Decumulate & Downsize

Most of your investing life you and your adviser (if you have one) are focused on wealth accumulation. But, we tend to forget, eventually the whole idea of this long process of delayed gratification is to actually spend this money! That’s decumulation as opposed to wealth accumulation. This stage may also involve downsizing from larger homes to smaller ones or condos, moving to the country or otherwise simplifying your life and jettisoning possessions that may tie you down.

Retired Money: the case for laddering Annuities

Posted By |
“The more bells and whistles, the lower the monthly income,” from annuities, says Caring for Clients’ Rona Birenbaum,

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at the case for laddering annuities in order to avoid the problem of committing funds to annuities at interest rates that are only now coming off their historic lows. You can retrieve the whole article by clicking on the highlighted text: A low-risky annuity strategy to beef up your retirement cash flow.

Many investors are already acquainted with the concept of “laddering” guaranteed investment certificates (GICs), or bonds with different maturities. Maturity dates are staggered over (typically) one to five years, so each year some money comes due and can be reinvested at prevailing interest rates. This minimizes the likelihood of investing the whole amount at what may turn out to be rock-bottom interest rates, only to watch helplessly as rates steadily rise over time.

The same applies when it comes time for retirees or near-retirees to annuitize. At the end
of the year you turn 71 you must decide whether to convert your RRSP into a RRIF,
cash out and pay tax (few do this), or thirdly to annuitize.

Fortunately, annuitization isn’t an all-or-nothing decision. You can convert some of your RRSP to a RRIF and some to a registered annuity. You can take a leaf from the GIC laddering
concept and buy annuities gradually over five, ten or even more years. As regular Hub contributor Patrick McKeough observes in the piece, laddering annuities can reduce the potential downside: “You could buy one annuity a year for the next five years. That way, your returns will increase if interest rates rise, as is likely.”

Tally up how many annuities you may already have

Mind you, few observers believe in converting ALL your disposable funds into annuities. After all, as another Hub contributor — Adrian Mastracci — notes, you need to take inventory of the annuity-like vehicles you already may have, or expect to have: such as  employer-sponsored Defined Benefits, CPP or OAS. Some investors may have a high component of annuity-like income without realizing it, and many families may already have five or six such sources of annuity-like income.

Certainly you need to consider both the benefits and drawbacks of annuities. The main benefit is they are a form of longevity insurance: making sure you never outlive your money no matter how long you live. There’s a case for having enough annuities that your basic “survival expenses” (shelter, food, heat, transport etc.) are taken care of no matter what. Finance professor Moshe Milevsky is also quoted in the article to the effect there are compelling financial and psychological reason to at least partly convert to annuities. And Milevsky is famous for making a distinction between “REAL” pensions (like DB pensions) that behave like annuities, as opposed to vehicles like RRSPs and TFSAs, which provide capital that only have the potential to be annuitized. Hence the title of Milevksy’s excellent book, Pensionize Your Nest Egg.

But annuities are not perfect. Apart from the common reluctance to commit to buying annuities at today’s still-low interest rates, there’s also the matter of the irreversible nature of the decision to convert some capital to an annuity. You’re handing over a large chunk of change to an insurance company and should you die earlier than expected, they in effect “win,” to the partial detriment of your estate. If on the other hand you live to 120, then YOU “win.”

Continue Reading…

Forced Early Retirement? 7 things you should do right now

Posted By |

By Michelle Arios

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

There are a lot of life situations that can lead someone to retire much earlier than they had initially anticipated. It could be illness, injury, the need to move quickly, an emergency family circumstance, or even a company closing its doors. Why you’re being forced to retire isn’t nearly as important as the silver lining you need to find in your situation, and what steps you’ll take to get there.

1.) Get a great Savings plan

Your normal savings account may not be enough to carry you through. It might help to change your current savings account to one that gives you a better interest rate, particularly if you’re going to consolidate your retirement accounts. It might also help to supplement your savings with some investments that will grow with time.

2.) Work out your new Budget

People in retirement often live on fixed incomes, especially if their spouse is also retired. You need to be sure your money can go as far as you need it to, and that might mean breaking apart your old budget and determining where and how you can best reduce costs while maintaining your quality of life. There are some easy-to-use smartphone apps that might help you do that.

3.) Downsize your Home

The expenses of maintaining a household are high. If you’re retired, you probably don’t need all the extra space anyway. Finding a roommate can help, and so can selling your previous home to purchase a smaller home that’s easier to maintain. Often times, utility bills will significantly go down on a smaller property. You’re also gaining some extra cash and a little more financial longevity.

4.) Find affordable alternatives

Monthly costs, like health insurance and cellular phone bills, can often add up to a lot of money. You might want to consider shopping around for a better deal. Continue Reading…

Why “Topping up to bracket” makes sense if you’re temporarily in a low tax bracket

Posted By |

My latest column in Wednesday’s Globe & Mail looks at a strategy called “Topping up to Bracket,” which can be useful to anyone who is temporarily in a lower tax bracket.

Click on the highlighted headline to access the online version, assuming you have Globe subscriber privileges or haven’t exceeded the monthly free click quota: A strong tax case for early RRSP withdrawals.

