Inflation

Inflation

Tariffs: Great in Theory … Dumb in Practice

Public domain image via Outcome

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well, I could tell by her blood-stained hands, sing it

You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find
You get what you need —
You Can’t Always Get What You Want, by The Rolling Stones

 

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Apropos of what has been clearly driving markets over the past several weeks, in this month’s commentary I will discuss tariffs. Specifically, I will demonstrate that although they can, in theory, produce certain benefits, in reality, they are far more likely to cause more harm than good, both for economies and markets.

A Boon to Humanity

The entire world has benefitted immeasurably from global trade in the postwar era. Its expansion has vastly expanded the supply of most goods, leading to lower prices. In simple terms, globalization has led to more things at lower prices, which has made the world far wealthier and led to a phenomenal increase in standards of living.

Consumers and businesses in the U.S. and other developed nations have benefitted from the fact that most things can be made for less in other countries. To be sure, the windfall of cheaper goods has involved the dislocation of manufacturing jobs over the last several decades. However, the percentage of the American workforce in manufacturing currently stands at roughly 8%, and less than 14% in 2000.

Furthermore, most experts agree that technology and automation, as opposed to trade, have been primarily responsible for the decline in manufacturing employment in the U.S. Also, given that the U.S. is currently at full employment, it stands to reason that dislocated jobs have been replaced. Importantly, the net benefit of trade has been massive, enabling citizens of advanced economies to enjoy higher standards of living than if they were forced to buy only domestically produced goods.

The Theoretical Benefits of Tariffs

Although the benefits from free trade are undeniable, governments are periodically tempted to tweak trade relationships in their favour to maintain or augment globalization’s existing benefits while minimizing or eliminating its relatively minor drawbacks. These initiatives entail some degree of restrictions on trade. Today, the U.S. is pursuing such policies by imposing tariffs on imported goods.

The purported benefits of these particular tariffs are:

Benefit #1: Improved government finances: This argument contends that tariff revenues will afford the government some flexibility with respect to fiscal policy. Specifically, the revenue which is collected via tariffs will be used to reduce the ever-expanding U.S. deficit. Alternatively, these revenues could serve to increase government spending and/or reduce taxes without a deterioration of the government’s fiscal position.

Promise #2: A manufacturing renaissance: Another potential benefit involves the bolstering of certain industries via reduced competition from imports, with an associated boost to employment in these areas. The current U.S. administration has been particularly vocal about the ability of tariffs to revitalize manufacturing in states where it was once prominent.

Promise #3: A Better Deal: This argument holds that tariffs will force other countries to the negotiating table and put the U.S. in a strong position to secure better trade agreements and/or end unfair trade practices that hurt its economy.

Einstein’s Warning

Albert Einstein famously stated, “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” In theory, tariffs can deliver on the aforementioned promises, but the reality is that not only are they unlikely to do so but stand a very good chance of causing more harm than good.

Very little, if anything, in the modern global economy occurs in a vacuum. One specific policy or event can easily start a chain reaction of subsequent policies and events. Although some of these cascading effects can be anticipated, their magnitude is almost impossible to predict. More ominously, many of them are unforeseeable (the technical term used by economists for such developments is “unintended consequences”). As a result of such reverberations, few, if any of the purported benefits of tariffs are likely to materialize, should they remain in place. Moreover, their associated consequences could prove severe.

Improved Government Finances: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Escalating tensions and the prospect of long-lasting trade wars have resulted in a heightened state of uncertainty among both businesses and consumers, which may have a significant impact on their investment and spending. Continue Reading…

BMO’s Low Volatility ETFs are built differently — Why that’s a Win for your Portfolio

Image courtesy BMO/Getty Images

By Zayla Saunders, BMO ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

Markets are noisy right now. Between trade talks, shifting rate expectations and recession whispers, there’s no shortage of turbulence. That’s why low-volatility strategies are back in focus: and BMO’s lineup is standing out.

Not all low-vol ETFs are created equal. In fact, BMO’s low-volatility ETFs have been quietly dominating their corner of the market. Here’s what’s working with the approach and the key differentiators of the methodology.

