Debt & Frugality

As Didi says in the novel (Findependence Day), “There’s no point climbing the Tower of Wealth when you’re still mired in the basement of debt.” If you owe credit-card debt still charging an usurous 20% per annum, forget about building wealth: focus on eliminating that debt. And once done, focus on paying off your mortgage. As Theo says in the novel, “The foundation of financial independence is a paid-for house.”

The Critical Element of Bonds  

Posted By |
Image from Shutterstock, courtesy Outcome

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzlin’ you
Is the nature of my game

  • Sympathy for the Devil, by The Rolling Stones

 

 

 

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Historically, bonds have offered investors two main benefits. Firstly, their yields provided a reasonable, if unspectacular return. Secondly, they offered diversification value, muting overall portfolio losses during bear markets.

In my view, it is the second attribute that is the most important. In relative terms, bonds are not particularly useful for providing investors with strong long-term returns (that’s equities’ job!). So, by process of elimination it follows that the primary function of bonds is their diversification value.

When comparing equity strategies, one should compare their relative returns, volatilities, Sharpe ratios, drawdown characteristics, etc. However, given bonds’ primary purpose of providing diversification, an extra layer of diligence is required when evaluating bond strategies. Specifically, you should analyze their differing correlations to equities, and by extension their varying abilities to offset stock price declines during challenging environments.

There is no Free Lunch Part I

Economist and Nobel Prize recipient Milton Friedman famously stated, “There is no such thing as a free lunch,” which means that every choice has a cost, even if it’s not immediately obvious.

Traditional bond mandates each have their individual advantages and pitfalls with respect to returns, risks, and diversification properties. In terms of the tradeoff between risk and return, history strongly suggests that there is no clear free lunch to be had.

Risk vs. Return by Bond Type: 2000 – 2024

 

As the above table illustrates, there is a clear relationship between the returns of the various segments of the bond market and the maximum losses that they have sustained over the past 25 years. If you want extra return, you can reasonably expect to suffer larger losses in bad times. That being said, large losses in bond holdings are generally not what investors want or expect.

There is no Free Lunch Part II

Not only is there no free lunch with respect to the tradeoff between risk and return, but there is also none when it comes to diversification value. Higher returns are not only associated with larger losses but are also associated with higher correlations to equities.

Return vs. Correlation to Stocks by Bond Type: 2000 – 2024

Bonds that offer higher returns have a greater tendency to move in tandem with stocks, thereby providing less ability to mitigate stock losses during bear markets. In contrast, lower-return bonds possess greater diversification properties and thus are better equipped to offset stock-price declines during times of equity market turmoil.

None of the above: Sometimes there’s Nowhere to Hide

Notwithstanding the fact that higher-return bonds have on average suffered more severe losses and offered less diversification value than their lower return counterparts, these relationships have exhibited significant variations across different bear markets. Continue Reading…

Book Review: The Wealthy Barber (2025 fully revised edition)

Posted By |

Special to Financial Independence Hub

 

Many aspects of personal finance have changed in the 36 years since The Wealthy Barber classic book first appeared.

To update it, author David Chilton had to not only do an extensive rewrite, but he had to come up with new advice.  He did a great job of making The Wealthy Barber 2025 update fully relevant to Canadians today.

Chilton takes important topics that are usually dry and hard to understand and brings them alive in an entertaining story format. But this book is much more than just a fun take on personal finances; the advice is excellent.  Chilton gives insights you won’t find elsewhere.  The book is like a course on personal finance requiring no previous knowledge, and even discussions of insurance and wills are funny and compelling enough to be page-turners.

The bulk of the book is a set of financial lessons mainly aimed at Canadians between 20 and 45.  The early chapters introduce the characters, make it clear that the lessons require no prior expertise, and that the lessons really will help with seemingly impossible problems like the high cost of housing.  These early chapters do a good job of convincing readers that they really can improve their financial lives.

Between the jokes and identifying with the characters, readers will find themselves enjoying lessons that would normally be boring.  Chilton uses dialogue to emphasize important points, to voice objections to his advice, and to clarify common misunderstandings.

I often find things I disagree with in books, but that really isn’t the case here.  Chilton had to make some tough decisions about which details to include and which to leave out, and most readers could come up with a topic or nuance they wish was covered.  One topic I think could have made the cut is that some investors think they don’t pay investment fees.  I’ve heard people recommend their advisor because he doesn’t charge any fees.  All advisors get paid out of their clients’ money in one way or another, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

I won’t try to summarize the lessons because the result wouldn’t be useful.  Without Chilton’s explanations of the whys behind his advice, too much would be lost.  Instead, I’ll comment on several areas.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Chilton didn’t really discuss AI except to make a good joke that I won’t spoil.  He was asked the question “What happens if AI takes away most of our jobs and the economic system collapses?”  There are some bad things AI could do such as cyber war, monitoring all of our actions, preventing us from doing “unapproved” things, and limiting our movements.  However, I don’t see negatives in AI doing jobs for us.  If AI together with machines will eventually grow our food, make clothes and other goods, and build houses, why will we need money?  Until we get to that point, we’ll still need money and people to do jobs.