When might you be “temporarily” in a lower tax bracket than usual? This can of course happen when you lose a job or if you’re in your Sixties and transitioning between full employment (typically earning in higher tax brackets) and Semi-Retirement, when it’s tempting to “bask” in lower tax brackets.

Temporary because as Semi-Retirement progresses, you can end up moving back into higher tax brackets: for example, if you start to receive Old Age Security (OAS) at 65, then take Canada Pension Plan (CPP) a few years later, these are both taxable sources of income.

And the big hit can come at the end of the year you turn 71, when RRSPs must be converted to Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs) or else annualized or cashed out. RRIFs entail forced annual withdrawal rates that keep rising between your 70s and your mid 90s.

So that makes “Topping up to Bracket” (a term used in a BMO Wealth Institute paper on the topic, published around 2013) a strategy not to be ignored. In practice it means making sure that in those low-earning years you at least bring into your hands each and every year the roughly $12,000 of untaxed earnings that’s called the Basic Personal Amount (BPA). And as the G&M column explains, it’s also a good idea to at least bring in the dollars that are in the lowest tax bracket (15% federally, 5% in Ontario), or roughly $42,000. There are of course higher tax brackets above that but the law of diminishing returns starts to kick in beyond the $42,000.

Note too that this is a “use it or lose it” proposition. If for example a year went by that you failed even to bring in even that $12,000 income that would not have been taxed, you can’t carry forward the opportunity to benefit from it the following year. You will of course have another opportunity for the BPA that year but it won’t double up because you neglected to earn low- or non-taxed income the previous year. Continue Reading…

What does tax reform mean for high-yield debt?

Posted By |
By Bradley Krom and Josh Shapiro, WisdomTree Investments
Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In an earlier post, we highlighted the likely impact tax reform could have on investment-grade (IG) corporate debt. In part two, we turn our attention to the high-yield (HY) market.1 While a reduction in taxes should benefit all profitable companies, other provisions could lead to tough choices for some less-credit-worthy borrowers. As we’ve seen during the most recent earnings season, HY still presents a mix of opportunity and risk. Below, we highlight the contrasting impact of lower tax rates and potential changes in the deductibility of interest expenses.

Big Picture: lower taxes, higher free cash flow and earnings

On net, the proposed tax plan is a positive for high yield. Lower statutory tax rates should result in higher profitability metrics, greater free cash flow and a boost to economic momentum/growth, while extending the credit cycle. While all businesses won’t be impacted the same way, we feel comfortable concluding that tax cuts should bias credit spreads tighter for riskier borrowers, on average. Similarly, an increase in economic growth could also push nominal interest rates higher.

What about Revenue Offsets?

While the top-line impacts we highlighted above should be broadly positive, we believe other elements of tax reform warrant closer attention: most notably, the so-called interest deductibility provision.

In the current environment, companies choosing to finance themselves with debt are permitted to fully deduct interest payments. As a result, companies have an incentive to finance themselves with debt as opposed to equity. In order to help dampen the fiscal impact of tax cuts on the federal budget, the current proposal would limit the deductible amount of interest expenses to 30% of EBITDA.

Fundamentally, this provision should have a much greater impact on the HY market. Given that risky borrowers tend to pay higher interest rates and (all else being equal) tend to deploy more leverage, the 30% cap on deductions should impact a larger percentage of the market. As we show in the chart below, HY companies with leverage of approximately 5.5x would likely be unable to fully deduct their interest expenses. In the second chart, we show that this makes up approximately 40% of the total market.2

Market Impact

While attempting to draw broad-based conclusions about individual companies can be tricky, a few key points stand out. In our analysis of firms with public financials, we estimate that 91% of CCCs will be unable to fully deduct their interest expenses. Continue Reading…

Retired Money: Early or Delayed CPP? Age 65 may be best compromise

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published, which tackles that perennial personal finance chestnut of whether to take early or delayed CPP benefits. You can find it by clicking on the highlighted headline here: The Best Time to Take CPP: if you don’t know when you’ll die.

That’s a pretty big “if,” of course since with rare exceptions, our futures are unknowable. As readers of the piece will discover, there is a fair bit of personal anecdotes there, which is hard to avoid in a beat known as “Personal Finance.” As the column notes, we’ve written before that in theory it makes sense to delay CPP as long as possible, since monthly benefits are 42% higher than if you took them at 65. And while you can take CPP as early as age 60, you’d pay a 36% penalty to do so compared to taking it at the traditional age 65.

Since experts are all over the place on this one and have valid arguments for either side, it’s interesting that in practice very few Canadians actually wait till age 70 to start their CPP, even if it is an inflation-indexed guaranteed-for-life annuity. Government stats show age 60 is the single most popular option: according to the federal government’s 2016 data, of the 312,251 who began collecting CPP that year, 126,954 did so right at age 60, with the second most popular start date being age 65, when 93,460 started to collect. Only 4,844 waited until 70.

The balanced case for the traditional age 65

As I relate in the MoneySense piece, I still haven’t started to collect CPP myself, even as my 65th birthday looms this coming April. Continue Reading…