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.

Why it might be time to rebalance the 60/40 Rule

Posted By |

 

Investors follow the 60/40 rule because they are told bonds will protect capital while equities grow it. Why recent drops in bond prices should make us reconsider that rule. 

 

 

By Paul MacDonald, CIO, Harvest ETFs

(Sponsor Content)

From the moment they start putting money in the market, investors are told to follow the 60/40 rule. It is the broadly accepted wisdom that, for an average retail investor, a 60% allocation to equities and a 40% allocation to bonds will result in a robust portfolio. Equities should deliver growth prospects in the long term while bonds will offset downsides in equities by delivering uncorrelated returns. Bonds preserve capital, and equities grow capital. That’s the accepted wisdom. 

Countless investment fund issuers have packaged this logic into their balanced funds. These funds offer a specific allocation to equities and bonds, usually in line with the 60/40 rule, forming the core of a retail investor’s portfolio.

The problem with accepted wisdom is sometimes circumstances turn it upside down. In the past months we have seen volatility in equity markets and a significant drop in bond prices. That is because the investment landscape has changed. 

Why are bond prices dropping? 

After over a decade of historically low interest rates, followed by massive rate cuts by central banks at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation has begun to set in. With rising inflation comes pressure on central banks to raise rates and market expectation that rates will rise, which is itself pushing interest rates higher.  Continue Reading…

Will Budget 2022’s proposed tax hurt Canadian financial services stocks?

Posted By |

By Ian Duncan MacDonald

Special to the Findependence Hub

In the 2022 Federal budget a surtax of 1.5 per cent on bank profits over $100 million was proposed along with a one-time 15 per cent charge on income above $1 billion for the 2021 tax year.  Canadian banks are already among Canada’s largest taxpayers.

The six largest of Canada’s banks accounted for more than $12 billion in tax revenue and more than double that in dividend income.  They contribute 3.5%, or over $65 billion, to Canada’s gross domestic product. Over 280,000 are employed by these banks.

When Toronto-Dominion Bank’s chief executive, Bharat Masrani, recently stated that a proposed corporate tax rate increase that targeted financial institutions ““could lead to unintended consequences,” you could see the battle lines being drawn.

The pawns in this high-stake battle looming on the horizon are the millions of Canadian pensioners, charities, endowments, mutual fund investors, bank shareholders, pension funds, RRSP investors and others dependent on bank dividend payments.  The banks will do their best at every opportunity to frighten their 34,000,000 customers with dire predictions of the harmful, personal financial consequences these proposed taxes will cause.

The banks have your phone number, your e-mail address, and your street address.  Every time you deposit or withdraw funds, I would expect them to remind you of how you are being impacted by the proposed taxes. Every bank statement could carry their message their message that the tax is hurting you more than them. They are far better organized and motivated than the civil servants.

The stakes are huge.  The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) would likely pay the most, an estimated additional $334.7 million. The Toronto-Dominion Bank would pay about $285.5 million, the Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank), approximately $191.9 million, the Bank of Montreal would owe about $137.9 million, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce around $120.2 million, and the National Bank around $42.0 million.

The Federal government is already anticipating the pushback. It has stated they will not tolerate “sophisticated tax planning or profit-sharing” by the financial institutions to dilute the new measures. As well, new “targeted anti-avoidance rules” will be put in place.  The federal Financial Consumer Agency of Canada will be policing any “excessive” fee passed on to customers to offset the cost of the new corporate tax measures.

One thing to propose this tax, another to implement it

It is one think to propose such a tax.  It is another thing to implement it.

Canadians tend to take their long-established, successful banks for granted. They have no idea that out of the thousands of banks in the world, their banks are in the top 35 of the safest. These are banks that dwarf any of the banks that rank ahead of them. In North America they are the top six safest banks.  As commercial banks, they are in the top 18 of the safest banks.

What impact will the battle over the taxes have upon your shares in financial service companies? The taxes are still too hypothetical to base investment decisions on. All we can do now is work with the current financial information that is available.

In a March, 2022 an article that appeared in the publication Investment Executive, by Daniel Calabretta, was  headlined, “Financial services firms in a good position to weather expected market volatility.”The article was not directed at investors’ main concern.  Investors want to know ”For the long term, which Canadian financial service companies should  you consider adding to your investment portfolio?”

