General

This is Easy Street for Canadian investors

Posted By |

By Dale Roberts

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Investing is simple. We are all familiar with the KISS acronym. Simplicity is the key to successful investing. I have been reading and studying investing and investment strategies for decades and came to the conclusion that for the most part “nobody knows nothing.”

Great. All that research and tens of thousands of hours of study and I came back to the fact that I don’t need to know much at all. What a complete waste of time? No not at all. The thousands of hours of study showed me why I, we, don’t need to know much. We do not need to be experts when it comes to investing. As I like to write: It ain’t rocket surgery. Here’s how you find Easy Street.

What is an investment portfolio? In its basic form we can think of a portfolio as having two components: great companies for greater growth potential and bonds to manage the risk. Those bonds work like shock absorbers on the portfolio to reduce the risk or volatility. The more bonds in the portfolio, the lower the risk level of the portfolio.

A typical portfolio will hold great blue-chip companies (stocks) such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Johnson & Johnson, Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett’s company), Coca-Cola and on and on. On the Canadian side we’ll hold Tim Hortons, the big Canadian banks, the telco companies such as Bell, Rogers and Telus, plus railroad companies such as CN and CP Rail and major energy players such as Suncor and Enbridge and on and on.

The rich are business owners

We know that the richest people on earth are usually business owners. We’re going to join them. We’re going to own a piece of those businesses. When enough of those companies do well, you do well. And certainly not every business is going to do well: that’s why you own a bunch of ’em. And that’s why you’ll own great companies in Canada, US and around the globe. And we don’t have to know how to analyze those companies, we can simply go and buy the ‘entire’ stock market. Here’s What is Index Investing and why it’s simply a superior form of investing. It’s so easy we call it Couch Potato Investing.

And back to risk or volatility. Certainly stock markets mostly go up over time, but they do correct or go down with regularity; it’s a normal and expected part of investing. For the potential of those 9-10% annual returns from stocks we need to accept some risk. Keep in mind that stocks can go down by 50% in major stock market corrections. That’s not everyone’s cup of tea to watch their investment portfolio get cut in half. That’s why many or most investors will need some bonds in the portfolio. Bonds are fixed-income investments and are typically less risky than stocks. A bond pays you a fixed payment on a regular basis and bonds can also go up in value when stocks go down – think teeter totter.

A portfolio with a very generous amount of bonds would have only decreased by about 10%-15% in the last major market correction. For the period of 2008 to end of 2009, here’s a comparison of the US stock market (S&P 500) as Portfolio 1, and a Balanced Portfolio as Portfolio 2.

We see that the all-stock portfolio declined by 50% while the Balanced Portfolio with a 70% bond component declined by just over 15%. By the end of 2009 that conservative Balanced Portfolio is almost back in positive territory while the all-stock portfolio still has more of that hill to climb.

Percentage in Bonds a critical decision

The most important decision that will be made, or the most important question answered will be “What percentage of bonds do you need?” What is your risk tolerance level? What roller coaster do you want to ride? You get to decide. Continue Reading…

Getting the best bang for your buck with everyday purchases

Posted By |

By Sia Hasan

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

You work hard for your money, so it makes sense that you would want to stretch your dollar as far as possible. If you are like many other hard working adults, you may splurge here and there on a cup of coffee or a matinee movie. However, most of your take-home pay may go toward everyday or typical purchases. These may include food, gas, clothes and more.

It may seem challenging to stretch your dollar in these essential areas, but rest assured that there are several strategies you can employ to get the most bang for your buck. Before you make another purchase on regular or everyday items, consider how these tips can benefit you.

Choose your payment method carefully

The primary payment methods for standard purchases are cash or credit cards. Cash may be in the form of hard currency, checks or a debit card. Many people believe that paying with cash or a cash alternative is a smart option because it helps you avoid taking on expensive debt. It is true that debt can cost you money.

However, if you use credit cards responsibly, a credit card may be a better payment option. Consider that you can make all your regular purchases with a credit card, and you can pay the full balance off each month. Therefore, no interest is accrued, and there is not a cost for using the credit card. You may enjoy the benefit of bolstering your credit score with responsible use of your credit card. Keep in mind that higher credit scores may qualify you for a lower rate on a mortgage, a car loan, insurance rates and more. Therefore, this payment method can yield tremendous savings over time.

Take advantage of Credit Card Rewards

When you make purchases with credit cards regularly, you may also enjoy the additional benefit of earning rewards points. You can begin by searching for a good credit card for average credit and comparing rewards programs or opting into the rewards program on an existing account. Pay attention to the fine print as you compare programs. Some credit card rewards programs, for example, limit the points that you can earn within a specified period of time. Other programs require you to use the points within a certain period of time. These rewards may essentially give you cash back on your purchases, or the points may be redeemed for other items with financial value.

