General

The unintended consequences of ESG paternalism

Posted By |

By Cory Clark

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

As a parent, it can be hard to let your children make their own decisions. Particularly when you question the wisdom of the decisions they may make. At some point however, you have to let children make their own decisions. As they mature, that’s what they deserve, and it’s entirely possible they’ll make the right decision for them, even if it’s not the decision you would have made. One of the unintended consequences of overprotectiveness is that as soon as that child gets the chance, they fly the coop and stay as far away from their overbearing parents as they can. “Local college? No thanks.”

Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor [DoL henceforth] became a helicopter parent and pushed its proverbial children out the door when it issued new proposed rulemaking related to ESG [Environmental, social and corporate governance] investments within retirement plans. “Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments” seeks to codify harsh guidance on ESG investments within retirement plans, which will very likely have a chilling effect on the availability of such investment options to retirement plan participants.

The proposed rule is paternalistic to both plan fiduciaries and plan participants. With respect to plan fiduciaries, the DOL takes the unusual step of supplanting industry experts’ professional judgment in favor of their own. But perhaps the more damaging effect of the proposed rule is that it tosses aside the participant’s personal choice related to the values underlying their retirement investments. The Department has in essence said to America’s retirement plan participants, “we know better than you, and as long as you live under our roof…” This positioning can bring about a very predictable response, stop living under that roof and unlock your personal choice. Ironically, the Department issued a second proposed rule the very same month which shows participants the door.

The second proposed rule issued by the DoL, “Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees,” officially reinstated ERISA’s 1975 definition of fiduciary, but made some critical adjustments to its interpretation such that rollover recommendations will be considered a fiduciary act and subject to an annual retrospective review. The proposed exemption would allow otherwise prohibited rollover recommendations, provided that the recommendation is given under an impartial standard of conduct.

DALBAR finds EST investments attractive in DC pensions

A recent DALBAR study shows that ESG investments are an attractant to defined contribution plan participation. It’s only natural that the inverse would also be true; the absence of ESG investments within a plan can be an incentive to invest elsewhere or not invest at all. This incentive is only going to get stronger as the younger generations, who have a greater preference for ESG, begin to make up a greater proportion of the retirement plan market. Continue Reading…

BBC StoryWorks #3: The case for locking in to Fixed-rate Mortgages at today’s ultra-low interest rates

Posted By |

The third article of six planned to appear on the BBC StoryWorks website in Canada has now been published. You can find it by clicking on the highlighted headline here: Embracing the Fixed Rate Mortgage.

As explained in the first instalment, the articles look at Covid-19 and the impact on the real estate and mortgage industry. The articles appear weekly and run into November.  The last three articles will look at the case for locking the investing experience following Covid, optimum strategies going forward and close with retirement strategies in the age of Covid.

In the second article of the series we made the case for why you might want to go with a variable rate mortgage and keep your interest costs as low as possible at today’s historically rock-bottom rates. In this article — written with my input and sponsored by TD Bank — we take the opposite view and present the argument why you might consider locking in to the safety and security of a 5-year fixed rate mortgage.

After all, there’s a lot more room for rates to rise than fall from here, and staying variable may be especially stressful for those with larger mortgages. True, you may be able to save a few basis points in interest charges by staying short but at what cost in anxiety and sleepless nights?

Variable mortgage rates remain a tad lower than fixed but is it worth taking a gamble with variable to get the absolute lowest rate or is it better to choose the safety and security of a fixed rate mortgage? Today’s record low 5-year fixed rates has made Lethbridge-based fee-only financial planner Robb Engen (and regular Hub contributor) rethink his past strategy of staying variable.  He points out any upside with variable rates is largely gone now as the prime rate is likely as low as it’s going to get.

Both variable and fixed rates may be under 2% these days

“Fixed and variable mortgage interest rates [for the same term] are pretty comparable these days,” says fee-only financial planner Jason Heath, managing director of Toronto-based Objective Financial Partners.
Continue Reading…

Should I change my investments during an election?

