All posts by Jonathan Chevreau

My FP Down to Business podcast on the Crash of 2020 and how to deal with it

Posted By |

The Financial Post has just published a podcast about the market impact of coronavirus, via a conversation between me and FP transportation reporter Emily Jackson, host of the weekly podcast Down to Business. You can find the full 19-minute interview by clicking the highlighted text: How Coronavirus market chaos compares to 2008. 

While I have been posting almost daily commentaries on the crisis right here on the Hub from various experts, thus far I have refrained from comment myself, but the podcast pretty much covers my views. One thing that came out of the interview was that there may be big generational differences in how this market crash is viewed.

For baby boomers who are retired or thought they were close to it (read “me!”) this crash has been a traumatic experience, especially for those who didn’t pay much attention to risk management and appropriate asset allocation. At our age (I’ll be 67 in a few weeks), we presumably have finished accumulating our nest egg and our time horizon to recoup any losses is shrunken: young people are in quite a different situation: they have less money to lose and have several decades to get it back.

Worried retirees should be at least 50% in fixed income by now

Fortunately, we have been quite conservative: my own advisor has long counselled being somewhere between 50 and 60% fixed income and — having been reminded of the downside risk of the market yet again — I have been selling a few winners where we can find them with the goal of getting our total cash and fixed income to about two thirds of our total portfolio.

We took some profits as the 11-year bull market raged, although of course hardly enough to dodge the storm entirely.  As with most investors, Covid-19 was a “Black swan” that seemingly came out of the blue. I guess I was lulled into believing that the US president would keep the markets aloft at least until he was re-elected, by leaning on the Federal Reserve chairman and various other levers he possesses. Fooled us again, Donald!

Some readers and at least one advisor I correspond with probably think 67% fixed income is too conservative, but that’s right in line with the conservative rule of thumb that fixed income should equal your age. That leaves about a third in (mostly) non-registered stocks, although we also hold US dividend paying stocks in our RRSPs, along with fixed income (bond ETFs and laddered strips of GICs). Our selling inside our RRSP has been more along the lines of selling half of big winners and “playing with the house’s money,” a phrase our daughter has happily adopted too.

Emily Jackson, host of Down to Business; BusinessFinancialPost.com

On the other hand, as I remarked to Emily, it’s much less of a disaster for younger people: in fact, I’d argue it’s almost good news, financially speaking (not of course from a health perspective). Finally, younger investors have an opportunity to buy stocks and equity ETFs at reasonable prices, and at the same time as interest rates fall, they are getting a break — or soon will — on variable-rate mortgages.

Certainly if I were 20 years younger I’d be itching to buy at current prices, although even then I’d keep some powder dry just in case the bargains become even more tempting.

How bad could this get? In yesterday’s FP, David Rosenberg frankly raised the spectre of a depression and total losses in the Canadian market of 50% or more. See It’s time for investors to start saying the D-word — this economic damage could be double 2008.

Too late to ‘revaluate’ your risk tolerance?

A blog the Hub republished on the weekend from Michael James on Money suggested that now is not the time to reassess your risk tolerance. See It’s too late to ‘revaluate’ your risk tolerance. That blog generated a fair bit of discussion on Twitter. Again, this could fall along generational lines. If you believe markets are only half way down and you want some cash to deploy to scoop up bargains at the bottom, then you can sell down some non-registered winners and losers, ideally in equal proportions to make it net tax neutral. Massive up days like Tuesday are an opportunity to do that. Continue Reading…

Retired Money: The trouble with playing with FIRE

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at the trouble with playing with FIRE. Click on the highlighted headline to retrieve the full column: Is Early Retirement a realistic goal for most people?

FIRE is of course an acronym for Financial Independence Retire Early. It turns out that Canadian financial bloggers are a tad more cynical about the term than their American counterparts, some of whom make a very good living evangelizing FIRE through blogs, books and public speaking.

The Hub has periodically republished some of these FIRE critiques from regular contributors Mark Seed, Michael James, Dale Roberts, Robb Engen and a few others, including one prominent American blogger, Fritz Gilbert (of Retirement Manifesto).

No one objects to the FI part of the acronym: Financial Independence. We’re just not so enthusiastic about the RE part: Retire Early. For many FIRE evangelists, “Retire” is hardly an accurate description of what they are doing. If by Retire, they mean the classic full-stop retirement that involves endless rounds of golf and daytime television, then practically no successful FIRE blogger is actually doing this in their 30s, even if through frugal saving and shrewd investing they have generated enough dividend income to actually do nothing if they so chose.

