For this my 8th year of suggested titles for “booking up” in the subject area of ageing and longevity there’s only one book in a stack of others on unrelated subjects.
As I observed last year, with countless new books in this subject area arriving each year, sometimes I find a scarcity of new books that help to move the societal conversation, for I tend to lean towards those which focus that way, and those that offer an age inclusive global perspective where possible.
First up then, published in Australia, is The Age-friendly Lens (2023) a Routledge collection of essays/case studies edited by Christie M. Gardiner &Eileen O’Brien Webb, compiled in 2 parts; Age-friendly Systems and Age-friendly Housing & Accommodation. The chapters feature insights from around the world: Canada, Netherlands, Poland and Australia for example. In part as the introduction says, this book is “recommended reading for policy makers, politicians, think tanks and lobbyists who are all-age-inclusiveness.”
As somewhat of a connection off centre from this age-friendly lens, as it relates to age-friendly cities, I mention this next book on my summer reading list, new this summer: Messy Cities: Why We Can’t Plan Everything (2025) a collection of over 40 short essays edited by Dylan Reid, Zahra Ebrahim, Leslie Woo & John Lorinc – asking myself to wonder, how does messy work when we consider the design of an age-friendly or age inclusive city?
Urbanist admired Toronto
In Dylan Reid’s “sneak peek” of this book about messy urbanism, on his Desire Lines Substack, the story is told about how urbanist James Rojas came to Toronto in 2007 and admired it for the “sort of less than manicured quality to the whole thing … and coupled with a huge diversity of people, the city ends up feeling gloriously messy, in a functional and walkable way.”
Well Toronto, my original home city, is still messy, a 2025 version one can observe. And not to be disturbed, while I wait for this book to arrive this week, I have directed myself to inspect Reid’s 2010 essay Bless This Mess, which will tone me up in the meantime. Continue Reading…
Canadians pay some of the highest investment fees on the planet. Most of the Canadian mutual funds charge very high fees. Those fees directly reduce your returns. Too much of the investment returns end up in the wrong pockets. The very good news is that in 2025 you can move to very good, very simple and very inexpensive investment options. Cutting your fees from the 2.0% area to 0.20% or lower is life-changing. It could even double your retirement nest egg. Who doesn’t want to retire with twice the financial security, twice the lifestyle? Canadians should avoid most mutual funds. It’s so easy to leave your mutual funds and your advisor behind; you can move to a better place.
Most Canadian mutual funds are offered by salespersons, not qualified advisors. These advisors at Canadian banks and other sales shops for the high-fee funds have very low investment knowledge. Their only concern is selling you a product and lining their own pockets.
Beat the bank at their own game
That’s the premise and the truth told by former banker Larry Bates. Larry outlines just how poor are Canadian mutual funds, and the mutual fund industry. Have a read of …
On wealth destruction Larry offers a humorous ‘quote’.
My investments put three kids through University. Unfortunately, they were my advisors’ kids – Anonymous
And there’s the crux, the punchline. When Canadians pay those high fees that average 2.2% annual or more, over an investment lifetime they will give away half of their investment wealth. Don’t be that investor. Don’t let your portfolio get crushed by fees.
Canada’s largest mutual funds, not so bad?
Canada’s largest mutual funds are offered by Canada’s largest bank – Royal Bank of Canada. When I first looked at the RBC Select Funds, including the RBC Select Balanced Portfolio I suggested they were ‘not so bad.’ But over time the fees and poor portfolio management continue to take their toll.
In that post I compare the RBC funds to a simple and superior low-fee approach, using an ETF portfolio. An ETF is an exchange traded fund.
Over the last three years the iShares Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) is up 7.4% compared to 5.2% for the RBC Balanced Fund.
Over the last 5 years the iShares Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) is up 7.7% compared to 6.2% for the RBC Balanced Fund.
Scorecard: over the last 3 years the RBC fund underperformed by an average of 2.2% annually. Over the last 5 years the RBC fund underperformed by an average of 1.5% annually.
You’ll find other comparisons to RBC Select and dividend funds in that post link.
How bad are TD mutual funds?
Canada’s second largest bank says ‘hold my beer.’ I can take your poor performance and go one better. This past week I looked at TDs very popular portfolio solutions known as the “Comfort” Portfolios. Once again, this is an attempt to create a diversified global balanced portfolio in one offering. A one-fund solution.
I compared the Comfort Portfolios to a simple Canadian ETF Portfolio. The following table lists the average annual returns.
