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.

Retired Money on The Wealthy Barber’s retirement at the end of this year

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at the imminent retirement of The Wealthy Barber himself: David Chilton. You can find the full column here:  The Wealthy Barber retires.

Chilton, who will reach the traditional retirement age of 65 late this October, announced in June on his popular YouTube podcast that  he’d be retiring at the end of 2026, a story soon picked up by the Globe & Mail.

My Retired Money column has focused on individual retirements now of Rob Carrick and blogger Mark Seed. Like Chilton, these people are younger than myself: I describe myself as only semi-retired, which is how I view Carrick and Seed. On his two-year-old The Wealthy Barber podcast, Chilton has now twice interviewed Carrick about his Retirement and also about his views on the high costs of housing.

As my MoneySense interview with him clarifies, Chilton views his transition as being closer to the traditional “Full Retirement” than the more gradual semi-retirement that Carrick and I are practicing. My view of Traditional Retirement is leaving a full-time salaried employee relationship and all that entails: commuting to a central place, bosses and meetings, taxes withheld at source, etc. Of course, Chilton has seldom if ever been an employee: he’s been a self-employed author and public speaker almost from the get-go. But as he reveals, his successful speaking career meant doing a lot of business travel and committing his time in advance: something he now wishes to reduce in order to have more personal freedom.

When and if he does pack it in in December, it will end an intense few years where he “aggressively” participated again in the Canadian personal finance content space that he helped pioneer in the first place.

Apart from public speaking, which he will cut back on in 2027, Chilton launched a successful biweekly podcast on YouTube that soon became weekly, promoted through video shorts on Facebook and TikTok. I can see how weekly podcasts could constitute almost a full-time job in itself so it should be no surprise that he will wind that up at the end of the year, despite the fact many around him would like to see it continue in some form.

Rewritten Canadian edition of The Wealthy Barber took longer to do than the original

The other big push he made was a massive two-year extensively rewritten 2025  Canadian edition of the book that made his career when he published it at age 27 in 1989. Chilton says it took him longer to revise (rewrite)  the new edition than to write the original! His focus is on Canadians 45 years old or younger, many of whom are struggling to get a toehold in the housing market (which includes my own daughter). Continue Reading…

The World didn’t break: Franklin Templeton Institute’s mid 2026 Investment Outlook

Image courtesy Franklin Templeton Institute

By Stephen Dover, CFA, Franklin Templeton Institute

(Sponsor Blog)

Executive Summary

• Resilience is the key theme for 2026. Markets and economies have held up well despite geopolitical shocks, policy uncertainty and rising inflation. Global growth remains close to trend, supported by consumer spending, business investment, productivity gains and strong corporate profits.
• We expect investment opportunities to broaden across global equity markets, while corporate credit markets should remain stable. Strong earnings in the United States and emerging markets will support a wider set of opportunities across regions and sectors. • Tighter monetary policy should keep bond yields high and yield curves flat, creating opportunities to earn income. We favor US high-yield credit, select emerging market debt — especially in Latin America — and municipal bonds for US taxpayers.
• Long-term themes remain compelling. Artificial intelligence (AI) is driving demand for energy, infrastructure and broader economic change; rising investment in defense, national security and energy infrastructure create long-term potential return opportunities. Aging populations will require investment in labor-saving technologies, assisted living and health care innovation.
• In private markets and alternatives, secondaries, private credit, real estate and infrastructure offer attractive opportunities.
• Risk to the view. Geopolitical conflict, inflation and a stronger central bank response remain key risks for investors to watch in the second half of 2026.

Introduction

Global Investment Outlook: 2026 and Beyond was built around three cyclical themes — broadening, steepening, and weakening — and three longer-term forces shaping investor portfolios: intelligence, private markets and big government.

Midway through 2026, we think that framework still provides a useful starting point, but the balance of risks has changed. Broadening remains firmly intact, supported by resilient economic growth, strong earnings and improving opportunities across regions and asset classes. But steepening of yield curves has given way to higher-for-longer yields, reflecting higher inflation and tighter monetary policies. Higher yields, however, also offer improved income opportunities in shorter-duration holdings, including US high yield and select emerging markets.

