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).

An interesting RRSP idea: all-in on QQQ?

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | August 16, 2024

By Bob Lai, Tawcan

Special to Financial Independence Hub

As an engineer by education & training and an analytical person, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to readers that I ponder a lot. I like to think about something carefully before deciding or reaching a conclusion. Although this approach may not work in all situations, I enjoy being analytical on major life decisions.

The interesting idea is simple: Should we go all in on QQQ with our RRSPs?

Since this is an interesting idea, I thought I’d turn it into a blog post, analyze the idea thoroughly, and hopefully come to a conclusion.

Things to consider

A few things before we dive into the analysis.

An RRSP is a tax-deferred account. When you contribute to one, you get a tax deduction for 100% of your contributions. If you contribute $10,000 to your RRSP, it will reduce your net income by $10,000, and potentially bring you down to the lower tax bracket.

When you withdraw money from your RRSP, you will be subject to withholding tax. The amount of withholding tax is based on how much you take out.

The Millennial’s Ultimate RRSP Guide

You also must convert an RRSP to a retirement income option such as a RRIF by the end of the year that you turn 71. Although there are no mandatory withdrawal requirements in the year you set up your RRIF, you must start withdrawing money the year after setting up your RRIF (effectively at age 72). Furthermore, there’s a minimum withdrawal rate for RRIF. The withdrawal rate increases as you age.

Note: You can convert your RRSP before age 71. If you do, there’s a minimum withdrawal rate starting at age 55.

Just like the RRSP, money withdrawn from an RRIF is taxed like working income, or at 100% of your marginal tax rate.

In other words, it doesn’t matter whether the money is from capital gains or dividend income, money withdrawn from an RRSP and an RRIF is taxed at 100% of your marginal tax rate. You don’t get any preferential dividend tax treatment like in non-registered accounts.

When we do start living off our investments (aka live off dividends), our withdrawal strategy is very similar to Mark from My Own Advisor – NRT. This means drawing down some non-registered (N) assets along with registered assets (R), leaving TFSAs (T) for as long as possible.

N – Non-registered accounts – we most likely will work part-time to keep ourselves engaged and live off dividends to some degree from our non-registered accounts. The preferential dividend tax credits will come in handy.

R – Registered accounts (RRSPs) – we plan to make some early withdrawals from our RRSPs slowly. We may collapse our RRSPs entirely before age 71. We may also convert our RRSPs to RRIFs. This is not entirely decided (if we do convert to RRIFs, we want to make sure the dollar amount is relatively small). Early withdrawals will help us from having a large amount of money in our RRSPs and having a big tax hit when we start withdrawing. In other words, this will help smooth out our taxes.

T – TFSAs – since any withdrawals from TFSAs are tax-free, we intend not to touch our TFSAs for as long as possible so they can compound over time.

Mark, along with Joe (former owner of Million Dollar Journey), ran an analysis for us many years ago via their Casflows and Portfolios Retirement Projections to reinforce this withdrawal plan.

Note: if you’re interested in this retirement projections service, mention TAWCAN10 to Mark and Joe to get a 10% discount.

Current RRSP Holdings

Although RRSPs are best for holding U.S. dividend stocks to avoid the 15% withholding tax, we hold U.S. and Canadian dividend stocks and ETFs inside our RRSPs.

At the time of writing, we hold the following stocks and ETFs inside our RRSPs:

Apple (AAPL)
AbbVie (ABBV)
Amazon (AMZN)
Brookfield Renewable Corp (BEPC.TO)
BlackRock (BLK)
Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS.TO)
CIBC (CM.TO)
Costco (COST)
Emera (EMA.TO)
Enbridge (ENB.TO)
Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL)
Hydro One (H.TO)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
Coca-Cola (KO)
McDonald’s (MCD)
Pepsi Co (PEP)
Procter & Gamble (PG)
Qualcomm (QCOM)
Invesco QQQ (QQQ)
Royal Bank (RY.TO)
Starbucks (SBUX)
Telus (T.TO)
Tesla (TSLA)
TD (TD.TO)
Target (TGT)
TC Energy Corp (TRP.TO)
Visa (V)
Waste Management (WM)
Walmart (WMT)
iShares ex-Canada international ETF (XAW.TO)

In terms of dollar value, my RRSP makes up about 70% while Mrs. T’s RRSP (spousal RRSP) makes up about 30%. Ideally, it would be great if our RRSP breakdown were 50-50 (I’m ignoring my work’s RRSP so in reality the composition is more like a 25-75 split).

