All posts by Financial Independence Hub

How Elder Law Attorneys Protect your Post-Work Savings

Posted By |
Image by Unsplash

By Devin Partida

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Navigating the complex world of Elder Law Asset Protection requires expert guidance to maintain independence and ensure appropriate financial resources for your future well-being. Proper legal planning is a critical strategy in wealth preservation.

Elder Law experts, including Ettinger Law Firm, offer the best services for protecting savings, including Medicaid asset protection trusts, long-term care planning and the creation of irrevocable trusts. These services help seniors qualify for aid while shielding their nest eggs from depletion by healthcare costs.

What are the Hidden Financial Threats to your Retirement Savings?

Aside from market fluctuations, one of the biggest dangers to retirement savings is the cost of long-term care. The national average for a semi-private room at a nursing facility is $112,420 annually, and is expected to reach $186,000 in 20 years with inflation. This outlay alone is enough to deplete your assets entirely.

Without proper Asset Protection for seniors, one’s estate could also be drained by probate. Additionally, sudden incapacitation could leave your finances vulnerable and result in costly guardianship proceedings that jeopardize the nest egg you have worked tirelessly to build.

How do Elder Law Attorneys Strategize Estate Planning for Retirees?

An Elder Law attorney deploys comprehensive legal tools designed for direct financial benefit. These methods help them shield your savings from long-term health care costs, probate and unforeseen incapacity before they ever arise.

Asset Protection Trusts

Planning for incapacity is critical. A revocable living trust allows you to designate someone you trust to manage your affairs, ultimately avoiding the costly and restrictive court-appointed guardianship.

Attorneys might also use an irrevocable trust to shield assets from long-term-care creditors. By transferring assets into this specialized trust early on, you can add legal protection to your savings so you do not spend them on nursing home costs. This effectively preserves your legacy for your spouse and heirs.

Medicaid and Government Benefits Planning

An Elder Law attorney can restructure your finances so you are qualified for Medicaid’s long-term care requirements. Rather than hide your money, they will arrange it to circumvent complex government rules. The approach preserves a portion of your assets for the living spouse’s expenses or as an inheritance for your children.

Long-term Care Insurance

Long-term Care Insurance is a financial product that helps you cover future care expenses by paying a benefit for services. While it is an excellent tool, it is not suitable for everyone due to complex policies and high costs.

However, if you have a good income, Long-term Care Insurance is worth considering. A person turning 65 has a 70% chance of requiring long-term care services. On average, women need care for 3.7 years while men need it for 2.2 years.

Durable Power of Attorney and Advance Directives

A durable power of attorney gives a trusted individual of your choosing control over paying your bills, managing your investments and handling affairs that you can no longer do yourself. It ensures seamless management of your assets without needing court intervention. Also, advance directives for health care help prevent family disputes and ensure everyone follows your medical wishes.

What Differs among Estate Planning Strategies?

It is beneficial to compare the asset protection and estate planning services for retirees.

Strategy Primary Financial Goal How It Protects Assets Best For Key Consideration
Asset Protection Trust Protect assets from creditors and lawsuits so they remain preserved for your heirs Transfers ownership of assets to a trust, so they are removed from your personal estate Those with substantial assets who want to ensure a legacy for their family Usually requires giving up direct control over your assets that are placed in a revocable or irrevocable trust
Medicaid Planning Qualify for federal assistance to cover long-term care without depleting your savings Strategically structures assets to meet Medicaid’s eligibility limits People with moderate assets who may not be able to fund long-term care on their own Subject to a five-year look-back period, requiring advance planning
Long-Term Care Insurance Pay for future long-term care needs with a dedicated insurance policy instead of your personal savings An insurance policy offers a defined benefit for approved care services Healthy individuals who can afford the premiums and want a predictable way to cover future care costs Must qualify according to health, as premiums are usually costly and may increase over time
Power of Attorney Prevent expensive court-appointed guardianship for seamless financial management if you become incapacitated Legally appoints a trusted individual to manage your finances on your behalf Everyone — it is a foundational tool for all adults, regardless of their wealth The chosen individual retains power over assets, so trust is critical

How do you Choose the Right Asset Protection Specialist?

