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.”

Just how steep is housing affordability in Toronto and Vancouver?

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | May 20, 2019

By Penelope Graham, Zoocasa

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

It’s no secret that in order to purchase a house in Toronto or Vancouver, you’ll need to have considerable financial assets; however, a new study from Zoocasa reveals just how elite income earners need to be in order to afford the benchmark single-family home in these cities.

According to the data, which is based on benchmark home prices sourced from the Canadian Real Estate Association as well as income tax filings from Statistics Canada, a Torontonian buyer must be within the top 10% of earners to afford a house priced at $873,100, while only Vancouverites within the top 2.5% could do so for a home priced at $1,441,000.

The numbers also show that prices for entry-level housing, such as condos, remain out of reach for many; buyers must be within the top 25% of income earners to afford the benchmark unit, which costs $656,900 in Vancouver and $522,300 in Toronto, respectively.

Affordability is greater in Southern Ontario, Prairies

However, the study also highlights the comparative affordability in other cities; several of the secondary markets in Ontario, as well as in the Prairie provinces, are much more accessible in terms of housing prices.

For example, those interested in markets within proximity of the GTA, such as Waterloo real estate, need only be within the top 50% to purchase a condo priced at $320,857, though houses are still only in reach for those within the top 25%, at a benchmark of $523,720.

London is also a reasonable alternative for first-time buyers; those looking to purchase a house priced at $426,236 must be within the top 25%, though condos for sale in London are accessible to the top 50%, at $307,359.

Regina takes top spot for affordable Real Estate

ETFs or mutual funds: Making the best choice for your financial future

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | May 17, 2019

By Clayton Brown

(Sponsor Content)

You’re probably familiar with mutual funds. Most people have encountered them at some point: either through their banks and financial advisors, or their friends complaining about the fees.

ETFs are a newer investment, which people tend to associate with lower fees and broad diversification.

“So, what is the difference between a mutual fund and an ETF?”

Mutual funds are bundles of stocks and bonds that are managed for you by a bank or investment firm. Traditionally, they’re taking a hands-on approach to try to beat the market.

With actively managed mutual funds, you have managers who are trading a lot to take advantage of opportunities. However, this active trading comes at a cost, which usually translates into higher fees.

Most ETFs, or Exchange-Traded Funds, tend to take a different approach. They were primarily set up to track an index of investments (eg. The S&P 500 is an index of 500 publicly-listed US stocks and an ETF could track it. But you could have track indexes of tech stocks, energy investments, real estate investments, etc).

With most ETFs, portfolio managers are trying to reproduce the holdings and performance of an index. They give investors diversified exposure to an index at a low cost.

With those kinds of funds, managers don’t need to rebalance as often. That could mean lower costs for them. In turn, they can charge lower fees for the client.

“Which one is a better financial fit for me?”

Based on the above description, you might be wondering, “Why should I take a hands-off approach and match indexes, when I can take a hands-on approach and try to beat them?” Continue Reading…

Vanguard Canada advisor event focuses on its actively managed mutual funds

Posted By Jonathan Chevreau | May 14, 2019

While indexing giant Vanguard Group and its Canadian unit are best known for their pioneering work in passive investing, both through index mutual funds and ETFs, they are also significant players in active fund management.

On Monday, it educated Canadian financial advisors at its 2019 Investment Symposium in Toronto, with the focus on two of the four actively managed mutual funds it first announced last summer.

Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. head Kathy Bock, who took over the position on January 1st, reminded the (mostly fee-based) financial advisors in attendance that Vanguard actually started life as an active manager over 40 years ago, and the firm now actively manages more than US$1.6 trillion globally, which is about a quarter of the firm’s total assets under management of more than US$5.3 trillion. That makes Vanguard the third largest active fund manager in the world. See also this Hub blog on this from last September: Vanguard, the Hidden $1.3 Trillion player in active management. (As you can see, the figure has risen with the markets since then).

These mutual funds do not pay advisors trailer commissions: they are F series funds, which means fee-based advisors are free to set whatever additional fee they negotiate with their clients, just as they do with ETFs. They can also be purchased at some, but not yet all, discount brokerages

The management fees on these actively managed mutual funds are a maximum 0.5%; but in the first year, the fee ranged from 0.34% to 0.4%, which makes them only marginally more costly than Vanguard’s popular asset allocation ETFs that were unveiled just over a year ago (and which spawned several imitators). This is partly achieved through a management fee waiver that can apply, depending on manager performance, as explained at the bottom of this blog.