Meanwhile, the US dollar has firmed and is likely to remain rangebound rather than weak over the remainder of 2026. Most importantly, the world did not break. Despite war, tariffs, inflation, tighter policy and geopolitical fragmentation, the global economy and financial markets have held together better than many expected. This update therefore reframes the outlook around a single organizing idea: resilience: both the resilience already evident in economies and markets, and the resilience investors may need to build into portfolios for the remainder of the year.

A more Resilient Outlook (or Resilience in Markets and Portfolios)

The rest of this outlook is organized around one central idea: resilience. The phrase “the world didn’t break” is not meant to suggest that risks have disappeared or that the outlook is free of strain. Rather, it captures the defining surprise of 2026 so far: economies, markets, companies and investors have absorbed a series of shocks without a sustained breakdown in growth, earnings, credit or global trade.
The first sections explain why the global economy and financial markets have held up better than many expected, despite 18 months of geopolitical turbulence, tariffs, war, elections and rising inflation. They also show how resilience has been supported by solid economic growth and strong corporate profits growth across sectors and regions.
From there, we translate resilience into investment implications for equities, fixed income, private markets and alternatives. We also identify key long-term (thematic) opportunities. In all dimensions, we focus on where resilience is apparent and where it can create opportunities for investors in the second half of 2026.

This year, the global economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of numerous challenges, including geopolitical tensions, trade disputes, fiscal pressures, rising inflation and a sharp re-pricing of central bank policy responses.

Globally, wealth effects and favorable financial conditions have also supported consumption and capital expenditures.
Notably, trade has held up better than many feared following the introduction of high US tariffs in 2025. Global commerce has continued to expand, with important contributions from services.

China’s economy has also demonstrated notable resilience in 2026 despite ongoing challenges from a weak property sector, geopolitical tensions and trade frictions with the United States. The diversification of China’s growth drivers has been a key factor. Strong investment in advanced manufacturing, technology, renewable energy, electric vehicles, batteries and AI has helped offset weakness in real estate. These sectors have benefited from both government support as well as from strong domestic and international demand.

China’s exports have also remained more robust than many expected. Chinese firms have adapted to changing trade patterns by expanding into emerging markets, strengthening supply chains and increasing exports of higher-value-added products. As a result, China has maintained a significant role in global manufacturing and trade despite rising protectionist pressures. Continue Reading…

How to Spot employers with a Modern Career Path conducive to Financial Independence (FIRE)

Image courtesy Pexels: Tima Miroshnichenko

By Tessa Dodson

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Not every high-paying job accelerates your journey to Financial Independence (FI). The real difference lies in spotting a company with a modern, FI-friendly career path that combines strong compensation with flexibility, autonomy and genuine growth opportunities. These organizations pay well while creating conditions that allow you to build wealth faster and on your terms.

What a FIRE-Friendly Career Path really means

A Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) career path demands more than raw earning power. In addition to high compensation, you need a strong work-life balance that leaves room for side income and a culture that values autonomy over micromanagement. A balanced lifestyle supports job satisfaction and engagement, keeping work sustainable and fulfilling.

The most FI-friendly companies offer predictable schedules, remote flexibility and trust-based management. These conditions allow you to maintain side projects, develop new skills and preserve the mental energy that strategic financial planning requires. Companies with healthy work hours allow daily recovery time that supports individual well-being and job performance.

Look for Cultures that prioritize Results and Flexibility

The clearest signal of a positive company culture is a focus on results and deliverables. Organisations that measure success by output rather than desk time create environments in which high performers work efficiently and reclaim hours for wealth-building activities.

Look for flexible scheduling policies, outcome-based performance metrics and leadership that respects boundaries. Presenteeism cultures do the opposite, rewarding visible activity over actual productivity and forcing you to trade time for appearance. The cost is measurable in hours you could allocate to wealth-building.

Decode a company’s commitment to Real Growth

How a company approaches development reveals whether it will support or stifle your trajectory. Surveys show that 60 to 70% of HR professionals express dissatisfaction with performance management systems. This signals a majority of rigid, outdated cultures that hinder both growth and flexibility.

Modern employers invest in career development programs that include mentorship, skill-building opportunities and clear advancement paths. These green flags indicate an organization that prioritizes meaningful employee development. During your research, examine whether the employer offers structured learning, cross-functional projects and visible promotion patterns that reward performance.

