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.

How the wealthy can qualify for “Senior’s Welfare.”

fredvettese
Fred Vettese, Morneau Shepell

My column in this weekend’s Financial Post looks at the collision course between Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to Old Age Security.

This is a followup to a curious strategy unveiled by Mornell Shapeau senior actuary Fred Vettese a few weeks ago in the Post. I also touched on it in a subsequent MoneySense blog. (Note the comments there).

Vettese showed how even relatively rich couples can contort their finances so they too can collect GIS for three years: generating over $60,000 of tax-free income between age 67 and 70. The furor over this gambit suggests either GIS or TFSA rules may eventually have to be tweaked as a result.

The strategy consists of postponing receipt of employer pensions, CPP benefits and RRSP income until age 70. Addressing younger people now 40, Vettese envisaged taking OAS and GIS at age 67 while drawing on joint TFSAs worth $320,000.

Normally, the wealthy don’t even consider the possibility of collecting GIS because of the low clawback threshold. In fact, the truly rich are resigned not only to not qualifying for GIS but realize even their OAS may get clawed back, in whole or in part.

Hypothetical scenario still far away?

Asked about this, the Department of Finance said it was a hypothetical scenario still far away, but that  “the tax system is continuously under review to ensure it is as fair and as current as possible.”

Advocates for low-income seniors quoted in the article say they should avoid RRSPs and invest in TFSAs instead, since they will result in neither tax nor OAS or GIS clawbacks. And they suggest some simple rule changes to the TFSA or GIS that would nip this “end-run for the wealthy” in the bud.

Those who are wealthy may not wish to go to the trouble Vettese describes to get three years of GIS payments (GIS is however tax-free!). But it may be wise to keep maxing out TFSA contributions while you still can, including for your children 18 or over.

 

Working in Retirement is not a Retirement plan!

Here’s my latest MoneySense blog, based on a Fidelity media briefing on Monday. Click on the red type to go directly to the piece at MoneySense.

For one-stop shopping and archival purposes, here it is again below, with different photos and subheads.

Peter Drake
Peter Drake, Fidelity Canada

By Jonathan Chevreau

You’re probably going to live longer than you think but it if you’re worried about outliving your money, planning to work in retirement is not a panacea, warns Toronto-based Fidelity Investments Canada ULC.

At a media briefing on Monday, Fidelity Canada’s Peter Drake, vice president, Retirement & Economics Research urged those still saving for retirement that they have to take more individual responsibility for their future after work. “You’re going to live longer than you think,” he said, citing steadily rising Life Expectancy statistics going back to 1921. Someone born in 1921 would have a Life Expectancy of about 58, a figure that passed 70 for someone born in the mid 1950s and which passed 80 shortly after the new millennium.

Can an “Encore Career” bridge the gap?

Certainly, the latest data from the 2014 Fidelity Retirement Survey released at the event suggests those falling short of their retirement savings goals are counting on some kind of paying “encore career” to make up the difference. While only 20% of those already retired plan to rely on income from a full-time or part-time job, fully 47% of those still in the workforce expect to have some form of a paying “encore career,” said Drake.

Many will rely on Savings and Housing

Non-retirees also put their hopes into Savings and Housing as a way to make ends meet in Retirement. While only 58% of current retirees say they will rely on income generated from savings in an RRSP or RRIF, fully two thirds of non-retirees (66%) plan to do so. Similarly, while only 36% of retirees believe their home equity will help boost their retirement income, half of non-retirees are counting on it.

Clearly, something has to give and that something appears to be the fond notion that people can just keep working past the traditional retirement age of 65. “Planning to work in retirement is not a retirement plan,” Drake cautioned.

Saying you’ll “just keep working” is of course easily said. Indeed, I’ve given that advice to anyone who’s not quite sure whether they have enough money to retire or not. As I quipped on the radio the other day, it’s better to arrive at the train station five minutes early than five minutes late: similarly, when it comes to saving for retirement, it’s better to oversave than undersave. Your children and the government will thank you for over-saving.

