Bitcoin was supposed to be many things: digital gold, a hedge against inflation, a revolutionary alternative to money itself. In 2025, it turned out to be something far more mundane: a disappointing asset with no intrinsic value and shrinking excuses.
Let’s start with first principles. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It does not produce cash flow. It does not generate earnings. It does not represent ownership in anything productive. Its value comes from exactly one source: the hope that someone else — ideally a greater fool — will buy it from you at a higher price later.
This is not a controversial statement. It is textbook Greater Fool Theory. Bitcoin holders are not investors; they are speculators betting that demand from new buyers will continue indefinitely. But here’s the problem: by now, every fool on Earth has already heard of Bitcoin.
The Tulip Mania Parallel isn’t an Insult: It’s Accurate
Bitcoin enthusiasts hate comparisons to the Dutch Tulip Mania of the 1600s, but the similarities are undeniable. Tulips weren’t valuable because of what they produced; they were valuable because people believed they could resell them at higher prices. Sound familiar?
Tulips collapsed when the pool of new buyers dried up. Bitcoin faces the same mathematical reality. Adoption is no longer early. There is no untapped population waiting to “discover” Bitcoin. Those who wanted exposure already bought in years ago.
What happens next in any speculative bubble is predictable:
Some holders need real-world money for real-world needs: food, rent, taxes.
Others look at stagnant prices and lose interest.
Boredom replaces euphoria.
Selling begins.
Bitcoin does not fail dramatically all at once. It fails slowly, then suddenly.
2025: An Embarrassing year by any standard
Supporters will try to spin the numbers, but facts are stubborn. In 2025, Bitcoin declined by roughly 4%.
That alone would be bad enough. But investing is always about opportunity cost.
During the same period:
The S&P 500 rose about 18%.
Productive businesses generated profits.
Shareholders were paid dividends.
Capital was allocated to companies that actually do something.
Bitcoin did none of that.
A supposedly revolutionary asset losing money in a strong market is not “volatile”: it’s underperforming. A 4% decline isn’t a badge of honor. It’s an embarrassment.
The Myth of Digital Gold is dead
Bitcoin was marketed as “digital gold,” yet gold has thousands of years of history as a store of value. Bitcoin has barely survived a few market cycles, all fueled by cheap money and hype.
To make things even more embarrassing for Bitcoin holders, real gold prices went up 67%, breaking the relationship between real gold and digital gold. Real gold is still tangable and pretty to see; Bitcoin is none of those.
Gold is used in jewelry, electronics, and industry.
The real intrinsic value is that it’s a great tool for criminal activity. When regular citizens hold Bitcoin, they are adding and abetting the criminals. Bitcoin’s real usefulness is:
Money Laundering (Digital Washing Machine)
Ransomware and Extortion
Online Black Markets
Tax Evasion and Income Concealment
Sanctions Evasion
Scams and Fraud
Remove hype and liquidity, and Bitcoin has nothing left to stand on.
Prediction for 2026: No new Highs, Likely new Lows
I’ll make a clear prediction: Bitcoin will never again reach $100,000. Continue Reading…
In 2010 the Globe & Mail offered a simple Canadian stock portfolio idea. It was also called the Canadian Essentials Portfolio. The portfolio concept was courtesy of political science professor Mike Henderson who singled out the companies for the essential roles they play in the Canadian economy. He identifed the companies in the year 2000 and it formed the core of the retirement investments for he and his wife. The cumulative 10-year total return on these stocks to 2010 was 305%, greatly outpacing the 72% for the S&P/TSX composite index. In a recent article, the Globe detailed how Kate, a 71 year old retiree in Guelph used the Essentials Portfolio to take her TFSA to over $250,000.
The 2018 update reported that the annualized return since the beginning of 2000 for the Canadian Essentials Portfolio was 13.1%, including dividends, while the S&P/TSX Composite Index made 7.6%.
The blazingly simple portfolio
Once again, the idea was to hold companies that are essential to the Canadian economy. These companies are not going away and they are in everyday use. In fact, it’s the same concept as the Canadian Wide Moat portfolio that I’ve offered on this blog .
