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.
FIRE is of course an acronym for Financial Independence Retire Early. It turns out that Canadian financial bloggers are a tad more cynical about the term than their American counterparts, some of whom make a very good living evangelizing FIRE through blogs, books and public speaking.
The Hub has periodically republished some of these FIRE critiques from regular contributors Mark Seed, Michael James, Dale Roberts, Robb Engen and a few others, including one prominent American blogger, Fritz Gilbert (of Retirement Manifesto).
No one objects to the FI part of the acronym: Financial Independence. We’re just not so enthusiastic about the RE part: Retire Early. For many FIRE evangelists, “Retire” is hardly an accurate description of what they are doing. If by Retire, they mean the classic full-stop retirement that involves endless rounds of golf and daytime television, then practically no successful FIRE blogger is actually doing this in their 30s, even if through frugal saving and shrewd investing they have generated enough dividend income to actually do nothing if they so chose.
What the FIRE crowd really is doing is shifting from salaried employment or wage slavery to self-employment and entrepreneurship. Most of them launch a FIRE blog that accepts advertising, and publish or self-publish books meant to generate revenue, and/or launch speaking careers with paid gigs that tell everyone else how they “retired” so early in life.
How about FIE or FIWOOT or Findependence?
Some of us don’t consider such a lifestyle to be truly retired in the classic sense of the word. Continue Reading…
The following is a guest post by financial planner, author and pension expert Alexandra Macqueen, which originally ran on Dale Roberts’ Cutthecrapinvesting blog on Feb. 26, 2020. Because they both consider it such an important subject, they have given us permission to re-publish on the Hub. While an overview, it can serve as the ultimate guide to defined benefit pension planning. And mostly, Alexandra outlines the pitfalls and the importance of finding a true and qualified pension expert.
By Alexandra Macqueen, CFP
Special to the Financial Independence Hub
If you’re a Canadian facing a decision about staying in or leaving your defined-benefit pension plan, it might be one of the highest-stakes choices you’ll ever make: the amounts you’re considering can be high – worth as much as your house, or even more – the timeline short, the tax consequences significant, the details complex, and the outcome irreversible.
Over the course of my financial planning career, I’ve encountered, unfortunately, more than one pension decision gone wrong. Just how many ways can a pension decision go off the rails? Here are five “pension pitfalls,” drawn from real-live cases that have crossed my desk in the last year or so, along with the lessons Canadians who are facing this decision can glean.
Pitfall Number 1: Unbalanced advice
It is widely understood that defined-benefit pension plans cover what’s called, in the financial planning world, “longevity risk” – or the chance of living longer, even much longer, than you expect. Defined-benefit pension plans protect against the risk of living very long by providing lifetime income.
In exchange for covering off this risk, however, if you die sooner than expected, the pension payments may stop (depending on whether you have a surviving spouse or other beneficiary, and whether your plan provides guaranteed payments for a specified term).
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
One of the most misleading financial plans I ever encountered – it was just one page, and written in Comic Sans font – outlined the “pros and cons” of staying in a defined-benefit plan. Under “cons,” the planner had listed “mortality risk,” which they defined as the risk of dying relatively shortly after starting to receive monthly pension income.
Here’s what they meant by “mortality risk:” Let’s say you’re facing a pension decision between, say, receiving a lump sum of $750,000 if you “commuted” your entitlement under the plan today, versus $3,500 per month for as long as you’re alive – and you’re wondering about what happens if you die a few years after starting the pension. (“Commuting” your pension entitlement means taking the assets out of the plan as a lump sum today, typically to manage on your own.)
In this situation, and with “mortality risk” presented by the advisor in this way – as equally balanced with the probability of living a long time – it can be very tempting to think that the best option is to “take your money and run.” Maybe you’ll die “early,” you might think – and if you do, you’ll leave an estate!
However, this “financial plan” simply listed “pros and cons” of staying in the defined-benefit plan, without considering the probability of either outcome. If we use the projection assumptions provided for Certified Financial Planners® to reference in preparing financial plans, we can see that a woman aged 65 today has a 50% chance of living to age 91, and a 25% chance of living to age 97, while a man aged 65 today has a 50% chance of living to age 89, and a 25% chance of living to age 91 (see page 13 of the linked document).
Longevity risk vs mortality risk.
Instead of this guidance, however, in this plan the chance of “living” (longevity risk) and “dying” (mortality risk, although you won’t be able find anyone else using this term in the way this advisor did) were presented as equally-weighted possibilities, with no discussion of the likelihood of living to an advanced age.
While a discussion of the impact of dying “early” on pension outcomes is appropriate, this probability should be contextualized – not simply listed as a “con” of staying in a defined-benefit plan, and implicitly characterized as “just as likely” as living to an advanced age.
Pitfall Number 2: Inexpert advice
In this case, a member of a “gold-plated” pension plan (think large sponsoring organization and top-of-the-line pension plan features, such as inflation protection) was going through a divorce, and needed to find a way to equalize assets with a soon-to-be-ex-spouse.
As is not unusual for members of defined-benefit pension plans, the member didn’t have significant other assets. In order to meet his financial obligations, and guided by a financial advisor, he decided to commute his plan entitlement and use the freed-up cash to make an “equalization payment” to his ex.
Unfortunately, neither he nor the advisor really understood the tax consequences of this choice. Because of the size of the plan’s commuted value, the client was unable to shelter much of the paid-out lump sum from immediate taxation, meaning he had a very significant tax bill when tax time rolled around. (That’s because the amount of the commuted value was well in excess of the Maximum Transfer Value set by the Income Tax Act, which specifies how much of that commuted value can be sheltered from immediate taxation.) Continue Reading…
How much is enough? This is the number we all want to know as we strive to determine how much needs to be set aside to fund our aspirations for freedom of life after work. The industry’s tool of choice, to answer this question, is the retirement calculator.