The underperformance is tragic. We see the TD portfolios underperforming simple ETF models by 2%, 2.5%, 3.o% annual and more.
Earn 50% more? Double your money over mutual funds?
With an additional 2.5% annual over a 20-year period, you could retire with 59% more. Over a 25-year period you’re talking 80% more. Over 30 years we move to ‘twice as much.’
For the above, I used a simple investment calcuator comparing 6% and 8.5% annual returns. In the investment world your return advantage could be greater or less given the sequence of returns. But it gives us a very good idea of the potential for greater returns, and a much richer lifestyle in retirement.
How to invest in ETFs
lf you’re new to the Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) concept please have a read of …
An Exchange Traded Fund will allow you to own the companies within a market index, for example the TSX Composite (the Canadian stock market) in one fund, ticker symbol XIC. The fee for buying the Canadian stock market is 0.06%. Yes you read that right, that’s 6/100th of one per cent. Continue Reading…
Diane Francis is a Toronto-based journalist who began her career as a financial writer before branching out into geopolitics. She publishes a twice-weekly newsletter that has readers in 106 countries around the world. Born in the United States, Francis is a dual citizen possessing unique expertise that allows her to comment on the intersection of economics and politics. She was recently John De Goey’s guest on his podcast “Make Better Wealth Decisions” (https://make-better-wealth-decisions.captivate.fm/listen) and offered some candid thoughts about investing in a time of great uncertainty and upheaval.
De Goey is a portfolio manager with Designed Securities in Toronto. “Make Better Wealth Decisions” is a popular, twice-weekly podcast about investing and money management.
Early in the interview De Goey asked Francis about this confluence of economics and politics, and how one should make decisions when there are so many unknowns out there. Francis responded by referring to her days as a financial writer when she wanted to find out what was going on in a particular country.
Diane Francis (LinkedIn)
“I would call an investment banking analyst who covered that area,” she said. “They know more about what’s going on in that country than any politicians or any journalists because they’re making dollar decisions on whether to buy the bonds, sell the bonds, buy the stocks or get involved in the private investment in that country. So I realized that was one of the most important pillars underlying how you should invest.”
She has brought this expertise to her work as a journalist. Francis is a columnist and Editor-at-Large for The National Post in Canada, and also writes for the Kyiv Post in Ukraine, and Ukraine Alert at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center in Washington, D.C., not to mention the Huffington Post, New York Post, among others. What’s more, she holds an MBA and is a CPA as well. And she is a former U.S. Army Intel Analyst.
How downgraded U.S. credit rating could affect investors
De Goey pointed out to his listeners that she has written a number of books and one of the first, published back in 1990, was The Diane Francis Inside Guide to Canada’s 50 Best Stocks. Their discussion then moved into the U.S. credit rating being downgraded and how this might affect investing. Francis said it’s a concern when investing in bonds, but not so much in stocks, and shouldn’t matter if you invest outside the U.S.
She then revealed some insights about her own investing in lieu of European countries now boosting their military expenditures. She said she bought into companies in Germany that are involved in the military area and called them “winners.” By the same token, she said she has invested in Taiwan SemiConductor (TSMC) and made money doing that.
De Goey moved on to what he called the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ and Trump’s realigning of the world order. He mentioned the acronym that has been making the rounds in some media – TACO – for Trump Always Chickens Out when it comes to tariffs. But Francis said he doesn’t chicken out because it’s just a negotiating tactic on his part.
TACO vs TUDIE
“The tariff strategy is quite interesting and I know a lot of people won’t agree with me but I think it’s brilliant,” Francis said. “It’s ruthless and it’s not nice to do to trading partners but imagine what he’s done. He’s harnessed the buying power of the richest country in the history of the world and he’s beating the people who want to supply it with stuff over the head, asking them for bargains in the form of tariffs.”
De Goey used an acronym that he himself coined – TUDIE – for Trump Usually Does It Eventually. Francis didn’t disagree with that assessment and said Canada must do more than whine about the tariffs. She said we should do what Japan and South Korea did, namely, make deals to get their tariffs lowered. She added that Canada is teetering on a recession largely as a result of the Trump tariffs, but criticized Canada’s own policies over the years with such things as immigration, the military, lack of NATO commitments, etc.
The conversation moved on to countries retaliating against the U.S. with tariffs of their own and a possible trade war. De Goey brought up the tariffs that were levied back in the 1930s by the United States and the retaliation that ensued, leading to a global trade war and deepening what was already a severe recession and, ultimately, the Great Depression. Francis had some definite views about that. In fact, she didn’t think a global trade war is coming at all.