Source: Morningstar as of March 31, 2024 2

Smart, Targeted Methodology

BMO doesn’t just take the market and strip out the riskiest names. Its methodology is precise, practical, and time tested

Step 1: The Starting Point

BMO begins with a broad universe of stocks that are the largest and most liquid from a particular region — say, Canada or the U.S. — and then ranks them based on historical return volatility (also known as beta). Lower is better here.

Step 2: Ranking

Next, the securities are ranked and selected based on their beta, with lowest betas carrying the highest weight in the portfolio. Beta is calculated using 5-year window, with more weight on recent data. Then the team engages in a fundamental review of securities held.

Step 3: Sector Constraints

Unlike some low-vol strategies that end up extremely overweight in defensive sectors (hello, utilities and consumer staples), BMO imposes sector caps. Why? To ensure diversification and avoid concentration risk. That means that while there will be a tilt towards defensive sectors, you’re building a balanced, resilient portfolio.

The Burning Question: Why ‘Beta’?

Beta and Standard deviation are two of the most common ways to measure a fund’s volatility. The key difference is that beta measures a stock’s volatility relative to the market as a whole, while standard deviation measures the risk of individual stocks.

This is where BMO ETFs stands apart in their strategy: The BMO ETF Low Volatility Strategy uses beta as the primary investment selection and weighting criteria. By constructing ETFs with lower beta securities, the BMO ETF Low Volatility Strategy gives investors access to portfolios that are designed to provide growth while reducing exposure to market risk. Over the long term, low beta stocks may benefit from smaller declines during market corrections and still increase during advancing markets. Additionally, they tend to be more mature and provide higher dividend yield than the broad market.

Beta is a risk metric that measures an investment’s sensitivity to fluctuations in the broad market (market sensitivity). The broad market is assigned a beta value of 1.00, an investment with a beta less than 1.00 indicates the investment is less risky relative to the broad market.

So why now?

Low volatility has always had its place: particularly for long-term investors looking to stay invested through all market cycles, or those who tend to be more emotional around volatility in their portfolio. But right now, the case is even stronger: Continue Reading…

Buying an Annuity versus Equities

Billy Kaderli, RetireEarlyLifestyle.com

By Billy and Akaisha Kaderli

RetireEarlyLifestyle.com

Special to Financial Independence Hub

I read an article by Mark Hulbert titled Why retirees are better off safe than sorry.

This article was about retirement satisfaction and asked if having little money, a reasonable amount of money or lots of money made a difference.

I have followed Mark’s writings for years and was surprised that Mark, to make his point, was hawking annuities.

Mark explains that you could put $100,000 into an annuity and receive $501 per month guaranteed for your lifetime. This equates to $6,012 per year or a 6% return.

My perspective and why

Here’s the problem that I have with this.

Inflation. As inflation has heated up after years being quiet, your $501 monthly check is going to buy you less and less over time. The erosion of buying power will not be noticed at first but over the years it certainly will. This is a huge negative for me.

Once you turn your money over to the annuity company, you no longer have control of it and possibly it is no longer part of your estate. This means you cannot leave it to your spouse, a child, grandchild or your favorite cause. And remember, your annuity is only as good as the company that backs it. If they have dereliction in management or other calamities you could be getting back pennies on the dollar. It happens.

In the example with this annuity It will take you about 16.5 years to break even with your investment.

What if you die before that?

My suggestion

There are other options if you have $100K and want a 6% yield for income and still keep control of the asset.

For instance, you could purchase any or all of these high yielding dividend-paying stocks.

AT&T (T) yield 4.04%

Plains All American Pipeline (PAA) yield 9.10%%

Energy Transfer (ET), yield 7.32%

Exxon Mobil (XOM), yield 3.84%

Main Street Capital (MAIN) yield 5.51%

In this example, you could put $20,000 into each of the above for a 5.96% average yield or $5,962 per year income. Also, there is potential for these equities to increase in value as well as raise their dividends. So, in this case, you have the possibility of being able to reinvest any amount over the 6% giving you the opportunity to increase your holdings while still covering the $6,000 annual income.