Charts in the Investment Executive article showed a comparison between 2020 and 2021 of “Assets, Revenues, Net Incomes and Earnings Per Share” for 40 financial service firms.  However, whether these figures went up or down from one year to the next does not really address which of these companies are expected to provide share price gains and an increasing dividend income for investors. Thirty-seven of the forty stocks did pay dividends.

Speculators only control share prices.  The experienced executives of these 40 companies, through their revenue and expense decisions, control profits.  From profits come dividends.

There are many financially weak, marginally profitable companies who can motivate speculators to buy their shares based only on promoting the potential for eventual profits and skyrocketing share prices. There are also many financially strong, profitable companies that are ignored by speculators.

That constant debate between thousands of optimistic speculators who think a share price is going rocket up and the thousands of pessimistic speculators who think the same stock’s share price is going to crash makes accurate predictions of future share prices impossible. A stock can not be bought by a speculator until another speculator who owns the stock is prepared to sell it upon receiving an attractivebid from a buyer. To accommodate such investment uncertainties, wise investors, diversify their share ownership among the stocks of different sectors to account for unpredictable speculator bids.

The Great Canadian Financial Stock Challenge

Which of the shares of these 40 Financial Industry stocks would you confidently buy if you could review an Excel spreadsheet with the following additional eleven facts that go beyond assets, revenues, and net income?  Continue Reading…

Death of Bonds or time to buy short-term GICs?

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a recent spate of media articles proclaiming the “Death of Bonds.” You can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline: Do bonds still make sense for retirement savings?

One of these articles was written by the veteran journalist and author, Gordon Pape, writing to the national audience of the Globe & Mail newspaper. So you have to figure a lot of retirees took note of the article when Pape — who is in his 80s — said he was personally “getting out of bonds.”

One of the other pieces, via a YouTube video, was by financial planner Ed Rempel, who similarly pronounced the death of bonds going forward the next 30 years or so and made the case for raising risk tolerance and embracing stocks. The column also passes on the views of respected financial advisors like TriDelta Financial’s Matthew Ardrey and PWL Capital’s Benjamin Felix.

However, there’s no need for those with risk tolerance, whether retired or not, to dump all their fixed-income holdings. While it’s true aggregate bond funds have been in a  de facto bear market, short-term bond ETFs have only negligible losses. And as Pape says, and I agree, new cash can be deployed into 1-year GICs, which are generally paying just a tad under 3% a year;  or at most 2-year GICs, which pay a bit more, often more than 3%.

One could also “park” in treasury bills or ultra short term money market ETFs (one suggested by MoneySense ETF panelist Yves Rebetez is HFR: the Horizons Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF.) It’s expected that the Fed and the Bank of Canada will again raise interest rates this summer, and possibly repeat this a few more times through the balance of 2022. If you stagger short-term funds every three months or so, you can gradually start deploying money into 1-year GICs. Then a year later, assuming most of the interest rate hikes have occurred, you can consider extending term to 3-year or even 5-year GICs, or returning to short-term bond ETFs or possibly aggregate bond ETFs. Watch for the next instalment of the MoneySense ETF All-stars, which addresses some of these issues.

Some 1-year GICs pay close to 3% now

Here’s some GIC ideas from the column: Continue Reading…

Can you retire using just your TFSA?

Posted By |
Image Courtesy of Cashflows & Portfolios

By Mark and Joe

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The opportunity for Canadians to save and invest tax-free over decades could be considered one of the greatest wonders of our modern financial world. This begs an important question:

If you start early enough – Can you retire using just your TFSA?

We believe so and in today’s post we’ll show you how!

Can you retire using just your TFSA? Why the TFSA is a gift for all Canadians!

Our Canadian government introduced TFSAs in 2009 as a way to encourage people to save money. Looking back, it was one of the best incentives ever created for Canadian savers …

Our Canada Revenue Agency has a HUGE library of TFSA links and resources to check out but we’ll help you cut to the chase along answering that leading question above:

Can you retire using just your TFSA?

Why the TFSA is just so good

Since the TFSA was introduced, adult Canadians have had a tremendous opportunity to save and grow their wealth tax-free like never before. While the TFSA is similar to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) there are some notable differences.

As with an RRSP, the TFSA is intended to help Canadians save money and plan for future expenses. The contributions you make to your TFSA are with after-tax dollars and withdrawals are tax-free. You can carry forward any unused contributions from year to year. There is no lifetime contribution limit.

