Vanguard Canada opens Toronto Stock Exchange on Sept. 9, 2026. Photo courtesy TMX Group.
Yesterday, Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. announced the launch of what it says is its first actively managed fixed-income ETF: the Vanguard Global Core-Plus Bond ETF (TSX: VCOR). VCOR began trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Wednesday (Sept.9, 2026), where Vanguard opened trading for the day (as shown on left.)
The new ETF was a major focus of one of two major presentations at Vanguard Canada’s annual Global Insights Forum, held in Toronto at the Royal York Hotel. The other was billed as Megatrends, AI and Market Implications.
In a press release, Vanguard Capital Management CIO and Global Head of Vanguard Fixed Income Group Sara Devereux described VCOR as being part of the firm’s push to make Vanguard’s specialized fixed-income capabilities accessible to more investors. She said it “combines the resources of our global investment platform, a disciplined active process, and broad diversification across fixed-income markets in a single ETF.”
It aims to provide investors and their financial advisors with an “actively managed, single-ticket fixed-income solution at a low management fee of 0.25%.” While the “core” allocation is to investment-grade bonds, it also invests in global rates, credit, and securitized markets, along with a “plus” component that allocates to higher-yielding bonds. Depending on markets, investors can expect allocations of between 20% and 50% for investment-grade credit; 0 to 20% U.S. treasuries/agency; 10 to 35% mortgages; 5 to 20% Emerging Markets debt and 0 to 20% high-yield corporates. The fund seeks to hedge its U.S.-dollar currency exposure back to the Canadian dollar and plans to pay monthly distributions.
Sal D’Angelo, Head of Vanguard Canada, said active ETFs have experienced significant growth in Canada and now account for roughly a third of Canadian ETF assets: “We continue to see strong advisor and investor demand for active global fixed-income solutions that offer broader diversification and access to a wider opportunity set.”
Bonds becoming more important for financial advisors as well as their clients
Dan Shaykevich/Linkedin
At the Forum on Wednesday, the new ETF was the focus of a presentation by Vanguard principal and senior portfolio manager Dan Shaykevich (pictured on right). Fixed income is once again playing a central role in investor portfolios, he said. As Canadian financial advisors prepare for CRM3 (Client Relationship Model Phase 3), it will also play a more important role for advisors too. The fund taps one of the world’s largest Fixed-Income money managers: Vanguard’s global fixed income team manages US4.2 trillion in assets under management, including C$30 billion in Canadian Bonds. It’s supported by more than 20 portfolio managers, 35 traders, 50 credit researchers and at least eight quantitative analysts.
Generally speaking, financial advisors tend to spend more time with clients on equities than on Fixed Income, Shaykevich said, “even though Fixed Income may be 20 to 40%” of advisors’ money under management.
Marketing materials distributed at the event included an insert on Fixed Income Investing reminding investors that bonds can complement the growth potential of equities by providing stability, generating income and supporing diversification.
The insert lists several already existing Canadian Index-based Fixed Income ETFs. They include: Continue Reading…
So just how pricey is the U.S. stock market compared to Canada and international stocks? Robert Shiller’s CAPE ratio is the valuation metric that most financial gurus and experts point to in answering this question. In his Michael James on Money blog republished here last week, Michael J. Wiener provided a useful definition of the CAPE Ratio and how he uses it in his own portfolio. See How I handle high stock prices in my portfolio.
In this blog, we once again polled dozens of financial experts and business owners on both sides of the border via Linked In and Connectively.
We’ve picked roughly a dozen of the 34 responses submitted, presented below, with subheads summarizing the main points made in each submission. Linked to their respective websites are contained in the italicized bios that end each contribution.
Here’s how we posed the question at Connectively:
What is your current view of US and global stock market valuations? Based on Robert Shiller’s CAPE ratio do you regard US and global/Canadian stocks as fairly valued or in danger of being overvalued and vulnerable to a major correction? If so, what actions would you suggest investors take, depending on their age and risk tolerance?
Waiting for CAPE ratios to normalize can also cost you
Based on Shiller’s CAPE ratio, U.S. stock valuations have been quite elevated from their historic average for some time now, but the readers who kept hoping for the CAPE to normalize before buying have basically missed an entire decade of gains, which makes me very skeptical of relying solely on CAPE ratios to time the market.
