Victory Lap

Once you achieve Financial Independence, you may choose to leave salaried employment but with decades of vibrant life ahead, it’s too soon to do nothing. The new stage of life between traditional employment and Full Retirement we call Victory Lap, or Victory Lap Retirement (also the title of a new book to be published in August 2016. You can pre-order now at VictoryLapRetirement.com). You may choose to start a business, go back to school or launch an Encore Act or Legacy Career. Perhaps you become a free agent, consultant, freelance writer or to change careers and re-enter the corporate world or government.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Posted By |
Image by Pixabay

By John De Goey, CFP, CIM

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Over the past number of months, I have become increasingly interested in a series of ideas put forward by a handful of economists who were both iconoclastic and influential in their time.  It seems their ideas are experiencing a bit of a renaissance. Some of these economists achieved moderate fame, and some had more credibility than others.

Here I’d like to explore the related theories and ideas of Joseph Schumpeter, Nikolai Kondratieff, Simon Kuznets and Hyman Minsky.

Let’s begin with portraits of the four thinkers

Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) — His big idea was ‘creative destruction,’ the notion that capitalism advances through waves of entrepreneurial innovation that destroy old industries and create new ones, driving productivity growth though with upheaval for incumbents.

Nikolai Kondratiev (1892 – 1938) — Held the view that ‘long waves’ (lasting roughly 50–60 years) explain how economies experience ‘super cycles’ that are tied to major technological revolutions (e.g., steam/rail, electricity/chemicals, information) that reshape investment, growth, and prices. The current wave has been dominated by the internet and artificial intelligence and likely started in the mid to late1980s.

Simon Kuznets (1901 – 1985) — Wrote about structural change and long-run growth. He felt that the economy reorganizes itself across sectors and shifts in income distribution accompany growth. He was among the first to write about income inequality and the structural changes he identified matter for things like productivity and living standards.

Hyman Minsky (1919 – 1996) — Is best known for his financial instability hypothesis: stability breeds complacency; credit cycles move through hedge, speculative, and ponzi financing, causing systemic fragility and crises when optimism turns to debt distress, leading to a “Minsky Moment” when it all comes crashing down. Over-extended credit leading to a collapse in prices was a major factor in the dot.com crisis and the global financial crisis of 2007-09.

What these ideas have in common is intuitively obvious from an ‘eye test’ perspective. Still, the concepts are difficult to explain reliably using econometric data. In many instances, these men were mocked because their theories didn’t fit neatly into how the world was perceived, but all four have left a mark on how we interpret information in the 21st century.

The reason I’m running into their ideas more and more these days is that there’s as strong consensus among their adherents that their related theories are relevant again based on recent developments. They seem to be converging and so may ultimately amplify one another if the waves coincide.

The unifying theme is that growth is not just a smooth upward trend, but rather something that is driven by transformative forces that reorganize both production and finance. Innovation and technology have long been accepted as central engines of change, but their effects spill over into organizational forms, institutions, and credit. Furthermore, it seems long-run development is layered, meaning that broad technological shifts (i.e., long waves) interact with shorter sectoral shifts. The overlay of these disparate waves can amplify or dampen economic outcomes.

Bringing together four influential strands in economic thought, we can attempt to sketch a cohesive framework that explains long-run growth, structural change, and financial instability as different facets of a single dynamic process: innovations drive new opportunities, which reshape the economy’s structure and distribution, while finance amplifies and sometimes destabilizes that process.

The four thinkers illuminate different angles of a single dynamic: innovation drives growth and structural transformation; the financial system amplifies this process but can sow instability; long-run waves reflect broad technological revolutions, while distributional changes concern who benefits.

A cohesive Dynamic Innovation–Structure–Finance framework captures how technology, sectoral change, credit, and policy interact across time to produce growth, inequality, and crises. It suggests a prescription of balanced policies that nurture innovation while guarding against financial fragility. The economy evolves through the interaction of four interdependent engines: Technology/Innovation, Structural Change, Finance, and Policy/Institutions.

Let’s look at the mechanisms and phases in more detail

Long Kondratiev Wave:

Each wave is anchored by a broad technological revolution (historical examples include steam/rail, electricity/chemicals, information/communication:  the latest is internet / AI). Each wave drives sustained investment, productivity gains, and demographic/urban changes.

Mid-cycle Kuznets Structural Shifts: Continue Reading…

Vanguard is cautious on behalf of Retirees

Posted By |
Image coutesy MoneySense/Freepik

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published. Click on hypertext for full column: Why Vanguard’s ETF aimed at retirees is currently cautious in its asset allocation.