These mutual funds are managed for Canadians, although the actively managed subadvisors are global active giants, as outlined below. Because they are new funds, they have not disclosed the Management Expense Ratios (MERs).

True, at least one advisor in the question period seemed ambivalent about how fee-based advisors can reconcile such an approach to the indexing gospel that Vanguard has so thoroughly dispensed over the years. The answer, according to one of the sub advisors featured, is that the two approaches can complement each other, potentially reducing overall volatility. Buying exclusively ETFs means that over the coming ten years you’re “dooming yourself to a lot of failing businesses,” said Nick Thomas, partner with Baillie Gifford, one of two sub advisors to the Vanguard International Growth Fund, together with Schroder Investment Management North America Inc.

The advisor who posed the question was understandably perplexed by the many studies indexing proponents often cite about how most actively managed funds fail to beat the indexes net of their own additional costs. But the Vanguard managers replied that there are cases where active management can outperform, at least outside the highly liquid U.S. market. Portfolios will be more concentrated than the broad indexes and if an investing thesis pans out, there is an opportunity to “pick” winners at the outset of major trends like A.I. and the cloud, and avoid losers. Presumably managers with skills in combination with good financial advisors can add the kind of “Advisor’s Alpha” to client returns that Vanguard has pioneered.

And if active management makes a good complement to equity portfolios, that should also go for balanced mandates. Indeed, the other highlighted fund was Vanguard Global Balanced Fund, with a 65%/35% equity/fixed-income split managed by Wellington Management Canada ULC, headquartered in Boston. The proportion can move to 60/40 or 70/30, depending on market view. It was launched with the other three mutual funds on June 20, 2018.

China tech big focus of Vanguard International Growth Fund

Most of the discussion centered on the Chinese holdings of Vanguard International Growth Fund: China accounts for 20% of the fund’s geographic allocation. The top ten holdings include three Chinese web giants: Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Tencent Holdings Ltd and Baidu Inc. It also holds Amazon.com Inc. and MercadoLibre Inc. among its top holdings.

Schroders manager John Chisholm is slightly underweight Emerging Markets and market weight China. Baillie Gifford’s Thomas is slightly more enthusiastic, being overweight both Emerging Markets and China. But both see promising long-term growth prospects for the major Chinese web giants. Asked about the current Trump trade war and accusations of theft of American intellectual property, the managers downplayed this as a U.S. interpretation of the facts. Thomas said he views both Tencent and Alibaba as “superior to Facebook or Amazon.”

Should investors buy individual stocks?

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | May 10, 2019

By Steve Lowrie, CFA

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In most walks of life, rugged individualism is a virtue. No wonder so many investors still seem so determined to beat the odds by trying to pick the very best individual stocks (and avoid the stinkers). Unfortunately, the odds are stacked so high against these sorts of financial heroics, you might as well be buying lottery tickets versus trying to consistently outperform the long-term returns everyone can expect by embracing an evidence-based investment strategy.

I’ve posted on this subject before, in “How understanding statistics can make you a better investor.” Today, I want to take a closer look at why individuals should still avoid picking individual stocks – and, briefly, what you can do instead to come out ahead.

A Grumpy Advisor

There are numerous real-life illustrations that have crossed my path over the years … generally on opposite ends of the spectrum. On one extreme, there is using some mad money to buy shares (usually penny stocks) in an emerging technology or fad. The other extreme is cashing out a well-diversified portfolio and putting everything into one illiquid investment, promising high yields, but with significant hidden risks (mostly private real estate recently).

Often, these individuals would like me to help them with the transaction. I won’t do that. While I can’t stop them from proceeding without me, I can vehemently advise against it. If they’re a client and they still insist on getting in on the deal, they can do so directly, through a discount brokerage account.

Why am I so grumpy about it?

It’s my job

I couldn’t claim to be offering anything remotely akin to best-interest financial advice if I weren’t highly skeptical of investment “opportunities” that conflict with everything I know about how capital markets work. I can assure you, every bit of evidence I’m aware of (based on more than six decades of peer-reviewed, academically grounded research) informs me that dumping your entire nest egg into a single, risk-laden venture flies in the face of good advice.

It’s not even investing

Alright, so maybe you’re already with me on not staking your entire life’s savings on a single bet. But what about that modest stake in a penny stock? Is there any harm done in throwing a bit of fun money at a venture that, at worst, won’t ruin you; and, at best, just may pay off?