Shop around

Even when you take these steps to stretch your dollar, there may be other ways to save as well. Shopping around is easier to do than ever because of the Internet. Continue Reading…

The Future is not quite now: A calm perspective on gloomy predictions

Posted By |

Here are a couple of conversations I’ve been involved in recently. Does any of it sound familiar?

Conversation with a retired engineer. He asked, “What do you think about this driver-less cars business? Has anybody even considered how many people this will throw out of work? We have to do something about this! Otherwise, joblessness will go so high that it will cause a depression.”

Conversation with a middle-aged family doctor/real-estate investor. He said, with complete confidence, “I’m cutting back on my medical career and moving into real-estate development. Long before I want to retire, I expect my job to disappear due to competition from AI (artificial intelligence).”

When listening to predictions, especially gloomy ones like these, keep in mind that nobody can consistently predict the future. Also remember that the most widely accepted gloomy predictions are especially prone to fail. That’s because people, as individuals, react to and prepare for predictions of doom. They work on the problem before its predicted arrival time. Sometimes they offset it entirely.

Y2K was the ultimate example

The ultimate example came on the first day of this century, with the non-arrival of the so-called “millennial bug,” or Y2K for short.

In the late 1990s, computer consultants warned that at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999, computers around the world would freeze up because of a problem with their data-storage limits. Computers used to use just two digits to designate a year. So they wouldn’t be able to tell what came after 1999; ‘00’ could mean 1900 or 2000. The problem had a simple fix, however. By the last day of 1999, most computer owners had attended to it. Damage from the predicted crisis was negligible.

Today’s predictions — gloomy and hopeful — revolve around the expectation that computer speeds will continue to rise, and computer costs to drop, at much the same rate as they have for the past half century.

This trend has led to exponential growth in the processing power of computer chips, coupled with an exponential drop in their cost. This leads to casual-conversation predictions like the two I mention above: artificial intelligence will soon lead to legions of unemployed taxi, truck and bus drivers; and legions of unemployed family doctors will follow soon after.

The logical flaw here is that exploding computer power at shrinking cost is a technological advance. But there are social, legal and practical limits to how quickly business can translate these technological gains into real-world progress (or problems, depending on how you look at it).

Computer makers don’t need government permission to raise the speed of their chips. In contrast, makers of driverless cars face all sorts of problems, long before they make any money.

The shift to driverless vehicles will happen gradually, over a period of decades. After all, driving in traffic involves far more surprises than a champion Go player faces on the playing board. Drivers have to deal with changing weather, full sunlight and deep shadow, unpredictable human drivers with varying skills, unpredictable pedestrian web surfers, potholes, snow-covered street markings and so on.

The shift from human to AI doctors will occur at an even slower pace — in line with how long it takes to earn a driver’s license on the one hand, and a medical license on the other. AI will replace family doctors some time after it replaces the voice and chat help lines that people use when they have a problem with a computer, a cell phone or a utility bill.

Assume technological process leads to economic progress

People have a long record of guessing wrong about the impact of new technology, and on how long it will take for the new technology to become part of daily life. You’ll guess right much more often if you just assume that technological progress eventually leads to economic progress. Continue Reading…

Why we are taking Social Security at age 62

Posted By |

By Billy and Akaisha Kaderli

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

We decided to take Social Security at age 62. We know there are as many ways to consider this decision as there are days in a year. And many experts advise against taking social security “early” so that you get a bigger check at full retirement age.

It is hard to argue against that.

We have always lived an unconventional lifestyle and the fact that so many experts agree on waiting for payment gives us pause for thought. Here is our logic.

First, the S&P 500 index has averaged over 8% per year, plus dividends, since we retired in 1991. If we take social security early and invest it, we won’t be losing the 8% per year the experts claim is the annual increase of waiting – although one is guaranteed and the other is not. Maybe the markets will trend sideways or go down or even up, no one knows.

For the last 27 years we have lived off of our investments through up and down markets, so investing the monthly check is definitely an option. More likely, we will just not spend our stash and look for opportunities in the markets as our cash positions grow. Plus we have control of the money at this point, adding to our net worth.

Next let’s look at some numbers.

11 years to break even

For easy math, say at 62 you are going to receive $1000.00 per month in benefits, but if you wait until you are 66, your payment will be $1360 ($1000 x 8% for the four years you have waited). Sounds great, right?

