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.”

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.

The Price To Rent Ratio

Why I don’t invest in Canadian Dividend ETFs

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | May 1, 2019

By Mark Seed

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Fans of the My Own Advisor site, including many long-time readers and investors who enjoy this site, continue to tout the benefits of low-cost investing to others.

And you know what? They are right and they should!

That’s because when it comes to investing you often get what you don’t pay for: better returns usually come from a lower-fee fund structure.

That means when it comes to money management fees matter.

One way to reduce your investment fees is to own lower-cost dividend ETFs.

Here are some of the great benefits that come from investing in dividend ETFs beyond just distribution income:

Transparency: Within a few clicks of a mouse or few swipes on my tablet, I can see what every single holding is in these funds. I can also read up on the fund’s prospectus to learn how fund turnover is managed and how often. Portfolio turnover within the fund costs money: someone needs to get paid! That brings me to my next point below.

Modest fees: You might recall active fund management costs more because money managers are paid to perform. A pay-for-performance mandate encourages the mutual fund money manager to buy and sell stocks frequently in an attempt to beat the market or the index they are tracking. Buying and selling frequently incurs costs, and those portfolio costs are passed on to you. Instead of all this trading, I think investors should strive to invest in a low-cost ETF that follows a reputable, established, broad market index such as the S&P/TSX Composite Total Return Index or for dividend investors in Canada, an established dividend-oriented index such as:

• S&P/TSX 60 Index, or

• S&P/TSX Composite High Dividend Index, or

• FTSE Canada High Dividend Yield Index

Lower effort: If you’re going to invest in some individual stocks, you need to spend some time understanding these companies and understanding what you own, why you own it. I read annual reports every year and follow metrics like yield, payout ratio, earnings per share, cash flow to name a few. Dividend ETFs don’t have this complexity: they bundle all these companies together for you.

There are certainly many benefits to owning Canadian dividend ETFs … but I still don’t invest in any of these Canadian funds. Here are my reasons why:

1.) I thought about building my own Canadian Dividend ETF: and so I did, and I’ll continue to do so!

Many years ago, I learned there is merit to owning the same Canadian stocks the big funds own: so I started that process. I’ve never looked back.

I went so far as to say Canadian dividend stock selection could still be made easy.

Here is one quick example: Look at this RBC Canadian Dividend Fund in 2011:

And now the same fund’s top fund holdings as of April 2017:

Lots of differences eh? (Images courtesy of RBC’s site.)

Let’s look at another example and pick on BlackRock – XIU.

Now, again, if you don’t want to buy and hold certain stocks, nor try and create your own Canadian Dividend ETF like I have, then no problem. This fund is arguably one of the best ETFs to own in Canada!! (I recall iShares XIU was one of the world’s first ETFs.) Continue Reading…

Canadians embracing low-cost ETFs: Is a tipping point on the horizon?

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | April 26, 2019

By Dale Roberts, CutTheCrap Investing

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Data shows that Canadians continue to embrace low-cost ETFs. That said, more monies continue to flow into high-fee mutual funds. As you likely know, Canadians pay the highest mutual fund fees in the developed world. Of course, those high fees are wealth destroyers and can eat up 50% of your investment returns over the decades.

But here’s the good news: more Canadians are moving more monies to low-cost ETF portfolios by the way of self-directing or through Canadian Robo Advisors or by way of those One Ticket Asset Allocation Portfolios.

Here’s a look at the flow comparisons for Mutual Funds and ETFs courtesy of the IFIC site:

Here’s the sales figures for mutual funds in what we would typically call the usually robust RRSP season, January and February:

Mutual Fund Sales 2019 Jan Feb And here’s the sales figures for the ETF industry for RRSP season: ETF Assets 2019 Jan Feb

If we want to be optimists, that is more than promising. While 2019 was a soft RRSP season for money flows into mutual funds and ETFs (compared to 2018 figures) there was an acceleration of flows to ETFs compared to mutual funds, year over year.

In 2019 35% of new monies went to ETFs.
In 2018 27% of new monies went to ETFs

That is certainly something to celebrate. While the total mutual fund industry is almost 10 times the size of the ETF industry, they did not even double the size of inflows for January and February of 2019. That aligns with the findings of Nest Wealth, which conducted a poll in RRSP season. Respondents suggested one third of all new account openings would be by way of one of the Canadian Robo Advisors: also known as digital wealth managers. For more on that please have a read of There will be a tipping point for ‘Robo Advisors’ suggests Randy Cass of Nest Wealth. Keep in mind the poll was reading account openings, not the move of assets or amounts of assets.

Here’s another way to frame that more than ‘good news’. Continue Reading…