Because we started Mrs. T’s RRSP a few years later than mine it hasn’t had as much time to compound. Furthermore, I converted over $120,000 worth of CAD to USD in my RRSP when CAD was above parity. Over time, this gave my self-directed RRSP an automatic 30% performance boost.

We purchased QQQ earlier this year inside Mrs. T’s RRSP. Dollar-wise, it makes up a very small percentage of our combined RRSPs.

Some info on QQQ

For those readers who aren’t familiar with QQQ, it’s an ETF from Invesco. Since launching in 1999, the ETF has demonstrated a history of outperformance compared to the S&P 500.

The top 11 – 20 holdings for QQQ are AMD, Netflix, PepsiCo, Adobe, Linde, Cisco, Qualcomm, T-Mobile US, Intuit, and Applied Materials. These holdings make up 15.71% of QQQ.

Due to the nature of the Nasdaq 100 Index, QQQ is heavily exposed to technology and consumer discretionary sectors.

As you can see from below, it also outperformed XAW and VFV significantly. This is the key attraction of QQQ, as the fund has historically outperformed many major indices.

QQQ vs XAW vs VFV performance — Source: Portfolio Visualizer

As you can see from above, $10,000 invested in QQQ in 2016 would result in over $42,000 in 2024 whereas the same amount invested in XAW and VFV would result in less than $30,000.

Case for going all-in on QQQ

Why would we consider going all in on QQQ?

Because QQQ has done very well historically compared to the major U.S. and Canadian indices.

Per the chart above, QQQ had an annualized return of 19.09% since 2016. In the last 20 years, QQQ has had an annualized return of 14.03% and an annualized return of 18.12% in the last 10 years.

Assuming we invest $150,000 in QQQ and enjoy an annualized return of 15% for the next 10 years, we’d end up with $606,833.66, assuming no additional contributions. On the flip side, if we have the same money and have an annualized return of 10% (long-term stock return), we’d end up with $389,061.37. This means investing in QQQ would result in more than $217.7k of difference in return on capital or 56%. This is a pretty significant difference.

Yes, historical returns don’t guarantee future returns. However, the high exposure to technology stocks should allow QQQ to continue the superior return for years to come.

Due to the fact that RRSP and RRIF withdrawals are taxed 100% at our marginal tax rate, it makes sense to attempt to maximize the total return inside of RRSPs/RRIFs instead of a mix of dividend income and capital return.

Case against going all in on QQQ

The biggest case against going all in on QQQ? Our dividend income would take a big hit.

Our RRSPs contribute about 30% of our annual dividend income. With our 2024 target of $55,000, selling everything in our RRSPs and holding QQQ only would reduce our total dividend income to about $38,500 (ignoring QQQ distributions completely).

But focusing on dividend income alone is a bit silly when we should be considering total return and the total portfolio value.

Out of the 18 U.S. stocks that we hold in our RRPS, QQQ holds 9 of them already. The stocks that QQQ doesn’t hold are:

Abby
Johnson & Johnson
Coca-Cola
McDonald’s
Procter & Gamble
Target
Visa
Waste Management
Walmart

These 9 stocks make up about 25% of our RRSP in terms of dollar value. Since we purchased these stocks many years ago, they have all done very well, with a few of them being multi-baggers. I would hate to sell the likes of Visa and Waste Management.

Investing in QQQ does mean that when we start to live off our investment portfolio, rather than withdrawing mostly from dividends inside our RRSPs in the first few years (to increase our margin of safety), we’d need to sell QQQ shares and touch our principal.

If there are a few years of poor returns at the beginning of our retirement, this could cause a significant reduction in our portfolio value. Essentially, selling shares may not have as much margin of safety compared to relying on withdrawing dividends only.

Another case against going all in on QQQ is that QQQ is currently highly concentrated in technology stocks so it’s not all that diversified compared to other index ETFs like XAW. The latest AI hype has significantly bumped up the share price of many technology stocks. Would we see a Dot Com type of bubble in the future and hamper the return of QQQ? That’s certainly possible.

As you can see from the chart above, QQQ didn’t recover from the Dot Com bubble for about 14 years. This is a risk we would take on if we were to go all in on QQQ.

Potential Alternatives to going all-in on QQQ

Instead of going all in on QQQ, there are some potential alternatives.

First, we can simply add more QQQ shares in the next few years to have QQQ make up a larger percentage of our dividend portfolio. This is already our plan of record but we stay focused on this goal instead of purchasing more dividend paying stocks in our RRSPs.

Second, since we hold QQQ inside of Mrs. T’s RRSP and she holds mostly Canadian dividend stocks in her RRSP, we can consider closing out these positions and using the money to buy QQQ shares.

