.

This is a tidy little story, but the reasoning doesn’t hold up.

An Example

Suppose you have 20 years left on your 6% mortgage (in Canada where most mortgages use semi-annual compounding). This makes your monthly payment $1780.47. The second column of the table below shows how your mortgage balance would decline over the coming year.

Suppose you decide to pay $10,000 down on your mortgage, but you leave the payments the same. The third column shows your declining mortgage balance for this scenario. The last column shows the difference between these scenarios. This difference shows your returns from your investment in paying down your mortgage.

If your investment earned only simple interest at 6% per year, then the difference would be $10,600 after a year, but it is $10,609.  The extra $9 comes from the semi-annual compounding.  This isn’t much after one year, but after ten years, simple interest gives $16,000, but the real figure if we continued this table is $18,061.  The compounding effect is significant.

Where Does the Flawed Reasoning Go Wrong?

To get the correct answer to questions such as whether paying down your mortgage earns compound interest, we have to treat money as fungible. Consider what happens when your debt accrues new interest. Think of the interest blending evenly with the former debt amount. Then when your payment gets applied, it wipes out proportional amounts of the original debt and the new interest. This leaves some interest with your debt that will accrue compound interest later.

Giving the Flawed Reasoning Another Chance

Let’s consider a simpler example. You borrow $10,000 at 12% (compounded monthly), pay off just the $100 interest each month for a year, and then pay back the $10,000.  So, you paid a total of $1200 in interest. Continue Reading…

Top Canadian Dividend ETFs

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub 

What makes a great Exchange Traded Fund (ETF)?

What makes a great Canadian dividend Exchange Traded Fund? 

What are the top Canadian dividend ETFs to own?

You’ve come to the right site and the right post for these answers and my thoughts. Let’s go in this updated post!

Top Canadian Dividend ETFs – what is an ETF?

An ETF (Exchange Traded Fund) is a diverse collection of assets (like a mutual fund) that trades on an exchange (like a stock does).

This makes an ETF a marketable security = it has trading capability. Since you and buy and sell ETFs on an exchange during the day, ETF prices can change throughout the day as they are bought and sold.

ETFs may typically have lower fees than mutual funds (although not always), which can make them an attractive alternative to mutual funds.

Based on my personal experiences approaching 20 years as My Own Advisor I find ETFs very easy to buy using a discount brokerage and ETFs can provide a low-cost way to diversify your portfolio.

Although you don’t need to buy equity ETFs, it is my personal belief that you’re FAR better off owning more equities than bonds over long investing periods.

Simply put: learn to live with stocks for wealth-building. I’m trying to do the same!

What goes into a good ETF? What should you consider?

Before we get into my favourite Canadian dividend ETFs, here are some elements to consider as you select your ETFs for your portfolio:

1. Style – ETFs can track an index, follow an industry sector, be rules-based like some smart-beta funds are, or be much more. For the most part, I prefer plain-vanilla, broad market equity indexed ETFs. While I used to own a few dividend ETFs I no longer invest this way. I’ll link to that post later on. That said, Dividend ETFs can provide income to you as an investor; tangible money to use or reinvest as you please.

2. Fees – Hopefully by now from my site you know that high money management fees kill portfolio values over time. I try and keep my management expense ratio (MER) (the fee paid to the fund’s manager, as well as taxes and other costs) low (for as long as possible). Dividend ETFs often come with higher fees due to portfolio turnover. Something to think about.

Further Reading: Learn about MERs, TERs and more about ETF fees here.

3. Tracking error – In short, tracking error is the difference between the performance of the fund (the ETF) and its benchmark (what it tracks). I would advise you to look at the fund’s prospectus before you buy it and strive to own ETFs with low tracking errors.

4. Diversification – Along the same lines ‘Style’, you should be very mindful of the assets within an ETF before you buy it. ETFs are not created equal.

If you’re just starting out your investing journey, you can learn more about ETFs here.

Top Canadian ETFs vs. Dividend ETFs

When in doubt about buying any individual stock, I’ve been a huge fan of Canadian broad market ETFs like XIU, XIC, ZCN, VCN, along with others over the years.

I like XIU in particular.

