Building Wealth

For the first 30 or so years of working, saving and investing, you’ll be first in the mode of getting out of the hole (paying down debt), and then building your net worth (that’s wealth accumulation.). But don’t forget, wealth accumulation isn’t the ultimate goal. Decumulation is! (a separate category here at the Hub).

Should financial planners worry about FIRE?

Posted By |
By Mark Seed, myownadvisor
Special to the Financial Independence Hub

A recent post in the Financial Post caught my eye, why some financial planners seem worried about the FIRE movement.

My reaction is, they need not worry too much about any FIRE movement. I believe some financial planners might have bigger issues to contend with. More on that in a bit.

Why is FIRE so hot?

As a refresher, FIRE stands for “Financial Independence Retire Early.”

Some FIRE investors strive to save as much of their income as possible during their working years, hoping to attain financial independence at a young age and maintain it through the rest of their life: aka retirement.

A common goal of many FIRE-seekers is to build enough capital and wealth whereby they can largely live off their portfolio value in perputuity or thereabouts. Some of them even leverage an outdated financial study to help them realize their goal: the 4% rule.

The 4% rule (a general guide for a sustained safe withdrawal rate (SWR)) used by many early retirees, was the result of using historical market performance data from 1926 to 1992 by U.S. financial planner Bill Bengen. In general terms, the “4% rule” says that you can withdraw “safely” 4% of your savings each year (and increase it every year by the rate of inflation) from the time you retire and have a very high probability you’ll never run out of money.

You can find the details of that study here.

4% rule

However, the first challenge of many related to this rule is that this study was published almost 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then, including real returns from bonds. There are also products on the market now that allow investors to diversify far beyond the mix of large-cap U.S. stocks and treasuries that the Bengen study was based on. In fact, the abundance of low-cost investing products should be what many financial planners should fear the most, a point I’ll come back to soon.

Certainly, in my personal finance and investing circles, I don’t know of many FIRE-seekers that live by any strict 4% rule. Thank goodness they don’t.

Even though the 4% rule remains a decent rule of thumb to start any early retirement discussion with, it’s a flawed concept for many of today’s early retirees aged 40 or less.

  1. The 4% rule was based on a 30-year retirement horizon. However, a FIRE investor’s retirement could last 50 years or even more. So, while spending in line with the 4% rule could give an early retiree a very good chance at not outliving their money, a 50-year “retirement” timeline could be disasterous if said early retiree was striving to live through a prolonged period of low stock market returns.
  2. This rule was used to demonstrate a safe withdrawal rate associated with only U.S. assets: a mix of U.S. stocks and treasuries to be more exact. There is little doubt that if an investor uses a broader, more globally diversified portfolio with U.S. and international assets leading the way, I suspect their chances of financial success would increase. In fact, Vanguard said they would.
  3. Finally, the 4% rule assumes a constant dollar-plus-inflation spending strategy: straight-line thinking that assumes your spending will follow a very linear path over many retirement decades. My hunch is: of course that won’t happen. Sure, maybe in the first retirement year you spend your desired 4% and at best, maybe next year you spend a bit more accounting for inflation. However, just like asset accumulation is dynamic so will your spending patterns be in retirement. This means you should strongly consider a Variable Percentage Withdrawal (VPW) approach that largely takes into account the flexibility to raise your spending “in good years” and decrease your spending in “bad years.”

Further Reading: Why you should follow a VPW drawdown strategy.

With any retirement drawdown plan, the ability to operate in a spending range will be very key to the longevity of your portfolio. I hope to follow some form of this approach myself in semi-retirement.

Which brings me back to our case study in the Financial Post.

Why financial planners shouldn’t be worried about FIRE

For Kristy Shen and Bryce Leung, a couple from Toronto who retired at 31, they gave up the dream of owning a million-dollar home in Toronto and decided to travel the world instead.

For Kristy and Bryce, their goal was always financial independence and not so much the retire early part. As Kristy explained on my site:

“The idea of retiring from our job and living off passive income seemed so weird and foreign to us, so at first we dismissed it as an idea that only tech entrepreneurs or trust fund babies could pull off.  Then we woke up and realized our savings had hit half a million bucks, and we were like “Hey, why not us?””

Why not indeed.

