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.

Wealth & Happiness, Part 2: Happiness is a Thought and can be changed

By Warren MacKenzie, for Canadian Moneysaver

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In Part One of this series we mentioned how ‘living in the moment’ — that is being free of ideas of self and the things we wish for — is an opportunity for happiness.

In this part we will first explain how happiness comes from our thoughts, not our financial circumstances, and how making money usually generates more happiness than spending it does. We will then look at how money can buy happiness when you give it away, and how it’s not enough to manage money wisely: we also have to use our money wisely.

For example, let’s imagine two people with the same size investment portfolio living in almost identical apartments. In one case, the individual who may have experienced a windfall is overjoyed to be living on his or her own, while the other person, who may have suffered a financial loss, is sad and embarrassed to now be living in such a small apartment. One person is happy and one is sad. The difference is not based on their different circumstances it is entirely based on their thoughts about their situation.

In his book, The Art of Happiness, Dalai Lama says, “Once basic needs are met – the message is clear: We don’t need more money, we don’t need greater success or fame, we don’t need the perfect body or the perfect mate – right now, at this very moment, we have a mind, which is all the basic equipment we need to achieve complete happiness.”

Overcoming challenges

For most successful people, it’s their accomplishments that gives them the greatest happiness, whether that includes looking after their family, accumulating wealth, or showing resilience and problem solving through difficult situations. Successful people know that a happy life is not a life without problems or negative circumstances: rather it is one where we have the opportunity to overcome challenges and problems.

It’s important to realize that most often, the greater the challenge, the greater the happiness that comes from overcoming it. If parents make things so easy for their children that they never have to work hard and learn to overcome challenges, (including financial challenges) their children may not develop the positive self-image and confidence that comes from solving problems and creating their own financial security. Continue Reading…

The Case for Bonds

Outcome Metric Asset Management

By Noah Solomon

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Historically, investors have held bonds to diversify and mitigate the volatility of their portfolios. Conventional portfolios have sufficient allocations to low-volatility bonds to weather periodic bear markets in stocks. During the tech-wreck of 2000-02, the global financial crisis of 2007, and the Covid-crash of early 2020, bonds not only held up well relative to stocks, but actually produced gains, mitigating the pain investors experienced from large declines in stocks.

Over the past few decades, bonds have not only provided ample protection from bear markets in equities but have also provided reasonable returns for the privilege. During the 40 years from 1982 to 2020, 10-year U.S. Treasuries produced an average annualized real return of 4.71%.

The Ugly Truth

By any measure, the bond market’s one-two punch of healthy returns and portfolio insurance over the past several decades has been impressive. However, this experience has been highly anomalous from a long-term historical perspective.

The 4.71% annualized real return of 10-year U.S. Treasuries over the 40 years from 1981 to 2020 compares favorably to the corresponding return of only 1.36% for the 80 years beginning in 1941. Their returns over the past four decades look even more out of place when compared to -1.89% annualized real return for the 40 years from 1941 to 1980.

Bonds can also be less stable than stocks and just as vulnerable to extreme losses. Since 1928, the maximum peak-trough loss in real terms of 10-year U.S. Treasuries was -54.3% vs. -56.5% for stocks. Over the same time period, the worst rolling 10-year annualized real return for 10-year Treasuries was -4.7% as compared to -4.06% for the S&P 500 Index.

Bond bear markets can also last longer than those of stocks. Investors who bought Treasuries at the end of 1940 had to wait 51 years before they broke even in real terms. By contrast, the lengthiest period in which stocks remained underwater was the 13 years following the peak of the technology bubble in late 1999.

The current near-zero yields on bonds are likely to be an excellent indicator of what investors can anticipate for future returns. John Bogle, founder of The Vanguard Group, pointed out that since 1926, the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes explains 92% of the annualized returns investors would have earned had they held the notes to maturity and reinvested the interest payments at prevailing rates.

The perils of investing in bonds are well summarized by legendary investor Warren Buffett, who in his 2012 annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders warned:

They are among the most dangerous of assets. Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many countries, even as these holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal …. Right now, bonds should come with a warning label.

History also cautions against relying on bonds to mitigate portfolio losses when stocks decline. Notwithstanding that bonds provided much needed gains during the tech-wreck of 2000-2002, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the Covid-crash of 2020, stocks and bonds have been positively correlated in 55% of the 93 years from 1928 to 2020.