What I recommend telling the people is that high CAPE implies certain things about low future return on investment over the following 10 years, but nothing can be said about the upcoming months or the upcoming year: that’s the most important point for those building a strategy for the future, and not reacting to the headlines.
Those who still have decades to go before reaching Retirement should probably just keep all the money invested and use dollar cost averaging as the main way to get through the volatility period. In case of those approaching retirement (within 5-10 years), it would be wise to reassess the allocations, have enough cash to survive at least one or two years without investing anything, and maybe increase the allocation in non-US markets, as they currently trade at relatively more attractive multiples (Canada and Europe).
My concern with MintWit readers is not overvaluation itself: but that people would panic-sell during the upcoming market correction due to ignoring their risk tolerance for many years during the growth period. — Scott Brown, Founder, MintWit
Rebalance away from high-multiple growth equities into defensive dividend assets, short-duration bonds, and cash equivalents
Based on the Shiller cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio, I view United States equity valuations as historically elevated and vulnerable to a correction. Conversely, international and Canadian equities trade at more reasonable multiples, offering comparatively defensive valuation buffers.
In this environment, asset allocation must align with individual horizons and risk tolerance. Younger investors with long horizons and high risk tolerance should maintain disciplined dollar-cost averaging into global indexes while tilting toward undervalued non-US markets. Meanwhile, older investors and conservative individuals nearing retirement should actively de-risk portfolios. I recommend rebalancing away from high-multiple growth equities into defensive dividend assets, short-duration bonds, and cash equivalents to preserve accumulated wealth against drawdown risk. — RUTAO XU, Founder & COO, TAOAPEX LTD
A high CAPE is not a signal to panic or exit, it is a signal to temper expectations and rebalance toward your actual targets
The number tells the story better than any opinion could. The Shiller CAPE ratio for the S&P 500 sits at roughly 42 as of August 2026, more than double the long run historical median of 17, and only 18 months in over a century of data have ever read higher, all of them clustered around the year 1999. That is not moderately expensive, that is rare territory, the kind the market has visited only once before.
History does not treat a high CAPE as a countdown clock. It has almost no power to call the next 12 months, and the market spent most of the 1990s looking expensive by this same measure while doubling anyway. What it does predict, fairly consistently, is weaker average returns over the following decade, not a specific crash date.
Globally the picture is not uniform either, since markets like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan currently show some of the richest valuations after a sharp rally, while earnings growth there has kept ordinary P/E multiples looking more reasonable than CAPE alone suggests. The lesson I would offer is this: A high CAPE is not a signal to panic or exit, it is a signal to temper expectations, rebalance toward your actual targets, and make sure your risk exposure matches your time horizon, not the headline. — Swayam Doshi, Founder, Suspire
“The U.S. stock market is undeniably skating on historically thin ice.”
Let’s get the legal record straight first: I am a consumer finance and bankruptcy attorney, not a Wall Street portfolio manager or a licensed investment advisor. My daily work involves helping people survive the financial wreckage of bad decisions, not predicting market tops. But after thirty years watching market cycles pop and drop, I know exactly what overvaluation looks like right before it hits my desk in the form of Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions.
If we look at Robert Shiller’s Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings (CAPE) ratio, the U.S. stock market is undeniably skating on historically thin ice. With the U.S. CAPE ratio consistently hovering well above its long-term historical average of about 17, equities are priced for absolute perfection in a world that is notoriously messy.
While global and Canadian stocks are valued somewhat more reasonably, a severe correction in New York will inevitably drag Toronto, London, and Tokyo down with it. The market is vulnerable, and ignoring this is a luxury only the financially reckless can afford.
The action you should take depends entirely on your financial runway:
For Boomers and those near retirement, “sequence of returns risk” is your mortal enemy. If the market corrects 20% tomorrow and you are forced to sell equities to fund your daily life, your portfolio may never recover. My advice? De-leverage aggressively. Enter retirement completely debt-free. Build a two-year cash or short-term Treasury cushion completely outside the stock market. This ensures that if the market takes a dive, you can live off your cash buffer without being forced to sell your depreciated stocks at clearance-sale prices.
For Gen Z and Millennials, a major market correction is actually a gift. You have the ultimate asset on your side: time. If the market drops, do not panic, do not look at your account balance, and under no circumstances should you sell. Keep your job, protect your emergency fund, and continue dollar-cost averaging into broad, low-cost index funds. You are simply buying world-class assets on sale, and your future self will thank you.