The Essentials Portfolio is concentrated in 3 sectors, while the Canadian Wide Moat approach offers 4 sectors by including the very important grocers. The returns would have been helped greatly in the last two decades by adding grocers.
Here’s the ‘Essential’ holdings from 2000 …
Canadian National Railway (CN-T), Canadian Pacific Railway (CNR-T), Enbridge (ENB-T), TransCanada Pipelines, now TC Energy, (TRP-T), Royal Bank of Canada (RBC-T), TD Bank (TD-T), Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS-T), Canadian Utilities (CU-T), Fortis (FTS-T) and Emera (EMA-T).
It’s railways, financials and utilities. It’s a case of boring and staple blue chips beating the crap out of the broader market. That should be of no surprise.
We see that the low volatility approach is a bit better. And there is a lot of boring essentials blue chip in the Canadian low volatility index.
And there is a lot of boring essentials blue chip in the Canadian low volatility index. The essentials, wide moats, low volatility and high dividend styles are all mostly concentrated in the same sectors.
In the high-dividend space check out the Beat The TSX Portfolio. It too has a long history of incredible performance, but with much greater volatility at times.
Back to Kate and her TFSA
Kate has maxed out her TFSA space and made the life-changing move of dumping her high fee mutual funds in favour of the Essentials stock portfolio approach.
By early 2020, Kate had a substantial CEP in place. Her TFSA is now worth $247,000 as of mid-June, with most of the growth coming after January, 2020. Kate’s TFSA is not one of the million-dollar-plus TFSAs that the Trouncers series has often profiled, but after adjusting for the constraints of maintaining a relatively smooth ride and an undemanding workload, she sees her TFSA hitting a home run in terms of her own needs.
In the post, how to use your TFSA I noted that a maxed-out growth-oriented global ETF portfolio strategy would have delivered about $225,000 to the end of 2024. Given the gains in 2025 and the additional $7,000 contribution space, we can call it a draw. The ETF global ETF model would also be in the $245,000 range.
More risk for the same returns
For Kate’s experience, she took on much more risk for the same returns as a global ETF portfolio. She’s concentrated in a few stocks (concentration risk). All of her TFSA rests largely on the success of Canada (geographic and political risk). She’s mostly concentrated in one currency – the Loonie.
As we’ve seen recently, President Trump has suggested he might ruin Canada economically if we don’t cooperate on trade terms. He could ruin Canada in the near term. He might. That demonstrates that the risk is present. Risk to Canada could show up in other ways, it’s doesn’t have to be a Donald Trump.
Net, net, just because Kate’s strategy worked very well, doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. It’s not. 100% concentration in Canadian equities in any account carries incredible risks.
Just because something worked doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If a driver claims that he drove without car insurance for 30 years, it’s a good idea because he never had an accident? He saved a lof of money; it was a good strategy? Of course not. It’s the same false argument for extreme portfolio concentration risk.
If Kate had invested in the Canadian Essentials and a sensible U.S. stock portfolio, her returns would be much greater.
Our best performers over the last 15 years are U.S. stocks and ETFs.
Canadian stock portfolio weights
Of course, it’s a personal decision. Do you want a 20% , 30%, 40%, 50% Canadian weight? Many experts will suggest that 30% Canadian is optimal within a global portfolio. And again, I like the idea of the Essentials, Wide Moat, or Low Volatility approach. The long term outperformance is meaningful and likely to repeat IMHO. But we need to pay attention to geographic allocation.
But of course – past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns.
Norm Rothery tracks the Canadian low volatilty stock model for the Globe and at Stingy Investor. The current holdings are …
Algoma Central, Alta Gas, Atco Ltd, Scotiabank, CIBC, Canadian Utilities, Emera, Enbridge, Fortis, Hydro One, Intact Financial, MCAN Mortgage, Metro, National Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Waste Connections, PowerCorp, Quebecor, Rogers Sugar, Sienna Senior Living.
Other recent holdings are George Weston, Great West Life, Keyera Corp, Loblaw, Pembina, Sun Life and TMX Group. Personally, I would continue to hold stocks that come and go within the low volatility portfolio; I would simply consider and new holdings that are added to the list.