XIU holds the largest 60 stocks in Canada and most of those stocks held in XIU pay dividends, although not all of them. Paying a dividend comes down to company policy. There are certainly many ways shareholder value is created.

While XIU has nowhere near the number of holdings that VCN has, XIU has delivered stellar long-term returns better than most.

I referenced this above: diversification can be a great ally as a risk mitigation tactic against stock picking but that doesn’t mean owning an ETF is bulletproof. Indexed ETFs hold all the stock studs and duds. Dividend ETFs might do the same. Dividend ETFs may limit your investing universe and your returns compared to other funds. Things to think about.

5. Tax efficiency – If you never intend to max out your TFSAs, RRSPs, kids’ RESPs, or other registered accounts then this is a non-issue for you. For some investors, however, who invest outside registered accounts (such as the aforementioned RRSPs, RRIFs, TFSAs, RESPs, LIRAs) like I do, then you need to consider the tax efficiency of your ETFs.

XIU in particular is very tax efficient. There are other ETFs to consider for tax efficiency as well.

In taxable accounts, I would advise you to look at the fund’s prospectus before you buy it and strive to own ETFs for your taxable account that are tax efficient; for the dividend tax credit or for capital gains.

Further Reading: How to invest for tax efficiency investing in taxable accounts.

6. History – While past performance is never indicative of future results unfortunately ETF/fund history is all we have since nobody can predict the financial future with any accuracy. Consider the track record of the ETF when it comes to returns.

What are my Top Canadian Dividend ETFs?

All data and information was updated in late-July 2024 and is approximate (for total returns) at the time of this post.

ETF Symbol MER # of holdings Total 5-Year Return Total 10-Year Return
VDY 0.22% 56 61% 100%
ZDV 0.39% 51 46% 67%
XEI 0.22% 75 50% 70%
XIU 0.18% 60 55% 103%
Comparison only: XAW 0.20% 8,700+ stocks 71% N/A – 2015 inception date

I’ve added global ETF XAW for comparison purposes only to the other four (4) Canadian dividend ETFs.  (Dislosure: I own XAW ETF and will continue to do so.)

Why I don’t own any Top Canadian Dividend ETFs…

Readers of this site will know I don’t own any Canadian dividend ETFs. I’ll share those reasons:

While the Vanguard Canadian High Dividend Yield Index ETF (VDY) is a good consideration, I own all the top-10 VDY stocks outright / on my own at the time of this post and have done so for 10+ years in many cases. So, no point in duplicating things …  Also, VDY is heavy on Canadian banks so there is sector concentration risk there I could avoid by owning some individual Canadian stocks. I can also decide to own some lower-yielding and higher=growth stocks inside my taxable account. Continue Reading…

Using Defensive Sector ETFs for the Canadian retirement portfolio

By Dale Roberts

Special to Financial Independence Hub

In a recent post we saw that the defensive sectors were twice as effective as a balanced portfolio moving through and beyond the great financial crisis. The financial crisis was the bank-failure-inspired recession and market correction of 2008-2009 and beyond. It was the worst correction since the dot com crash of the early 2000’s. Defensive sectors can play the role of bonds (and work in concert with bonds) to provide greater financial stability. With defensive sector ETFs you might be able to build a superior Canadian retirement portfolio.

First off, here’s the original post on the defensive sectors for retirement.

The key defensive sectors are healthcare, consumer staples and utilities.

And a key chart from that post. The defensive sectors were twice as good as the traditional balanced portfolio. The chart represents a retirement funding scenario.

You can check out the original post for ideas for U.S. dollar defensive sector ETFs.

The following is for Canadian dollar accounts. Keep in mind, this is not advice. Consider this post as ‘ideas for consideration’ and part of the retirement portfolio educational process.

The yield is shown as an annual percentage as of mid March, 2023.

80% Equities / 20% Bonds and Cash

Growth sector ETFs

  • 15% VDY 4.6% Canadian High Dividend
  • 15% VGG 1.8% U.S. Dividend Growth

Canadian defensive sector ETFs

  • 15% ZHU 0.5% U.S Healthcare
  • 10% STPL 2.4% Global Consumer Staples
  • 5.0% XST 0.6% Canadian Consumer Staples
  • 10% ZUT 3.7% Canadian Utilities

Inflation fighters

Safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada (for any Retirement Age)

So you have been reading Million Dollar Journey (MDJ) for years, have used your Canadian online broker account to DIY-invest your way to a solid nest egg.