Valuations tell us about the market weather, but your personal debt levels and emergency reserves determine whether your financial house will survive the storm. Do not let market greed outpace your common sense. — Lyle Solomon, Principal Attorney, Oak View Law Group
This is “not a market screaming for a correction. It is a market with very little margin of safety left …”
I’d rather answer this with our own numbers than with a CAPE reading, because CAPE describes an index and says almost nothing about the company someone actually owns.
Across the 881 U.S. and European companies we cover, our valuation model currently rates 67% fairly valued, 24% undervalued and 9% overvalued. Of the 487 names where we publish a fair-value estimate, 31% already trade above it, and the median remaining upside on the rest is 14.5%.
That is not a market screaming for a correction. It is a market with very little margin of safety left, which is a different and less dramatic problem. A high CAPE has preceded flat decades and strong ones; as a timing signal it has been unreliable enough that acting on it has cost more than ignoring it. What it does tell you reliably is that a dollar invested today buys less future earnings than it used to.
On what investors should do about that, split by age and risk tolerance: I can’t answer that responsibly. Those decisions turn on income stability, time horizon, existing holdings and tax position, none of which I can see, and one answer covering everyone would be worth less than no answer.
The discipline that survives the question is narrower and duller: when the median name carries thin upside, the edge comes from refusing to overpay, not from predicting the turn. That is a rule about your own behaviour, and it needs no forecast. — Razvan Luca, Founder, Talval Research
“Nobody, at any age, should bet money they need within five years on today’s prices.”
The honest read: Shiller’s CAPE ratio has been sitting well above its long-term historical average for years, and when valuations stretch that far, forward returns over the next decade tend to disappoint.
That doesn’t guarantee a crash next quarter, but it tells you the margin of safety is thin. US stocks look expensive; Canadian and broader global markets trade at meaningful discounts, which is exactly why diversifying across geographies matters more than conviction in one hot market.
My advice by age and risk tolerance is straightforward. If you’re under 40, stay invested, keep buying through any correction, and let time do the heavy lifting; volatility is your friend when you’re accumulating. If you’re 40 to 55, this is the window to rebalance, trim concentrated winners, and shift some exposure toward undervalued international markets and bonds so a 30 percent drawdown doesn’t wreck your timeline.
If you’re near or in retirement, you can’t afford to ride out a lost decade, so hold two to three years of expenses in cash and short-term instruments and keep the rest diversified. Nobody, at any age, should bet money they need within five years on today’s prices.
I run the free QR code generator at Scale By SEO, and the discipline transfers more than people think. We never promise clients outcomes we can’t measure; that’s why our SEO plans carry a six-month performance guarantee where work continues for free if KPIs aren’t met. I bring that same skepticism to markets: demand evidence, demand accountability, and never confuse a bull market for skill. Before we publish guidance, we research it, and before you act on valuation fears, you should too.
Overvalued markets don’t have to crash; they can simply grind sideways for years, and the investors who win are the ones who sized their risk properly long before headlines turned negative. Position for the world as it is, not as you hope it becomes. — Melissa Basmayor, Marketing Coordinator, Freeqrcode.ai
“CAPE should influence portfolio construction, not dictate market timing.”
My current view is that U.S. equities look expensive, and CAPE is flashing a genuine long term warning, but I would not use it as a signal to call the next crash.
The S&P 500 CAPE is around 41 to 42, far above its long-term average and close to historically extreme levels. That suggests future real returns from U.S. equities could be much lower than investors have become accustomed to. Vanguard also currently describes U.S. equity valuations as effectively at their highest historical percentile.
I would be more comfortable with international and Canadian equities than simply owning more U.S. mega cap technology, although they are not immune to a correction. The Bank of Canada itself says Canadian equity valuations remain elevated and increasingly stretched compared with history. So I would call the US clearly expensive, Canada and many international markets less extreme, but not cheap. Continue Reading…
My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at the imminent retirement of The Wealthy Barber himself: David Chilton. You can find the full column here: The Wealthy Barber retires.
My Retired Money column has focused on individual retirements now of Rob Carrick and blogger Mark Seed. Like Chilton, these people are younger than myself: I describe myself as only semi-retired, which is how I view Carrick and Seed. On his two-year-old The Wealthy Barber podcast, Chilton has now twice interviewed Carrick about his Retirement and also about his views on the high costs of housing.