Tariff Retaliation is stupid
“I think retaliation is stupid,” she said. “You can’t retaliate. America is Canada’s biggest customer, supplier and investor. You can’t shoot yourself in the foot. I think this is a negotiation. You give. You take.”
She said there still remains a lot of good will between the U.S. and Canada. Before the interview closed, De Goey wanted to get into the war in Ukraine. As a journalist, Francis has been to Ukraine some 30 times and often writes about that war today. She said European countries are finally smartening up by boosting their militaries, and further, that we are at the “beginning of the end” of this war, adding that Trump’s new stance with Putin is a positive development. Francis has hopes for what she called a “semi-permanent ceasefire” but said Ukraine may have to lose 20% of its land in the process. But real peace, she said, will require boots on the ground for security purposes and NATO membership for Ukraine which she said could be one of the most dynamic economies in all of Europe.
When De Goey asked her about which interpersonal relationships are key, her answer was simple. “What’s your relationship with the Trump government?” Francis said. “This is the most powerful country in the history of the world from a military and economic viewpoint, and he was duly elected.” However, Francis does hold grave concerns about Trump’s relentless bashing of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.
Said Francis: “As an investor I want to know what is going to be resolved over the Fed Chairman being taunted or fired by Trump. That will affect every country in the world.”
John De Goey, CIM, CFP, FP Canada™ Fellow, is a Portfolio Manager with Toronto-based Designed Wealth Management. He is the author of three books on the financial industry: The Professional Financial Advisor, Standup to the Financial Services Industry and most recently, Bullshift. You can find John’s personal website here
Finding new ways to build wealth beyond traditional investment options requires thinking outside the box. Geoarbittage may be one of the most interesting ways to embrace property investment with a decent return on investment (ROI). Wise investors are finding ways to overcome cost-of-living increases by studying the price differences between areas and investing in emerging global markets. In Canada, some areas have high real estate prices and capped rental fees, making investing locally less attractive.
Geoarbitrage is the practice of earning income in a high-cost area, such as major cities around the globe, but living in a lower-cost-of-living location. Earning more while paying less allows anyone to stretch their money. Property investment is just one branch of the larger geoarbitrage concept.
Using Geoarbitrage as a Property Investment Strategy
Although the June 2025 jobs report shows an increase of 147,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 4.1%, the numbers may not show the full impact of rising costs on middle- and low-income families. Real estate investing can help pull people out of generational income gaps or maintain family wealth for future heirs.
Property investors looking for more powerful approaches to increase wealth quickly understand that investing in real estate with low entry and high growth equals significant appreciation. You can gain passive rental income and diversify your holdings nationally or internationally.
A geographically diverse portfolio also protects your investments from market fluctuations. Values may drop in one city but remain steady or grow in another. You can work alongside investment partners to increase long-term financial health, finding the right collaborations in each area and learning strategic moves to gain the most profit.
Current Geoarbitrage Hot Spots
Although the properties that make the best investments change rapidly as housing markets shift, some of the major players you should consider in 2025 include:
1.) Philippines
The country is seeing a lot of infrastructure development, making big cities the ideal location for investment. Some of the pros of buying property in the Philippines include their growing middle class with needs for rentals and high potential returns. Do be aware of foreign ownership restrictions, such as for condo ownership. Aligning with a locally based partner may be the way to go if you want to invest in condominiums. Continue Reading…
U.S. President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4. It involves a staggering US$4.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade and focuses on his tax agenda: the idea being to boost jobs, incentives and business investments south of the border.
The bill extends legislative changes from Trump’s first term and introduces some new provisions that offer both favorable and unfavourable changes for individual taxpayers. Key provisions that could impact Canadians are:
permanent increase to the estate and gift tax exemption;
changes to controlled foreign corporation rules;
a new 1% excise tax on remittance transfers to persons outside the U.S.;
introduction of Trump accounts for savings for qualifying children; and
various changes to income tax rates, deductions and credits.
Thankfully, the originally proposed new Section 899 was removed from the final version of the bill. It would have imposed retaliatory U.S. taxes on residents of countries imposing “unfair foreign taxes,” and could have raised U.S. withholding taxes and income taxes on a variety of types of U.S. source income received by Canadians.