If we were to do that, we’d only lose about 12% of our forward annual dividend income, going from $55,000 to $48,400. Assuming QQQ continues the superior performance over other indices, holding only QQQ and Apple in Mrs. T’s RRSP and continuing to contribute to her RRSP only may mean that we have a higher chance of ending up with a 50-50 RRSP split down the road.

Some additional logistics to consider

The second option mentioned above is quite intriguing. But there are some logistics to consider if we were to forward with this option.

Second, we’d need to convert CAD to USD and take a hit on the exchange rate. Utilizing Norbert’s Gambit would allow us to save on the additional current exchange fees. The alternative solution would be to journal as many of the holdings to the U.S. exchange, close the positions, and end up with USD.

Another option is to consider the Canadian equivalents, like XQQ, ZQQ, HXQ, or ZNQ to avoid currency conversion. As many of you know, I’m all for simplicity and straightforwardness, so it makes sense to hold the original ETF QQQ instead of other alternatives.

Conclusion – Should we go all in on QQQ?

So, have I reached a decision after all the considerations?

I’ll admit, the second option mentioned (holding only QQQ in Mrs. T’s RRSP) is very intriguing to me. But I am going to sleep on it for a bit and discuss the idea with Mrs. T before making any major decisions. In the meantime, we will continue to add more QQQ shares in Mrs. T’s RRSP so QQQ makes up a bigger percentage of our dividend portfolio.

Readers, what would you do? Would you go all in on QQQ?

Hi there, I’m Bob from Vancouver, Canada. My wife & I started dividend investing in 2011 with the dream of living off dividends in our 40’s. Today our portfolio generates over $2,700 in dividends per month. This post originally appeared on Tawcan on July 15, 2024 and is republished on the Hub with the permission of Bob Lai.

Darren Coleman interviews Tax expert Kim Moody about Liberals floating tax on Home Equity

Posted By Jonathan Chevreau | August 15, 2024

Darren Coleman (left) and Kim Moody (right, with glasses).

The following is an edited transcript of an interview conducted by financial advisor Darren Coleman’s of the Two Way Traffic podcast with tax expert Kim Moody, of Moody Private Client. It appeared on August 8th: click here for full link.

Moody recently wrote an article in the Financial Post about the government flirting with the idea of a home equity tax, even on principal residences. Such a tax could result in an annual levy of about $10,000 for a home worth $1 million. He described that, along with the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate that has already passed into law, “really bad tax planning” based on ideology, not economics.

In the podcast Moody and Coleman also discussed …

The disparity between U.S. and Canadian tax rates, beginning with how the state of Florida compares with Ontario, a difference of 17%.
The tax model established in Estonia lets you reinvest in your company without paying corporate tax while personal income is taxed at a flat rate of 20%. They say such a system would work in Canada, and celebrate success and entrepreneurship.
What organizations like the Fraser Institute and mainstream economists think about Canada’s economic performance.

Below we publish an edited transcript of the start of the interview, focusing on the capital gains inclusion rate and trial balloon about taxing home equity.

Darren Coleman: I’m Darren Coleman, Senior Portfolio Manager with Raymond James in Toronto. I’m delighted to be joined by Kim Moody of Moody’s tax and Moody’s private client. You’re also a law firm based in Calgary, Alberta, and probably one of Canada’s best known tax and estate planning advisors. You may have heard our last conversation with Trevor Perry about some of the issues we might be seeing in terms of taxation of the principal residence in Canada.

I think because governments have spent so much money that we’re going to see tremendous innovation in taxation. Do you want to set the table for the article you wrote in the Financial Post, where you talked about where this is coming from, and why Canadians might be on alert for what might be coming to tax the equity in their homes.

Kim Moody: The point of the piece was mainly just to put Canadians on notice that you had the Prime Minister and the finance minister sitting down with what I call a pretty radical
think tank. I consider them an ideological bastion of radical thought but that issue aside,
they call them call themselves a think tank, and this particular one, led by Paul Kershaw of
Generation Squeeze, has stuff on their website that pretty much attacks older Canadians:
basically saying they’ve gotten rich by going to sleep and watching TV. Unbelievable. Whoever approved that, it’s just so offensive. But that issue aside, the whole connotation of the messaging is that, hey, these people are rich. We’ve got these poor young Canadians who are not rich and they can’t afford houses because you’re rich and …

Darren Coleman Someone should do something about it, right? That’s the trick.