For savvy investors who open and use a self-directed TFSA for their investments, these investors can realize significant gains within this account.  This means one of the best things about the TFSA is that there is no tax on investment income, including capital gains!

How good is that?!

Here is a summary of many great TFSA benefits:

  • Capital gains and other investment income earned inside a TFSA are not taxed.
  • Withdrawals from the account are tax-free.
  • Neither income earned within a TFSA nor withdrawals from it affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits and credits (such as Old Age Security (OAS)). This is very important!!
  • Anything you withdraw from your TFSA can be re-contributed in the following year, in addition to that year’s contribution limit, although we don’t recommend that. More in a bit.
  • While you cannot contribute directly as you could with an RRSP, you can give your spouse or common-law partner money to put into their TFSA.
  • TFSA assets could be transferable to the TFSA of a spouse or common-law partner upon death. This makes the TFSA an outstanding estate management account – leaving TFSA assets “until the end” can be very tax-smart.

Since you paid tax on the money you put into your TFSA, you won’t have to pay anything when you take money out. This feature combined with the ability to compound money, tax-free, over decades, can make the TFSA one of the best ways to build wealth for retirement.

RRSP vs. TFSA – which one is better?

There is no shortage of blog posts that highlight this debate and one of our favourites is from My Own Advisor. You can check out his post here. 

Without stealing too much of his thunder, the RRSP vs. TFSA debate essentially comes down to this: managing the RRSP-generated refund.

Let’s dive deeper with a quick example.

Contributions to the RRSP are excellent because the contribution you make today lowers your taxable income – and you may get a tax refund because of it – a pretty nice formula. The problem is, some Canadians might spend the RRSP-generated refund from their contribution. You’ll see why this is a major problem.

Consider working in the higher 40% tax bracket whereby RRSP contributions to lower your taxable income make great sense:

  • If you put $300 per month into the RRSP for the year, that’s a nice $3,600 contribution.
  • You’ll get a $1,440 refund (40% of $3,600).

When your $1,440 RRSP-generated refund comes in, and now you decide to spend it on a new iPhone, just know that your RRSP refund is effectively borrowed government money. Yup, a long-term loan from the government they are going to come back for. If you always spend your refund you are undermining the effectiveness of RRSPs because you are giving up your government loan that would otherwise be used for tax-deferred growth.  A refund associated with your RRSP contribution should not be considered a financial windfall but the present value of future tax payment you must make.

If you typically spend the RRSP-generated refund in our example then we think some Canadians are FAR better off prioritizing your TFSA over your RRSP because of the known benefits of that present-day contribution.  

TFSAs offer tax-free growth for any income earner

At some point, the money that comes out of your RRSP (or Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF)) will be taxed.

With TFSAs, the government has eliminated the guesswork about taxation. Because the TFSA is like the RRSP, but in reverse (you don’t get any tax break on the TFSA contribution), TFSA withdrawals are tax-free.

For far more details including answering dozens of questions about this account, read on about our comprehensive TFSA post below:

If you haven’t contributed much towards your retirement and/or you can’t possibly save enough with so many competing financial priorities – that’s OK – striving to max out your TFSA contributions each year, every year, is still very valuable and admirable goal. In fact, focusing diligently on just maxing out your TFSA (and ignoring the RRSP account entirely) will still serve your retirement plan well.

Regardless of your income, any Canadian who is 18 years of age or older with a valid social insurance number (SIN) can open a TFSA. All you need to do is reach out to a financial institution, credit union or insurance company that offers TFSAs and open an account.

Whether you set up your automatic savings plan to your TFSA weekly, monthly, or other – striving to make the maximum contributions to this account can be a significant wealth-building tool as part of the Four Keys to Investing Success. 

Let’s use a case study to demonstrate just how good this account can be for you too – and why you can retire just using your TFSA!

Can you retire using just your TFSA – A Case Study

The big question in his article is – given enough time (ie. if you start young enough), can someone retire using only their TFSA?  The answer may surprise you, at least it surprised us!

To help accurately model this scenario to account for government benefits, inflation, taxes, tax credits, and optimized withdrawal schedules, we dove into the software that we are using to manage our own early retirement plans.