As my MoneySense interview with him clarifies, Chilton views his transition as being closer to the traditional “Full Retirement” than the more gradual semi-retirement that Carrick and I are practicing. My view of Traditional Retirement is leaving a full-time salaried employee relationship and all that entails: commuting to a central place, bosses and meetings, taxes withheld at source, etc. Of course, Chilton has seldom if ever been an employee: he’s been a self-employed author and public speaker almost from the get-go. But as he reveals, his successful speaking career meant doing a lot of business travel and committing his time in advance: something he now wishes to reduce in order to have more personal freedom.
When and if he does pack it in in December, it will end an intense few years where he “aggressively” participated again in the Canadian personal finance content space that he helped pioneer in the first place.
Apart from public speaking, which he will cut back on in 2027, Chilton launched a successful biweekly podcast on YouTube that soon became weekly, promoted through video shorts on Facebook and TikTok. I can see how weekly podcasts could constitute almost a full-time job in itself so it should be no surprise that he will wind that up at the end of the year, despite the fact many around him would like to see it continue in some form.
Rewritten Canadian edition of The Wealthy Barber took longer to do than the original
The other big push he made was a massive two-year extensively rewritten 2025 Canadian edition of the book that made his career when he published it at age 27 in 1989. Chilton says it took him longer to revise (rewrite) the new edition than to write the original! His focus is on Canadians 45 years old or younger, many of whom are struggling to get a toehold in the housing market (which includes my own daughter). Continue Reading…
Of all the Retirement Rules of Thumb discussed over the decades I’ve spent writing about investing and Retirement, few are more ubiquitous than financial planner William Bengen’s famous 4% Rule, which is his rough estimate of the annual percentage of a portfolio that can safely be withdrawn each year without causing your retirement nest egg to run out of money in old age (adjusted for inflation.) While he has more recently updated it to a slightly higher 4.7%, the “Rule” continues to fascinate and sometimes provoke financial advisors, retirement gurus and media pundits.
Below, we asked various North American advisors, business owners and other experts to weigh in via Linked In and Connectively (formerly Featured.)
Here’s how the question was posed earlier this month on Connectively:
What is your view of William Bengen’s famous 4% Rule, which he seems to have adjusted up to about 4.7%? Are either of these realistic percentage gains, or are they too optimistic or too pessimistic? If you have clients of varying ages (from Gen Z to retired Boomers), did any religiously cleave to this Rule or is it just a starting point around which specific investment objectives were overlaid?
As usual, we have only lightly edited the responses which appear more or less intact, complete with author picture, title and links to their respective web sites. The subheadings are either direct quotes from their input (indicated in quotation marks) or slightly edited variations of quotes.
“The Rule works as a conversation starter, not a finish line.”
Bengen’s rule is a solid anchor, not a contract. I’ve worked with retired clients who treated 4% as gospel and ended up leaving significant money on the table because they were terrified to spend: even when markets had doubled their portfolio.
The honest answer is that the “right” number depends entirely on sequence-of-returns risk, tax drag, and spending flexibility. A Boomer pulling from a traditional IRA faces a very different math than a Gen Z client with decades of Roth compounding ahead. Same percentage, completely different outcome.
Where I’ve seen the rule actually help is as a conversation starter, not a finish line. One business owner client near Crown Point was fixated on hitting a magic retirement number. When we layered in tax-efficient withdrawal sequencing — mixing taxable, traditional, and Roth accounts — their sustainable spending rate shifted meaningfully without touching the portfolio risk profile at all.
The Bengen rule also assumes relatively static spending, which almost no one has. Clients in their early retirement years typically spend more on travel and experiences, then spending drops mid-retirement, then healthcare costs spike late. A single fixed percentage ignores that entire curve. A living financial plan accounts for it. — Daniel Delaney, Owner, Seek & Find Financial
A useful mental anchor but don’t treat it like gospel
The 4% Rule is a useful mental anchor, but treating it as gospel is like using a map from 1994 to navigate a city that’s been rebuilt three times since. Bengen’s original research was groundbreaking for its era. It gave people a simple number to hold on to. But the world it modeled — steady bond yields, predictable inflation corridors, a relatively stable geopolitical backdrop — that world doesn’t fully exist anymore.
Here’s how I think about it. The 4% Rule assumes you’re a passive participant in your own financial life. You retire, you draw down, you hope the math holds for 30 years. That framing made sense when most people had one career, one pension, and one plan. Today, the most financially resilient people I know, from Gen Z creators to semi-retired Boomers, don’t think in terms of a single withdrawal rate. They think in terms of optionality.