And so, by living off about $40,000 per year (you can see one of their income reports here), travelling and writing (likely earning some money from their blog and book), they’ve realized their goal of financial independence and then some. Six years past their “retirement date” their portfolio is now worth a cool $1.8 million thanks to a major market bull run in recent years.

However, there are some financial planners in that post that argue there is no magic in personal finance.

“People make money off putting out something that seems magical … like the latte factor. I’ll just skip a cup of coffee every day, and you get rich. But the math doesn’t work — unless you’re having 17 lattes a day.”

While true, citing longevity risk from these planners as yet another major risk for Kristy and Bryce to contend with is definitely reaching here. To argue that our millennial millionaire couple has to worry about spending $40,000 or so per year from a $1.8 million portfolio is a “problem” many Canadians would love to have.

The FIRE movement has been great for many reasons, and people have been doing it for decades before it became an internet thing. FIRE-seekers have: Continue Reading…

What’s the real deal with Mutual Funds?

Posted By |

By Anita Bruinsma, CFA

Special to the Findependence Hub

Mutual funds stir up heated debates all across the internet. Fund companies sing their praises while others say they are taking you to the cleaners. It can be confusing – are they good or bad? What’s the real deal with mutual funds?

A game-changer for investors

Mutual funds democratized the stock market, making investing accessible to more people, and this was a very good thing. Before the popularization of mutual funds in the 1950s, it was more difficult to get your money invested in the stock market: you needed a stock broker to buy stocks for you and you needed a fair amount of money. 

The idea behind a mutual fund is simple: collect money from a group of people and hire professional money managers to invest this pool of money into dozens of stocks, generating a return for the investors. It’s the pooling of money that is so powerful: it allows a fund to be diversified, giving investors exposure to a myriad of stocks instead of just a few.

As an individual investor, you’d need a lot of money to get that kind of diversification. And whereas a broker would charge a large commission for every trade, a mutual fund has economies of scale, making the costs lower overall. Plus, as a mutual fund investor you don’t need to know one single thing about the stock market. What a win for the masses!

The downside

So why do mutual funds get a bad rap sometimes? It’s mainly because sales practices around mutual funds have a muddied history. Investment advisors who are making recommendations to their clients about what to invest in might be influenced by sales commissions, possibly encouraging them to put their clients’ money into funds that pay them the most commission. Worse, these commissions (and other perks that used to be permitted) were not always properly disclosed to clients. Regulations have improved in this area, but sales commissions can still influence an advisor’s choice of funds. Continue Reading…

The Rule of 30

Posted By |

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to the Findependence Hub

Frederick Vettese has written good books for Canadians who are retired or near retirement.  His latest, The Rule of 30, is for Canadians still more than a decade from retirement.

He observes that your ability to save for retirement varies over time, so it doesn’t make sense to try to save some fixed percentage of your income throughout your working life.  He lays out a set of rules for how much you should save using what he calls “The Rule of 30.”

Vettese’s Rule of 30 is that Canadians should save 30% of their income toward retirement minus mortgage payments or rent and “extraordinary, short-term, necessary expenses, like daycare.”  The idea is for young people to save less when they’re under the pressure of child care costs and housing payments.  The author goes through a number of simulations to test how his rule would perform in different circumstances.  He is careful to base these simulations on reasonable assumptions.

My approach is to count anything as savings if it increases net worth.  So, student loan and mortgage payments would count to the extent that they reduce the inflation-adjusted loan balances.  I count contributions into employer pensions and savings plans.  I like to count CPP contributions and an estimate of OAS contributions made on my behalf as well.  The main purpose of counting CPP and OAS is to take into account the fact that lower income people don’t need to save as high a percentage of their income as those with higher incomes because CPP and OAS will cover a higher percentage of their retirement needs. Continue Reading…

Value, Growth, or Both?

Posted By |
Franklin Templeton/iStock

By Ryan Crowther, Portfolio Manager, Franklin Bissett Investment Management

and Yan Lager, Portfolio Manager, Equity Research Analyst, Franklin Equity Group

(Sponsor Content) 

For well over a decade, investors have focused on growth stocks: shares of companies expected to grow faster than the market average. But in recent months, the calculus has changed. Market volatility, driven by ongoing COVID-19 concerns, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, rising interest rates and inflation, has led to a noticeable shift to value stocks. As investors focus on companies with strong fundamentals and comparatively lower-cost shares, do growth stocks still have a place in a diversified portfolio?

Financial Independence Hub: How would you describe the current landscape for growth stocks?