Selecting a reputable Elder Law attorney is critical for protecting your assets as an older adult. You want to partner with a firm that has the experience to navigate intricate eligibility requirements for various options while prioritizing your comfort. Continue Reading…

The Case for an All-Weather Portfolio

Posted By |

By Dana Anspach for Fritz Gilbert and The Retirement Manifesto  
Special to Financial Independence Hub

 

Like many teenage girls, I had my high school bedroom walls covered in posters. Actor Rob Lowe took center stage, with a bit of Matt Dillon sprinkled in. (Ladies of the ’80s … any of you relate?)

Mixed in with the heartthrobs were glossy posters of red sports cars. Ferrari. Lamborghini. Later, in college, an Acura NSX.

Looking back, it’s strange. I’ve never been much of a car person:  especially not sports cars. I don’t see well out of them. They’re low to the ground. I scrape rims, bump curbs, and the quick handling leaves me feeling slightly queasy.

So why the fascination? 

I think those cars represented success. Flashy. Fast. The kind of thing people ‘oohed’ and ‘ahhed’ over.

Defining success by external standards is dangerous business. Thankfully, I outgrew that particular distortion: though I’m sure plenty of others remain.

As an adult, I gravitate toward practical, balanced cars. What I think of as the all-weather vehicle. I don’t need to go 200 mph down the autobahn. But I do want traction in heavy rain. I don’t care about making a statement at the valet. I care about glancing in the rearview mirror and seeing my dog’s smiling face as we head to his favorite place on earth: the park.

That preference for balance turns out to matter far beyond cars. It’s also the way I believe we should approach retirement planning and investing.

The Case for an All-Weather Approach

In hindsight, those sports car dreams and investing have something in common.  Sometimes, it’s hard not to hop into the shiny red sports car and drive away.

In investing, a shiny investment (like the shiny red sports car) promises speed and excitement. It may not be as reliable, but for a brief moment, it makes us feel brilliant. Powerful. Maybe even a little invincible. In touch with our inner James Bond. And who doesn’t want to feel like a secret service spy just once in their lifetime?

Often, it shows up as a single stock. Sometimes it’s a real estate deal. Or a business venture. It feels adventurous. Sophisticated. Like we’re seeing something others don’t.

In the late 1990s, tech stocks were the shiny red sports car.

The firm I worked for at the time offered a Science and Technology Fund that rose 99% in twelve months. One day, a middle-aged couple came in and asked me to move their entire portfolio into it.

Durability vs. Speed

Their portfolio had been built for durability:

  • blue-chip stock funds,
  • international exposure,
  • a few bond funds,
  • and a small allocation to the Science and Tech Fund.

They had spent a year watching the tech fund soar, while everything else stood still.

I balked at their request. I explained the logic of balance. Sure, in perfect weather, the shiny red sports car looked great. But the weather wouldn’t always be so accommodating.

My logic sounded silly to them: like a mom insisting you put on your helmet to ride your bike down the street.

They insisted on the change. I acquiesced on one condition: they sign a disclosure acknowledging that this was against my recommendation. They signed without hesitation.

I left that firm before the dot-com crash and the miserable weather that followed. I’ve often wondered what happened to that couple. The allure of speed was too strong.

You can go all in with a play account. But a professional financial advisor can get sued if they do the same thing with your entire life savings. That should give you pause. Risk and return are sides of the same coin. But each time you flip, if it’s several years of heads, it is all too easy to forget that the coin even has another side.

Beware the Slight Upgrade

Not everyone is tempted by flashy sports cars. Sometimes the pull is subtler.

We start to think maybe a small upgrade will help. Something just a little faster. A little more responsive. Even if it doesn’t handle storms quite as well.

I watched this at the end of 2024 when a long-time client, whose retirement plan and portfolio were in solid shape, left because they felt they should be earning higher returns. Continue Reading…

The Problem with Alternative Investments

Posted By |

Why I do not recommend them — private or liquid — and what most investors do not fully understand

Unsplash: Markus Winkler

By Steve Lowrie, CFA

Special to Financial Independence Hub

I am often asked about alternative investments. My first response is always the same: alternative to what?

Because most of what is being presented as “alternative” is not something new or better. It is often the same wine in a different bottle.

I do review alternative strategies, as I look at all types of investment strategies, but from a high-level, evidence-based perspective. Not by spending time on the individual deals and marketing pitches that arrive almost daily.

Let me be direct. Despite the heavy marketing push behind private credit, private equity, liquid alternatives and similar strategies, I do not recommend them. I have not recommended them in the past, and I do not recommend them now.