“Just Keep Working” not always possible

Unfortunately, Fidelity’s research shows you can’t count on working in retirement. The poll of some 1,400 Canadians found that of those not working, fully one in five retirees would like to work if they could. However, 15% can’t find a job and 23% say employers aren’t interested in employing retirees.

Then there are health and health care issues. Drake says 38% of retirees not working have health issues that prevent them from doing so. And even for those who are themselves healthy, 12% have to care for another family member. Out-of-pocket health care costs are an important consideration for retirees, Drake said. Even though this is Canada, 30% of health costs are not funded publicly, putting more pressure on finances the older you get. Citing per capital public health care expenditures, the big blips are right after birth and then after 65. The per capita annual expenditure is well under $5,000 from age one to age 64 but hits $5,828 between 65 and 69, passes $10,000 between 75 and 79 and really starts to spike after age 85 – past $20,000 –hitting a peak of more than $24,000 after age 90.

Drake noted that generally speaking, women can expect to outlive men, but the longer they do, the more the problems of dementia – especially Alzheimer’s – can arise.

Challenges of Longevity

Another byproduct of extended longevity is that inflation really starts to bite into the purchasing power of a typical retirement nest egg. While inflation has been low and consistent since the early 1990s, it could rise in the future, Drake warned. And even low inflation can reduce purchasing power. A nest egg of $50,000 today would have the purchasing power of just $30,479 25 years from now even with relatively benign inflation of 2%. If inflation were 3%, the purchasing power of that $50,000 would fall to less than half 25 years later: $23,882. And at 4% inflation, it would have the spending punch of just $18,757.

Jonathan Chevreau is Chief Findependence Officer for www.financialindependencehub.com

Guest Blog: How to pick a robo-adviser

Sandi-Casual-Small
Fee-only Planner Sandi Martin

By Sandi Martin

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In general, I don’t believe there’s ever much new under the investment sun; common-sense, low-cost, boringly well-diversified and regularly rebalanced portfolio management doesn’t sell newspapers, does it?

But the advent of online investment advice and management (robo-advisors, if you prefer) to the Canadian market is news, and — unlike much of what passes as financial “news” these days — it’s news that regular investors pursuing findependence should be paying attention to. For once, it’s an innovation whose promise to make common-sense investing cheaper and easier — and findependence closer — is believable.

I have only one caveat, and it’s for those of you close enough to findependence to start thinking about spending that money rather than saving it: the decumulation advice that these companies are offering now hasn’t had a chance to mature and develop as fully as it should.

It seems that the broad attitude is “yes, it’s important and we want to offer great withdrawal planning, but we’ll develop an advice framework and some good tools for that once we have more clients who are closer to needing it”.

How (and Why) to Choose between NestWealth, Wealth Simple, WealthBar, Shareowner and Steadyhand

The point of this post: Each online investment management company has a slightly different fee structure and value proposition. Calculating their relative cost for your circumstances will let you compare their relative value depending on the kind of service you want to pay for. (Includes a link to the Canadian Online Investment Advisor Fee Calculator.)

Canadian investors have traditionally had three choices for their savings:

  1. Open up a self-directed brokerage account and invest directly in stocks, bonds, ETFs or mutual funds.
  2. Go to the bank or invite that mutual fund/insurance salesperson you met while you were dropping your kids off at school over to your house, who will sell you mutual or segregated funds that cost in excess of 2% per year and pay her a commission based on the kind of funds they are and how expensive they are for you to own.
  3. Find a fee-only investment manager close enough to you to do business with, provided you have enough money (somewhere in the $500,000 to $1,000,000 range), and feel that paying 1-1.5% annually on that money is worth the management and financial planning advice you’ll get.
As a financial planner and occasional personal finance blogger, it’s really very tempting to look at each of these companies and declare a winner based on cost alone, or the combination (or lack) of services I value most, or what I think the average investor should want from portfolio construction.
But the reality is that each of us falls somewhere along parallel spectrums: an ability spectrum that moves from “comfortable with DIY” to “needs full-service advice,” and an asset spectrum that starts at “small nest egg” and runs all the way to “significantly large pile of money.” In short, you and I and the neighbour across the road might all need more or less help with more or less money, and while one provider might be a perfect fit for me, another might be just the ticket for you.