Other options

However, if you are not comfortable owning three out of the five stocks in the energy field, for more diversification, you could purchase DVY, IShares Select Dividend ETF with a portfolio of 100 different companies and with a 3.72% yield.

The idea here is to receive the 3.72% dividend distributions and sell off $2,280 worth of shares annually to make the 6% yield.

How is that done? You invest 100K into DVY taking the quarterly dividends which amount to a 3.72% yield. After one year-and-a-day (so that you meet the long-term capital gains requirement), you sell off $2,280 worth of shares.

DVY 10 Year Total Return = +9.40%

In this example based on the past 10-year performance of DVY, your principal would have grown to approximately $109,400, year one, which is a 9.4% annual total return. You receive $3720.00 in dividend income and $2280.00 in capital gains = $6000.00, leaving approximately $103,400 invested.

We all know that past performance is no indication of future results, but there are no guarantees in retirement, investments, nor annuities.

See the performance chart below. Continue Reading…

BMO ETFs experts and finfluencers’ reveal best personal picks at DIY Investor Day

Courtesy BMO ETFs/TSX

On Wednesday, BMO ETFs conducted its second annual ETF Investor day. Conducted at the Toronto Stock Exchange, Do-it-yourself investors and finfluencers [Financial Influencers] were on hand for the ceremonial opening of the exchange, shown in the photo on the left (including myself).

Hard to believe, but this marks BMO’s 16th year as a Canadian ETF provider.

Before we get to the individual expert picks from BMO’s large ETF stable, the morning began with the obligatory analysis of the current Trump-inspired global trade war, and its implications for the Canadian economy and stock market.

Economic Update

In an Economic update Amber Kanwar, Host of the In the Money Podcast interviewed Bipan Rai, Head of ETF & Structured Solutions Strategy at BMO ETFs. Rai said the protectionist measures being imposed by the Trump administration have “not been seen since the Great Depression.” In the U.S. tariffs are now north of 20%, or ten times the 2% average tariffs that were previously in place.

Asked what will happen next, Rai said probably one of three things: Trump might rescind the Tariffs, or there will be a massive expansion of U.S. fiscal policy to fund its Tax Cuts, or the Federal Reserve will cut rates. But he doesn’t think a U.S. recession will show up this year, as its economy is “too dynamic.”

BMO ETFs Bipan Rai

However, Rai was less confident that Canada won’t face a Recession: “I’m very concerned about the Canadian economy in coming quarters.” The two most recent scenarios from the Bank of Canada are mixed: one is “far more benign,” the second “more malignant.” He thinks the former is more likely, with a few negative quarters of GDP growth but not likely exhibiting Stagflation risk. 70% of Canada’s GDP is generated from trade, “most of it with the U.S. As much as [Prime Minister Mark] Carney talks about diversifying away from the U.S., that’s not going to happen. The U.S. is way too big and is right next door. We may do more with the United Kingdom but it and the European Union won’t replace the U.S. Jobs may be lost, especially in the auto sector.”

Asked if he expects more rate cuts from central banks around the world, Rai said he thinks the BOC is likely closer to the end, with one or two more rate cuts, after which fiscal stimulus will kick in. England or the ECB may cut a few more times, then Japan and a few “others divorced from the rest.”

How retail investors can play Defence

Kanwar also probed the views of two experts in a session titled Playing Defense: Positioning Your Portfolio in today’s environment. Now that the U.S. market has rebounded 18% from the lows around early April’s Liberation Day, Kanwar asked how Do-it-yourself [DIY] investors can deal with volatility. Jimmy Xu, Head of Liquid Alternatives & Non-linear solutions, BMO ETFs, said it depends on investor goals. Those with a long-term 20- or 30-year time horizon before Retirement would be “best to sit tight,” Xu said, “Overtrading is the enemy of growing assets and market timing is hard.”