You’ve got a TFSA, and RRSP, and maybe even a non-registered account – full of good revenue-generating assets.

Kudos!

Now comes the tough part: How do you turn that nest egg into a usable stream of money that you can spend as you enter retirement?

Surprisingly, when it comes to discussing Canadian safe retirement withdrawal rates, and talking to folks who have retired at all ages, spending their retirement savings represented a massive mental strain for them.  I guess (as someone who has never retired or sold investments to pay for retirement) that I always thought that saving for retirement would be the hard part.

Isn’t spending supposed to be more fun than squirreling away?

It turns out that once you get into that savings mindset, it can be hard to flip the switch back to enjoying spending the fruits of your labour.  This is especially true for folks who are looking at strategies for an early retirement because they are much more likely to have been super-aggressive savers during their time in the workforce.

I didn’t go into the topic of safe withdrawal rates for retirement expecting the topic to be so deep and full of variables! Afterall, the concept seems simple enough right?

How much can I take out of my investment portfolio each year, if I need that nest egg to last for 30, 35, 40, or even 50 years?

Ok, so let’s maybe start with the rule of thumb that advisors have used when looking at retirement drawdown plans for a while now.

Back in 1994 a financial advisor named William Bengen looked at the last 80 or so years of markets and retirement, did a bunch of math, and arrived at a concept we now call “The 4% rule.”

The basic idea of the 4% retirement withdrawal plan is that someone could safely withdraw 4% of their investment/savings portfolio each year and – assuming a 60/40 or 50/50 split of bonds/stocks in their portfolio – they would never run out of money.  This idea of withdrawing a certain percentage of your portfolio to fund your retirement is called the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR). The math behind this magic 4% figure means that if you have the nice round $1 Million investment portfolio that we all dream of, you could safely pull out $40,000 the first year, and then adjust for inflation and withdraw 4% plus inflation after that. (So if there was 2% inflation between year one and year two, you could now withdraw $40,800.)

Bengen, and another highly influential study took their rule and retroactively applied it to retirees from every single year from 1926 to 1994.  They found that nearly 100% of the time (depending on what was in the investment portfolio) people could retire, and withdraw 4% of their portfolio for 30 years of retirement – and not run out of money.  In fact, a large percentage of the time, if retirees followed the 4% rule, they not only didn’t run out of money, they finished life with more money than when they started retirement!

Keep in mind, these authors didn’t worry about OAS or CPP, or a workplace pension, or even the tax implications of different types of withdrawals.  They were simply trying to come up with a useful rule of thumb for how much a person could safely withdraw from their retirement portfolio.

What the 4% Rule means for your Magic Retirement Portfolio Number

If you can safely withdraw 4% of your portfolio to fund your retirement, then the simple math tells us that if you can accumulate 25x your annual retirement budget, you no longer have to work.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Jane looks at her budget and realizes that once she retires she will have a lot less spending demands.  She carefully weighs the numbers and believes she’ll need $40,000 per year to quit her 9-to-5.
  • Consequently, Jane needs the magical “4% of her portfolio” to equal $40,000 per year.
  • For a 4% withdrawal to equal $40,000, Jane will need a $1,000,000 portfolio.
  • If Jane reassess and realizes she needs $60,000 per year in retirement, Jane would need 25 times $60,000 (because 4% goes into 100% twenty-five times) which is $1.5 Million.
  • Jane might not need anywhere close to $1.5M if she intends to do a little part-time work in retirement, and is willing to use some math + research strategies to help herself out a bit when it comes to managing her nest egg!  But more on that later…

4% Safe Withdrawal Rate: Potential Problems

Up until the 4% rule became a thing, when financial advisors were asked about safe withdrawal rates, the only thing they could really say is, “it depends.”

This was followed by a whole lot of graphs, math, and other boring stuff that no one really understood, but didn’t want to admit to not understanding.