 

 

I unequivocally believe that — provided you have the relatively small amount of time necessary to set it up and maintain it and the relatively large amount of intestinal fortitude to stick with your plan no matter what the markets are doing — a self-directed, simple Couch Potato portfolio of low-cost, index ETFs is the best investment strategy for most Canadians.

A reasonably intelligent person should be able to follow an able guide like John Robertson’s soon-to-be-released The Value of Simple and do just fine, sometimes in combination with the service of an advice-only planner like me or most of the people on this list from MoneySense Magazine, or possibly by paying for the DIY Investor Service offered by PWL Capital to get set up.

 Advantages of getting your money managed
 

But there are valid reasons to want someone else to manage your investments on an ongoing basis for you. Sound asset allocation, rebalancing across multiple accounts, and tax-efficiency can be worth paying for if you’re not going to be up to bothering with it yourself.  And the value you get from having a calm sounding board when markets (or market noise) get crazy might actually be priceless if — like most of us — you’re tempted to get out of the market when you shouldn’t and question your plan just when you should be sticking to it dispassionately.

Really Important Sidebar

I want to be really, really clear about costs here: the lower you can get your annual investing costs, the better off you’ll be. This can’t be overstated. Seemingly small amounts add up over a lifetime of investing to very large amounts of your savings (see this post from Michael James on Money for a good set of charts). However, the question shouldn’t be “what’s the lowest cost?,” it should be “what’s the lowest cost that I will stick with?”

I also want to be clear that “investment management” and “financial planning” are not the same thing: financial planning is the context, the “what do I want my money to do for me,” and investment management is the tool, the “and this is how my money is going to do it.” It’s one of many tools, and (often) not the most important one. (End of Really Important Sidebar

Online Investment Option Calculator

If you’re seriously looking at what the online advisors are offering (and you should be), I’d invite you to use the Canadian Online Investment Option Calculator** as a starting point to calculate the relative cost of each service. With that information, you can compare the different services based on where you fall on the “how much money do you have?” spectrum. That’s the objective part of the choice.

The subjective part of the choice (although each provider would probably argue it’s not subjective at all) is all the rest of the information you should spend some time gathering, preferably by calling each provider available in your province or territory, telling them where you fall on the “needs little advice” to “needs lots of advice” spectrum, and simply asking:

  • how the portfolios are constructed
  • how often they’re rebalanced
  • what institution is the custodian for your money
  • whether financial planning is included in the fee, if it’s purely investment management, or if all you’re paying for is access to the model portfolio with no other advice
  • whether your money is managed across accounts as a single portfolio or whether each account is managed separately
  • how simple it is to give them your money and get on with your life, and how simple and jargon-free the statements, online dashboard, and any ongoing communications are
  • how often you’re able to talk to someone if you need to get persuaded off the ledge while the markets go crazy
  • how well-developed their retirement income and decumulation strategies are
Again, the answers to these questions and the results of the calculator should function as a guide to your decision. The decision itself is yours, and might be based on characteristics that I haven’t even mentioned.

If you’re investing at the bank or with a salesperson that comes to your door, and have decided against investing on your own, write this down on a piece of paper right now:

“I will give myself until (date — no more than a month from now) to investigate the different online invesment options, and then I will decide on one and start the transfer process”

If you’re investing with an asset manager who’s charging you a percent of your total assets to manage them, and have decided against investing on your own, write this down on a piece of paper right now:

“I will give myself until (date – no more than a month from now) to investigate the different online investment options, compare the service they offer to the service I’m actually getting from my asset manager, and then I will decide whether to continue with my asset manager, negotiate a lower fee, or start the transfer process”

Or you can make a decision by virtue of not taking any action at all, and continue to pay for an Advisor Six-Pack, pay a high price for services you’re not actually receiving, and be more susceptible to fear, error, bias, and fund-of-the-month-itis.