Seek Radical Transparency in Pay and Promotions

You can’t map a route without coordinates, and compensation transparency provides them. Companies that publish pay bands and promotion criteria let you project your earning potential with precision, which is critical when you’re calculating your FI timeline. Continue Reading…

Before you Decide: How do you Know if you made a Good Financial Decision?

Evidence over emotion. Process over prediction. Better decisions over better guesses.

Image created with ChatGPT by Lowrie Financial

By Steve Lowrie, CFA

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Welcome to Before You Decide, a series about the decisions that shape our financial lives. Each article explores a common financial question through the lens of evidence, behavioural finance, and more than three decades of working with Canadian families. The goal is not to predict the future, but to make better financial decisions with the information available today.

A financial decision can be sensible and still produce a disappointing result. It can also be poorly considered and make money. That is what makes investing so difficult.

Most of us naturally judge our decisions by their outcomes. If an investment rises, we assume the decision was good. If it falls, we assume somebody made a mistake. Behavioural economists have a name for this tendency. They call it outcome bias.

Outcome bias is our tendency to judge the quality of a decision by the result it produced rather than by the quality of the reasoning that led to it. The problem is that luck sits between a decision and its outcome, which means a good result does not always prove that the original decision was sound.

Every important financial decision should therefore be judged twice. The first judgment should take place when the decision is made, based on the quality of the reasoning and the information reasonably available at the time. The second should take place much later, after the outcome is known.

Most investors only perform the second evaluation, and that is where many costly mistakes begin.

Every investor eventually faces two different questions: Did my investment work, and was it a good decision? Those questions may sound similar, but they are not the same.

Why is outcome bias especially relevant today?

A relatively small group of technology and artificial intelligence related companies has recently produced outsized returns. Investors who concentrated their portfolios in some of these companies have been rewarded handsomely, while investors holding broadly diversified global portfolios may be wondering whether diversification has become an expensive form of caution.

We have seen this movie before.

During the technology and telecommunications boom of the late 1990s, a relatively small group of companies dominated both market returns and investor attention. The technologies were real, and many of the companies were genuinely innovative. That did not mean every investment made sense or every price was justified.

The same distinction matters today. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may profoundly change the economy without making every AI-related investment a good decision at current prices.

For a Canadian investor, a concentrated position in AI-related stocks may also involve several overlapping risks. It can amount to a concentrated commitment to one sector, one country, one currency, and often a relatively small number of companies. Those risks may continue to be rewarded for years, but they remain risks nonetheless.

The important question is not simply whether the investment works. It is whether the decision itself was well reasoned, whether the risks were understood, and whether the position made sense within the investor’s broader financial plan.

What are the four possible outcomes of a financial decision?

Every financial decision eventually falls into one of four categories:

A good process combined with a good outcome is what every investor hopes for. You followed a sensible process, understood the risks, and received a favourable result.

A good process followed by a disappointing outcome is more difficult to accept, but it does not necessarily mean the process failed. Good decisions improve the odds, they do not guarantee a particular result.

A poor process followed by a poor outcome is painful, although at least the mistake is visible. Something in the original reasoning can be examined, understood, and improved.

The most dangerous combination is a poor process followed by a good outcome. In that situation, the result appears to validate the decision, confidence grows, and the same choice may be repeated with more conviction and more money behind it. Nothing in the outcome forces the investor to question the original reasoning.

This is outcome bias at its most expensive. A temporary success becomes a lasting lesson for entirely the wrong reason.

Why do investors judge decisions by their outcomes?

Looking at the result is easy. Examining the decision is much harder.

By the time most people make an important financial choice, they have usually considered taxes, investment products, market forecasts, retirement planning, family needs, and competing advice. Mental fatigue encourages shortcuts, and recent performance becomes one of the easiest shortcuts available.

If the investment made money, it must have been a good decision. That conclusion feels natural, but it is not reliable.

I explored this idea in an earlier article about choice overload and decision fatigue. One of the best-known studies in behavioural economics found that shoppers presented with twenty-four varieties of jam were much less likely to make a purchase than shoppers offered only six. More choice attracted more attention, but it produced fewer decisions.