As you can see the low volatility portfolio is dominated by financials, utilities (including pipelines and telco) and grocers.
Inflation protection
Contrary to how the Essentials portfolio was billed, it is not inflation friendly. That was demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 when we had the COVID-inspired inflation spike that led to a rising rate environment.
The Essentials was down 1.9% in 2021 and up only 2.5% in 2022 as inflation surged, delivering a negative real return.
Cut The Crap Investing readers were prepared (at least armed with the knowledge), holding gold in a balanced portfolio. I also put Canadian oil and gas stocks on the table in late 2020. Fantastic returns were on the way in 2021 and 2022. Oil and gas is the most reliable inflation-fighting sector. Here’s XEG-T.
I have long put the Purpose PRA-T ETF on the table as a one-stop, well-diversifed inflation fighting asset. Here’s PRA over the last 5 years, averaging 15% annual.
The inflation paradox
Inflation fighters would have greatly helped portfolios over the last 5 years of course. But certainly unexpected and high inflation is rare.
And ironically, it is the avoidance of these cyclical sectors such as oil and gas and materials that has led to the success of the Essentials and Wide Moat Portfolios since the 1980’s, as we have mostly been in a low inflation, disinflationary environment. It’s possible the inflation fighters will be a drag on performance if we return to low inflation / disinflationary times.
An accumulator might stick to the Essentials / Wide Moat ‘stuff’. I think it’s a good idea for retirees and those in the retirement risk zone to hold some dedicated inflation protection.
As always the above is not advice. Think of it as information for consideration as you build your portfolio. 🙂
Dale Roberts is a former advertising writer and creative director and long time index investor. In 2013, he followed his passion to become an investment advisor, and then trainer at Tangerine Investments. He won Advisor of the Year in his first year. He left Tangerine in 2018 to start Cut The Crap Investing, where he helps investors learn how to use ETFs, simple stock portfolio models and Robo Advisors to full advantage in the accumulation stage, and especially in retirement. A ‘hyper-focuser’ Dale has spent thousands of hours studying retirement – from the financial planning aspects to the portfolio models that make it happen. Early in 2025 he co-founded Retirement Club for Canadians, described in this Findependence Hub blog. Keep in mind Dale is not a financial planner. Retirement Club provides ideas and learning for consideration. As we know, self-directed investors are responsible for their own investment decisions. This blog originally appeared on his site on July 17, 2025 and is republished with permission.
I get a lot of friends and family asking for help figuring out their retirement finances when they’re just a few years from retiring. These discussions follow a common pattern: people say they want to spend more in their 60s while they’re still able to enjoy new experiences, but they make plans that involve spending less in their 60s than they will have available in their 70s and beyond. They resist a simple idea even after I show them how much more they could be spending early on.
I’ll illustrate what’s going on with an example that borrows from some of the real cases I’ve helped with.
Meet Dan
Dan is a single guy about to retire at 60. Here are his relevant financial details:
TFSA: $200,000
RRSP: $300,000
Pension: $4000/month indexed to inflation + $800/month bridge until he is 65
CPP: entitled to 90% of the maximum amount ($826 at 60, $1290 at 65, $1832 at 70)
OAS: entitled to the full amount ($740 at 65, $1006 at 70, 10% increase at 75)
Dan tried to work out what to do on his own initially. His thinking was mostly short term. To compensate for his drop in income when he retires, he would take his CPP right away, and take his OAS at 65. He wants some money to do some traveling over the next decade, and his work pension isn’t enough.
Here’s a chart of Dan’s inflation-adjusted income based on these plans. Note that in nominal terms, his income will go up with inflation each year, but we show it in constant 2025 dollars.
The first thing to notice is that Dan hasn’t included his RRSP or TFSA in these plans. He didn’t really think about them; he just assumes that they are for “later.” By default, Dan will have to convert his RRSP to a RRIF when he’s 71, and will have to start drawing from the RRIF when he’s 72. Let’s add in Dan’s RRIF income, assuming conservatively that his RRSP/RRIF will earn 2% above inflation.