Estate and gift tax exemption
The bill will increase the harmonized estate tax exemption and lifetime gift tax exemption amount for U.S. citizens and resident aliens to US $15 million in 2026, indexed annually to inflation. Unlike past legislation, there is no “sunset clause” where the legislation is scheduled to expire on a certain date and the exemption reverts to the previously legislated amount. The current harmonized exemption for 2025 is just under US$14 million and was supposed to decrease by half in 2026 to slightly over US$7 million.
What are the implications for Canadians? Canadians are generally subject to U.S. estate tax upon death, based on the fair market value of U.S. situs assets; this includes U.S. real estate and shares of U.S. corporations held at death: even U.S. marketable securities held in a Canadian brokerage account. However, Canadian residents have access to the same estate tax exemption as U.S. individuals by virtue of the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. As a result, Canadians are generally not subject to U.S. estate tax on death if their worldwide net worth is below the exemption amount in effect at the time of death. The exemption is effectively at least doubled if assets pass to a surviving U.S. noncitizen spouse. No sunset clause means Canadians will face less uncertainty with respect to U.S. estate tax planning.
Canadians are generally subject to U.S. gift tax based on the fair market value of tangible U.S. situs assets (e.g. U.S. real estate) that they gift during their lifetime. Unlike for estate tax, the treaty does not provide an enhanced gift tax exemption, and annual exemptions under U.S. domestic tax law are limited. For 2025, the annual taxable gift exclusion is US$19,000 per recipient (US$190,000 for gifts to a U.S. noncitizen spouse). Gifts above these annual exclusion amounts are subject to gift tax at graduated rates ranging from 18% to 40%.
Controlled foreign corporation (CFC) rules
A CFC is generally a non-U.S. corporation where more than 50% of the stock (based on aggregate voting power or value) is owned by U.S. shareholders. A U.S. shareholder is a U.S. taxpayer who owns shares representing at least 10% of the votes or value of all stock of the corporation. Such shares can be owned directly or indirectly: even constructively, based on shares owned by certain related parties.
Under the bill, U.S. shareholders of CFCs became subject to tax on global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) in 2018, even if the income was not distributed to the U.S. shareholder. Conceptually, this represents the after-tax active business income of a CFC. The bill renames GILTI as net CFC tested income (NCTI). Prior to the bill, U.S. shareholders of CFCs were only subject to accrual-based taxation of subpart F income, which conceptually represents non-business income of a CFC.
As for favourable and unfavorable changes to the NCTI calculations, effective in 2026, the bill:
repeals the reduction of NCTI for the deemed return on qualified business asset investment,
reduces the Section 250 deduction from 50% of NCTI to 40%,
limits foreign tax credits to 10% of NCTI instead of 20%,
limits expenses allocable to NCTI to the section 250 deduction and directly allocable expenses, and
renders interest expenses and research and experimentation expenses not allocable to foreign-source NCTI.
Other changes to the CFC rules include:
permanent extension of the look-through rule for CFCs, where dividends, interest, rents and royalties received or accrued from another CFC are not taxed under the subpart F rules;
modifying pro rata share rules for subpart F income to apply to U.S. shareholders owning the CFC at any point during the year, rather than at the end of the year;
restoring the limitation on downward attribution of stock ownership; and
introducing Section 951B to apply the NCTI and subpart F rules beyond U.S. shareholders of CFCs, such that they apply to structures including foreign controlled U.S. shareholders and foreign controlled foreign corporations.
Implications for Canadians
What then are the implications for Canadians? The CFC rules apply to Canadian residents who are U.S. persons (i.e. U.S. citizens or Green Card holders) and who directly, indirectly or constructively own shares representing more than 50% of the total votes or value of Canadian private companies and other non-U.S. private companies.
The net effect of the changes to the Section 250 deduction and the foreign tax credit limitation are that the minimum effective foreign corporate tax rate necessary to be paid by a CFC to fully offset U.S. tax on NCTI increases from 13.125% to 14% for a U.S. corporate shareholder of a CFC, which is taxed at 21%. A U.S. individual shareholder can make an election under Section 962 to be taxed as a U.S. corporation for the purposes of the CFC rules. For Canadian CFCs generating NCTI, the Canadian corporate tax may not meet this threshold, particularly if the small business deduction is claimed.
Excise tax on remittance transfers
Effective in 2026, the bill requires that a new 1% excise tax on certain remittance transfers be collected by the remittance transfer provider and paid quarterly to the U.S. Treasury. The tax imposed will apply only to any remittance transfer for which the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or any other similar physical instrument through a remittance transfer provider to an account outside the U.S. Continue Reading…
Posted By 
By Mark Venning, ChangeRangers.com