Investors face far more than twenty-four choices. Individual companies, sectors, countries, currencies, investment styles, economic forecasts, and an endless stream of financial commentary compete for our attention every day. When the menu becomes overwhelming, we naturally look for an easier way to judge our decisions, and recent returns become that shortcut.

There is another problem. We examine our losses far more carefully than our successes. When an investment disappoints, we search for mistakes. When it performs exceptionally well, we rarely ask how much of the result may simply have been good fortune.

Success seldom asks us to defend our thinking, which is one reason poor decisions with good outcomes can survive for so long.

How can you tell the difference between skill and luck?

One useful test is to ask whether a skilled participant can deliberately produce a poor result.

In an activity dominated by skill, that is usually possible. A strong chess player can lose a game on purpose because the relationship between skill and outcome is direct enough to control.

Now think about a concentrated stock portfolio over a single year. Could you reliably make it lose money? Probably not. Unexpected news, changing interest rates, investor enthusiasm, government policy, and countless other factors could move the investment in either direction.

That does not mean skill has no place in investing. Skill appears in building a diversified portfolio, managing risk, controlling costs, minimizing taxes, and staying disciplined when markets become emotional. It also appears in knowing what can be controlled and refusing to pretend that everything else can be predicted.

One year’s return therefore tells us far less about skill than most of us would like to believe.

Why is one investment result not enough to judge a decision?

A single investment outcome contains a great deal of noise, while a pattern across many decisions tells us much more.

Researchers at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania studied what happened when a large employer simplified the investment choices in its workplace retirement plan. Participants generally traded less, paid lower investment costs, and held more appropriate portfolios. The researchers estimated that lower costs alone could leave the average participant approximately US$9,400 better off over twenty years.

The participants did not become better investors because they learned to predict markets. They became better investors because the decision-making environment improved.

That distinction matters because better financial outcomes often come from better decision-making processes rather than better predictions.

What does outcome bias look like in real life?

Several years ago, I had a client who decided, against my advice, to sell a diversified investment portfolio and make a concentrated commitment to residential investment real estate in Toronto.

The decision did not happen in isolation. Another advisor was enthusiastically promoting recent real estate returns and presenting the strategy as an opportunity that should not be missed. Like many investment stories built on recent success, it appealed to a powerful fear of missing out. Continue Reading…

Your Best Investment could become a Huge Tax Problem

How American and Canadian investors can reduce capital gains taxes after decades of buying and holding.

AlainGuilot.com via Grok


By Alain Guillot

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Buying a broad-market ETF and holding it for decades is one of the simplest ways to build wealth.

You buy an ETF like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) for U.S. investors or the iShares S&P/TSX 60 Index ETF (XIU) for Canadian investors. You reinvest the dividends, ignore the daily market noise and continue adding money whenever you can.

Twenty years later, the strategy has worked beautifully.

But now you have a new problem: how do you reduce capital gains tax when selling an ETF that has increased enormously in value?

This is the strange punishment for being a successful long-term investor.

You followed the advice to buy and hold. You resisted panic selling. You avoided speculation and unnecessary trading.

Now your portfolio may contain hundreds of thousands of dollars in unrealized gains.

Selling a large amount in one year could create a substantial tax bill. It could also push your income into a higher tax bracket and affect income-tested benefits.

This is not merely a theoretical question for me. I have accumulated VOO and XIU for many years, and I know that selling a large portion at once could create a painful tax expense.

Fortunately, selling everything in one year is not the only option.

First, Understand the Capital Gains Problem

Suppose you invested $200,000 in VOO over many years.

Your investment is now worth $700,000.

Your unrealized capital gain is approximately:

$700,000 market value − $200,000 cost = $500,000 gain

You do not owe capital gains tax simply because VOO increased in value.

The tax is generally triggered when you sell or otherwise dispose of the investment.

That means you have some control over when the gain is realized.

The central question is not:

How can I avoid paying any tax?

A better question is:

How can I realize this gain gradually and pay the lowest reasonable amount of tax over my lifetime?

That change in perspective is important.

Reduce Capital Gains Tax by Avoiding One Giant Sale

The worst approach may be to sell the entire position without first calculating the consequences.

A large sale could concentrate decades of gains into a single tax year.

In both Canada and the United States, capital gains interact with the investor’s other income. Realizing more gains can bump you up to a higher tax braket and thus you will pay a higher tax rate.