In my experience, investors in these structures often do not fully understand what they own, how they are priced, when they can access their money, or the underlying risks.

Those are not minor details.

A recent reminder

At a portfolio manager roundtable a few months ago, one advisor shared that more than half of his clients’ assets were invested in private alternative structures. It was presented as a sign of sophistication.

Only a few months later, U.S. press coverage began highlighting private-credit funds facing large redemption requests. In response, many of these funds have been limiting withdrawals or placing restrictions on how much investors can redeem.

Closer to home, several large, well-known Canadian alternative asset managers have recently halted redemptions, leaving investors unable to access their money for extended periods. If you have lived through that, you already know how it feels. If you have not, the experiences of those investors are worth taking seriously before you ever considered investing.

None of this should be surprising. If you invest in illiquid assets, there will be limits on liquidity. The underlying investments, such as private loans or real estate, cannot be sold quickly. That is how the structure is designed.

The concern is that this reality is often lost in how these investments are presented.

When new information becomes available, it should shape how we think about risk.

It raises a more important question. Is this actually improving outcomes for clients, or is it introducing risks that have not yet surfaced?

Concentrating that much of a portfolio in illiquid, opaque investments is not sophistication. It is risk, just not the kind you see right away.

What are alternative or private investments?

Alternative investments are investments that are not publicly traded. They include private credit (lending directly to businesses), private equity (ownership in private companies), direct real estate or infrastructure assets held in pooled structures.

The key difference is not what they invest in, it is how they are structured. These investments vehicles are:

  1. Not continuously priced
  2. Not easily sold
  3. Not fully transparent

The underlying exposures, corporate lending, real estate, business ownership, can all be accessed through public markets. The issue is the structure, not the asset class. I have made this point before in the context of real estate, where publicly traded REITs offer a cleaner path than direct property ownership, and in the context of gold, where exposure already exists indirectly through the broader market.

Why are these strategies being sold so aggressively to individual investors?

The pitch typically centres on three claims: better diversification, lower volatility, and higher expected returns. These claims do not naturally go together. Higher expected returns typically come with higher risk, not less.

There is some historical basis for this, but only in a very specific context, and one that is not usually explained clearly.

What about the endowment model?

A common argument from advisors recommending alternative investments is that large U.S. university endowments, such as those at Harvard, Princeton, and most famously Yale, have used meaningful allocations to private investments for decades and have generated strong long-term returns.

A bit of background: The Yale Endowment, under the late David Swensen, became the most well-known example of what is sometimes called the “endowment model” – a portfolio approach that allocated heavily to private equity, hedge funds, real assets, and other alternatives, rather than to traditional stocks and bonds. The strategy delivered strong results over an extended period, and many other institutions tried to copy it.

That history is real. But two things are worth noting before applying it to an individual investor’s portfolio.

First, those results depended on advantages most individuals cannot replicate: first-look access to the very best private fund managers, negotiated fee structures, multi-decade time horizons that genuinely do not need liquidity, and full-time investment teams to perform deep due diligence.

Second, the asset class itself has changed. As private investments have been packaged for broader distribution, more capital is chasing the same opportunities, the return advantage has narrowed, and the best managers are generally not the ones marketing to retail and mass-affluent investors. Even some of the original endowment-model institutions have been reassessing their allocations.

What has worked well in the past is often difficult to repeat going forward.

In some cases, sophisticated investors are reducing exposure while less experienced investors are being encouraged to step in. Whether intentional or not, that raises an important question. Is this about better investing, or better marketing?

Is the illiquidity a problem?

Yes, it can be.

There is a concept known as the illiquidity premium. If you give up access to your money, you should expect a materially higher return in exchange.

For that trade-off to make sense, two things must be true. You actually receive the higher return, and you fully understand and accept the loss of liquidity.

What we are seeing now raises questions about both. Liquidity rarely feels important until the moment you need it and that is typically when it matters most.

As an example, several large alternative asset managers, including in Canada, have had to limit withdrawals, delay redemptions, or fully gate funds. Gating means you ask for your money back, but you cannot get it on your timeline. You get it at the manager’s discretion. And this often happens at the same time the underlying investments are under pressure, which is usually the reason for the restrictions in the first place.

Why do private investments appear so stable?

Because they are not priced in real time.

Private investments are typically valued periodically, often using models rather than actual transactions. That creates the appearance of smoother returns. But smoother does not mean safer.