Posted By |
LowrieFinancial.com
By Steve Lowrie, CFA
Special to the Financial Independence Hub
Back during the Clinton/Trump U.S. presidential election four years ago, I ended up fielding a lot of questions from investors of all political bents. Many investors wondered whether they should adjust their portfolio in response to the change of the guards. At the time, I had this to say: 
  • Post pubBack during the Clinton/Trump U.S. presidential election four years ago, I ended up fielding a lot of questions from investors of all political bents. Many investors wondered whether they should adjust their portfolio in response to the change of the guards. At the time, I had this to say: 

“If you want to skip reading my more detailed explanation, the answer is: No. Even when political news is strongly felt, there will likely never be a good time to shift your investments — neither in reaction nor as a defence. First, no matter how certain one or another outcome may seem, how the market is going to respond to the news remains essentially unknown. Second, by the time you’ve heard the news, it’s already priced into the market anyway.”

Fast-forward to 2020. To say the least, a few things have changed!  But my advice remains the same: From one election to the next, other factors have exhibited a far greater impact on investment returns than which person or party holds the U.S. presidency. Whether leadership is more or less conservative, largely efficient markets have usually figured out a way to shift and grow, either way.

As we can see in this interactive chart from Dimensional Fund Advisors, these results are well-documented. They also make a lot of sense, given something called “stage-one and stage-two thinking.”

Thinking in Stages

Stage-one and stage-two thinking are terms popularized by economist Thomas Sowell in his book, “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.” Basically, before acting on an event’s initial (stage one) anticipated results, it’s best to engage in stage-two thinking, by first asking a very simple question:

“And then what will happen?”

By asking this question again and again, you can more objectively consider what Sowell refers to as the “long-run repercussions to decisions and policies.”

Who will next occupy the various seats of power around the globe, and what might the results be? Stage-two thinking helps us see past the usual proliferation of stage-one predictions that call for anything from financial ruin to unprecedented prosperity.

As financial author Larry Swedroe describes in a US News & World Report interview, “Stage one thinking occurs when something bad happens, you catastrophize and assume things will continue to get worse … Stage two thinking can help you move beyond catastrophizing … [so you can] consider why everything may not be as bad as it seems. Think about previous similar circumstances to disprove your catastrophic fears.”

Timeles lessons in terminal uncertainty

In the 2020 U.S. presidential race, we’re seeing prime examples of both dire and exuberant financial forecasts, presumably premised on who wins the election. The truth is, nobody has a clue what all the combined market-moving forces have in store for us in the near term, because nobody can know the answer to Sowell’s convoluted market-moving question: And then what will happen? Continue Reading…

Retired Money: 2 useful Retirement books have starkly different views of wisdom of deferring CPP and even OAS to age 70

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at two recently published books by two of the country’s top authors on Retirement Income Planning. You can find the full column by clicking on this highlighted headline: Near retirement without a Defined Benefit pension? Here’s what you need to know.

One of the new books is retired actuary Fred Vettese’s new revised edition of his book, Retirement Income For Life, which I first reviewed in 2018, and which you can find here. Vettese has revised and expanded the book to the spring of 2020, allowing him to look at the Covid-19 issue and how an extended Covid-related bear market could put further wrenches in retirement plans.

The book describes several “enhancements” to a base case of an average almost-retired couple with no DB pensions and roughly $600,000 in savings. This base case – Vettese dubs them the Thompson family — pay high investment management fees (on the order of 2%, typically via mutual funds).

Couples in his base case also tend to take CPP as soon as it’s on offer at age 60 and OAS as soon as possible at age 65. Vettese continues to pound the table about the value of these government pensions and recommends that people like the Thompsons delay CPP till age 70 if at all possible. Remember, in the absence of a DB plan, CPP and OAS are worth their weight in gold, being government-guaranteed-for-life sources of income that are inflation-indexed to boot.

