General

Vanguard: The hidden $1.3 trillion player in active management

Posted By |
Vanguard’s Daniel Wallick addresses financial advisors at 2018 Vanguard Investment Symposium

While the Vanguard Group is best known for being a pioneer of index mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, it also happens to be one of the world’s largest practitioners of active management. In a presentation Tuesday in Toronto that is taking place across the country, Vanguard executives said the US$5 trillion of money it manages worldwide includes $1.3 trillion in active management.

Vanguard Investment Strategy Group’s Head of Multi-Asset Portfolios, Daniel W. Wallick, presented financial advisors with a framework for constructing portfolios that combine active and passive approaches to investing. The heart of Vanguard’s approach remains broad cap-weighted indexes (or so-called Beta), which is what Vanguard says it means when it uses the term “indexing.”

For many investors, the broad diversification, low costs and tax efficiency of its mainstream index funds and ETFs may suffice.

But, depending on the desired complexity, Vanguard can incorporate “factors” like momentum, value, or liquidity, all factors that have shown a persistency for generating alpha (outperformance) over long periods of time. Beta and Tilts (to for example, overweighting the home country or large market caps) can be combined for the single most important task of Strategic Asset Allocation but overlaying this can be the addition of potential “Alpha” sources like Security Selection and Timing.

“Strategic asset allocation through market-cap-weighted indexes makes for a powerful tool,” Wallick said. And over 10-year periods, asset allocation policy continues to be the biggest source of variations in returns. Asset allocation explains 86% of return variation in 303 Canadian balanced funds tracked by Vanguard, 91.1% of 709 balanced funds in the U.S., 80.5% of 743 balanced funds in the UK and 89.1% of 580 balanced funds in Australia.

Cost trumps talent, patience is crucial

The 3 keys to successful active management = long-term performance

Vanguard sees three keys to successful active management: Cost, Talent and Patience. Wallick described the in-depth process Vanguard uses to select subadvisors for its actively managed funds but hiring talent has to be within strict cost-control parameters.

“Cost is a powerful indicator of future alpha.” But once the talent has been identified and hired, patience is required: Vanguard research over 15 years found that of 2,200 initial funds, 22% survived and outperformed, 24% survived but underperformed, and 54% did not survive. But even among the 22% that survived and performed, 98% of them underperformed in at least four years.

By focusing on both low costs and rigorously overseeing actively managed subadvisors, Vanguard multi manager funds have outperformed their Lipper peer-group averages by various percentages: 78% of them over 1 year, 83% of them over 3 years, 76% of them over 5 years and a whopping 100% over 10 years.

Factor-based funds vs traditional active funds

There is a half-way position between traditional beta-based Style index funds and ETFs and traditional active funds. The former (Beta) provide low cost, low turnover and lower tracking error while traditional active funds provide the opportunity to add alpha, albeit at a higher cost, potentially greater volatility, and less transparency and control. Between these are factor-based funds and ETFs, which provide consistent targeted exposure as well as low cost, but may have higher tracking error and potentially higher turnover. Continue Reading…

Subsidizing China’s Superpower aspirations

Posted By |
By Jeff Weniger, WisdomTree Investments
Special to the Financial Independence Hub
 
Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has warned that China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the potentially multitrillion-dollar network of roads, rails, pipelines and other infrastructure across Eurasia, risks saddling unstable governments with unpayable debt. Because of the IMF’s concerns, it plans to fund the China-IMF Capacity Development Center (CICDC) to train the Chinese to minimize the headaches in this century’s Marshall Plan. If all goes according to plan, the Belt and Road Initiative will connect land- and sea-based trading routes to cement China as the center of global commerce in a decade or two.

While China appears to be ascending into world superpower status sometime in the coming decades, a $100 investment in “global” equities allocates just $3.51 to the country if we track an index like the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI).1 That’s not far from Canada’s weight, and it seems remarkably low for a country that is going head-to-head with the U.S. on the global stage.

It was only last year that MSCI added Chinese A-shares, companies listed in Shanghai and Shenzhen, to its MSCI Emerging Markets Index. That is late for an economy whose size surpassed the U.S. in 2014, at least on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis (see figure 1).

Figure 1: China & U.S. Share of Global GDP

China and U.S. Share of Global GDP

Covering China, wherever the listing

While some Chinese companies are available only in Shanghai or Shenzhen, others are listed solely in Hong Kong. Still others have American depositary receipts (ADRs) or are traded in Singapore.

Our TSX-listed exchange-traded fund, WisdomTree ICBCCS S&P China 500 Index ETF (CHNA.B), tracks the ICBCCS S&P China 500 Index, covering stocks in all those bourses. Its index is currently over 50% in local A-shares. MSCI, by contrast, is only starting to add A-shares securities up to a 5% inclusion factor in 2018, a small starting point. It’s high time China has its own S&P 500, especially if President Xi Jinping has anything to say about it.