Pay yourself first

One of the book’s characters says “Save first, spend the rest, good.  Spend first, save the rest, bad.”  This core piece of advice survived from the original book, but there are some caveats now.  For example, some diligent savers “offset the growing value of their assets on their net-worth statements with matching, or near matching, debts on the liability side.  From excessive car loans to large credit-card balances to massive lines of credit, many [live] beyond their means to a scary level.”

Watching other people, I’m convinced that it’s important to set aside savings from your pay first and then spend later, but my wife and I are weirdos who never needed to do this.  Our natural tendency to spend little usually left plenty of savings at the end of each pay period.  We’re the type who had to learn to spend more as our income and savings grew.

Index investing

I thought the passage explaining why we should just buy all stocks instead of trying to pick the best ones was well done.  It included “No, we can’t just buy the winners.  No, there is no way for us to consistently pick them ahead of time.  No, the people we hire to do it for us aren’t any good at it either.”

Like most experts who are trying to help their audiences, Chilton is a fan of all-in-one asset allocation ETFs.  “Not only does the fund buy the individual stocks for you, it does so across the world,” and “These funds also do all the rebalancing for you.”  These funds handle everything so there is no need to monitor your progress.  In fact, to avoid making emotional decisions, you’re best to “pay almost no attention” to the daily or weekly changes in the value of your savings.

“One of the most important factors, if not the most important, as you choose what type of investments to make, is the associated time frame.  How long are you able to set the money aside?  How long until you need it?”  Stocks in the form of all-in-one ETFs are for the long term.  For something like a house down payment, “unless I thought my purchase was at least five to seven years away,” I wouldn’t invest it aggressively.

Starting early

I’m a fan of advising people to start the saving habit early.  Chilton gives an example to motivate this advice where saving $1000 per month for 8 years is more valuable than saving $1000 per month for the subsequent 24 years.  Continue Reading…

CMHC: Why it’s Time to rip off the Bandaid

Posted By |
By Kevin Fettig
Special to Financial Independence Hub

 

CMHC [Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation] is unique among federal entities. As a Crown Corporation, it carries out securitization and insurance operations under a corporate mandate while also receiving public funding for federal policy initiatives. Once funding is allocated, CMHC reports to its board rather than the minister responsible on a day-to-day basis.

This differs from the typical departmental reporting model, which has created issues for the PMO, particularly as housing became such a hot-button political issue. Over time, the Department of Infrastructure and Communities evolved into Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, and CMHC’s reporting shifted to the department rather than directly to the minister.

As budgetary spending responsibilities have gradually been peeled away from CMHC, the structure has become more complex and confusing. Policy responsibilities now overlap between the department and CMHC, and some areas – such as addressing homelessness – are jointly managed.

Reducing Chronic Homelessness

A 2022 Auditor General of Canada report found federal efforts to reduce chronic homelessness have been ineffective because departments lack clear accountability for the National Housing Strategy’s target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50 per cent. The report also found that federal departments and CMHC did not know whether their initiatives were effectively improving housing outcomes. In addition, it highlighted a lack of coordination among various federal housing and homelessness programs.

The fragmentation of roles has worsened with the creation of Build Canada Homes, a $13 billion plan to build social housing, starting with development on public land. The initiative is designed to speed up delivery, strengthen Canadian supply chains, and ensure homes are affordable and sustainable over the long term. It focuses on a Canadian, factory-built, net-zero housing platform capable of delivering quickly in major cities, rural communities, and the North.

In the past, CMHC was responsible for social housing programs, typically under Section 95 of the National Housing Act, providing funding for non-profit and co-operative housing. More recently, new initiatives have included the Federal Community Housing Initiative, the Co-operative Housing Development Program, and preservation funding to support asset management planning.

Do 3 agencies make sense for social housing?

Does it make sense to have three agencies responsible for social housing? These agencies have demonstrated poor accountability when responsibilities overlap. Consolidating CMHC’s social housing activity under Housing, Infrastructure and Communities or under Build Canada Homes  could create a more streamlined and cost-effective framework for delivering on policy.