Putting history aside, the simple fact is that with current short-term rates at zero and 10-year Treasuries yielding 1.5%, it will be difficult for bonds to provide the same degree of protection (if any) in the next bear market. The math just doesn’t work!

From the beginning of 1928 through the end of last year, the annualized real return of the S&P 500 Index was 6.64%, as compared to 1.94% for 10-year Treasuries. Had you invested $1 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1928, by the end of 2020 it would have had an inflation-adjusted value of $396.03 vs. only $5.96 had you invested the same $1 in 10-year Treasuries. Put simply, the opportunity cost of maintaining a permanent allocation to bonds cannot be overstated.

Does this mean Bond Investors are Irrational?

The massive drag on portfolio returns over the long-term caused by a permanent allocation to bonds does not necessarily imply that investors who hold them are irrational.

Many investors may not have a sufficiently long investment horizon to weather crushing losses in bear markets and/or may be emotionally incapable of enduring large losses that can occur in portfolios that are heavily weighted in stocks. Continue Reading…

Can Dynamic Pension Pools strengthen Canadians’ Retirement Income Security?

Image courtesy National Institute on Ageing

A new report published by the National Institute on Ageing (NIA) and the Global Risk Institute (GRI) being published today aims to help overcome the $1.5-trillion Decumulation Disconnect in the Canadian Retirement Income System.

Titled Affordable Lifetime Pension Income for a Better Tomorrow, the report makes the case for how Dynamic Pension (DP) pools can strengthen retirement income security for millions of Canadian seniors. Here is the link to the full report.

The urgency is apparent when you consider that 10 million Canadian baby boomers are now entering retirement: with longer life expectancies and a greater dependency on private savings to sustain them. As the report’s authors write, “it’s more important than ever to find solutions that will help retiring Canadians turn their accumulated savings into low-cost lifetime pension income.”

Bonnie Jeanne MacDonald/Ryerson/National Institute on Aging

Lead author Dr. Bonnie-Jeanne MacDonald, Director of Financial Security Research at the NIA, says fears that retiring Canadians’ savings won’t sustain them in retirement are “legitimate …  Financial markets, inflation and health expenses are just some of the big unknowns that retirees will need to face over 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years.”

According to the report, Dynamic Pension [DP henceforth] pools have the potential to transform the Canadian retirement landscape. Their goal is simple: to help people optimize their expected lifetime retirement income while ensuring they never run out of money. In other words, gurantee that they won’t run out of money before they run out of life.

Pooling Longevity Risk

While protecting individuals from outliving their savings (i.e., longevity risk) can be prohibitively expensive, the same protection becomes affordable when spread across a large group. Pooling longevity risk allows retirees to spend their savings more confidently while they are alive, says the report.

In a DP pool, pension amounts are not guaranteed but may fluctuate from year to year. This means retirees can stay invested in capital markets and benefit from the higher expected returns.

DP pools have a risk-reward profile that is fundamentally different from current options and products available for older Canadians: such as guaranteed annuities purchased through insurance companies or individually managing and drawing down savings from personal retirement savings accounts, says another of the report’s authors, Barbara Sanders, Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University,  “Retirees who are comfortable with some investment risk can stay invested in equity markets and reap the associated rewards, which is important in today’s low-interest and high-inflation environment.” Continue Reading…

The six phases of financial independence [Revisited]

 

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

I’ve recently updated this post to include more links to related content. I hope you enjoy it. 

The term “financial independence” has many meanings to many people.

To some, it means not working at all.

To others, financial independence covers all needs and many wants.

To others still, it means the ability to work on your own terms.

Where do I stand on this subject?

This post will tell you in my six phases to financial independence.

Retirement should not be the goal, financial independence should be

Is retirement your goal?

To stop working altogether?

While I think that’s fine I feel the traditional model of retirement is outdated and quite frankly, not very useful.

As humans, even our lizard brains are smart enough to know we need a sense of purpose to feel fulfilled.  Working for decades, saving money for decades, only to come to an abrupt end of any working career might work for some people but it’s not something I aspire to do.

With people living longer, and more diverse needs of our society expanding, the opportunities to contribute and give back are growing as well. To that end, I never really aspire to fully “retire” – cease to work.