However, you would have missed receiving $48,000 dollars in payments from the previous 48 months. How long is it before you make that money back? Using this example it would take 133 months or a little over 11 years ($48,000 divided by $360) and that would put us at 77 years of age, just to break even. In that time frame, the Social Security we are receiving plus our investments should grow far outpacing the extra money received by waiting.

For some people deferring until their full retirement age could make sense, especially if they do not have the assets to support themselves, are poor at handling money or if they are still working. However, this is not our situation and therefore we decided to take the money and run.

It’s really a question of who you think can handle your money better; You or Uncle Sam?

Update: The illustration above shows the return of the S&P 500 Index since we took Social Security at 62.

Billy and Akaisha Kaderli are recognized retirement experts and internationally published authors on topics of finance, medical tourism and world travel. With the wealth of information they share on their award winning website RetireEarlyLifestyle.com, they have been helping people achieve their own retirement dreams since 1991. They wrote the popular books, The Adventurer’s Guide to Early Retirement and Your Retirement Dream IS Possible available on their website bookstore or on Amazon.com.
.

Retired Money: Should you worry a large TFSA will trigger a CRA audit?

Posted By |
MoneySense/Shutterstock

Should you worry that a large TFSA will trigger a CRA audit? My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a legal debate between the Canada Revenue Agency and taxpayers who have succeeded too well in growing their Tax-free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) with shrewd investing. You can access the full story by clicking on the highlighted headline: Why the CRA is targeting some TFSAs in court. 

If you’ve contributed regularly to the TFSA since it began in January 2009 you now have $57,500 of cumulative contribution room. With decent growth, it’s easily possible to have accumulated $100,000 in a TFSA by now: in fact, the CRA told me for the article that of the 13.5 million TFSA accounts that existed by 2016, 18,000 have balances of at least $100,000 (a number that includes myself and my own Millennial daughter, thanks to a few good FANG stock picks).

A Globe & Mail article last week profiled several ordinary Canadian investors and financial bloggers who have TFSAs of at least $100,000. See How to Grow your TFSA: Tips from Financial Bloggers to Fatten Your Account.

My MoneySense article quotes an unnamed investor who is being audited because his TFSA has grown to $500,000, owing to  timely growth of some private technology companies. He doesn’t think $100,000 is enough to trigger an audit but suggests $250,000 may be. In other words, the CRA may be fine with TFSA doubles but five-baggers will invite scrutiny and ten-baggers most certainly so.

But the real controversy involves TFSAs that are run as de facto securities trading businesses. The Globe highlighted this latest crackdown in an earlier article in July but was merely the latest of a series of TFSA audit scares that have been surfacing virtually since after the first year the program existed.

Shrewd stock-picking is not “aggressive tax planning” 

Some of those earlier audits involved TFSAs that soared because they held private companies but my guess is that, as in my own case or that of my daughter, the vast majority of TFSA holders are neither day traders nor experts in investing in private companies. We only buy exchange-traded funds or blue-chip North American stocks, including the FANG tech giants (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google).

True, depending on when you bought them, it’s quite possible TFSA investors may have experienced 5- or even 10-baggers on stocks like Facebook, Amazon or Netflix. I doubt many investors would make concentrated bets on just one or two of these but if they did, then a $250,000 TFSA would not be inconceivable. That might invite scrutiny from the CRA but I strongly doubt they’d have a case for running a securities business.

Based on the CRA numbers cited in the MoneySense column, Tim Clarke estimates the CRA would have to audit 9,000 TFSAs in order to “recover” the amount of tax specified in the July G&M column that sparked this latest round of TFSA audit worries.

“I love how they say successful traders are conducting ‘aggressive tax planning’ “, Clarke told me in an email, “The purpose of TFSAs was stated in the budget that announced them to be a vehicle to allow taxpayers to save for retirement and other legitimate purposes. How can being successful at that be aggressive tax planning?”

 

TFSAs remain a critical tax-shelter for retirees

If you’re a retiree or close to it, presumably your TFSA will be invested fairly cautiously, just like an RRSP or RRIF, which means some combination of blue-chip dividend-paying stocks and fixed income. The TFSA is too valuable a tax shelter to get scared by audits of a handful of aggressive investors. Keep in mind that unlike RRSPs, you can still keep adding to your TFSAs well after age 71, to the current tune of $5,500 a year, and perhaps with future inflation adjustments.

There’s no reason that a retiree shouldn’t keep adding to their TFSAs until their late 90s or even beyond: not necessarily with “new” money but from post-tax money liberated from non-registered investments or after tax is paid on forced annual RRIF withdrawals.