Here are the assumptions we made: Continue Reading…

Rethinking the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rate

Posted By |

 

By Fritz Gilbert, TheRetirementManifesto

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The 4% safe withdrawal rule is a well-known “rule of thumb” for those planning for retirement.

One thing it has going for it is that it’s simple to apply.

If you have $1 Million, the 4% safe withdrawal rule says you can spend $40,000 (4% of $1M) in year one of retirement, increase your spending by the rate of inflation each year, and you’ll never run out of money.

Simple, indeed.

But, I’d argue that simplicity comes at a potentially very serious cost.  Like, potentially running out of money in retirement.

Today, I’ll present my argument against the 4% safe withdrawal rule given our current economic situation, and propose 3 modifications I’d recommend as you determine how much you can safely spend in retirement.

Rethinking the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule

I read a lot of information on retirement planning, and lately, I’ve been seeing more content challenging the 4% safe withdrawal rule.  I agree with those concerns and felt a post outlining my position was warranted.

As a brief background, the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule is based on the “Trinity Study,” which appeared in this original article by William Bergen in the February 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Association of Individual Investors.  For further background, here’s an article that Wade Pfau published on the study.  I’ll save you the details, you can study them for yourself at the links provided.

The conclusion, based on the study, is summarized below:

“Assuming a minimum requirement of 30 years of
portfolio longevity, a first-year withdrawal of 4 percent,
followed by inflation-adjusted withdrawals in
subsequent years, should be safe.”

My Concerns With The 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule

In short, some key factors about the study are relevant, especially as we “Rethink The 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule”

  • It’s based on historical market performance from 1926 – 1992.  

My Concern:  Relying on past performance to predict future returns can mislead the investor, especially given the unique valuations in today’s markets (more on that below).  This point is driven home by this recent Vanguard article that projects future returns based on current market valuations:

4% safe withdrawal rule assumptions

If you think the Vanguard outlook is depressing, check out this forecast from GMO as presented in this Wealth of Common Sense article titled “The Worst Stock and Bond Returns Ever”:

stock and bond forecast

  • Note the VG forecast is nominal (before inflation) whereas the GMO is real (after inflation).

Why Are Future Returns Expected to Be Below Average?

The biggest driver for the projected below-average returns is the high valuation in today’s equity market (particularly in the USA), and the fact that interest rate increases would negatively impact bond yield.  In my view the CAPE Ratio is one of the best indicators of market valuations.  Below is the current CAPE ratio as I write this post on November 16, 2021:

CAPE Ratio

The reason current valuations matter is the fact that they’re highly correlated to future returns, as indicated from this concerning chart that I saw last weekend on cupthecrapinvesting:

CAPE ratio correlation to future returns

Based on today’s CAPE ratio, the historical correlation suggests the forward total returns over the next 10 years could be close to 0%.  Scary stuff for someone who’s planning on equity growth to pay for their retirement expenses.  Scary stuff for someone who’s committed to the 4% safe withdrawal rule.

In addition to the bearish outlook for US equities, bonds could be negatively impacted if when interest rates increase.  To get a sense of how low the US 10-year Treasury yields are now compared to long-term averages, below is the current chart of 10-year yields from CNBC:

4% safe withdrawal rate rule - bond impact

Bond prices are inversely related to interest rates, so as rates go up, bond prices go down.  So, if you’re holding 60% stocks and 40% bonds, it’s possible that you could see decreases in both asset classes.

As cited in this Marketwatch article, The Fed has begun signaling that interest rates are “on the table” for 2022, especially if the current bout of inflation proves to be less than a transitory event (for the record, I suspect it will be more than transitory, but what do I know?).

This brings us to the next concern …

My Other Big Concern With The 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule:

In addition to my concern above (the risk of an extended period of below-average market returns), I don’t like the part of the rule which states you should “increase your spending the following year based on the rate of inflation.”  As most of you know, inflation has been on a bit of a tear lately, as demonstrated in this chart from usinflationcalculator.com:

Based on the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule, you would be increasing spending next year based on the higher inflation rate, which could well be the same time you’re seeing lower than expected returns.

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sit well with me.

Suggested Modifications to the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule

It wouldn’t be fair to cite my concerns with the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rule without suggesting an alternative. Following are the 3 modifications I’d suggest for your consideration.  I’m applying all 3 of these modifications in our personal retirement strategy. Continue Reading…