A more efficient strategy is often to sell your ETF gradually.

For example, an investor could sell enough each year to cover:

  • Annual living expenses
  • Planned travel
  • Major purchases
  • Charitable donations
  • Portfolio rebalancing

Instead of realizing a $500,000 gain in one year, the investor might spread the gain over 10, 15 or 20 years.

This does not eliminate the tax.

It gives the investor more control over the rate and timing and hi might be taxed in a lower tax bracket.

Strategy 1: Sell more during Low-income Years

Some years are naturally better than others for realizing capital gains.

Good opportunities may arise:

  • After retirement but before pensions begin
  • Before collecting Social Security or government benefits
  • Before mandatory retirement-account withdrawals
  • During a sabbatical or period of reduced employment
  • In a year with large deductions
  • In a year when business income is unusually low

These lower-income years can create room to realize gains at a more favourable rate.

For American investors

The United States applies special federal tax rates to long-term capital gains.

Depending on taxable income, some long-term capital gains may fall into the 0% federal capital gains bracket. Higher-income investors generally face 15% or 20% federal rates, and some may also owe the 3.8% net investment income tax. State taxes may apply as well.

This creates a powerful planning opportunity.

An American investor with unusually low taxable income may sell some VOO, realize a long-term gain and potentially pay no federal capital gains tax on part of that gain.

The investor can then buy VOO again.

The newly purchased shares receive a higher cost basis, reducing a future taxable gain.

For Canadian investors

Canada does not have a special 0% capital gains bracket comparable to the American system.

Instead, only a portion of a capital gain is included in taxable income. The proposed increase in Canada’s capital gains inclusion rate was cancelled, leaving the one-half inclusion system in place.

If a Canadian investor realizes a $20,000 capital gain, $10,000 is generally included in taxable income under the one-half inclusion rate.

The final tax depends on the investor’s federal and provincial marginal tax rates.

A Canadian investor with little other income may therefore realize gains at a relatively modest tax cost. The investor can repurchase their ETF immediately, increasing the adjusted cost base.

This practice is known as capital gain harvesting.

Strategy 2: Harvest Capital Gains every year

Most investors have heard about tax-loss harvesting.

Capital gain harvesting receives far less attention.

Here is how it works:

  1. Estimate your taxable income for the year.
  2. Calculate how much additional capital gain you can realize without entering an undesirable tax bracket.
  3. Sell enough of your ETF to realize that gain.
  4. Repurchase the same ETF inmediately after selling it.
  5. Record the transaction and update the cost basis.

The investor remains invested while gradually increasing the tax cost of the portfolio.

Over many years, this can reduce the unrealized gain that remains in the account. I use this strategy every year. I sell a portion of my investments, realize some capital gains, and buy the same investment inmediately after selling it.

Can you buy the same ETF back immediately?

Yes, when you sold it for a gain.

The American wash-sale rule and the Canadian superficial-loss rule are designed to restrict the recognition of losses when substantially identical securities are quickly repurchased.

They do not generally prevent an investor from repurchasing an investment immediately after realizing a gain.

Capital gain harvesting can therefore be completed without remaining out of the market for 30 days.

The disadvantage is that you are paying some tax earlier than necessary. As a citizen of this wonderful country, I don’t mind paying some taxes on my gains, as long as those taxes are not exessive and feel as a punishment for my success.

Money paid in tax today can no longer remain invested and compound.

The strategy is most attractive when the current tax rate is lower than the rate you reasonably expect to face later.

Strategy 3: Use Capital Losses to Offset your ETF Gains

A diversified portfolio may contain investments that have declined in value.

Selling one of those investments creates a capital loss that may offset part of the gain realized from selling your ETF. This strategy is called Tax-loss harvesting.

For example:

  • Gain from selling VOO: $30,000
  • Loss from selling another investment: $12,000
  • Net capital gain: $18,000

This allows the investor to reduce the VOO position while limiting the immediate tax bill.

United States

American investors can use capital losses against capital gains.

When losses exceed gains, a limited amount may generally be deducted against other income, with unused losses carried forward to later years.

The wash-sale rule must be considered before repurchasing the losing investment.

Canada

Canadian net capital losses can generally be used against taxable capital gains.