What the FIRE crowd really is doing is shifting from salaried employment or wage slavery to self-employment and entrepreneurship. Most of them launch a FIRE blog that accepts advertising, and publish or self-publish books meant to generate revenue, and/or launch speaking careers with paid gigs that tell everyone else how they “retired” so early in life.

How about FIE or FIWOOT or Findependence?

Some of us don’t consider such a lifestyle to be truly retired in the classic sense of the word. Continue Reading…

A million reasons young people should contribute $6,000 to their TFSAs the moment they turn 18

Posted By |

My latest Financial Post column looks at how Millennials and other young people can create a million-dollar retirement fund if they start contributing $6,000 to a Tax-free Savings Account (TFSA) the moment they turn 18. You can find the full column online by clicking on the highlighted text: The Road to the million-dollar TFSA is getting shorter for Millennials. It’s also in the print edition of Wed., Feb. 26th, under the headline “The road to saving $1 m for millennials: TFSA likely the best way to start.” (page FP3).

I’ve always been enthusiastic about the TFSA since it was first possible to contribute money to them in January 2009. My wife and I, as well as our daughter till recently have contributed the maximum to them from the get-go, always early in January to maximize the power of tax-free compounding. All three accounts have done very well. (I won’t reveal the balances but they’re consistent with heavy equity exposure through most of the bull market we appear to have been in at least until this week.)

Suffice it to say that our daughter’s TFSA has done better than ours, despite her not having contributed in the last two years because she has been working out of the country. She insisted in owning most of the FANG stocks (including Apple) and even Tesla, which was underwater until very recently but began to make headway in recent months.

It’s purely by chance that having been born in 1991, our daughter became 18 just in time for her first TFSA contribution, which naturally we funded in the early years. We viewed this as maximizing our wealth and minimizing taxes for the family as a whole.

And that’s exactly the thrust of the FP article, which cites several experts who will be familiar to most readers of the Hub: Aaron Hector of Doherty & Bryant Financial Strategies, Matthew Ardrey of TriDelta Financial, Adrian Mastracci of Lycos Asset Management. Mastracci created the chart below that appeared in the FP story:

There was also valuable input from BMO Private Wealth’s Sylvain Brisebois, who created a spreadsheet to estimate the impact of missing contributions in early years. If you can’t start until 25, a six per cent return generates $1,049,000 by age 65, $600,000 less than the $1.63 million earned with the extra $42,000 you’d have saved and compounded starting at 18. Another scenario is contributing for seven years between 18 and 25, then using it to buy a home. Assuming no more contributions the next 10 years and resuming $6,000 contributions at 36, by age 65 you’d have $829,000. Brisebois also created a scenario where you only contribute $3,000 a year, which generates $815,000.

As we experienced in our family, a long time horizon favours Millennials, who can afford to take a little more risk in return for stronger returns. That in turn translates into either a bigger nest egg 40 to 45 years from now, or it means you can get to the magic $1 million mark 5 or even 10 years ahead of schedule. Of course, if you’re even younger than a Millennial (technically they must be age 24 in 2020 to qualify) so much the better, and all these principles apply equally to Generations X, Y or Z.

For that matter, as I have often written, TFSAs are equally attractive for those already in Retirement. Unlike RRSPs, you can keep contributing to your TFSA long into old age: I had a friend who proudly told me she was still contributing after she turned 100!

Mind you, after the Coronavirus fears of the past week, who can really say? Not so good for aging Baby Boomers and retirees but of course if you’re a Millennial any young person with multi-decade time horizons, it should be viewed as good news when stocks go on sale.

 

 

RBC leads Big 5 banks in Retirement planning, Dalbar study finds

Posted By |
The big 5 banks ranked by DALBAR in order of client preparation for Retirement

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) topped the list of big Canadian banks in serving the Retirement needs of Canadians, according to a new DALBAR study released this month. A first of its kind, the study — released on Feb. 5th and covered in the trade press — sought to assess how the Big 5 handled Retirement conversations through its retail branch network. It also rounded out the study with research on smaller banks, credit unions and regional financial institutions: 1,800 Canadians were polled, all with ten years or less until Retirement. 57% were males and and 74% had portfolios in excess of $100,000.

