General

Flipping Homes: One way young adults can achieve Financial Freedom

Posted By |

By Donna Johnson

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

One of the top ways to make money historically has involved investing in real estate. Buying distressed houses at a good price and then selling them for a profit, known as flipping, is a great option for making money in housing. For those who are young adults, there is time to take risks and recover if they don’t pan out. Flipping houses is one of those calculated risks that could help younger American or Canadian adults achieve financial freedom in relatively short order. Here is how the flipping process works.

Find a house

In order to flip a house, it’s necessary to first own the house. A house that’s ripe for flipping might be a very distressed house in a great neighborhood. With tens of thousands of dollars of work, flippers could theoretically earn a profit that equals or exceeds their initial investment. Even a home that’s merely a bit dated in its decor could provide a good opportunity in the right location.

It’s important to know the market before purchasing a house to flip. It will be difficult to sell a house for a profit in a bad neighborhood no matter how impressive the renovations are. Additionally, comps in the local market will need to be high enough to provide a gap between what the flip initially costs and what you can sell it for. Otherwise, it will be difficult to make a profit.

Have money available

It’s important to have quite a bit of cash on hand before beginning a house flip. Those 3.5% down payments associated with FHA loans [in the U.S.] are only available for homes that will be occupied by the owner. Banks consider flips investment properties. Therefore, a flipper can expect a bank to require a 20% down payment as security for a loan. Continue Reading…

The Pros and Cons of Dividend Investing

Posted By |
Photo created by rawpixel.com – www.freepik.com

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column has just been published, which you can retrieve by clicking on the highlighted headline: The Pros and Cons of Dividend Investing.

As with most of the Retired Money articles I write for the site, the piece looks at dividend investing from the perspective of someone in their 60s who is nearing retirement or semi-retired, as well as full retirees in their 70s.

It notes there are two major schools of thought on income investing.

In his book, You can retire sooner than you think, author and financial planner Wes Moss makes the case for retirees 60 or older having 100% of their portfolio in income-generating vehicles: whether interest, dividends, rental income from REITs or other securities: “Everything should be paying you an income from age 60 on.”

But there is a “total return” camp that argues total returns are what counts, whether generated by capital gains or cap gains combined with a growing stream of dividend income. In his series of “Stop doing” blogs, Toronto-based advisor Steve Lowrie argued investors should Stop chasing dividends.

One of the most romanticized ideas in personal finance?

Also in the total-return camp is PWL Capital portfolio manager Benjamin Felix, who tackled this in a Q&A column where a young Gen Y investor asked how he could create an all-dividend portfolio so he could retire early. Felix has said dividend investing is “one of the most romanticized ideas in personal finance”—citing a 2013 study by Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) that found 60% of U.S. stocks and 40% of international stocks don’t pay dividends, plus the fact that Warren Buffett declared dividends should not matter in making great investments. So, he concluded, an all-dividend approach would lead to “poor diversification.” Felix also dispelled the misconceptions that dividends are a guaranteed source of returns, offer protection in down markets, and that companies that grow their dividends necessarily beat the market. Continue Reading…

Renting in Retirement

Posted By |

By Benjamin Felix, for Boomer & Echo

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Canadians value few things more than a home that is owned outright. This might be especially true for retirees. The thinking seems to be that once your mortgage is paid off, your housing expenses evaporate. Unfortunately, this could not be further from the truth.

The alternative, renting, is often frowned upon. Renting is seen as throwing money away. The reality is that renting in retirement can make a lot of sense, both financially and psychologically, when it is properly understood.

The first step to accepting renting as a sensible housing choice is understanding the financial aspect of the decision. To compare the financial implications of renting and owning we need a common ground. That common ground is unrecoverable costs.

Unrecoverable Costs

Rent is an unrecoverable cost. It is paid in exchange for a place to live, and there is no equity or other residual value afterward. That is easy to grasp.

Owning also has unrecoverable costs. They are less obvious and usually get missed in the renting versus owning discussion. An owner of a mortgage-free home still has to pay property taxes and maintenance costs, both unrecoverable, to maintain their home. Each of these costs can be estimated at 1% of the value of the home per year on average.

In addition, an owner absorbs an economic cost for keeping their capital in their home as opposed to investing it in stocks and bonds. This economic cost, or opportunity cost, is a real cost that an owner needs to consider. Estimating this portion of the cost of owning is harder to do. It requires estimating expected returns for stocks, bonds, and real estate for comparison with each other.

Expected Returns

Estimating expected returns is not an easy task; it starts with understanding historical risk premiums. The market will demand more expected return for riskier assets, and this relationship is visible in historical returns.

For stocks, bonds, and real estate, the Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook offers data going back to 1900. Globally, the real return for real estate, that’s net of inflation, from 1900 through 2017 was 1.3%, while stocks returned 5% after inflation, and bonds returned 1.9%. If we assume inflation at 1.7%, then we would be thinking about a 3% nominal return for real estate, a 6.7% nominal return for global stocks, and a 3.6% nominal return for global bonds.