The 4% rule of thumb was a BIG deal when it came to financial planning.  It provided the best answer yet to the millions of retirees who desperately wanted an answer to the question:

“How much money can I take out of this portfolio each year without going broke and eating cat food as an 80-year-old?!!!

Before we get into discussing the nitty gritty of safe withdrawal rates today, we must understand the limitations of the 4% rule.  Here are the major rules that I came across after reading for roughly a hundred hours. The research I read was mostly done by people who have dedicated a major part of their life’s work to studying retirement and spending patterns across the globe.  As far as I can tell, they are our best hope for trying to define just what the range of outcomes will be for various types of retirement spending + investing plans. The two major experts that I relied on most were Wade D. Pfau and Michael Kitces, with major assists to the writers behind Early Retirement Now, The Mad Fientist, and Millennial Revolution.

1) There is no way to know the future returns for any asset class.  We’ll get into this more later on in the show, but basically, the vast majority of the math that these folks are basing their withdrawal rates on is underpinned by a US stock market that has done incredibly well over the last 100+ years.  A few other stock markets of developed countries have done as well (Yay Canada!), but the majority of stock markets DO NOT return 10%+ over the long haul.

It turns out that when you don’t know how much money your nest egg will be generating, solving for how much money to take out becomes kind of hard to answer!

2) These withdrawal plans were mostly created with a 30-year retirement time horizon in mind.  When most people were retiring at 60 or 65, and living to 75-80, a 30-year window looked like a pretty safe horizon for most people.  If this still describes your plan, a 30-year horizon is probably still a pretty safe rule of thumb. If you’re looking at leaving your job at 40-50 years of age (or even earlier) and living well into your 90s, you could easily be looking at a retirement that lasts 50+ years!  (Which is pretty cool to think about, really!)

3) The 4% rule doesn’t reflect how many Canadians actually invest and pay for investment advice.  In a perfect world, we would all handle our own withdrawal plan and DIY our portfolio allocations and withdrawals.  But many of us aren’t interested in diving into the deep end of handling our own assets. Consequently, we have to take those pesky investment-related fees into account when looking at our safe withdrawal plans.  If you’re paying 2% of your returns to a mutual fund salesperson each year, you will need a lot more than $1 Million to safely withdraw 4% each year.

4) The 4% rule doesn’t take into account adjustment in behaviour.  For example, Jane might take on a little part-time work to make $10,000 per year if she sees her account balance going down too fast.  Or she may decide to move somewhere that has much lower living costs. A blanket rule that tries to predict 30 years into the future can’t possibly allow for all of these variables.

5) There is no OAS and/or CPP taken into consideration when looking at the 4% rule.  It’s also likely that Jane might not have considered how taxes might affect how much she needs to withdraw each year.

6) The 4% rule tries to address what us finance geeks call Sequence of Return Risk – but it gets really hard to do so after you go beyond the 30-year mark of retirement.  More on this below.

So, now that we know what the rules of thumb are for safe withdrawal rates that the professors of all things money have come up with, as well as some of the limitations of those rules of thumb, let’s take a look at what this might mean when applied to your retirement!

How has the 4% Rule Done in the Past

Given all of these variables that the 4% rule doesn’t account for, you might be wondering just why it is so widely used.

The truth is that I put all that naysayer stuff first because folks love to poke holes in financial theories. (For good reason, we’re talking about people’s life plans here.) Let’s look at just why the 4% rule has become the rule of thumb.

As always when discussing financial planning and financial projects, one must understand that while looking at past results in the stock and bond markets is one of the best tools we have, it does not guarantee future results!

Drawing on what I’ve read from Bengen, the Trinity Study, and recent authors such as Pfau and Kitces, here’s some summary notes on just how the 4% rule would have worked in the past in the USA market. (The Canadian market has actually done slightly better most of the time, so the conclusions would be quite similar when looking at past Canadian returns.)

1) When you apply the original 4% withdrawal philosophy, not only does your money never run out over any 30-year period over the last 100 years – But 95% of the time the retiree would have finished with MORE THAN THEY STARTED WITH!