Unused net capital losses may normally be carried back as far as three years or carried forward to future years.

Canada’s superficial-loss rule may deny an immediate loss when the investor—or an affiliated person—buys the same or identical property during the restricted period and still owns it 30 days after the sale.

Again, this rule matters for losses, not gains.

Strategy 4: Donate your ETF instead of Cash

Investors who regularly support charities should consider donating appreciated ETF shares directly.

This can be much more tax-efficient than selling your ETF and donating cash.

For American investors

An American investor who donates qualifying appreciated securities held for more than one year may generally avoid recognizing the embedded capital gain.

The investor may also qualify for a charitable deduction, subject to deduction limits, documentation requirements and whether the investor itemizes deductions.

The charity receives the shares and can sell them without creating a capital gains tax bill for the donor.

Instead of donating $10,000 in cash, the investor could transfer $10,000 of his long held ETF containing a large unrealized gain.

The investor keeps the cash and removes some of the portfolio’s oldest, lowest-cost shares.

For Canadian investors

Canada also offers favourable treatment for direct donations of publicly traded securities to registered charities.

Qualifying donations can receive a zero capital-gains inclusion rate, while the donor may also receive a charitable donation tax credit.

The important word is directly.

Selling your ETF first and donating the cash may trigger the capital gain. Transferring the ETF shares directly to the charity may avoid it.

This is one of the few strategies that can genuinely eliminate the tax on part of an appreciated ETF position.

Of course, it only makes financial sense for money that the investor already intends to give to charity.

Strategy 5: Choose which Shares to Sell

This is one area where the American and Canadian systems differ significantly.

American investors may identify specific shares

An American investor may have purchased his favorite ETF at many different prices.

Some shares may have a cost basis of $150, while newer shares may have a basis of $500.

When selling, the investor may be able to instruct the broker to sell specific shares.

Selling the highest-cost shares first produces a smaller taxable gain.

For example:

  • Sale price: $600
  • Old share cost: $150
  • Gain: $450

Compared with:

  • Sale price: $600
  • Newer share cost: $500
  • Gain: $100

Specific-share identification can help American investors control which gains are realized. Proper instructions and records are essential. IRS guidance requires investors to maintain records supporting the basis of their investments.

Canadian investors use an average adjusted cost base

Canadian investors generally cannot select the highest-cost ETF shares and pretend those were the only units sold.

Identical securities are pooled together.

The investor must calculate the average adjusted cost base of all identical ETF units held in non-registered accounts. The gain on a sale is based on that average cost.

This makes accurate recordkeeping especially important.

Broker records may not always correctly combine ETF held across multiple Canadian taxable accounts.

Honestly I prefer the Canadian systeme of average adjusted cost much better. I have been making many different purchases during more than 10 years. It’s a headache to keep record of that small purchase I did of the XIU ETF 10 years ago.

Strategy 6: Keep Accurate Records

Before worrying about how to reduce capital gains tax, make sure the gain has been calculated correctly.

An incorrect cost basis can produce an unnecessarily large tax bill.

The records should include:

  • Every purchase
  • Reinvested distributions
  • Brokerage commissions
  • Stock splits
  • Transfers between brokers
  • Return-of-capital distributions
  • Previous sales
  • Currency conversions, when applicable

Special issue for Canadians holding U.S ETFs in U.S. dollars

U.S. ETF trades in U.S. dollars, but Canadian taxes must generally be calculated in Canadian dollars.

The purchase cost must be translated into Canadian dollars using the appropriate exchange rate at the time of purchase. The sale proceeds must also be translated using the relevant exchange rate at the time of sale.

A gain that appears to be modest in U.S. dollars may be larger in Canadian dollars if the Canadian dollar weakened during the holding period.

The CRA calculates gains by subtracting the adjusted cost base and selling expenses from the proceeds of disposition.

Investors who accumulated a U.S. ETF over 20 years may need to reconstruct many transactions.

That effort can be worthwhile.

Finding forgotten purchases, commissions or reinvested distributions may increase the adjusted cost base and reduce the taxable gain.

Strategy 7: Stop Reinvesting Dividends

An investor who is approaching retirement may not need to continue reinvesting every dividend from their ETF.

Instead, the cash distributions can be used for living expenses.

Continue Reading…