The column originated from a mid-January Vanguard Canada briefing with two of its economists held for the Canadian media in downtown Toronto. You can find at least two news stories on the web filed shortly after the event by Bloomberg News and Investment Executive.

While the general thrust of the press conference was on the opportunities for Canada in A.I. and materials stocks (chiefly gold and silver miners), the Q&A allowed me to probe Vanguard about something that has intrigued me for the past year: As a semi-retired investor who recently started a RRIF, I regard one particular Vanguard ETF as a big part of my core portfolio, along with low-volatility ETFs from BMO ETFs, and income-oriented ETFs from vendors you may see in blogs  on this site.

After the Liberation Day craziness of April 2025, I became more defensive, though my Asset Allocation is not (yet) to the point the Rule of Thumb that your age should equal your Fixed Income: that would suggest in my case I should have 28% in Equities and 72% Fixed Income.

One core fund for retirees is VRIF, the Vanguard Retirement Income Fund, which is one of several funds often mentioned by the Retirement Club (see this introductory blog on the Club co-founded by blogger Dale Roberts of  . ) It trades on the TSX under the ticker symbol VRIF.

The screenshot below from Vanguard’s brochure shows VRIF’s holdings of Vanguard ETFs and performance to the end of 2025.

 

I first started a position in VRIF soon after its launch in 2020.  At the time, its Asset Allocation seemed to be around 50% stocks to 50% bonds, spread around all geographies in the normal proportions.

However, as 2025 proceeded I noticed that VRIF had begun steadily to cut back on its equity exposure and raise its Fixed Income, almost to the point of 30/70.  I’ve also noticed various YouTube videos from Vanguard’s U.S. parent that suggest similar caution: a cutting back from the big US growth mega cap stocks and a move more to other developed and emerging economies around the world.

If you read the VRIF launch news release, it emphasizes the objective is to provide income-seeking investors with a “targeted 4% annual payout.” That happens to be in line with William Bengen’s famous 4% Rule, which is “fine with me,” as I quipped at the media briefing.

In response to my query, Vanguard Canada spokesman Matthew Gierasimczuk said VRIF’s asset allocation varies over time” but the goal is the targeted 4% Return: Vanguard sees a “more optimistic outlook on bonds and Fixed Income: better to lock in without risk of equities.”

Kevin Khang, Vanguard

Then Kevin Khang, Vanguard’s head of global economic research  [pictured left] reiterated that the ETF seeks to fund a “certain level of payout: bonds in our view can achieve the desired certain level of payout” and “the US stock market is pretty expensive for obvious reasons: the US is reasonably valued and bonds are very normally valued; which is a new thing.” From 2009 to  2022, since the Great Financial Crisis, bonds in general didn’t pay much, which upset people in 2022-223 when rates went up but now they are reasonably valued: relative to inflation they are paying a decent Real Return.”

Here’s the sector weightings for VRIF at the end of 2025:

Vanguard rates its volatility as “low.” Notice the weightings of certain sectors often overweighted in pure low-volatility ETFs (like those from BMO and Harvest): Health Care, Consumer Staples and Utilities. As you can see above, the weightings in more volatile sectors like Technology and Financials is much higher.

For the MoneySense column I was subsequently referred to Head of Product for Vanguard Canada, Aime Bwakira. The rationale for VRIF’s high fixed-income exposure appears to be one of not taking more risk than you need to take, a stance which is apt for the retirees VRIF caters to. Bwakira confirmed Vanguard “has been leaning more heavily toward bonds — particularly higher quality and corporate bonds — than in past years while staying within its equity guardrails” of a minimum 30% and maximum 60%.  This positioning “reflects the current environment and the results of our capital markets projections.”

3 reasons Vanguard is boosting Fixed Income in VRIF

The rationale is three-fold:

First is higher interest rates. Bonds — especially corporate bonds — are paying more than they did for many years post the 20008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC): “This makes them well‑suited to support VRIF’s 4% income target without taking on unnecessary stock-market risk. VRIF includes corporate bond exposure specifically to help enhance yield for investors.

Second, given today’s market outlook, the fund’s model has shifted toward fixed income because bonds “currently provide a more favourable balance of expected return and risk.”  I was also referred to  Vanguard’s current VCMM 10-year projections (VCMM = Vanguard Capital Markets Model) for various asset classes. It’s also published in the US for US investors Vanguard Capital Markets Model® forecasts | Vanguard.

Dated January 22, 2026, the document states that “Even at current stretched valuations, rising earnings growth could provide momentum for stocks in the near term. However, our conviction is growing stronger that long-term prospects for U.S. equities are subdued. Our model anticipates annualized returns of about 3.9% to 5.9% over the next 10 years.” It adds that “Our muted long-term return projection for U.S. equities is entirely consistent with our more bullish prospects for an AI-led U.S. economic boom.”