Kim Moody: Someone should do something about it. And their solution is to introduce a so-called Home Equity tax on any equity of a million dollars or more. And they call it a modest surtax of 1% per year. So it’s like another, effectively property tax … It’s just so nonsensical and so offensive on a whole bunch of different levels. Like you think about grandma and grandpa, yeah, they’ve got equity in their homes, but they don’t have a lot of cash. They’ve been working hard their entire lives to pay off their houses. And yes, they want to transfer down to their kids at some point, but right now, they’re living again, and they’re making ends meet by living off their pensions that they worked hard, and you’re expecting them to shell out more money for that, and I find that offensive.

…. Back to the original premise of why I wrote the article: to let Canadians know that our leaders are entertaining stuff like this. It doesn’t mean they’re going to implement it, but they’re actually entertaining radical organizations like this and secondly, just to put Canadians on
notice that this is just the beginning. If this regime continues with out-of-control spending and no
adherence to basic economics, then we could expect a whole bevy of new taxes.

Darren Coleman

Indeed, they’ve already done some of this, right? So you know that this idea about we’re going to tax home equity, either through some kind of annual surtax on equity over a certain amount, or we’re going to put a capital gain on principal residences. And I would argue that for years now, Canadians have had to report the sale of the principal residence on their tax returns, which is a non-taxable event, yet you now have to tell them, and if you don’t, there’s a penalty. Continue Reading…

Stock Market Anxiety leads to Bad Investing Decisions. Here’s what to do Instead

Posted By Pat McKeough | August 7, 2024

Ignore stock market anxiety and negative stock predictions and instead focus your investing strategy on diversification and portfolio balance

The current state of the world is generating stock market anxiety, as it often does. My guess is that the Israel-Hamas war is just getting started and will last a long time. I also suspect that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin had something to do with getting it started, and will do what he can to keep it going. After all, when it comes to running his country, Putin takes a grasping-at-straws approach.

Putin may think that bringing the longstanding Mideast conflict back into the headlines is going to improve his chances of conquering Ukraine and bringing the Soviet Union back from the dead.

He thinks taking a long shot is better than no shot at all. Who knows? He might get lucky.

Early on in his war on Ukraine, Putin seemed to think that Chinese dictator Xi Jinping was going to take pity on him and his country, and offer free money and/or weapons to shore up Russia’s Ukraine invasion. Instead, Xi insists on staying out of the war, while paying discount prices for Russian oil. He takes special care not to let his country get caught up in the economic sanctions that the U.S. and NATO countries and allies are directing against the Russians.

It’s not that Putin is stupid. If a war between Israel and Hamas turns out to be a big drain on the U.S. budget, the U.S. might have less money available to arm Ukraine.

Up till lately, however, Israel has had little to say about Russia’s treatment of Ukraine. Israel may soon take a more active role in helping Ukraine defend itself.

Any war is a terrible thing, and this one is no different. The stock market seems to be creeping upward. Maybe it knows something that Putin hasn’t figured out.

Meanwhile, if your stock portfolio makes sense to you, we advise against selling due to Mideast fears.

Stock market anxiety recedes with investment quality, diversification and portfolio balance

You’ll find that many of your worries concern things that are unlikely to happen; that are already largely discounted in current stock prices; and that probably won’t matter as much as you feared they would.

You get a much better return on time spent if you devote less of it to worrying about high risk investments, and more of it to an investing strategy. Create a strategy that is built upon analyzing the quality and diversification of your investments, and the structure and balance of your portfolio.

There’s another advantage as well. A calm investor is much less likely to react in haste and make sudden decisions that could prove to be damaging in the long run. Continue Reading…

Investment Synergy: From the 1960s Takeover Craze to Today’s AI Revolution

Posted By Pat McKeough | August 1, 2024

The term “investment synergy” entered common investor use during the takeover craze of the 1960s — but we see a new synergy that’s a big plus for investors.

The term “synergy” entered common investor use during the takeover craze of the 1960s, when businesses started to expand by taking over companies in unrelated fields. This was supposed to make the combined companies grow faster than if they had stuck to their own fields.

The acquirers borrowed a term from biology to explain their rationale: this mix-rather-than-match growth strategy brought synergistic benefits. Synergy refers to an interaction between two or more drugs. The total effect of the drugs is greater than the sum of the individual effects of each drug if taken separately. For instance, today’s treatments for cancer, prostate and other health issues often call for prescribing two or more drugs. The combined impact may be more powerful and beneficial than you’d expect from adding up what they could do separately.

However, the synergy effect can also be negative. For example, combining alcohol with tranquilizers or opiates can lead to negative outcomes, even death.