*Not to be confused with their build your own portfolio service, which – for the purposes of this comparison – isn’t a contender.

**I have to thank John Robertson, blogger behind holypotato.net and author of The Value of Simple for his invaluable assistance with the vagaries of conditional formatting and =if formulas, as well as Randy Cass of NestWealth, Tea Nicola of WealthBar, Michael Katchen of Wealthsimple, Bruce Seago of ShareOwner, and David Toyne of Steadyhand for their remarkably candid responses to my very wordy emails and many, many questions. Any errors in either the calculator or the information are purely mine.

Sandi Martin is an ex-banker and fee-only/advice-only financial planner who specializes in working with regular folks who suspect their money might be a bit of a mess. She lives in beautiful Muskoka with her husband and three children, and works online and by phone with clients across Canada. (You can also find her listed here at the Hub under the Getting Help tab).  This piece is adapted with Sandi’s permission from one that appeared on Nov. 18th on her Spring blog.)

GIS for the wealthy? TFSA is key so maximize it while you still can

fredvettese
Fred Vettese, Morneau Shepell

My latest MoneySense blog is a followup to an interesting piece by actuary Fred Vettese about the curious phenomenon of wealthy couples being able to contort their finances between ages 67 and 70, by which they can receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement or GIS.

Considering that the GIS is aimed at seniors with no savings and minimal pensions, the idea of putting such a gambit in place offends some, although as the blog points out, most of the readers who contacted Vettese just wanted more details on how they could benefit from the strategy themselves.

Hypothetical now but expect eventual crackdown

I’ll be doing more on this but it seems that the strategy is not so much likely to become widespread as it is an example of the inherent contradictions and unintended consequences that accompany such a proliferation of government programs. This one is based on suspending most sources of income from 67 to 70, except Old Age Security (OAS) and the GIS, plus taking tax-free income from the Tax Free Savings Account or TFSA. TFSA withdrawals are neither taxed nor trigger clawbacks of OAS and GIS. In fact, it’s arguable TFSAs were created expressly to motivate low-income workers to save without being penalized by the taxes and clawbacks that accompany RRSPs and employer-sponsored pensions plans.

Will Ottawa move to crack down on this theoretical loophole? Who knows but the TFSA was the Conservative administration’s creation and if they lose the next election, it’s quite possible the Liberals or NDP would move to tweak either the TFSA rules or the GIS qualifying rules. Best advice? Max out the TFSA while you still can!

How to transition to retirement

DavidAston
David Aston

Good piece by David Aston in MoneySense magazine on the big next step for baby boomers and anyone else with sufficient wealth or pension income to stop working full-time. David is one of the best financial writers out there and it’s little wonder he’s won awards that prove it. Note that one of his sources in this piece is Lee-Anne Davies, whose Agenomics blog you can find links for in our Longevity & Aging section.

He also talks to actuary Fred Vettese (author of The Real Retirement) and fee-only planners Money Coaches Canada and Daryl Diamond, author of The Retirement Income Blueprint. Both are also listed here at the Hub’s “Getting Help” section and you can find my review of Daryl’s book in the Reviews section here.

The three levers

My favourite line from David’s piece is “You can make adjustments by pulling on three levers: save more, work longer or spend less in retirement.”

No mention of Findependence although David has mentioned it in the past. Like most mass media outlets, MoneySense is sticking with the word Retirement. Hey, I couldn’t get them to change from Retirement to Findependence even when I was the editor–in-chief!

But also check out Sheryl Smolkin’s guest blog here at the Hub today: she chronicles her ten-year road to Findependence (yes, she used that exact word!) that occurred AFTER she took early retirement at age 54.

As I’ve often said, that’s way too young to retire and do nothing and Sheryl has doubled her retirement savings since her “first” retirement. As she says, it’s all about second or “encore” careers. As is also clear, she finds working on your own terms (aka Findependence) to be lots of fun.

I agree. Sure beats watching daytime television!