We see now that contrary to Dan’s stated goal of having more income for traveling in his 60s, he’s actually planning to live small in his 60s. This is the point where I suggest starting to draw from his RRSP/RRIF right from the start of retirement.
Immediately, we run into a problem. Dan doesn’t think of himself as the sort of person who spends his RRSP. That’s for old people. He doesn’t feel very old. He doesn’t like this idea. He’s still the kind of person who saves money.
Not everyone can get past this point. Some live small for years to give themselves a large income in their 70s and beyond. Let’s hope that Dan can get used to the idea of starting to live now. Here’s a plan that smooths out Dan’s RRSP/RRIF income: Continue Reading…
Below we canvas 11 retirement experts and financial planners in Canada and the United States about how they and their clients can use new Longevity insurance products above and beyond traditional life annuities.
These experts were gathered by Featured.com, which has been supplying Findependence Hub with quality content for several years. It recently changed its procedure so editors like myself can request input on particular topics we think will interest our readership. The sources are all on LinkedIn, as you can see by clicking on their profiles below.
Here’s what we asked for this instalment:
“In addition to Annuities, what is one new Longevity product or fund that you believe in enough to recommend to clients approaching or already in Retirement? Examples in Canada are Purpose Longevity Fund and Guardian’s Longevity Funds. Are there similar new products in the U.S. (or Canada) of which you are aware?”
Here is what these 11 thought leaders had to say:
LifeX ETF delivers transparent Longevity Income
In addition to traditional annuities, one of the emerging longevity products in the U.S. that I have come to recommend to clients approaching or already in retirement is the LifeX Longevity Income ETF, particularly the LFAI fund.
While it is not a classic insurance product, it is designed to provide predictable monthly distributions over a long horizon, effectively hedging against the risk of outliving one’s assets. The fund invests primarily in U.S. Treasuries and money-market instruments, and its structure is built around the concept of a target cohort’s 100th birthday, which allows for a systematic income stream without relying on a life insurance company guarantee.
For many clients, especially those who purchased assets during low-interest periods or are seeking reliable cash flow without tying up their entire portfolio in an annuity, this product offers a compelling complement to their existing retirement income strategy. What I find particularly valuable is the transparency it provides. Unlike certain annuities, clients can clearly see the underlying investments, understand how distributions are generated, and retain the flexibility to adjust allocations as their personal circumstances or market conditions evolve.
It also fits naturally into a broader retirement strategy where a portion of assets remains growth-oriented, some is allocated to defensive income-generating investments, and a dedicated longevity-income segment addresses the specific risk of living decades beyond retirement.
Of course, it is not without considerations; while the fund aims to provide stable income, it is sensitive to interest-rate changes, inflation, and the assumptions built into its cohort-based design. Clients need to assess the fit carefully, ensuring the time horizon and income targets align with their health, lifestyle, and other holdings. For those who understand these dynamics, however, it offers a sophisticated and innovative approach to longevity planning, bridging the gap between traditional annuities and fully self-managed income portfolios, and giving retirees confidence that they can sustain their lifestyle even as they live longer than expected.
BlackRock LifePath Paycheck Fund Offers Flexibility
JP Moses, Tennessee
If you’re getting close to retirement, you might want to check out the BlackRock LifePath Paycheck fund. I’ve been following it. It works like those Canadian longevity funds, designed to give you regular monthly checks. The biggest risk is outliving your savings, and this fund has professionals handle the withdrawals so you don’t run out of money. It seems to offer more flexibility than a traditional annuity, which is worth a look.
Vanguard and Fidelity Deliver Stable Retirement Income
Evan Tunis, Florida
The Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund is not an entirely new “longevity” product in the mold of Canada’s Purpose and Guardian funds, but it fulfills a similar role for retirees. It is intended to deliver a steady flow of income while protecting against the effects of inflation by investing in a diversified blend of stocks, bonds and cash. The Fidelity Strategic Advisers (r) Core Income Fund is also designed to provide income for retirees with a diversified approach. The two funds both provide some level of stability for those who want to keep a lid on risk and market vomit in retirement.