Lower reported volatility often reflects how the investment is priced, not what is actually happening underneath.

It often just means changes in value are being reported more slowly.

A recent Dimensional article makes this point clearly. Without continuous pricing, it is difficult to assess the true condition of private credit investments, and publicly traded proxies may provide a more current signal. Exhibit 1 in the Dimensional piece shows that while broad stock and bond markets were positive over the past year, a publicly traded proxy for private credit declined by more than 13 per cent.

That difference is not trivial, and it highlights how private valuations can lag what is happening in real markets.

What about liquid alternatives?

A common response to the liquidity concerns above is: “But what about liquid alternatives, the ones offered as ETFs or mutual funds with daily liquidity?”

These products solve the liquidity problem on the surface. You can buy and sell them like any other fund. But they do not solve the underlying problem with the strategy.

The fees are still high, often well above what you would pay for traditional equity or fixed income exposure. The strategies inside are often complex, opaque, and difficult to evaluate. And the long-term net-of-fees track records of many liquid alt strategies have been weak or negative.

There is also a more subtle issue. When a fund offers daily liquidity for strategies whose underlying instruments are not themselves daily-liquid, the wrapper is promising something the underlying cannot reliably deliver. Under normal conditions, this is not visible. Under stress, it can be.

Changing the wrapper does not change the strategy. If the underlying approach is expensive, complex, and unlikely to add value over time, putting it in a more liquid package does not fix that. It just makes it easier to buy.

So no, I do not recommend liquid alternatives either.

A simple framework for evaluating any investment

When clients ask me about a new investment idea, I encourage them to ask three questions before going further:

  1. Does it produce a reliable expected return that compensates me for the risk?
  2. Can I access my money when I need it?
  3. Can I clearly understand what I own and how it is priced?

Most alternative investments, private or liquid, struggle to meet all three.

There is also a common belief that access to private investments provides an advantage. In reality, broader access often comes after the most attractive opportunities have already been captured.

That does not make them useless in every context. But it does make them difficult to justify as a meaningful holding in a long-term portfolio. Continue Reading…

5 Questions to Ask before Updating your Estate Plan

Posted By |

Thinking about updating your estate plan? Start with these 5 key questions to help protect your assets and ensure your legacy reflects your wishes.

Image courtesy Logical Position/Adode Stock (Photographer: DragonImages)

By Dan Coconate

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Estate planning isn’t something you set once and forget. As you move closer to retirement, your financial picture, family situation, and long-term priorities can shift. That’s why reviewing the right questions to ask before updating your estate plan helps you stay in control and avoid costly mistakes later on.

If you haven’t reviewed your plan in a few years, now is a good time to revisit the essentials.

1. What has Changed in your Life Recently?

Start by looking at any major life updates. Have you retired, or do you plan to soon? Have you experienced changes in your family, such as marriages, new grandchildren, or losses? Even changes in where you live can affect your estate plan.

These updates often require adjustments to ensure your plan still reflects your current situation. Keeping everything aligned helps prevent confusion and keeps your intentions clear.

2. Are your Assets Organized and Accounted for?

Over time, it’s common to lose track of accounts, investments, or property. Take stock of everything you own, including real estate, savings, registered accounts, and personal assets. Make sure your records show accurate values and ownership information.

A well-organized asset list makes it easier for your executor and ensures nothing gets overlooked when the time comes.

3. Do your Plans still Match your Intentions?

Your priorities may shift as you go through various life stages. You might want to support family members in different ways or allocate part of your estate to a cause important to you.

This is also an ideal time to assess whether options such as a revocable living trust align with your goals and the level of control you desire over your assets. Making sure your plan reflects your current intentions helps avoid misunderstandings down the road.

4. Have you Prepared for Unexpected Situations?

Estate planning includes more than distributing assets. It also covers what happens if you can’t make decisions for yourself.

Do you have someone you trust to handle financial or healthcare decisions if needed? Are your instructions clear and up to date? Planning for these scenarios protects both your finances and your independence as you age.

5. Are you Minimizing Tax Impact?

In Canada, estates can face tax implications when assets are transferred. Understanding how taxes apply to your situation can make a significant difference in what your beneficiaries receive.

Working through these details now gives you the chance to structure your estate more efficiently. It can also help reduce your family’s stress later.