Yan Lager: We’ve been witnessing one of the most pronounced rotations from growth to value stocks in decades. In retrospect, following a multi-year run for growth-oriented equities that were clear beneficiaries of ultra-low interest rates, a rotation to value stocks as interest rates increase is not surprising to us.

Ryan Crowther: Looking at growth stocks generally, the terrain has become much more challenging in recent months, both in terms of the outlook for business fundamentals and a more discerning investor sentiment.

Have all growth stocks been hit equally hard?

Ryan Crowther: This is an important question, because when there’s a broad sell-off and a significant number of stocks drop sharply, they might all be considered “growth” stocks; but do they really share the same fundamentals? What risk versus return is the share price truly discounting? That’s where our GARP approach (growth at a reasonable price) has proven powerful for over 40 years, as it helps avoid focusing too much on whether a stock sits in the growth or value basket.

Which stocks have been most affected by the recent pullback in equity markets?

Yan Lager: Companies that benefited from the pandemic shift to working from home and the broader adoption of e-commerce, or persistently low interest rates, have seen their shares pull back due to profit-taking or concerns that future earnings performance may fall short of pandemic-high levels. Harder-hit stocks have included earlier-stage companies in the information technology sector, which have seen significant price and valuations fluctuations. We’re constantly reassessing the fundamental, longer-term investment theses and strategic merits of our investments.

What types of companies do you look for?

Yan Lager: In managing a global growth fund, we believe that owning a diversified portfolio of high-quality companies with strong secular growth drivers, unique competitive positions and capable management teams can deliver attractive returns, as ultimately share prices follow fundamentals. This is particularly the case if you’re investing for the long term, which we believe you should be if you’re investing in equities.

Ryan Crowther: We look for businesses with strong, consistent earnings and growing cash flow—attributes that will hopefully work to offset some of the factors that can challenge growth in the near term. In addition, a company’s valuations must also be attractive. We focus on combing through our investment opportunity set to find stocks offering a good risk-adjusted return profile over the course of an economic cycle.

Where are you finding opportunities these days?

Ryan Crowther: Focusing on mid- to large-cap Canadian companies, we’ve been active in securities that sold off as part of the broad weakness in growth stocks. We took advantage of that weakness to add new, quality companies at an attractive entry point. The shift — from the largely complacent and speculative equity market generally experienced throughout the pandemic — to the less forgiving market, characterized by a more rational mindset thus far in 2022, has created opportunities for us. Continue Reading…

Everything owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway

Posted By |
Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, which just held its first live annual meeting since Covid hit.

By Akshay Singh

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

You’ve probably heard of the multi-billion dollar company Berkshire Hathaway, owned by mega-billionaire and philanthropist Warren Buffett, but what does Berkshire Hathaway do exactly?

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a conglomerate holding company, meaning it does not produce goods or services and instead has a controlling interest in and owns shares of other companies to form a single corporate group.

That leads us to our next question: What companies does Berkshire Hathaway own to make it one of the most valuable companies on the planet? The team at Indyfin turned to the 2021 Berkshire Hathaway annual report to create this compendium of all of the Berkshire Hathaway companies. The holding company has a controlling interest in more than 60 companies and partially owns another 20 on top of that. You’ll recognize a lot of brand names from a wide variety of industries that make up the impressive Berkshire Hathaway portfolio.

Does Berkshire Hathaway own one of your favorite or most-used brands? Check out this roundup of Berkshire Hathaway companies from Indyfin to find out.

What Is Berkshire Hathaway?

Berkshire Hathaway is an American conglomerate holding company with a market cap of US$774.24 billion, making it the seventh most valuable company in the world. What is a conglomerate? A conglomerate is a combination of businesses from a variety of different industries that operate as a single economic entity under one corporate group. Conglomerates are usually large and multinational and generally include a parent company and many subsidiaries. The “conglomerate fad” was big in the 1960s due to low interest rates, rising prices, and a decline in the stock market, which led to large corporate conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway forming. The parent company in this scenario is also referred to as the holding company, as it holds a controlling interest in the securities of all of the other companies. Holding companies do not produce goods or services; instead, they own shares of other companies to form a single corporate group. Holding companies are beneficial because they reduce risk for shareholders and can hold and protect assets like trade secrets or intellectual property.

What Does Berkshire Hathaway own? Continue Reading…