I know this sounds crazy, but companies have made a lot of money the last 100 years.  If you owned a piece of them, you’ve done pretty well!

2) More than half of the time, the retiree who stuck to the 4% rule would have DOUBLED THEIR MONEY at the end of the 30-year time frame.

What this means, is that in the past, it is far more likely that retirees could have spent substantially more than that 4% withdrawal safety number, than it was that they would ever run out of money.

3) Rather than use Bengen’s 60/40 portfolio, you can actually increase your chances of favourable outcomes by skewing your portfolio to take on more stocks.  Of course, your portfolio will also be likely to cause a bit more heartburn as you watch stocks gyrate up and down over the years.

4) Even folks who retired during the rough decade of the 2000s are doing just fine.

If I Want to Retire Early or do this whole “FIRE” Thing – Does the 4% Work for Me?

The short answer is: Probably Not

When you start to take rules that were created for a 30-year safe withdrawal period, and stretch them out over 50+ years, it makes sense that the rules of thumb don’t really work anymore.

Taking money out of your nest egg for that long means that you’re more likely to encounter a long-term period of rough markets, and have your money run out.

The website Early Retirement Now (created by folks who are fluent in high-level economics math and Monte Carlo simulations) have created the following chart and conclusions when it comes to safe withdrawal rates and long retirement periods.

I’ve checked their assumptions with a ton of really smart people that I trust, as well as doing the math myself, and if you assume the same returns that we’ve had the past 100 years or so in North America, I can’t find anything to argue with!

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada

1) The 30-year 4% rule still works pretty well, and a 5% withdrawal rate is only fit for the very adventurous or flexible-minded out there!

2) Tilting your portfolio towards stocks over bonds increases your chances of the best outcomes – assuming that you don’t panic when markets go down and sell at the worst times.

3) At high stock allocations, the 4% rule still worked pretty darn well for a 50- or 60-year retirement! (With past returns that is.) Continue Reading…

Take advantage of the U.S. Manufacturing Boom with this Industrials Monthly Income ETF

Image courtesy Harvest ETFs

By Ambrose O’Callaghan, Harvest ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

The passing of three important pieces of legislation in 2021 and 2022 thrust the United States manufacturing sector, and industrials, into the spotlight. But what are industrials, anyway? When we are talking about industrials, we are referring to a sector that is composed of companies that produce goods used in construction and manufacturing that encapsulates several sub-sectors.

Some of the most prominent sub-sectors in the Industrials space include Aerospace & Defense, Electrical Components & Equipment, Industrial Machinery & Supplies & Components, Rail Transportation, and others. The Industrials sector is drawing attention in 2024 for several key reasons.

Today, we are going to explore the resurgence in U.S. manufacturing, the burgeoning aerospace and defense space, and the merits of Harvest’s first-ever covered call Industrials ETF. Let’s jump in.

The resurgence in U.S. manufacturing

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, real manufacturing construction spending has doubled since the end of 2021. This increase occurred in a supportive policy climate after the passing of three key pieces of legislation: The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and CHIPS Act. These three pieces of legislation provided funding and tax incentives for public and private entities in the manufacturing construction space.

The U.S. Treasury Department report shows that the computer/electronic segment has represented the largest component of the U.S. manufacturing resurgence. However, the growth in the size of that segment has not been offset by a reduction in spending in other manufacturing sub-sectors. Construction in areas like chemical, transportation, and food/beverage have all enjoyed growth through 2022, just at a reduced pace. The chart below shows the top manufacturing construction projects by value and location since August 2022.

The CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022. It included US$39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing on U.S. soil. This included 25% investment tax credits for the cost of manufacturing equipment. The chart below shows construction spending in the manufacturing space over the past two decades, bookended by a surge after three pieces of legislation.

Deutsche Bank research indicated that 18 new chipmaking facilities began construction between 2021 and 2023. Indeed, the Semiconductor Industry Association reported that more than 50 new semiconductor ecosystem projects have been announced after the CHIPS Act.

Aerospace and defense spending today

The aerospace sector involves the design, manufacture, and operation of vehicles that travel in aerospace. Meanwhile, the defense sub-sector produces and seeks to sell weapons, and military technology. Continue Reading…