Freelance writer Tony Dong, founder of ETF Portfolio Blueprint, said volatility is the price of admission to create investment returns that are superior to risk-free treasury bills. Betting on certain sectors may expose DIY investors to uncompensated risk, Dong said. Even equal-weight products provide imperfect exposure to the size premium commanded by small- and mid-cap stocks. But investors can overweight less volatile stocks concentrated in structurally defensive sectors like health care, utilities and consumer staples. Jimmy Xu said sector-agnostic low-volatility strategies can help investors get around this problem. BMO’s low-volatility ETFs own low-volatility stocks that have a low beta relative to the broad market, which amounts to “a better tool than picking top sectors.” Continue Reading…

How much should Retirees with RRIFs “de-risk” their portfolios?

In mid-April, my monthly Retired Money column for MoneySense looked at the experience of new retirees who have just shifted from RRSPs to Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs), including my own.

Now my followup May column has been published, and it looks in more detail at how such new retirees should handle their Asset Allocation, particularly in light of this volatile Trump Trade War era we are now in. You can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline: How to allocate a RRIF for Secure Income in Retirement

The column begins with an old rule of thumb that advisor John De Goey says is now obsolete: that your age should roughly equal your Fixed-Income exposure. So, for example, that rule would suggest a new RRIF owner aged 71 might have 71% fixed-income and just 29% stock exposure.

I bounced that off De Goey, who recently aired his views on Trump’s second reign of Error in this recent Findependence Hub blog: The Gangster in the White House.

A new Rule of Thumb for Retirement Asset Allocation

He introduced me to a novel formula that was new to me and perhaps to most readers. “I believe longevity has made that [previous] rule of thumb out of date for at least a generation now. My view, after taking longevity into account, is that you should use age times the decimal of your age until you get to RRIF age (71). This assumes that the client is not particularly risk averse. The portfolio still has to be suitable.”

 So under this new rule and assuming the other qualifications apply to your personal -circumstances,  a 50-year-old should be 50 x .50 = 25% in fixed income; a 60-year-old should be 60 x .60 = 36% in income; and a 71-year old-should be 71 x .71 = ~ 50% in income. However, beyond that age,  De Goey thinks 50% fixed income is the maximum. “People over the age of 71 should be able to withstand having half their money in equities even if they’re in their 90s, because the risk associated with the 50/50 portfolio is quite low.

I was recently interviewed by Allan Small on his Allan Small Financial Show, along with financial commentator and broadcaster Patricia Lovett-Reid, formerly a TD Waterhouse senior vice president and later CTV commentator. Allan, who is Senior Investment Advisor for Scarborough-based IA Private Wealth Inc., probed us about current investor psyche and how to position for the global trade war.

Coping with the Triple T

Patricia coined the term Triple T: for Trump, Trade and Tension. Reviewing past investor panics, she said it is “different this time in that we have an individual wreaking havoc on a global platform.” Even so, she suggested staying the course with quality holdings, albeit being a more defensive with utilities, telecom, financials and Gold. Since we may all spend a third of our lives in Retirement, retirees should not abandon the “stocks for the long run” stance, she said. If you can’t sleep at night, ask your advisor what you can do about it but personally, Lovett-Reid says she has not made any drastic changes to her family’s Asset Allocation.

One focus of the interview, some of which also aired on CFRB 1010 Radio, was our “crystal ball” for markets by the end of the year. All three of us thought they would likely be a bit higher from where they were in late April. Patricia said the TSX should outperform for the rest of 2025, based on its resource and materials stocks (Gold, Oil). My view assumed Trump would partly back down from his harder-nosed Tariff positions but if he doesn’t, I said, “Look out below.”

One observation was that those with Defined Benefit pension plans can consider those to be a form of fixed income. That leaves more room to take risk with equities in other parts of one’s retirement portfolio. In a followup email, Patricia told me that “As someone with a DB [pension], I tend to skew toward more equities. And yet I do like the 60/40 split (equities to bonds). I’m very much about asset protection versus accumulation, so we are erring on the cautious side.”

What role can Annuities play?

The full MoneySense column closes with a look at annuities, which resemble Fixed Income.

In the past, I have referenced retired actuary Fred Vettese’s suggestion in various Globe & Mail columns that – at least for those who don’t have employer-sponsored Defined Benefit pension plans – they should partly annuitize when their RRSP must be converted to a RRIF. Continue Reading…