Benefits of financial independence (FI)

In the coming years, I hope to realize my desired level of financial independence.

We believe the realization of FI will bring about some key benefits:

  1. The opportunity to regain more control of our most valuable commodity: time.
  2. Enhanced opportunities to learn and grow.
  3. Spend extra money on things that add value to your life, like experiences or entrepreneurship.

Whether it’s establishing a three-day work week, spending more time as a painter, snowboarder, or photographer, or whatever you desire – financial independence delivers a dose of freedom that’s hard to come by otherwise.

More succinctly: financial independence funds time for passions.

FI concepts explained elsewhere

There are many takes on what FI means to others.

There is no right or wrong folks – only models and various assumptions at play.

For kicks, here are some select examples I found from authors and bloggers I follow.

  • JL Collins, author of The Simple Path to Wealth, popularized the concept of “F-you money”. This is not necessarily financially independent large sums of money but rather, enough money to buy a modest level of time and freedom for something else. I suspect that money threshold varies for everyone.
  • Various bloggers subscribe to a “4% rule”* whereby you might be able to live off your investments for ~ 30 years, increasing your portfolio withdraws with the rate of inflation.

Recall the rule:

*Based on research conducted by certified financial planner William Bengen who looked at various stock market returns and investment scenarios over many decades. The “rule” states that if you begin by withdrawing 4% of your nest egg’s value during your first year of retirement, assuming a 50/50 equity/bond asset mix, and then adjust subsequent withdrawals for inflation, you’ll avoid running out of money for 30 years. Bengen’s math noted you can always withdraw more than 4% of your portfolio in your retirement years however doing so dramatically increases your chances of exhausting your capital sooner than later.

In some ways, the 4% rule remains a decent rule of thumb.

Are there levels of FI?

For some bloggers, the answer is “yes”:

  • Half FI – saved up 50% of your end goal (e.g., $500,000 of $1M).
  • Lean FI – saved up >50% of your end goal; income that pays for life’s essentials like food, shelter and clothing (but nothing else is covered).
  • Flex FI – saved up closer to 80% of your end goal (e.g., $800,000 of $1M). This provides financial flexibility to cover most retirement spending including some discretionary expenses.
  • Financial Independence (FI) – saved up 100% of your end goal, you have ~ 25 times your annual expenses saved up whereby you could withdraw 4% (or more in good markets) for 30+ years (i.e., the 4% rule).
  • Fat FI – saved up at or > 120% of your end goal (in this case $1.2M for this example), such that your annual withdrawal rate could be closer to 3% (vs. 4%) therefore making your retirement spending plan almost bulletproof.

There is this concept about “Slow FI” that I like from The Fioneers. The concept of “Slow FI” arose because, using the Fioneers’ wording while “there were many positive things that could come with a decision to pursue FIRE, but I still felt that some aspects of it were at odds with my desire to live my best life now (YOLO).

They went on to state, because “our physical health is not guaranteed, and we could irreparably damage our mental health if we don’t attend to it.

Well said.

My six phases of financial independence

With a similar line of thinking related to Slow FI, since we all have only one life to live, we should try and embrace happiness in everything we do today and not wait until “retirement” to find it.

After reviewing these ideas above, among others, I thought it would be good to share what I believe are the six key phases of any FI journey – including my own.

Phase 1 – FI awakening. This is where there is an awareness or at least an initial desire to achieve FI even if you don’t know exactly how or when you might get there.

FI awakening might consider self-reflection questions or thoughts like the following:

  • I would love to retire early or retire eventually…
  • I can never seem to get off this credit card treadmill…
  • I wish I had some extra money to travel…
  • Wouldn’t it be nice to buy X guilt-free?

(I had my awakening just before I decided to become My Own Advisor, triggered by the financial crisis of 2008-2009.)

Phase 2 – FI understanding. This is the phase where people are getting themselves organized; they start to diligently educate themselves on what their personal FI journey might be.

In this phase, they might set goals or get a better handle on what goes into their financial plan. Even if your plan is not perfect, it’s a start.

They might start asking some deeper questions like:

  • Why is money important to me?
  • What is my money for?
  • How do I know I’m doing it right?

I would say it took me until my mid-30s to get my financial life in order through more financial education and improved financial literacy. It was a process that took a couple of years although I’m always continuously learning and improving. I don’t pretend to know it all.) Continue Reading…

How much is your Home Country Bias costing you?