While these calculators provide a rough guideline for those early on in their accumulation years; once the count down for retirement begins (around ten, nine, eight years before retirement lift-off), you need to shift your attention from the rough guestimates of retirement calculators to a more disciplined planning process. Failure to do so robs people of the retirement they dream of and keeps them from achieving the security they deserve.
Reality Oversimplified
I recently re-watched the movie Apollo 11: a film that focuses on the spaceflight that first landed humans on the moon.
While Commander Neil Armstrong and pilots Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins garnered most of the headlines, as I watched the mission unfold, it occurred to me that the unsung heroes of this mission were really the 100+ engineers back in Cape Canaveral. These were the people tasked with planning and then monitoring every single detail of the flight.
Complex? Unquestionably. Yet, this mission did have a pre-planned duration (8 days), a known destination (the lunar surface), a highly-researched flight plan and the ability to pre-determine fuel consumption: prior to lift-off.
Those approaching or currently living in retirement should be envious of the simplicity of this type of mission. Why? Because baby boomers face a much more daunting mission. A journey of unknown duration (often 11,000+ days), to an (all too often) poorly defined destination, along an uncharted course (Baby Boomers are redefining retirement), while constantly worrying and wondering if they will run out of fuel (money) before their journey’s end.
Unfortunately, the guidance system offered by the financial services industry is based upon the simple math of retirement calculators. Google “Retirement Calculator” – you will find every financial planning institution has an on-line version readily available. Continue Reading…
“I don’t invest in my RRSP anymore because I’ll have to pay tax on the withdrawals.”
This type of thinking around RRSPs has become increasingly common since the TFSA was introduced in 2009.
The anti-RRSP crowd must come from one of two schools of thought:
1.) They believe their tax rate will be higher in the withdrawal phase than in the contribution phase, or;
2.) They forgot about the deduction they received when they made the contribution in the first place.
No other options prior to TFSA
RRSPs are misunderstood today for several reasons. For one thing, older investors had no other options prior to the TFSA, so they might have contributed to their RRSP in their lower-income earning years without realizing this wasn’t the optimal approach.
RRSPs are meant to work as a tax-deferral strategy, meaning you get a tax-deduction on your contributions today and your investments grow tax-free until it’s time to withdraw the funds in retirement, a time when hopefully you’ll be taxed at a lower rate. So contributing to your RRSP makes more sense during your high-income working years rather than when you’re just starting out in an entry-level position.
Taxing withdrawals
A second reason why RRSPs are misunderstood is because of the concept of taxing withdrawals. The TFSA is easy to understand. Contribute $6,000 today, let your investment grow tax-free, and withdraw the money tax-free whenever you so choose.
With RRSPs you have to consider what is going to benefit you most from a tax perspective. Are you in your highest income earning years today? Will you be in a lower tax bracket in retirement? The same? Higher?
The RRSP and TFSA work out to be the same if you’re in the same tax bracket when you withdraw from your RRSP as you were when you made the contributions. An important caveat is that you have to invest the tax refund for RRSPs to work out as designed.
Future federal tax rates
Another reason why investors might think RRSPs are a bum deal? They believe federal tax rates are higher today, or will be higher in the future when it’s time to withdraw from their RRSP.
Is this true? Not so far. I checked historical federal tax rates from 1998-2000 and compared them to the tax rates for 2018 and 2019.
The charts show that tax rates have actually decreased significantly for the middle class over the last two decades.
Someone who made $40,000 in 1998 would have paid $6,639 in federal taxes, or 16.6 per cent. After adjusting the income for inflation, someone who earned $59,759 in 2019 would pay $7,820 in federal taxes, or just 13.1 per cent.
Minimum RRIF withdrawals
It became clear over the last decade that the minimum RRIF withdrawal rules needed an overhaul. No one liked being forced to withdraw a certain percentage of their nest egg every year, especially when that percentage didn’t jive with today’s lower return environment and longer lifespans. Continue Reading…
Like many Canadians with retirement on the short-to-midterm horizon, you may have spent more than one sleepness night worrying that you’re not prepared.
In fact, at least half of Canadians over the age of 50 think they’re not on track with their retirement planning and about the same number of non-retirees don’t have a financial plan.
Experience suggests that people may be afraid that they won’t have enough money to retire, but in reality, they may not even know the true answer. I take the view that not having a formal plan in place doesn’t necessarily equate to not being on track to retire. There are many steps you can take in the critical count-down years to retirement that will reframe your planning and investment approach and alleviate anxiety and stress.
Take inventory of present Financial Situation
I recommend assessing your last six months of credit, debit and cash spending: grouping your expenses into categories. To project for the future it’s important to understand where your money is being spent today. This activity will help to identify where better savings could be achieved. Completing a net-worth statement is also important to determine what you own vs what you owe.
Understanding your pension entitlements is also a key stress reliever. Pension plans will typically offer retirement projections. At 65, CPP has a maximum benefit of $1175.83 monthly and $613.53 for Old Age Security. It’s important to call Service Canada to get an accurate CPP projection to find out what you are eligible to receive. Similarly, OAS is tied to Canadian residency, with 40 years being a requirement for the maximum eligible payout.
Goal Setting and Strategic Planning
After taking inventory, the next step would be determining what income you actually need in order to retire. Completing a pre-and post-retirement budget is an exercise that will help determine the after-tax figure to target. Likely the targeted income would be tiered with a higher spend being projected for the first 10-15 years of retirement ($5000-$10,000 a year for travel) and lower lifestyle costs thereafter, with some planning as a buffer against long-term care costs. Continue Reading…
Posted By 
Posted By 
Posted By 
