As the yellow highlights show, books about Donald Trump now dominate the New York Times’ non-fiction bestseller lists
As my latest MoneySense Retired Money column recaps in depth, roughly half of the top ten New York Times bestselling non-fiction books are about the Donald Trump presidency. You can access the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline here: How Trump’s policies are affecting my investment choices.
Soon after the 2016 election that brought Trump to power, my financial advisor and I would exchange emails about the latest books: initially biographies and warnings and then in the last year the current glut of books about the actual presidency and the administration.
I’m normally a fan of biographies and love him or hate him, it’s hard to ignore the life of Donald Trump, considering that everything he says or tweets can impact us all. Yes, he may or may not be a threat to the looming Retirement of the baby boom generation of which he is on the leading edge, but his hair-trigger temper and proximity to the nuclear codes gives us something more to fear than merely our financial survival.
Some of the books I mention do give some insights into the implications of this presidency for the global economy and stock markets. Others are mere political diatribes from the left or the right, while still others are more salacious tell-alls. Stormy Daniels, I’m looking at you! (The book is titled Full Disclosure.)
As the column mentions, there are a number of books written by rabid left-wingers who are convinced Trump is a serial liar and a treasonous sellout to Russia president Vladimir Putin, but there are also several written by conservatives and republicans who are more sanguine about it all. In the latter camp I’d include Conrad Black, Ann Coulter and David Frum, plus a few titles from FOX news personalities who are obviously sympathetic with “The President,” as they like to refer to him.
Vanguard’s Daniel Wallick addresses financial advisors at 2018 Vanguard Investment Symposium
While the Vanguard Group is best known for being a pioneer of index mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, it also happens to be one of the world’s largest practitioners of active management. In a presentation Tuesday in Toronto that is taking place across the country, Vanguard executives said the US$5 trillion of money it manages worldwide includes $1.3 trillion in active management.
Vanguard Investment Strategy Group’s Head of Multi-Asset Portfolios, Daniel W. Wallick, presented financial advisors with a framework for constructing portfolios that combine active and passive approaches to investing. The heart of Vanguard’s approach remains broad cap-weighted indexes (or so-called Beta), which is what Vanguard says it means when it uses the term “indexing.”
For many investors, the broad diversification, low costs and tax efficiency of its mainstream index funds and ETFs may suffice.
But, depending on the desired complexity, Vanguard can incorporate “factors” like momentum, value, or liquidity, all factors that have shown a persistency for generating alpha (outperformance) over long periods of time. Beta and Tilts (to for example, overweighting the home country or large market caps) can be combined for the single most important task of Strategic Asset Allocation but overlaying this can be the addition of potential “Alpha” sources like Security Selection and Timing.
“Strategic asset allocation through market-cap-weighted indexes makes for a powerful tool,” Wallick said. And over 10-year periods, asset allocation policy continues to be the biggest source of variations in returns. Asset allocation explains 86% of return variation in 303 Canadian balanced funds tracked by Vanguard, 91.1% of 709 balanced funds in the U.S., 80.5% of 743 balanced funds in the UK and 89.1% of 580 balanced funds in Australia.
Cost trumps talent, patience is crucial
The 3 keys to successful active management = long-term performance
Vanguard sees three keys to successful active management: Cost, Talent and Patience. Wallick described the in-depth process Vanguard uses to select subadvisors for its actively managed funds but hiring talent has to be within strict cost-control parameters.
“Cost is a powerful indicator of future alpha.” But once the talent has been identified and hired, patience is required: Vanguard research over 15 years found that of 2,200 initial funds, 22% survived and outperformed, 24% survived but underperformed, and 54% did not survive. But even among the 22% that survived and performed, 98% of them underperformed in at least four years.
By focusing on both low costs and rigorously overseeing actively managed subadvisors, Vanguard multi manager funds have outperformed their Lipper peer-group averages by various percentages: 78% of them over 1 year, 83% of them over 3 years, 76% of them over 5 years and a whopping 100% over 10 years.
Factor-based funds vs traditional active funds
There is a half-way position between traditional beta-based Style index funds and ETFs and traditional active funds. The former (Beta) provide low cost, low turnover and lower tracking error while traditional active funds provide the opportunity to add alpha, albeit at a higher cost, potentially greater volatility, and less transparency and control. Between these are factor-based funds and ETFs, which provide consistent targeted exposure as well as low cost, but may have higher tracking error and potentially higher turnover. Continue Reading…
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).
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).
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.
My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at how near-retirees can avoid what author Patrick McKeough calls “pre-retirement financial stress syndrome.”
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…
Posted By 