The third and most important point raised by Bwakira is that “a higher allocation to bonds helps VRIF deliver reliable cash flows, which is central to its mandate. Because income needs don’t disappear during market volatility, VRIF prioritizes stability and sustainability in its payout. VRIF aims to maintain the value of an investor’s initial investment over the long term. Tilting toward bonds during periods of elevated equity market uncertainty helps protect investors from large drawdowns while still supporting the payout.”

VRIF is one popular source of Retiree income at the new Retirement Club

This common-sense caution has not gone unnoticed by Canadian retirees seeking stable income. VRIF is a well-regarded ETF members of the Retirement Club, founded by Cutthecrapinvesting blogger Dale Roberts and partner Brent Schmidt. One of the club’s monthly Zoom presentations in the autumn of 2025 highlighted VRIF among several other income sources for retirees. Roberts has long championed VRIF, as in this blog on his site originally written after the launch, and subsequently updated: most recently in this version. Continue Reading…

Most Common Hiccups that New Businesses face

Posted By |

Plenty of businesses fail in year one. Learn the most common hiccups new business owners face, from cash flow to planning, and how to avoid them.

By Dan Coconate

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Image by Rido, Adobe Stock

Starting a new venture generates excitement and anxiety in equal measure. You have a vision, but turning that vision into reality requires more than just passion.

Statistics reveal that many small businesses fail within their first year. This often happens because founders overlook fundamental operational requirements.

By identifying potential pitfalls early, you position your company for longevity and stability.

 

Overlooking a Solid Business Plan

Many entrepreneurs view business plans as outdated or unnecessary paperwork. This is a critical error. A business plan serves as your roadmap. It details your goals, strategies, financial forecasts, and market analysis. When you skip this step, you make decisions based on guesswork rather than data.

Furthermore, investors and lenders require this document before they provide funding. Without a clear plan, you cannot measure progress or identify when you veer off track. Take the time to document your strategy before you spend a dime.

Mismanaging Financial Resources

Cash flow problems sink viable businesses every day. You might have high revenue on paper, but if the cash isn’t in the bank when bills come due, operations stall. New owners often underestimate startup costs or mix personal and business finances.

To avoid this, you must create a strict budget. Monitor your expenses weekly. Establish a buffer for unexpected costs. Financial discipline in the early stages determines whether you survive the lean months that almost every startup encounters.

Failing to Define a Niche

Trying to appeal to everyone usually results in appealing to no one. You must identify exactly who needs your product or service. A scattergun approach wastes valuable marketing budget and dilutes your brand message.

For instance, if you start your sewer jetting business, you focus your marketing efforts specifically on property managers, plumbers requiring sub-contractors, and local councils rather than generic advertising to the broad public. Understanding your specific market allows you to spend advertising dollars efficiently and speak directly to the pain points of your ideal customer.

Refusing to Delegate Tasks

Founder’s syndrome traps many smart people. You might believe no one can do the job as well as you can. While you may possess high standards, attempting to handle every task leads to burnout. You cannot effectively act as the CEO, the janitor, the accountant, and the salesperson simultaneously.

Successful leaders identify their weaknesses and hire support. Delegation allows you to focus on growth rather than administrative maintenance. Consider outsourcing these common functions to free up your time:

  • Payroll and accounting services
  • Social media content creation and community management
  • Website maintenance and IT support
  • Legal compliance and contract review

Resisting Market Changes

The marketplace evolves constantly. Customer preferences shift, technology advances, and competitors introduce new solutions. Businesses that refuse to pivot lose relevance quickly. You must listen to customer feedback and observe industry trends with an open mind.

Rigidity leads to obsolescence, while flexibility leads to growth. If data shows that a product isn’t working, or a service needs adjustment, you must act fast.

Build Resilience for Success

Every business faces obstacles during its infancy. The most successful entrepreneurs anticipate these challenges and prepare for them. By securing your finances, planning strategically, and building a support team, you navigate these early hiccups effectively. Treat every setback as a learning opportunity, and you will build a company that stands the test of time.

Dan Coconate is a local Chicagoland freelance writer who has been in the industry since graduating from college in 2019. He currently lives in the Chicagoland area where he is pursuing his multiple interests in journalism.

Preparing your Portfolio for Retirement? Income is SO Yesterday

Posted By |

By Billy and Akaisha Kaderli, RetireEarlyLifestyle.com

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Billy and Akaisha at Caleta Beach, Mexico

We’ve written about this for years in our books.