I’ve often been asked about newer longevity products beyond traditional annuities, especially by clients preparing for retirement who want flexibility without giving up stability. What I have observed while working with financially cautious founders and executives is that people want income structures that feel modern, transparent, and liquid, and one option in the U.S. that I genuinely find promising is the Stone Ridge LifeX Longevity Income ETFs. I first came across them while helping a client map out a long term retirement strategy, and what stood out was how these funds provide monthly distributions while still allowing investors to keep full liquidity. I remember reviewing the structure and appreciating how it focuses on Treasuries and a long horizon rather than tying someone into an insurance contract. It felt refreshing. many retirees dislike the idea of locking up money permanently, and this approach allowed them to protect their cash while still receiving consistent income. The experience reminded me of moments with founders who want efficiency without losing control, and pattern is similar
In my opinion, the biggest advantage of these longevity ETFs is the balance between predictability and freedom, since investors receive monthly payouts but can still adjust their strategy if life takes an unexpected turn. The main drawback is that there is no lifetime guarantee, so someone who ends up living much longer than expected might outlive the structure if they rely on it too heavily. I often explain that longevity planning still requires layering different tools rather than expecting one product to solve everything. Another point that came up during discussions with retirees is the sensitivity to interest rate changes, which can affect the value of the ETF itself, and it is important not to overlook that risk. Still, for clients who want something more adaptable than an annuity, this has become a strong option to consider. I also pay attention to emerging pooled longevity concepts, similar to modern tontine ideas, which share risk across participants and create higher payouts for those who live longer. Even though these structures are not mainstream in the U.S. yet, the logic is compelling for retirees who expect longer than average lifespans. Whenever I see innovation like this, I feel the same excitement I do when a founder shows us a new model at spectup because it signals that the industry is shifting toward more transparent, flexible solutions.
LifeX ETFs offer flexible, predictable Retirement Income
Sovic Chakrabarti, Vancouver, BC
When I think about longevity-focused options beyond traditional annuities, one U.S. product I genuinely find compelling is the Stone Ridge LifeX Longevity Income ETFs. What draws me to LifeX is that it tries to solve the same problem that Canadian funds like Purpose Longevity and Guardian Longevity address — steady income over an unknown lifespan — but without locking someone into an irreversible insurance contract.
Instead of handing over capital permanently, retirees stay invested and receive structured monthly distributions, which feels more flexible and respectful of changing needs. I’ve always liked the idea of having income that mimics an annuity while still keeping the door open if health, family, or market circumstances shift.
I’ve come to see LifeX as especially appealing for clients who want predictable cash flow but aren’t comfortable giving up control of their assets. Because the funds are built largely on U.S. Treasuries, the income stream feels relatively stable, and the target-date structure helps align payouts with the later stages of retirement, when longevity risk becomes more real. The liquidity alone makes it feel like a meaningful evolution in retirement planning: it’s easier to sleep at night knowing the money isn’t trapped.
Of course, I’m also realistic about its limitations. There’s no lifetime guarantee the way a true annuity offers, and the income still depends on market and interest-rate dynamics. It’s not a perfect replacement for insurance-based products. But as a complement — or even a middle ground between full guarantees and full market exposure — it’s one of the few newer U.S. longevity products I’d feel confident putting on the table for someone approaching or entering retirement.
As you know, I have frequently expressed concerns about high valuations for stocks. The concern has been expressed vehemently, yet so far, no serious risk has presented itself in terms of market drawdowns.
The narrative of U.S. public markets being risky has not proven to be accurate over the past few years. That said, what was once a minority view is becoming increasingly mainstream, as valuations remain stretched. The adage of ‘markets can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent’ has proven to be prescient and problematic for those who raised their cash positions. It has also caused certain commentators (including myself) to feel like Chicken Little. Despite our breathless admonitions, the sky has not fallen: yet.
Reallocate to more reasonably priced Asset Classes
Some people chose to exit public securities, but not capital markets. Private assets where there are likely to be pockets of more realistic valuation, as well as traditional inflation hedges like infrastructure and gold, have all performed relatively well in 2025. Rather than engage in market timing, this approach is more akin to an active reallocation toward being fully invested in asset classes that are more reasonably priced.
Posted By 
Posted By 