 

By Dale Roberts, cutthecrapinvesting

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Investors around the globe are known to invest ‘too much’ of their portfolio in their home country. It is called a home bias. Canadian investors are guilty of that home bias. Many estimates suggest that Canadians hold about 60% of their portfolio assets in Canada.

Meanwhile Canadian stock markets represent only about 3% of the global total. That home bias increases portfolio concentration risk (in one country and in just a few sectors). There has also been a cost; lower returns due to the underperformance of the Canadian market vs the U.S. market and at times the International developed markets. It is an important consideration. What is the cost or your Canadian home bias?

As a backgrounder, in 2019 I suggested that you say goodbye to your Canadian home bias.

I recently posed the question on Twitter:

Please feel free to jump on that tweet as well and offer your home bias. Don’t be shy, we are all guilty, for the most part. If you read through that thread you’ll see that investors offered that they were largely overweight Canada. Most are holding 50% to 70% Canadian stocks.

From the table in that tweet, you can see the drastic underperformance of Canadian stocks vs U.S. stocks over the last 3-, 5-, 10-years or more.

Canadian vs U.S. stocks

And here’s the returns comparison in chart form. The charts and tables are courtesy of Portfolio Visualizer.

 

And the returns over various time frames, in table format.

For the above comparison, we use the TSX 60 ETF, ticker XIU that you’ll find suggested for core Canadian stocks on the ETF Model Portfolio page.

It appears that there may have been no home bias opportunity cost if you had been invested from the year 2000. Keep in mind that is a static start date measuring the investments (with dividend reinvestment) from the year 2000. The picture will change when we start adding monies ($1,000 per month) on a regular basis.

There is then a meaningful outperformance for the U.S. stocks.

Incredibly, the U.S. stock portfolio generated 46% more money to create retirement income. The TWRR stands for time weighted returns. MWRR refers to the money weighted returns, taking into account the effect of the regular contributions.

The above chart simply shows the outperformance of U.S. stocks vs Canadian stocks. That’s not to suggest that an investor should go all-in on U.S. stocks — though U.S. investors are also known to suffer from an extreme case of investor home bias.

We should not forget the lost decade for U.S. stocks. That was a period when U.S. stocks delivered no real return (inflation adjusted) for a decade or more. And that period begins at the start date for our above charts.

The home bias is of consideration for Canadians, Americans and investors around the globe.

What’s the right mix?

I don’t think you have to be perfect in this regard. And perhaps there is no perfect geographic allocation. But we certainly want a nice mix of Canadian, U.S. and International stocks. We’ll usually add bonds as well when we enter the retirement risk zone, and also in retirement.

U.S. markets certainly fill the holes of the Canadian stock market. And the U.S. multi-nationals that dominate the S&P 500 do offer significant international exposure. That said, an investor should seek greater diversification by way of international developed and developing nations outside of North America.

In the Advanced Spud (couch potato portfolio) section for MoneySense, I offered that investors might seek equal representation from developed and developing markets. There are favourable growth patterns and favourable demographics within the developing markets. As they say: demographics is destiny.

As always, this is not advice, but ideas for consideration.

Global stocks vs U.S. stocks

Here’s global stocks (the rest of the developed world) vs the U.S. market from 1996.

We see global stocks outperforming towards the end of the financial crisis (2008-2009) and then the U.S. market takes over.

We can also see the drastic difference in returns with regular investments. The U.S. stock market and U. S. companies continue to be global leaders with incredible growth prospects. You can’t blame investors for wanting to overweight the U.S. market.

The global cap weighted index

Many portfolio managers would suggest that the most passive investment approach would be to follow the global cap weighting index. That simply takes into account the value of each stock market relative to the total global markets. The stock markets with greater value receive a greater weight.

Here’s the current weighting by way of Vanguard’s (U.S. dollar) Global ETF – VT.

Within that global mix Canada is less than 3%

The U.S. market dominates the global markets. It has largely earned that position by way of earnings and revenue growth, but keep in mind that the global cap weighting method will reward momentum (and hence emotion and unbridled enthusiasm). That momentum ‘got it wrong’ in the late 1990s for U.S. stocks. Is the enthusiasm for U.S. stocks misplaced in 2021? Perhaps partially ‘wrong’? Continue Reading…