Hub Blogs contains fresh contributions written by Financial Independence Hub staff or contributors that have not appeared elsewhere first, or have been modified or customized for the Hub by the original blogger. In contrast, Top Blogs shows links to the best external financial blogs around the world.
The most common Canada Pension Plan question I am asked is: “Is it smart to take my CPP early?”
A quick review of the facts:
The maximum CPP benefit in 2017 at age 65 is $1,092.50 per month, or $13,110 per year.
You can start as early as age 60, but you get 7.2% less for every year before age 65. If you start at age 60, you get 36% less, so the maximum is $8,390 per year.
New rules in 2012 increased the penalty for starting early, but you can start CPP even if you are still working.
The simple breakeven calculation misses many important factors. For example, if John starts receiving $8,390 per year at age 60 and Jane starts receiving $13,110 at age 65, it will take her nine years to catch up. The simple breakeven is age 74. John gets more before age 74 and Jane gets more after.
This implies that if you expect to live past 74 (and most people will), you should delay your CPP. But this is not the full answer.
In today’s real estate market, buying a house is less a traditional rite of passage and more a Herculean feat, especially for Millennials scraping together a down payment in Toronto or Vancouver. To them, the concept of owning a detached dwelling, complete with yard and picket fence, is a faded – and financially unfeasible – memory.
But it was a reality for Canada’s 9.6 million Baby Boomers, many of whom bought in their early 20s, and are still living in the family home. And, given the explosive surge of housing prices over the decades, a fair share of those Boomers have seen their investment grow by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Consider this – according to the Toronto Real Estate Board, the average Toronto home sale price was $75,694 in 1980, compared to September 2016’s average of $755,755 – an 898% increase!
These homeowners face a choice: sell while the market is hot (especially as new mortgage rules designed to cool demand go into effect), or stay put. For many, it’s not an easy decision. They may feel cashing out isn’t worth parting with the beloved family abode. Others may wish to sell, but dread navigating bidding wars and other competitive tactics when buying their next home. For some, “downsizing” may just be a dirty word. So, what options do these Boomers have?
Sell and Lease-back agreements offer an option
To address this conundrum, some seniors have turned to what is traditionally a commercial real estate practice: buy- and sell-back agreements. In these transactions, a home is sold to an investor buyer while the previous owner continues to live in it as a leased tenant. It’s a method growing in popularity, and can seem the best of both worlds, but it certainly comes with its pros and cons. Here’s what Boomers should keep in mind if considering a sell and lease-back agreement:
KIPPERS. Should parents dip into retirement savings to help their kids?
As regular Hub readers may know, I often write financial articles for other (mostly) digital media, usually the Financial Post, MoneySense.ca and Motley Fool Canada. Here’s some of the most recent blogs or columns, with links via the headlines.
Nearing Retirement and still insecure about your finances? Sadly, you’re not alone. (FP, Nov. 17)). This came out of a survey released this week by Mackenzie Investments that suggested many of us actually feel less secure financially about retirement the closer the actual date arrives. One reason is grey divorce and another perhaps related one is dipping into retirement savings to help adult children.
KIPPERS stands for Kids in Parents’ Pockets Eroding Retirement Savings. I also mentioned this in a short segment on this topic on Tuesday with Peter Armstrong on CBC’s On the Money show.
That of course touched on the new book I’ve coauthored with Mike Drak, Victory Lap Retirement. The FP has also been running excerpts of the book the last several Mondays. You can find the first four here. Number 5 is slated for next Monday. By the way, co-author and fellow blogger Mike Drak and I both plan to attend the Canadian Personal Finance Conference 2016 this weekend in Toronto. Hope to see other financial bloggers there!
Earlier this week, Motley Fool Canada ran my take on investing in the post-Trump-victory world: Don’t dump your long-term investment plan over Trump’s victory. And it’s just published my latest quarterly report for Stock Advisor Canada, this one on CRM2 and Best Interest (only subscribers with a user name/password combo can access this).
Over at MoneySense.ca on November 11th was the online version of my most recent column from the November issue of the magazine, which is on annuities: How to win using annuities in retirement.
Hey, no one promised my Victory Lap Retirement would be easy!
The older we get the more important it becomes to look after not only our own financial situation but that of our parents as well. No matter what they’ve saved and tucked away for retirement, those funds may be at risk due to cognitive declines as they age.
The Huffington Post reports that over $36 billion is scammed in senior fraud and financial abuse every year. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these types of elderly scams: law enforcement officials estimate that only about eight per cent of crimes are reported ever year.
CNBC reports that women are also twice as likely as men to become a victim of fraud. They are considered easier targets, especially if they are in their 80s and living alone.
While knowledge goes a long way towards combatting these scams, obviously it’s not going far enough. Here are five ways to help protect your loved ones from scams, frauds, and financial ruin in their naive older years:
1.) Know the scams
The first line of defense is to know more about the common scams. This will help you anticipate and expect certain fraudulent activity, give you an edge heading them off from the first contact.
Why can’t investment management firms share the risk with their clients? Why does it always feel like it is stacked in favour of the investment managers and not the clients?
The answer to those questions is that investment managers CAN share the risk with clients, but they don’t want to. TriDelta Financial launched in 2005 and has charged traditional fees since the beginning. Today, we felt that we had the right investment management and infrastructure in place, and it was time to introduce a new approach.
I know that we wanted to be known as a firm that thinks differently and acts differently. It was time to put our money where our mouth is. As a result we have just launched the TriDelta Partnership Fee. At a high level, if your investment returns are negative, your management fee is credited back to you. If your 12 month return is between 0% and 3%, you will have 0.5% credited back to you. If your 12 month return is over 7%, there will be a performance fee charged to your account.
For the longest time, the investment industry was set up in a way that was tilted in favour of the industry. In fairness, every industry works that way to some degree. What is interesting about the investment industry is that there is a lot of discussion about risk and reward. Of course, this is only in relation to the clients’ portfolio. For the investment firm the only risk has been ‘don’t do too poorly or you will lose clients’.
Sharing gain and pain
If a client is down 5% on their portfolio, the portfolio manager will still make their 1% to 2.5% fee. If a client is up 15%, the portfolio manager will still make their 1% to 2.5% fee. There is no question that all investment managers would prefer a higher return for their clients. Having said that, the clear disconnect is the sharing of gain or pain.
Even worse is the traditional hedge fund industry. The fees of 1% to 2% are considered a weak year for a hedge fund. They decided that if they do ok or well, they should get a ‘performance fee’. If they do poorly, they don’t give back anything. Essentially their fee model is “you do poorly, we do well, you do well, we do great”.
If a manager can deliver something truly exceptional they deserve to be rewarded. The problem is when the truly average are simply charging very high fees.
Our new Partnership Fee truly shares the risk. In fact, if you lose money in a year, your management fees will be returned to you. On the other hand, if you earn 7% or more, you will pay a performance fee.
In addition to being a model that better shares the risk, it also lowers the clients overall volatility, essentially lowering their downside risk.
No other Canadian firm has this kind of fee-sharing model
Posted By 
By Ed Rempel, CPA, CMA, CFP 
Posted By 