I’ll give you a real example. A former VC CFO I spoke with last year told me he stopped thinking about the 4% Rule entirely when he realized his “retirement” would include three or four income-generating projects running simultaneously, most of them enabled by AI tools that didn’t exist five years ago. His withdrawal rate fluctuates between 2% and 6% depending on what’s producing cash flow in a given quarter. The rule became irrelevant because his income never fully turned off.
Bengen adjusting to 4.7% reflects updated data, but it still operates inside the old paradigm: accumulate, then deplete. For younger generations, the line between accumulation and distribution is blurring completely. A 28-year-old building a side business with AI isn’t thinking about safe withdrawal rates. They’re thinking about how to make their capital work alongside earned income indefinitely.
So is 4% too optimistic or pessimistic? Neither. It’s just incomplete. The better question isn’t “what percentage can I safely withdraw?” It’s “how do I build a life where I’m never fully dependent on withdrawals alone?” That reframe changes everything. — Runbo Li, Cofounder and CEO, Magic Hour AI
GenZ and Millennials ignore it completely
I view the 4% Rule as more of an idea to explore, not something carved in stone, and the 4.7% update is essentially Bengen coming clean about what many of us already say: One number will not make it through intact after meeting real-world markets, tax brackets, and spending needs. It is those Boomers taking 4% as their gospel and panic selling in a tough year or, worse, never adjusting for a tough sequence of returns early on during retirement where I have seen people make their biggest mistakes. On the other hand, my Gen Z and Millennial audience members ignore it completely because they are decades away, and they have much better control over income right now through negotiation or side work such as surveys and focus groups than by worrying about a withdrawal rate that is years away from being used. In my opinion, use 4% as a quick and dirty check and build yourself a withdrawal range based on your own individual circumstances. — Scott Brown, Founder, MintWit
“Real life rarely matches the assumptions behind any single retirement rule.”
From my perspective, the 4% Rule has always been more useful as a planning framework than a guarantee. Whether someone uses the original 4% guideline or William Bengen’s later research suggesting that a higher starting withdrawal rate may have been sustainable under certain historical conditions, I don’t think either figure should be treated as universally correct.
I’ve worked with business owners and professionals at different stages of their careers, and one thing stands out: real life rarely matches the assumptions behind any single retirement rule. Markets change, spending isn’t static, people retire at different ages, and unexpected expenses inevitably arise.
That’s why I encourage people to use the rule as a starting point rather than a destination.
For younger professionals, including many entrepreneurs, the conversation is usually less about withdrawal rates and more about building assets, increasing income, and creating flexibility. For those nearing retirement, the focus shifts toward sustainable income, but I still don’t recommend relying on one fixed percentage alone.
I’ve also noticed that financially disciplined people tend to adjust their withdrawals based on market conditions instead of following the exact same rate every year. They’re willing to spend a little less after a difficult market and a little more when their portfolio performs well.
As a founder, I appreciate simple financial frameworks because they help people begin planning, but they shouldn’t replace individualized decision-making.
If I were advising someone, I’d say the 4% Rule — or even 4.7% — is a reasonable benchmark, not a promise. The more important questions are: How long does your money need to last? How much flexibility do you have in your spending? What’s your investment mix, and how comfortable are you with market volatility?
In my experience, successful retirement planning isn’t about finding the perfect withdrawal percentage. It’s about creating a strategy that can adapt as your life and the markets inevitably change. — Max Shak, Founder/CEO, nerD AI
The Rule is “a stress-test starting point, not a spending command.”
The first clarification is that 4% or 4.7% is a withdrawal rate, not an expected investment gain. Under the original approach, a retiree withdraws that percentage of the starting portfolio in year one and then adjusts the dollar amount for inflation.
For a $1 million portfolio, the difference between 4% and 4.7% is $7,000 in the first year: $40,000 versus $47,000. That difference may look modest, but it becomes important when retirement begins before a major market decline or period of high inflation.
I treat either figure as a stress-test starting point, not a spending command. The appropriate plan depends on retirement length, taxes, fees, portfolio composition, pension or Social Security income, essential spending and the retiree’s willingness to reduce withdrawals after weak markets. A person retiring in their forties should not automatically use the same assumption as someone retiring at seventy with reliable pension income.
