All posts by Jonathan Chevreau

Retired Money: How to beat the banks at their own game

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense column reviews the new book by ex banker Larry Bates, titled Beat the Bank. As the headline suggests, it’s all about how to beat the banks at their own game, which ironically can mean owning the big bank stocks themselves! The full column can be retrieved by clicking on the highlighted text here:  Tips for DIY investors on beating the Big Five banks.

The formal launch date for the book is this Thursday: September 13, 2018. I first met Bates over lunch in March as his manuscript was nearing completion, where he expounded on what he called the “two Bay Streets.” Old Bay Street and its secrets are the focus of chapters 4 and 5, and New Bay Street is chapter 6.

Old Bay Street is not the investor’s friend

Most experienced investors will have encountered Old Bay Street at some point. This is the traditional investment industry: the commission-based mutual fund and brokerage industry, insurance company reps, investment “specialists” in the bank branches and various salespeople who call themselves “advisors.”

New Bay Street = Discount Brokerage, ETFs & fee-for-service planners

The New Bay Street includes providers of low-cost index funds or Exchange-traded Funds (ETFs) or online robo-advisers that automate the purchase and rebalancing of ETFs along with setting asset allocation.

At 62, Bates is well into his own “Victory Lap,” leaving employment for self-employment. Actually, his New Bay Street model isn’t all that new, as it describes models similar to what I myself described back in 1998 in my own financial book, Findependence Day. My version consists of buying ETFs at a discount brokerage and using a fee-for-service financial planner. The same year, similar principles were also described in Stop Buying Mutual Funds!, by Mark Heinzl, now a Globe & Mail stock market columnist.

Dinosaur banks have the lowest T-REX scores

Bates has fashioned something he calls T-REX scores  This is an acronym for Total Return Efficiency Index Score. A T-REX score of 100% would be paying absolutely no fees at all, no matter how long your time horizon.

Mutual funds with 2% annual fees would have T-REX scores of 54% over 20 years and true fees of 46%, but the longer you hold, the worse the performance; thus, over 40 years the T-REX would be 41% and the true fee 59%. Fees of 3% inflict even more damage. This is the basis for his statement that long-term customers of Old Bay Street lose half their money to fees. You can find more at his website at www.larrybates.ca.

The pure DIY model of buying individual stocks or bonds at a discount broker yields the highest scores: a T-REX of 96 to 99%. (Remember, the higher the better, with 100 being perfect).

Continue Reading…

Retired Money: Should you worry a large TFSA will trigger a CRA audit?

Posted By |
MoneySense/Shutterstock

Should you worry that a large TFSA will trigger a CRA audit? My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a legal debate between the Canada Revenue Agency and taxpayers who have succeeded too well in growing their Tax-free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) with shrewd investing. You can access the full story by clicking on the highlighted headline: Why the CRA is targeting some TFSAs in court. 

If you’ve contributed regularly to the TFSA since it began in January 2009 you now have $57,500 of cumulative contribution room. With decent growth, it’s easily possible to have accumulated $100,000 in a TFSA by now: in fact, the CRA told me for the article that of the 13.5 million TFSA accounts that existed by 2016, 18,000 have balances of at least $100,000 (a number that includes myself and my own Millennial daughter, thanks to a few good FANG stock picks).

A Globe & Mail article last week profiled several ordinary Canadian investors and financial bloggers who have TFSAs of at least $100,000. See How to Grow your TFSA: Tips from Financial Bloggers to Fatten Your Account.

My MoneySense article quotes an unnamed investor who is being audited because his TFSA has grown to $500,000, owing to  timely growth of some private technology companies. He doesn’t think $100,000 is enough to trigger an audit but suggests $250,000 may be. In other words, the CRA may be fine with TFSA doubles but five-baggers will invite scrutiny and ten-baggers most certainly so.

But the real controversy involves TFSAs that are run as de facto securities trading businesses. The Globe highlighted this latest crackdown in an earlier article in July but was merely the latest of a series of TFSA audit scares that have been surfacing virtually since after the first year the program existed.

Shrewd stock-picking is not “aggressive tax planning” 

Some of those earlier audits involved TFSAs that soared because they held private companies but my guess is that, as in my own case or that of my daughter, the vast majority of TFSA holders are neither day traders nor experts in investing in private companies. We only buy exchange-traded funds or blue-chip North American stocks, including the FANG tech giants (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google).

True, depending on when you bought them, it’s quite possible TFSA investors may have experienced 5- or even 10-baggers on stocks like Facebook, Amazon or Netflix. I doubt many investors would make concentrated bets on just one or two of these but if they did, then a $250,000 TFSA would not be inconceivable. That might invite scrutiny from the CRA but I strongly doubt they’d have a case for running a securities business.

Based on the CRA numbers cited in the MoneySense column, Tim Clarke estimates the CRA would have to audit 9,000 TFSAs in order to “recover” the amount of tax specified in the July G&M column that sparked this latest round of TFSA audit worries.

“I love how they say successful traders are conducting ‘aggressive tax planning’ “, Clarke told me in an email, “The purpose of TFSAs was stated in the budget that announced them to be a vehicle to allow taxpayers to save for retirement and other legitimate purposes. How can being successful at that be aggressive tax planning?”

 

TFSAs remain a critical tax-shelter for retirees

If you’re a retiree or close to it, presumably your TFSA will be invested fairly cautiously, just like an RRSP or RRIF, which means some combination of blue-chip dividend-paying stocks and fixed income. The TFSA is too valuable a tax shelter to get scared by audits of a handful of aggressive investors. Keep in mind that unlike RRSPs, you can still keep adding to your TFSAs well after age 71, to the current tune of $5,500 a year, and perhaps with future inflation adjustments.