Vettese is fine with ordinary average folk taking OAS at 65. However, and this seemed new to me, in a section for high-net worth couples (which he defines as having $3 million in investable assets), he suggests they should also delay OAS to age 70, along with CPP.

As an actuary, Vettese sees this enhancement as a simple case of transferring risk from a retiree’s shoulders to the government’s. Why worry about investment risk and longevity risk when the government can worry about it on your behalf?

Similarly, a related enhancement is to engage in the same type of risk transfer by converting a portion of registered savings to the shoulders of life insurance companies: he suggests 20% can be annuitized, ideally after age 70. That’s a bit less than the 30% his first edition he recommended immediately upon retirement.

One of Vettese’s enhancements to the base case is simple enough: to cut investment management fees. Larry Bates devoted an entire book to this theme: Beat the Bank, which I reviewed two years ago here.

Try the free PERC calculator

There are two other less compelling enhancements: knowing how much income to draw and having a backstop. Knowing how much income can be figured out with a free calculator that Vettese twigs readers to: PERC or the Personal Enhanced Retirement Calculator, available at perc.morneaushepell.com. Continue Reading…

4 big Rip-offs to avoid

Posted By |

I’ve made my share of bad financial decisions over the years, but nothing feels worse than when a salesperson convinces you to buy something that’s not in your best interest. These kinds of rip-offs usually occur when one party has more or better information than the other.

Think about the first time you bought a car or the first time you went to the bank to sign your mortgage documents. Who controlled the conversation? If you were like me, you probably deferred to the “expert” sitting across the desk and happily signed everything they put in front of you

Related: 10 Fees To Avoid Paying

What you might not have known at the time is that some of the extras, such as extended warranty coverage or balance protection insurance for your credit card, were completely optional and most likely a giant waste of money.

Here are four big financial rip-offs to avoid:

1.) Mortgage life insurance

If you own your home, chances are you were offered mortgage life insurance from your bank. This type of insurance is not a requirement to qualify for a mortgage, but it’s made to look that way by many lenders who suggest it at a time when you’re vulnerable and haven’t shopped around. You’ll even have to sign a waiver form to decline the coverage.

The reality is that it’s generally not a good idea to buy mortgage life insurance from your bank. It’s the one financial product that goes down in value as you continue to pay: also known as a declining benefit. Term life insurance is much cheaper and offers greater protection.

2.) Extended warranty coverage

It’s almost guaranteed that you’ll be asked to buy an extended warranty the next time you purchase an appliance or any high-end piece of electronics. The reason for the hard sell is that retailers have big profit margins on these contracts. Stores keep 50 per cent or more of what you pay for extended warranties or service plans, according to Consumer Reports research.

Consumer Reports recommends against buying extended warranty coverage. One reason is that most repairs may be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty, which should last at least 90 days or longer. Their research suggests that if a product doesn’t break while the manufacturer’s warranty is in effect, it probably won’t during the service-plan period.

Related: Gadget Insurance – Is It Worthwhile?

Many credit cards will double the manufacturer’s warranty when you use the card to make the purchase and register the product.

3.) Balance protection insurance

One common telemarketing pitch from banks and credit card lenders is for balance protection insurance.

For a cost of about 99 cents per $100 of the average daily balance (about 1 per cent per month) you can protect your credit rating against unexpected job loss or disability.

Customers might agree to add this protection to their credit card thinking that because they pay off the balance in full each month they’ll avoid the fee. Not so. The fee can based on the amount owing on your statement due date, or on your average daily balance, depending on the card issuer.

Not only that, the “protection” is riddled with exclusions, making it difficult to make a claim should you become ill or lose your job.

A CBC Marketplace investigation revealed how bank employees mislead and up-sell consumers on pricey credit card balance protection insurance. I’ve had personal experience with this, as CIBC added the insurance protection to my credit card account last year without my permission. More recently, my wife signed up for a card with TD and upon activation the customer service agent pushed balance protection coverage. When my wife declined, the agent persisted and asked, “why not?” Continue Reading…