This would allow CMHC to focus on its two commercial mandates – securitization and insurance – while retaining some housing finance activities that require a commercial perspective for reviewing and underwriting loans. Continue Reading…

This Financial Literacy Month, Reverse Mortgages aren’t the only way (HESAs are)

Posted By |
Photo courtesy Home Equity Partners

By Shael Weinreb, CEO and Founder of The Home Equity Partners

Special to Financial Independence Hub

November marks Financial Literacy Month, a time when Canadians are encouraged to “Talk Money” and build confidence in their financial decisions. When it comes to one of the biggest financial assets we own, our homes, though, that conversation is still far too narrow.

Right now, one message dominates the conversation: if you’re a homeowner struggling with affordability, a reverse mortgage is your best bet. Reverse mortgage rates are dominating headlines, even for retirees aging in place, but it’s making the alternative financing conversation biased and incomplete.

There’s no denying that reverse mortgages can be useful for some. They provide cash on hand, but they also saddle investors with new debt, compound interest, and a shrinking equity stake over time.

As someone who spends every day helping homeowners unlock equity without new debt, I see the same pattern over and over. People feel backed into a corner because they’re told they only have one choice. That needs to change.

The Alternative no one’s talking about

There’s another way to access your home equity, one that doesn’t involve taking on more debt or losing control of your home. It’s called a Home Equity Sharing Agreement (HESA).

Here’s how it works: a HESA gives you a lump sum today in exchange for sharing a portion of your home’s future appreciation. You keep full ownership and control. There are no monthly payments, no interest, and no loan sitting on your balance sheet.

When you sell (or buy out the agreement), the investor shares in your home’s gain or loss. It’s a partnership, not a payday loan in disguise.

This model works for a much broader group than reverse mortgages: homeowners under 55, people who can’t borrow enough through traditional channels, or anyone who wants to protect their equity while sharing market risk.

At The Home Equity Partners, we’ve helped clients use this model to pay off debt, fund renovations, or supplement retirement income without taking on new financial stress.

Why you haven’t heard of it

The simple answer? Awareness. Most advisors are trained on debt-based tools such as mortgages, HELOCs, and lines of credit because that’s what the industry sells. Reverse mortgages fit neatly into that mold. HESAs don’t. Continue Reading…

Almost six in ten Canadians worry they’ll run out of money in Retirement: especially women and young people

Posted By |

The majority of Canadians are afraid they’ll run out of money in Retirement, especially women and young people, according to a survey released Wednesday morning by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB).

The 2025 CPPIB Retirement Survey  (for Financial Literacy Month) says 59% of all Canadians are afraid of running out of money during Retirement, with the percentage jumping to 63% for women, compared to just 55% of men. It also found a whopping two thirds (66%) of Canadians aged 28 to 44 share the same fear. As the CPPIB graphic  below illustrates, those who have a financial plan are slightly less worried.

 

As you’d expect the CPPIB to point out, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) helps protect retired Canadians from this risk: as it says above, CPP “benefits are payable as long as you live and [are] indexed to inflation.”

Indeed, CPP and the other main government retirement income program, Old Age Security, are both valuable sources of inflation-indexed retirement income. CPP is available as early as age 60 and OAS at 65 but a staple of Canadian personal finance commentary is that the longer you wait to receive benefits, the higher the benefits will be. In the best of all worlds, you’d wait until 70 for both programs to start paying out, even if you have to keep working longer and/or start withdrawing money from your RRSP before it’s mandated at age 71/72. (While the CPPIB doesn’t mention it, retirees with no other savings may also benefit from the Guaranteed Income Supplement to the OAS: and the GIS  is tax-free.)

The second graphic reproduced below is less straight-forward: it appears to present various excuses for delaying the creation of a proper financial plan to help get to Retirement. Roughly half of younger Canadians cite their need to advance their careers and make more money, and to buy their first home as priorities.


While it’s true that if nothing else, the future arrival of CPP and OAS benefits should put minds partially at ease about covering off basic Retirement expenses, it seems to me pretty obvious that at least for those who lack a generous employer-sponsored pension plan (ideally an inflation-indexed Defined Benefit pension), that it will be necessary to maximize savings in RRSPs and TFSAs as soon as possible.

Because of the Time Value of Money and the magic of compounding investment returns (especially when tax-deferred in RRSPs and TFSAs), the sooner you start saving in these vehicles the better. There’s no excuse not to make RRSP contributions from the get-go, ideally as soon as you land your first real job, since it reduces your income tax. Yes, decades from now when RRSPs become RRIFs you’ll have to pay some tax on the ultimate withdrawals, but that’s more than made up by the tax-deferred investment growth. Continue Reading…