There’s no reason that a retiree shouldn’t keep adding to their TFSAs until their late 90s or even beyond: not necessarily with “new” money but from post-tax money liberated from non-registered investments or after tax is paid on forced annual RRIF withdrawals.

 

 

Retired Money: How to avoid pre-retirement financial stress syndrome

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at how near-retirees can avoid what author Patrick McKeough calls “pre-retirement financial stress syndrome.”

That’s a syndrome he identifies in his new book, Pat McKeough’s Successful Investor Toolkit. McKeough is a regular contributor here at the Hub and you can find the full MoneySense review of his book by clicking on the highlighted text: Investing tips for retired Canadians.

The book is a distillation of McKeough’s long investment career, honed first at The Investment Reporter, and in recent years his own firm, The Successful Investor, and its stable of newsletters. As a member of his Inner Circle and TSI Network, I have long been a proponent of his common-sense approach to investing. He is remarkably consistent in his insistence that investors of any age rely mostly on a conservative portfolio of quality dividend-paying stocks spread among the five major economic sectors (Manufacturing & Industry, Resources, Finance, Utilities and Consumer). And, he never fails to remind you, steer clear of stocks in the crosshairs of what he calls the “broker/media limelight.”

His newsletters are focused variously on Canadian stocks and U.S. and international stocks, and in recent years he has increased his coverage of ETFs.

A cure for PRFSS: Work longer or refine your spending

So what is“pre-retirement financial stress syndrome,” or PRFSS? PRFSS strikes when mature investors realize they may not have enough savings to generate the stream of retirement income they’d been counting on. While some investors are searching for one last desperate “hail Mary” gamble, McKeough advises the opposite: aiming for safer investments.

And while it may not be what some may want to hear, he suggests those suffering from PRFSS adopt one or both of these two solutions: work longer and/or refine your spending. He challenges them to “turn frugality into a game.”

With his focus on stocks, it’s no surprise that McKeough is not keen on bonds, even for retirees and those on the cusp of it. Continue Reading…

Poll finds most wonder how friends or neighbours can afford lifestyles

Posted By |

It’s one thing keeping up with the Joneses but a poll from Edward Jones finds that 61% of Canadians wonder how their friends or neighbours can even afford their lifestyles. This is especially so among Millennials (aged 18 to 34), 71% of whom felt this way, while 66% of Gen Xers aged 35 to 44 were curious to understand how those around them finance their purchases.

Seems to me this gives new meaning to the phrase The Millionaire Next Door, a popular book on how frugality is a key trait in building wealth. Typically, the kind of millionaires in the book live modestly and their net worth may not be obvious merely observing the size of a given home and/or what’s parked in the driveway. Conversely, it can also be that an apparent “millionaire next door” has no net worth at all but is fuelling their conspicuous consumption merely with debt.

Either way, it appears many of us are influenced by what our associates are spending their money on.

Sadly, the Edward Jones poll found that the pernicious practice of looking at the purchases of others may influence consumers to buy beyond their own budgets: a whopping 93% said they experienced buyer’s remorse after such purchases and admit to regrettable spending habits. Among Millennials, 96% experienced buyer’s remorse but so did 90% of baby boomers.

Among the types of purchases most likely to generate regret were tangible purchases, which were cited as a source of regret in 83% of cases. Clothing or shoes were regretted by 35% polled, jewelry by 28% and electronics by 26%. Millennials regretted spending on clothing/shoes in 47% of cases, while boomers were more likely to regret spending on jewelry (34% of them did).

While Millennials famously are supposed to value experiences over stuff, across the Canadian population, 83% regretted making impulse tangible purchases, versus 71% for experiential purchases.

Build spontaneous spending into your budget

So what lessons does this survey furnish for those seeking ultimate financial independence? “If you know you enjoy spending money spontaneously, build this into your monthly budget,” said Roger Ramchatesingh, Director, Solutions Consulting at Edward Jones in a press release issued on Monday, “When it is unplanned for, it can add up over time and hurt other long-term goals such as retirement or the purchase of a home.” Continue Reading…

Motley Fool: If you like FANG stocks, you should love Chinese BAT stocks in correction mode

Posted By |

My latest Motley Fool Canada blog was published Tuesday. It takes a look at the Chinese equivalents of America’s FANG (or FAANG) technology stocks. The FANGs have been surging ever higher this year although most came down Monday with Netflix as the latter’s subscriber growth disappointed somewhat. You can find the full MotleyFool blog by clicking on the highlighted (and self-explanatory) headline: If you like FANG stocks near their highs, you should love BAT stocks while China’s in a bear market.

Credited to Mad Money broadcaster Jim Cramer and RealMoney.com analyst Bob Lang early in 2013. FANG famously stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google although some have added Apple to make it FAANG.

BAT stands for Baidu, Alibaba and Ten Cent. The influential weekly British newspaper, The Economist, recently had an interesting article comparing the BATs to the FANGs. (See FAANGs v BATs in the July 7, 2018 edition). The magazine described a titanic battle between these American and Chinese tech giants, which it said have a combined stock market capitalization of more than US$4 trillion.

Since the Motley Fool demands that writers disclose all their holdings mentioned in articles, I don’t mind stating here that I’ve long owned the FANGs as well as Apple, if only because my Millennial daughter twigged me to some of the names. I also bought Ali Baba on its IPO in 2014 but only bought into Baidu and Ten Cent this summer, in part as I researched this article (or was it the other way round?). As a rough analogy, I think of Ten Cent as China’s equivalent of Facebook, with a gaming kicker. Baidu is more or less a Google-like Chinese search play and Ali Baba has been characterized as being a type of Chinese hybrid of Amazon, Facebook and Google.

I would have to characterize these investments as speculations, so as the old saying goes, don’t invest more than you’re prepared to lose.