A Simple Way to Stay on Track

As you review your plan, keep these practical steps in mind:

  • Update your asset list and confirm current values
  • Review and adjust beneficiary designations
  • Revisit your will and supporting documents
  • Speak with a financial or legal professional
  • Let key family members know where documents are stored

These steps help keep your plan organized and easier to manage.

Keep your Estate Plan Working for You

Your estate plan should grow with you. Regular updates ensure it reflects your current financial position and personal wishes.

By focusing on the right questions to ask before updating your estate plan, you can make informed decisions that protect your legacy and support your loved ones. Taking the time to review your plan today can make a meaningful difference for the future.

Dan Coconate is a local Chicagoland freelance writer who has been in the industry since graduating from college in 2019. He currently lives in the Chicagoland area where he is pursuing his multiple interests in journalism.

Forecasting: Being Right isn’t Enough

Posted By |

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Image courtesy Outcome/Shutterstock

‘Cause I wanna be the minority
I don’t need your authority
Down with the moral majority
‘Cause I wanna be the minority

  • Minority, by Green Day

 

I Stand Corrected

In past commentaries, I stated that (1) forecasting the future is next to impossible, and (2) it is therefore of no use when it comes to successful investing. After careful consideration, I acknowledge that there are exceptions to my first statement. I nonetheless maintain that forecasts, even to the extent they are accurate, are generally of no use when it comes to achieving better than average investment results.

Most people assume that accurate forecasting and outperformance go hand-in-hand. As such, my contention that accurate forecasts do not generally lead to outperformance seems paradoxical. This month, I will explain why, despite my change of heart when it comes to some peoples’ ability to forecast, I am holding steadfast to my belief that forecasting and investment results are fundamentally estranged.

Accuracy and Success are not Synonymous

There is a saying that if you are being chased by a bear, “You don’t have to run faster than the bear to get away. You just have to run faster than the person next to you.” With respect to forecasting, the ability to outperform doesn’t stem from making accurate predictions, but rather from making predictions that are more accurate than those of others.

Contrary to popular opinion, economic developments or corporate earnings do not move markets. Rather, it is only when such events come as a surprise that meaningful movements in asset prices occur.

Imagine a scenario where you position your portfolio based on a forecast for strong economic growth, low unemployment, declining inflation, and falling interest rates. If (1) your predictions turn out to be correct and (2) most market participants have the same view, your performance will be average. Your forecast would already be reflected in security prices, resulting in average performance.

Similarly, reactions to earnings announcements show that it’s not earnings per se, but rather earnings which come as a surprise (that differ from what the consensus was predicting) that cause meaningful movements in stocks. The stock price of a company that reports a doubling of earnings will not necessarily rise and may even decline. If most investors had predicted that the company would grow its earnings by less than 100%, the price of its shares would likely rise after its earnings announcement. However, had the consensus been for earnings growth of more than 100%, its stock would likely decline. Most likely (yes, the consensus is right most of the time), the majority would be expecting earnings to double, in which case there would be little if no post announcement movement in the company’s stock price.

The upshot is that even when forecasts are accurate, they generally don’t result in above average performance. It is only forecasts that both differ from consensus and are correct which result in superior performance.

Easier Said than Done

Just as being no faster or slower than the other person being chased by a bear does not guarantee your survival, accurate forecasts don’t lead to superior performance if the consensus forecast is similarly correct. Unfortunately, the other person being chased by the bear is damn fast! The consensus view is right most of the time.

If consensus forecasts are usually correct, then by definition contrarian ones are more often than not incorrect. Consequently, non-consensus and accuracy, the two forecasting characteristics required to achieve above average results, generally stand in opposition to each other. Pick your poison: either stick with the consensus and deliver average results or stray from the crowd and run a high risk of underperformance.

The Past is the Best Predictor of the Future … Until it Isn’t

Most forecasters are incrementalists: they use current conditions as a baseline and then make only minor adjustments depending on their respective views.

Things generally continue as they have been. Economic expansions and bull markets tend to last several years. Years in which stocks rise tend to be followed by further gains in the following year. Given this pattern, incremental forecasting tends to work most of the time.

The minority of occasions when consensus forecasts fail — which are also when non-consensus forecasts can add the most value — tend to happen during major turning points in markets, which are the exception rather than the rule. Not only are such sea changes extremely difficult to predict, but they are also hard to act on.