Going Out

Deng Xiaoping, ruler of China from 1978 to 1989, famously advised his country to “hide your strength, bide your time.” China’s great goal for the last four decades — development, development, development — was to happen quietly, with fingers crossed that the U.S., Japan and Western Europe wouldn’t get too frightened. Continue Reading…

How much will my Defined Benefit pension pay In Retirement?

Posted By |

I contribute to a defined benefit pension plan at work. How much will I get from the pension plan in retirement? That depends on when I retire or leave the plan. Hang on, we’re about to get math-y.

Normal retirement age is 65 and I joined the pension plan in 2009 at age 30. Retiring in 2044 (the year I turn 65) would give me 35 years of pensionable service.

The pension plan has a retirement calculator on its website. Curious about the amount of retirement income I’d receive at various ages, I took a look. The calculator just needed a couple of inputs: current salary, plus an assumption for future annual salary increases (I used 2 per cent).

Retiring at age 65 would max out my pensionable service and give me an annual retirement income of $46,000 in today’s dollars. Continue Reading…

Thinking about retirement? Here are 2 two key income sources to expect

Posted By |

By Scott Ronalds

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

If you’re at the point where you’re starting to think seriously about retirement, you’re probably wondering how much money you’re going to need to enjoy life after work, and where it’s going to come from.

Everybody’s wants and needs are different, so there’s no magic number as to how much you should have saved by a certain age. Plus, the face of retirement has changed significantly, with many people working part-time into their seventies and eighties, and others hanging it up in their fifties.

That said, by making a few assumptions, we can give you a rough estimate of what you can expect from government sources and your portfolio when you decide to retire.

The basics

To keep it simple, we’ll use a scenario which assumes you’re 65 and plan to fully retire from your job this year. A few other assumptions:

  • You don’t have a pension plan with your employer.
  • You’re eligible for full Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) benefits.
  • You have an RSP that you plan to convert to a RIF this year, and you plan to take the minimum required payments (which will start next year) from your account. (Note: you aren’t required to convert your RSP to a RIF until the calendar year you turn 71, but you can convert at any age before 71 if you choose).
  • You don’t have any other investments or sources of income.

First off, let’s look at what you’ll get from the government. You can expect monthly CPP payments of roughly $1,114 ($13,370/year) and OAS payments of about $578 ($6,936/year). In total, you can plan on collecting about $1,690 a month, or just over $20,000 a year. These amounts are indexed to inflation. You can decide to defer taking CPP benefits until you’re older, or take them earlier, in which case your benefits will be increased or decreased, respectively. You can also defer taking OAS to receive a larger monthly benefit.

More than likely, this isn’t going to cover your living expenses or fund the lifestyle you want in retirement. So you’re going to need to rely on your portfolio to cover the shortfall.

RIFing it

Converting your RSP to a RIF means your minimum withdrawal next year will be equivalent to 4.0% of your portfolio’s year-end market value. This figure is based on your age, 65, at the end of the current calendar year. Continue Reading…

The downsizing dilemma: 39% of homeowners skeptical it will save money

Posted By |

By Joyce Wayne

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

For older Canadians considering selling a home to retire to a smaller living space or a more affordable community, downsizing might sound like a financial bargain, but in a recent Ipsos survey commissioned by HomeEquity Bank, 39 per cent of current homeowners are skeptical that downsizing will actually save them money.

More than a decade ago, I faced the downsizing dilemma and I now wish I’d been as skeptical as these savvy consumers. I put a considerable down payment on a condo in downtown Toronto, purchasing it from builder’s plans. At the time, I wished to retire from my long-time position as a college professor to launch a new career as a writer.  Selling my home, cashing in on the equity I’d accumulated, while moving to smaller digs, made sense to me.

Yet as 27 per cent of downsizers shared with the Ipsos survey, the costs were more than expected. Expenses from downsizing can add up quickly.

Originally I was attracted by the lure of improving my cash flow to support a new career, but downsizing didn’t net out that way after factoring in all the closing costs and moving expenses along with the disruption to my lifestyle.

Moving away felt like starting all over again: this time in my sixties. The weight of condo living took its toll.

After living in my condo for two years, facing unexpected changes to the original building plan, loud nocturnal noise from other condo dwellers, endless fire drills and my terrace furniture burning up with cigarette butts dropped on my balcony from above, I put the unit on the market.  Once again I was faced with real estate and closing costs. When I purchased a home in my former neighbourhood, I was forced to negotiate a mortgage.

According to an earlier Ipsos survey commissioned by HomeEquity Bank in July 2018, half (51 per cent) of those aged 75+ say it’s important to stay in their current home because they want to keep close to family, friends or their community, while four in ten (40 per cent) say emotional attachment and memories are what’s behind the importance of staying put in their current home during retirement.

What I’d do differently if considering downsizing: Continue Reading…