The problem is, most investors don’t realize that stock-picking isn’t actually investing. It’s speculating. In practice and expected outcome, it’s no different than gambling in a casino or buying a lottery ticket. As I covered in that past post of mine, the odds are stacked anywhere from mildly to steeply against you, making it far more a matter of luck than skill whether you “win” or “lose.”

This is where I see people running aground, even with seemingly “harmless” penny stock ventures. In my experience, if they happen to lose their stake, they tend to justify it as a “nothing ventured, nothing gained” adventure, especially if they weren’t hurt too badly.

Worse, if someone happens to come out ahead now and then by picking individual stocks, a bevy of behavioral biases (including, but not limited to: confirmation, framing, outcome, overconfidence and pattern recognition biases) tricks them into believing it was NOT random luck. For better or worse, we humans love to conclude we’re somehow smarter than the rest of the crowd. It’s so common, there’s even a name for it: “The Lake Wobegon Effect.”

It’s usually not only incorrect, it’s dangerous to mistakenly assume a successful stock pick happened because you or your stock-picking guru outwitted the entire market. Why is it dangerous? Because it increases the likelihood you’ll try your luck again, potentially with bigger bets. Eventually, you may convince yourself that stock-picking is a great way to invest in general, not realizing how much it’s probably costing you over time. This is especially so if you have no financial advisor to turn to: one who is committed to serving your best interests by showing you how your actual, long-term portfolio performance numbers stack up to a more sensible investment strategy. Which leads me to my final point today …

This rarely ends well

Based on my 25 years of experience, the vast majority of individual stock-pickers not only underperform the general market, they typically lose capital in the long-run. Recalling the casino analogy, even if you win a “hand” or two, the system (capitalism) is essentially set up so the house (the market) comes out ahead in the end, regardless of which players (investors) win or lose along the way. Continue Reading…

Should you rent a home or buy a home? That is the question

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | May 7, 2019

By Dale Roberts

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

It’s a tough question, especially if you live in one of the major cities where home prices are skyrocketing. Or let’s say the home prices have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades. For many potential homeowners it’s a race against the clock. The price of entry might keep increasing at a rate that is faster than you can amass that initial down payment.

On that front the government agencies are working hard to help first time home buyers with greater access to RRSP home buyer’s plan funds and even down payment monies from the CMHC. Please have a read of Cream and sugar and tens of thousands of dollars for first time home buyers.

Trying to raise enough cash for that initial deposit is more than challenging, and discouraging, when you see home prices increase by several percent or more per year. We’ll use Toronto area real estate prices to demonstrate the recent history.

Over the last decade average Toronto home prices have more than doubled. Of course, in certain desirable pockets the price increases have been outrageous. And if we head out to the west coast we’ll see periods when the Vancouver area market had rates of increase over several years that is nothing short of silliness.

You don’t have to own a home or property to build wealth

While home ownership is a wonderful goal, and it can help build that more than important total net worth, it’s not the only route to finding a wonderful place to live and growing your long-term wealth. You can rent and invest the monies that would ‘normally’ go to pay that mortgage and surprising list of costs that come with home ownership.

I recently had a question from a reader on the very subject of renting vs home ownership. For an answer I turned to John Robertson the author of The Value of Simple. John also operates the blog Blessed by the potato. And on that site here is the go-to post for Rent vs Buy. On that page you can click on a rent vs buy spreadsheet.

In an email reply to the reader and me John framed the proposition quite succinctly …

In some cases it can make sense to invest your money and rent instead. Indeed, I’m a renter myself in Toronto. It’s a bit more complicated than the scenario you paint, though. Remember that keeping that house is not just about your mortgage payment, you also have to pay property tax, maintenance, insurance, and somewhere account for the transaction costs for your eventual move — expenses that a renter doesn’t face (or are implicit in the rent). So when you do the math, you’ll have to back those costs out, meaning you need less of a return from your investments to help offset the rent. And exactly what (after-tax) return you use when estimating your investment performance will matter to the decision, too.

The main takeaway from John’s opening remarks is that home ownership (or condo with fees and such) is much more expensive than one might think. Beyond the mortgage and property taxes the additional costs of home ownership is quite surprising.

Check out this home ownership mortgage calculator on ratehub.ca. There are some incredible tools on that site that will help you determine affordability and the expected costs. You’ll discover that you have to add at least several hundred dollars per month in costs above your mortgage.