There’s no Point in Explaining to Someone who doesn’t Want to Listen

During the late 1990s tech bubble, most investors were convinced (or convinced themselves) that markets were experiencing the dawn of a new era abounding with limitless possibilities. A “no price is too high” mentality permeated the masses’ minds, causing tech stocks to rise at a parabolic rate and reach unsustainable valuations. Similarly, by the mid 2000s, the consensus view was that real estate was a bulletproof investment which could only go up, causing home prices to become completely detached from fundamentals and leading to lending practices that were profoundly estranged from risk management.

Notwithstanding the bitter endings to these episodes, there were few forecasters at the time who were willing to take a sober and skeptical view of what was bordering on utter lunacy. Perhaps more importantly, few investors were willing to listen to those who did, dismissing them as being “tone deaf” to what was perceived as a new reality in which the old rules did not apply. When the party is in full swing, nobody wants to either be or listen to the naysayer warning of impending hangovers.

Being Right isn’t Enough: You need to be Right Soon

Forecasts that can produce outperformance not only necessitate accuracy and straying from the crowd at times when it is most difficult to do so but also require precise timing. It’s hard enough to predict inflection points in markets, but predicting the precise timing of such pivots is next to impossible.

Among the few lonely souls who saw trouble brewing in the late 90s tech bubble or the early 2000s real estate craze, most of them were devastatingly early. Both tech stocks and real estate continued to appreciate at a torrid pace after the few naysayers (who were largely ignored) began ringing alarm bells. Few contrarians had the resolve to stick with their views as prices continued to rise, even though their predictions were becoming more likely as valuations became increasingly unsustainable.

A correct insight which is too early can lead to losses, insolvency, or ridicule. As legendary investor Howard Marks stated, “Being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.” Even John Paulson, who eventually made billions in profits by shorting the U.S. housing market in 2006, had to endure massive losses in 2007 before his bet paid off.

Career Risk & Safety in Numbers

In the world of forecasting, being wrong can be very detrimental, particularly with respect to one’s career and credibility.

Most forecasters got caught flat footed when markets began reeling in 2000 and 2008. However, they could take solace in the fact that they were in the majority, which provided them with sufficient cover. On the other hand, being wrong on a contrarian view can have devastating consequences. The asymmetric risk of differing from the crowd is best described by John Maynard Keynes’ observation:

“It is the long-term investor who will in practice come in for the most criticism. For it is the essence of his behaviour that he should be eccentric, unconventional and rash in the eyes of the average opinion. If he is successful, that will only confirm the general belief in his rashness; and if in the short run he is unsuccessful, which is very likely, he will not receive much mercy. Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.”

Those who Tell don’t Know. Those who Know don’t Tell

Cynically speaking, if someone had the ability to make accurate, non-consensus forecasts that could generate better than average performance, why on earth would they share them? Such skills could produce returns that would make Buffett look like a chump. Those with such prowess (who are rare to non-existent) would be far better off following their own advice rather than wasting their time convincing others to follow it!

Algorithmically Embracing the Unknown

At Outcome, our views on forecast-based investing are best summed up by H.L. Mencken’s assertion that “We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine.”

We always have and continue to shun forecast-based investing, with which we believe neither we nor anyone else can add value. We will continue to apply our machine-learning based investment models to markets that are subject to behavioural biases and non-economic motivations to deliver outperformance over the long-term.

Of note, our approach to investing has consistently enabled the Outcome Canadian Equity Income Fund to mitigate losses and preserve capital in challenging markets, with last month being no exception. In March, the TSX Comp. Index declined 4.3%, while the S&P 500 Index fell 5.0%. In comparison, the Outcome Canadian Equity Income Fund rose 0.7%.

Noah Solomon is Chief Investment Officer for Outcome Metric Asset Management Limited Partnership.  From 2008 to 2016, Noah was CEO and CIO of GenFund Management Inc. (formerly Genuity Fund Management), where he designed and managed data-driven, statistically-based equity funds.

Between 2002 and 2008, Noah was a proprietary trader in the equities division of Goldman Sachs, where he deployed the firm’s capital in several quantitatively-driven investment strategies. Prior to joining Goldman, Noah worked at Citibank and Lehman Brothers. Noah holds an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated as a Palmer Scholar (top 5% of graduating class). He also holds a BA from McGill University (magna cum laude).

Noah is frequently featured in the media including a regular column in the Financial Post and appearances on BNN. This blog originally appeared in the March 2026 Outcome newsletter and is republished on Findependence Hub with permission.