I do not have U.S. retirement-advisory clients, but my finance approach is to model several scenarios rather than rely religiously on one percentage. The safer plan is usually one that protects essential spending, keeps a separate reserve and allows discretionary withdrawals to adjust when markets or inflation behave badly. — Cem Oner, Founder / Finance & Public Data Publisher, hesapcebimde.com
If you are underweight equities or neglect rebalancing, “a fixed 4 per cent can be too optimistic; with disciplined equity exposure and regular rebalancing it is more attainable.”
I view William Bengen’s 4% rule as a useful planning baseline but not a fixed rule for every retiree. It provides a clear starting point for estimating sustainable withdrawals, but its realism depends on factors I see often in client portfolios, such as asset allocation, rebalancing habits, and savings adequacy. When investors are underweight equities or neglect rebalancing, a fixed 4 percent can be too optimistic; with disciplined equity exposure and regular rebalancing it is more attainable. Very few clients strictly adhere to a single percentage in my experience. Instead, the rule is typically used as an initial benchmark onto which specific investment objectives and cash flow needs are overlaid. I therefore advise starting with the 4 percent figure, conducting a full portfolio audit, and automating contributions and rebalancing to align the plan with individual goals. — Amir Husen, Content Writer, SEO Specialist & Associate, ICS Legal
Financial Advice should not be based on a single Rate of Return
Looking back at my over two decades of experience working with financial companies to boost their Internet presence, one thing I’ve learned is that guidelines like the 4% rule are so well-known because they’re easy to remember. The problem here is that most people confuse headlines or popular guidelines as a reasonable solution for their retirement. Whether they’re talking about 4%, or William Bengen’s idea around 4.7%, in some circumstances, I would consider those as opening lines of discussion.
Highly trusted financial institutions do not base their advice on a single rate of return. Financial institutions provide interpretation of the assumptions made regarding rate of return and customize advice according to retirement age, required income, taxes, health care expenses and other sources of income.
From my perspective, good financial advice doesn’t make any promises about guarantees. This allows one to realize the reasons why a certain rule may be wrong and to start a conversation with an expert in this field. A notable percentage may help clarify a complex idea, but good retirement strategies are always based on flexibility. — Derek Iwasiuk, Co-owner, Director of marketing, Searchtides
It all depends on Sequence of Returns, which is out of your control
The 4% Rule works fine as a starting number. That’s why most people accept it as a default. But you shouldn’t consider it a guarantee. Just guidance, not prescriptive one. The rule works only within the confines of the assumptions used to create it. Bengen wasn’t using an average of the stock and bond market returns. He used one specific period in the market and one very particular mix of assets.
The 4.7% rule is similar, only it uses slightly different numbers. When looking to live off your investments for the rest of your life, can you really go wrong using either number? It depends on the sequence of returns, which is completely out of your control. Continue Reading…
My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published and is available via this hyperlinked headline: AI for Conservative Investors.
The subject was how conservative investors and retirees can participate at least partly in the AI investing boom, allaying some of their FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) while also remaining sufficiently diversified that any popping of the alleged AI Bubble would not severely damage their long-term Retirement prospects.
Readers of Findependence Hub had the chance to view the webinar because we three times provided advance notice that this site was conducting the webinar in association with The Successful Investor/TSI Network. TSI founder and CIO Patrick McKeough contributes guest blogs to this site roughly twice a month.
The MoneySense column constitutes my initial reporting on the webinar. As I note there. from where I sit — well into RRIF age — AI is a theme young investors have little choice but to embrace, at least in part. Growth is the preferred strategy for those just starting their investing careers, particularly for TFSAs. And if any transformative innovation seems poised for major growth in the long term, it seems to be A.I.
But for those in the Retirement Risk Zone, there is potential danger in jumping whole hog onto the AI bandwagon, even if it should not be ignored as a key growth play for the “satellite” portion of a portfolio, as opposed to the “core” of a well-diversified global portfolio.
A more cautious approach to investing in AI
The Successful Investor’s approach to investors partaking in the AI revolution is suitably cautious. Enthusiastic investors may see new ideas sparking market excitement and huge growth potential, the webinar warned, but they may also overlook the risks of unexpectedly longer-than-expected profitability or the fact that new innovations may disrupt existing businesses. As for the pure AI stocks and start-ups, some certainly promise major upsides and some will succeed but history shows that “most will struggle or fail … as they always have in venture capital and junior stocks.” Continue Reading…
Posted By 