 

5 major alternative Financial Institutions ranked by client preparation for Retirement.

In this press release, DALBAR said “Retirement is an ever-growing concern for many Canadians, with increasing life expectancies, diminishing pensions, and a rising cost of living: the retirement nest egg has become more important than ever.”

Well, you’ll get no argument from me on that score, now that I’ve personally started to draw down on my own little nest egg. (Our family uses both RBC and TD, both for banking and through their online brokerage divisions. That’s typical, by the way: 29% of those polled had retirement money with more than one institution.)

Percentages of clients polled at major banks and other financial institutions

“RBC representatives used their experience and expertise to ease client fears, imparted useful knowledge about closing retirement shortfalls, and made the client feel it was a financial coaching experience instead of a transactional one,” DALBAR said. To me, the significant phrase their was “financial coaching experience instead of a transactional one.” Clients rated their experience with RBC to be one of “financial coaching” 70% of the time, higher than the 53% rate at the other big banks.

Only 50% of bank reps introduced the benefits of proper financial planning, although 82% of clients were promised a financial plan. Only 44% of the meeting featured itineraries. And while CIBC, RBC and National Bank led in offering followup meetings with 90% or more of clients, Scotiabank (number 2 overall) led in talking about digital retirement tools at 80% of meetings.

DALBAR vice president Anita Lo said many Canadians realize that government safety nets alone (i.e. CPP/OAS/GIS) are not enough to support healthy retirement lifestyles, so “this is the time for the banks to shine in helping Canadians plan for retirement.”

No surprise that when it comes to Retirement (and I’d argue just about everything else), Canadians prefer speaking to a real person for financial advice instead of relying on online information: DALBAR cited a CIBC study that found that’s the case for 70% of us.

Wide variance in placement of CFPs and PFPs before clients

Staffing with personnel with key financial designations is obviously a plus. DALBAR found RBC places staff with either the CFP or PFP designation 83% of the time for client conversations about Retirement, compared to just 40 across financial institutions generally. Continue Reading…

Questrade Poll find many investors still oblivious on how fund fees hurt performance

Posted By |
MoneySense.ca: Photo created by pressfoto – www.freepik.com

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a press release slated for release next week from discount brokerage Questrade Inc. You can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline: Canadians are still paying too much in investment fees.

According to the RRSP study commissioned by the independent discount brokerage (a copy of which was provided to me in advance) finds 87% of Canadians don’t know or underestimate the difference that a 2% or 1% fee has on their portfolios over the long run (of 20+ years).

While the majority think Canadian mutual fund management expense ratios (MERs) are too high compared to the rest of the world, given the increased regulatory climate of greater disclosure, I was surprised by the finding that almost half of mutual fund investors still don’t even know what they’re paying for mutual funds.

There are also disturbing generational differences. According to Questrade, 28% of Canadians agree that paying more for an investment will give them better returns. That’s in contrast to the operative principle behind the surge in indexing and ETFs that “Costs matter,” and the lower the costs the better. Yet Millennials seem ripe for the picking here: 42% of investors aged 18 to 34 believe paying more for investments will give them better returns (vs  just 18% of the 55+ cohort).

Or as the teaser under the main headline at MoneySense puts it: Millennials and Gen Z missed the memo on how much management fees erode returns over the long term, according to a new Questrade survey.

Questrade estimates a 1% decrease in fees over a typical 30-year investing horizon could result in 27 to 29% more money in one’s retirement kitty, assuming a 7 to 8% return in a tax-sheltered account and a portfolio between $1,000 and $50,000. But try telling that to the group of investors Questrade polled: 87% either didn’t know or underestimated the difference a 2% fee makes versus a 1% fee’s impact on the value of their portfolio over the long run. 41% think a 1% cut in fees adds 20% or less to the long-run value of their portfolios. And only 43% of RRSP investors believe cutting fees from 2 to 1% will have a big impact on returns over 30 years.

Questrade notes that on average we still are paying 2% or more in fees, which “are some of the highest fees in the world.” It cites this research from Morningstar.com, which looks at fees in 26 countries worldwide.

47% of mutual fund investors still don’t know what fees they’re paying

I find it shocking that a whopping 47% who invest in mutual funds still don’t know what fees they’re paying. A majority (52%) think Canadian mutual fund fees are too high but a third don’t know if a 2% fee for a mutual fund should be considered high. Continue Reading…