To keep things simple and conservative, we will assume that real estate continues to return a nominal 3%, while stocks return an average of 6%, and bonds return 3%.

The Cost of Capital

With a set of expected returns, we can now start thinking about the cost of capital. Every dollar that a home owner has in home equity is a dollar that they could be investing in a portfolio of stocks and bonds. A retiree is unlikely to have an aggressive portfolio of 100% stocks, so we will use the 5.10% expected return for a 70% stock and 30% bond portfolio. The 2.10% difference in expected returns between the portfolio and real estate is the opportunity cost carried by the owner.

It is important to note that asset allocation, which is a big driver of these numbers, will depend on many factors including other sources of income like pensions, tolerance for risk, and portfolio withdrawal rate.

Comparing Apples to Apples

Adding up the unrecoverable costs, we now have 4.10% of the home value between property tax, maintenance costs, and the cost of capital. This is the figure that we can compare to rent.

A $500,000 home would have an estimated annual unrecoverable cost of $20,500 ($500,000 X 4.10%), or $1,708 per month. If a suitable rental could be found for that amount, then renting would be an equivalent financial decision in terms of the expected economic impact.

Other Financial Considerations

So far, we have looked at pre-tax returns. Taxes could play an important role in this decision. Increases in the value of a principal residence are not taxed. Income and capital returns on an investment portfolio are taxed. Continue Reading…

Like a good neighbour, the Fed is there

Posted By |

 

By Kevin Flanagan, WisdomTree Investments

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

At last, the July FOMC meeting has come and gone, and the Federal Reserve (Fed) has done what was widely expected: it cut the federal funds target range by a quarter point. The Fed also announced they would be ending their balance sheet reductions in August, two months earlier than previously indicated. With all the Fedspeak, changing market expectations and the recent rebound in the jobs report, the time had come for the policy makers to put an end to the conjecture. While this decrease, of 25 basis points (bps), does fit into the Fed’s ”insurance policy” narrative, it still leaves open the question of what the future may hold.

Let’s get right to that point, shall we? Unlike the June FOMC meeting, this gathering was limited to the usual policy statement and Chair Powell’s presser. In other words, there were no blue dots (the Fed’s own fed funds forecasts) this time around. The policy statement, which is what the Fed views as its official policy stance, was little changed from the June meeting including the key phrase “will act as appropriate,” leaving the door open for additional accommodation this year. In fact, since the 50-bps-rate-cut crowd is somewhat disappointed by the July results, the focus has now shifted to another reduction in fed funds at the September 17–18 FOMC meeting.

Remember, this rate cut was really not predicated on the Fed’s baseline outlook for the U.S. economy; it was the voting members’ way of trying to counter any potential negative impacts from trade uncertainty and slowing global growth. With no pushback from the Fed, the money and bond markets had boxed the policy makers into a corner. Despite the fact that U.S. financial conditions were actually easier prior to this meeting than when the Fed started raising rates at the end of 2015, there was concern that without a rate cut, conditions could have tightened. So, while you could say the Fed is back in data-dependent mode, it appears as if monetary policy is still leaning towards another rate cut this year. Continue Reading…

Investing to make a difference in the world

Posted By |

By Rajan Bansi, RBC InvestEase

Special to the Financial Independence Hub 

It’s easy for Canadians to feel overwhelmed by all of the challenges we face in the world.  The strength, sustainability and security of our communities can feel threatened by the effects of climate change, the prevalence of some of the most powerful firearms mankind has created, and the long journey still ahead of us to create a fair and just society where everyone feels welcomed and included.

The silver lining to the challenges around us is that our collective awareness and desire to own the responsibility for affecting change has never been greater.

As Canadians, we clearly understand how the choices we make today will shape the world we live in tomorrow. These choices include important decisions we make on a daily basis with regards to our money.

Up until recently, impact with our dollars has been largely regarded only in a consumer context. Yet, the mindset we have about how we act as consumers can also be applied to how we invest. Canadians really can impact the world by choosing investments that reward companies who are the best stewards of our communities and planet.

An investment approach, like our RBC InvestEase responsible investing portfolio, integrates environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, allows Canadians to have such an impact on the world. An ESG approach typically assesses all companies in an investable universe based on a broad range of factors.  These factors include environmental (e.g. carbon emissions, carbon footprint, raw material sourcing, emissions and waste), social (e.g. labour management, health and safety record, privacy and data security), and governance (e.g. board independence, executive compensation, tax transparency, anti-competitive practices) considerations that are relevant to the management team of every company. A robust approach, at the very least, reduces the weighting of those companies that score weakest through the assessment process, if not excluding them altogether.

Exclude tobacco, firearms and weapons

Of course, there are some industries that Canadians simply do not want to support.  The most tangible way to act on this is by choosing an investment approach that excludes such companies or industries from investment capital. Some of the industries that elicit the strongest preference for exclusion amongst Canadians are tobacco, firearms (manufacturing and distribution), and controversial weapons manufacturers (cluster bombs, landmines, and chemical and biological weapons).  A robust responsible investing approach takes these exclusions into consideration and combines them with an ESG approach to the remaining investable universe. Continue Reading…