The impact of 1960s investment synergy-seeking growth was uneven. Sometimes it worked, but it was better at producing temporary gains in stock prices than lasting gains in corporate earnings. In later decades, however, it turned out that unwinding synergy-seeking takeovers could lead to even larger profits.

This unwinding broke companies up into a “parent” and one or more “spinoffs.” The parent would then hand out shares in the spinoff to its own shareholders, as a special dividend.

A number of academic researchers have studied the outcome of spinoffs. Most found that spinoffs produce some of the most dependable profits you can find in the stock market, at least for patient investors. The academic findings were so impressive that we called spinoffs “the closest thing to a sure thing that you can find in investing.” (In fact, we were so impressed that it spurred us to launch our Spinoffs & Takeovers newsletter.)

You can find a number of processes in finance and investing that seem vaguely biological or scientific. For instance, consider Moore’s Law. It refers to the 1965 observation made by Gordon Moore (co-founder of Intel Corp.) that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (now called a microprocessor) doubles about every two years. As a result, costs drop by half, and computing speed doubles. (Manufacturing progress later cut that time down to 18 months.)

This high growth rate was due to improvements in the basic design of early transistors. The continuing improvements spurred fast growth in the profits of Intel and other microprocessor stocks, and sharp gains in their stock prices in the 1980s and 1990s. Around 2005, however, the rise in computer processing speed began to slow. Now some bearish analysts predict that Moore’s Law is dead. They say the effect is bound to peter out because microprocessors can only get so small before they quit working. Meanwhile, cramming too many processors on a chip can lead to over-heating. Continue Reading…

Take advantage of the U.S. Manufacturing Boom with this Industrials Monthly Income ETF

Posted By Financial Independence Hub | July 30, 2024

By Ambrose O’Callaghan, Harvest ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

The passing of three important pieces of legislation in 2021 and 2022 thrust the United States manufacturing sector, and industrials, into the spotlight. But what are industrials, anyway? When we are talking about industrials, we are referring to a sector that is composed of companies that produce goods used in construction and manufacturing that encapsulates several sub-sectors.

Some of the most prominent sub-sectors in the Industrials space include Aerospace & Defense, Electrical Components & Equipment, Industrial Machinery & Supplies & Components, Rail Transportation, and others. The Industrials sector is drawing attention in 2024 for several key reasons.

Today, we are going to explore the resurgence in U.S. manufacturing, the burgeoning aerospace and defense space, and the merits of Harvest’s first-ever covered call Industrials ETF. Let’s jump in.

The resurgence in U.S. manufacturing

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, real manufacturing construction spending has doubled since the end of 2021. This increase occurred in a supportive policy climate after the passing of three key pieces of legislation: The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and CHIPS Act. These three pieces of legislation provided funding and tax incentives for public and private entities in the manufacturing construction space.

The U.S. Treasury Department report shows that the computer/electronic segment has represented the largest component of the U.S. manufacturing resurgence. However, the growth in the size of that segment has not been offset by a reduction in spending in other manufacturing sub-sectors. Construction in areas like chemical, transportation, and food/beverage have all enjoyed growth through 2022, just at a reduced pace. The chart below shows the top manufacturing construction projects by value and location since August 2022.

The CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022. It included US$39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing on U.S. soil. This included 25% investment tax credits for the cost of manufacturing equipment. The chart below shows construction spending in the manufacturing space over the past two decades, bookended by a surge after three pieces of legislation.

Deutsche Bank research indicated that 18 new chipmaking facilities began construction between 2021 and 2023. Indeed, the Semiconductor Industry Association reported that more than 50 new semiconductor ecosystem projects have been announced after the CHIPS Act.

Aerospace and defense spending today

The aerospace sector involves the design, manufacture, and operation of vehicles that travel in aerospace. Meanwhile, the defense sub-sector produces and seeks to sell weapons, and military technology. Continue Reading…

Things to consider

Current RRSP Holdings

Some info on QQQ

Case for going all-in on QQQ

Case against going all in on QQQ

Potential Alternatives to going all-in on QQQ

Some additional logistics to consider

Conclusion – Should we go all in on QQQ?

Share this:

Share this:

Ignore stock market anxiety and negative stock predictions and instead focus your investing strategy on diversification and portfolio balance

Stock market anxiety recedes with investment quality, diversification and portfolio balance

Share this:

The term “investment synergy” entered common investor use during the takeover craze of the 1960s — but we see a new synergy that’s a big plus for investors.

Share this:

Share this:

Sign up for our Daily Digest E-Mail!