When preparing for retirement, designing your portfolio for income is over-rated. Oh, it feels good bragging about how much money you make each year, but then you also quiver about the taxes you owe each April.

What’s the point?

To make it – then give it back – makes no sense.

With today’s interest rates, people are being forced to look elsewhere.

Our approach 3 decades ago

When we retired 36 years ago, having annual income was not on our minds. Knowing we had decades of life-sans-job ahead of us, we wanted to grow our nest egg to outpace inflation and our spending habits as they changed too. Therefore, we invested fully in the S&P 500 Index.

On the day we left the working world the S&P 500 closed at 312.49.

We will get back to this in a minute.

500 solid, well-managed companies

The S&P Index are 500 of the best-managed companies in the United States.

Our financial plan was based on the idea that these solid companies would survive calamities of all sorts and their values would be expressed in higher future stock prices outpacing inflation. After all, these companies are not going to sell their products at losses. Instead they would raise their prices as needed to cover the expenses of both rising resources and wages, thereby producing profits for their shareholders.

How long has Coca-Cola been around? Well over 100 years and the company went public in 1919 when a bottle of Coke cost five cents.

Inflation cannot take credit for all of their stock price growth as they created markets globally and expanded their product line.

This is just one example of the creativity involved in building the American Dream. The people running Coke had a vision and have executed it through the years. Yes, “New Coke” was a flop as well as others, but the point is that they didn’t stop trying to grow because of a setback.

Coca-Cola is just one illustration of thousands of companies adapting to current trends and expanding with a forward vision. Continue Reading…

Why your Grandparents’ Investment Strategy may no longer be enough

Posted By |
Image by Unsplash

By Devin Partida

Special to Financial Independence Hub

The investment playbook has changed. It may have performed well for the last several generations, but finding financial stability is a different game in the 2020s. The best practices established by your grandparents have become obsolete. Therefore, you should look to new financial horizons to establish financial freedom in a way that is more accommodating to modern dynamism and volatility.

How traditional Investment Strategies fail to adapt

The contemporary investing landscape is different from that of the last several decades. The techniques of previous generations are less viable. While you may ask your parents or grandparents for investing advice, their strategies could minimize your wealth generation and financial opportunities.

Most of your grandparents likely maintained a portfolio that followed a simple framework:  the 60/40 rule. Place 60% of your money in reliable stocks or index funds and the rest in high-interest-rate bonds. Today, this is far from the portfolio diversity modern experts want to see. These kinds of portfolios are only growing 2.2% a year now, so professionals are recommending even more varied investments, including precious metals, collectibles, venture capital and private equity, to name a few.

Past portfolios worked alongside robust pensions that were once common in the workforce. It is less common now for this type of security to supplement a 60/40 portfolio. These factors, combined with lengthening lifespans, mean nest eggs are ill-equipped to make it through potential market downturns and the entire length of your retirement. If you are living in retirement longer than previous generations, then the money has to work for you longer.

Why Economic Shifts demand a different Investment Approach

Interest rates have collapsed, and bond prices are mostly trending less than in previous decades, making them unsuitable for outpacing inflation. This reality is why people are seeking even more places to put their money.

The democratization of investments, such as the rise of cryptocurrencies, has also made market understanding more complex. Pair this with exchange-traded funds (ETFs), real estate investment trusts, non-fungible tokens and more, and you have the most enigmatic market history has ever seen: long gone are the days of just relying on blue-chip stocks.

Additionally, retirement savings have become more of a personal responsibility as the number of pension plans has decreased by millions since 1975. An IRA or a 401(k) is the more common route nowadays, as they are cheaper and less risky for employers. Now, many could view their investments as a replacement for what could have been a pension.

Ultimately, the set-it-and-forget-it model of your grandparents’ investment strategies is missing the wealth-generating opportunities you need to prepare for retirement in this climate. The rising cost of living, the financial influence of technological advancements and geopolitical tensions are only a few other factors that could shape how you divert your money.

Ways to Adapt to increase Risk Tolerance and Wealth

You can diversify while still embracing security. It will allow you to prepare for the unexpected. For example, your grandparents’ generation likely faced fewer natural disasters, as climate stressors have increased in recent years. In 2024, natural disasters caused at least $368 billion in economic damage worldwide, affecting people and their financial well-being.

These are the best ways to consider external factors outside of your control while taking advantage of how the investor market looks today.

Craft your Investment Goals

Many choose to work with a financial adviser, but you should start planning by identifying short-, medium- and long-term goals. These could involve buying a house, starting a business or building for retirement. Each goal has a time frame, allowing you to make informed decisions about your risk. At this stage, evaluating the stability of your job, debt and household expenses is critical. Continue Reading…