Tag Archives: asset allocation ETFs

Retired Money: What ETFs are appropriate for retirees?

Posted By |
Photo by Alena Darmel from Pexels, via MoneySense.ca

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at what ETFs might be appropriate for retirees and near-retirees. You can find the full column by clicking on the headlined text here: The Best ETFs for Retirement Income.

I researched this topic as part of a MoneyShow presentation on the ETF All-Stars, scheduled early in September, to be conducted by myself and MoneySense editor Lisa Hannam. Regular MoneySense and some Hub readers may recall that I was the lead writer for the annual ETF All-Stars package but after almost a decade decided to pass the reigns to new writers: this year’s edition was spearheaded by Michael McCullough.

While the ETF All-stars (which are selected now by a panel of seven Canadian ETF experts) are appropriate for all ages and stages of the financial life cycle, a solid subset of the picks can safely be considered by retirees. A prime example are the Asset Allocation ETFs, many of which have been All-Star picks since Vanguard Canada launched them several years back, and since matched by BMO, iShares, Horizons and others.

Generally speaking, young people can use the 100% growth AA ETFs like VEQT etc., or (which I’d be more comfortable with), the 80% growth/20% fixed income vehicles like VGRO. Near-retirees might go with the traditional 60/40 stocks/bonds mix of classic balanced funds and indeed pension funds: VBAL, XBAL, ZBAL, to name three.

Those fully in Retirement who want less risk but a bit of growth could flip to the 40/60 stocks/bonds mix of VCNS, XCON (check) and ZCON (check.).

In theory all you need is a single asset allocation ETFs, no matter where you are in the financial life cycle. After all, all these ETFs are single-ticket highly diversified global plays on the stock market and bond market, covering all or most geographies and asset classes. And their MERs are more than reasonable: 0.2% or so.

A single Asset Allocation ETF can suffice, but consider adding some tactical layers

In practice, most investors (whether retired or not) will want to do a bit more tinkering than this. For one, the asset allocation ETFs tend to have minimal exposure to alternative asset classes outside the stocks and bonds realm. They will include gold stocks and some real estate stocks or REITs, but little or no pure exposure to precious metals, commodities or indeed cryptocurrencies. (Maybe that’s a good thing!).

The MoneySense article bounces my ideas for adding tactical layers to an AA ETF. For example, you might use the 40/60 VCNS instead of 60/40 VBAL, for 80% of your investments, reserving the other 20% for more tactical mostly equity specialized ETFs. You’d aim for a net 50/50 asset mix after blending the AA ETF and these tactical ETFs. Continue Reading…

Should you Dump your All-Equity ETF?

Posted By |

By Justin Bender, CFA, CFP  

Special to Financial Independence Hub

In our last blog/video, we introduced the all-equity ETFs from iShares and Vanguard. These ETFs make it easy to gain and maintain exposure to global stock markets with the click of a mouse, eliminating the hassle of juggling several ETFs in your all-equity portfolio.

Vanguard and iShares don’t offer their services for free though.

The MERs for their all-equity ETFs are slightly higher than the weighted-average MERs of their underlying holdings. Consider this modest surcharge as the price of admission for their professional asset allocation and rebalancing services. In my opinion, that’s a bargain for most investors.

 

Then again, there are those who might prefer to squeeze every last penny out of their portfolio costs. If that’s you, you may want to try skipping the value-add of an all-equity ETF, and simply purchase the underlying ETFs directly, in similar weights. If you take on the task of rebalancing back to your targets each month when you add new money to your portfolio, you should be able to mimic an all-equity ETF for a lower overall MER.

That’s the goal anyway. But it’s still going to take time, money, or both to keep your asset allocations on track each month. Let’s look at three potential strikes against trying to reinvent an all-equity ETF on your own, as well as one potential play that may serve as a suitable compromise.

Strike One: The potential cost savings are minimal.

For example, let’s say you’ve got $10,000 to invest. Instead of investing it in the Vanguard All-Equity ETF Portfolio, or VEQT, you could divide it up among VEQT’s component funds. The estimated cost savings might let you rent an extra movie each year, but are the savings really worth it? The extra time you’ll need to spend on rebalancing may not leave you much time to even enjoy your movie.

For larger amounts, the fee savings start adding up, but only if you can buy and sell ETF shares at zero commission as you rebalance. If not, you can forget about it.

Strike Two: Managing a portfolio of four ETFs (instead of just one) will be more difficult.

Sticking with our VEQT example, a DIY investor would either need to visit Vanguard’s website monthly to collect the individual ETF weights within VEQT, or use the market cap data from the FTSE and CRSP index fact sheets to determine how to allocate each of the underlying ETFs. They would then need to calculate how many ETF units to buy or sell across various accounts to get their portfolio back on target, and place multiple trades to get the job done. Continue Reading…

North American stock portfolio outperforms when it counts

Posted By |

By Dale Roberts, cutthecrapinvesting

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

For U.S. stocks, my wife and I hold 17 Dividend Achievers, plus 3 stock picks. In Canada, I hold the Canadian Wide Moat 7, while my wife holds a Canadian High Dividend ETF – Vanguard’s VDY. There is also a modest position in the TSX 60 – XIU. The U.S. and Canadian stocks both outperform their respective stock market index benchmarks. Working together, the U.S. and Canadian stocks form an all-weather portfolio base.

In this post I’ll offer up charts on our U.S. stock portfolio and the Canadian stock portfolio. And I’ll put them together so that we can see how they work together. The total portfolio was designed to be retirement-ready. The fact that it beats the market benchmarks is a welcome surprise. At the core of the portfolio is wonderful Canadian dividend payers – the U.S. dividend achievers and 3 picks fill in some portfolio holes. We will also take a look at how these stocks can be arranged to provide an all-weather stock portfolio base.

When I write ‘our portfolio,” I am referring to the retirement portfolios for my wife and me. As for ‘backgrounders’ on the portfolios please have a read of our U.S. stock portfolio and the Canadian Wide Moat 7 performance update.

The stock portfolios

In early 2015 I skimmed 15 of the largest-cap dividend achievers. What does skim mean? After extensive research into the portfolio “idea” I simply bought 15 of the largest-cap dividend achievers. For more info on the index, have a look at the U.S. Dividend Appreciation Index ETF (VIG) from Vanguard. That is a U.S. dollar ETF. Canadian investors can also look to Vanguard Canada for Canadian dollar offerings (VGG.TO).

You’ll find the dividend acheivers and Canadian high dividend stocks in the ETF portfolio for retirees post. Both indices are superior for retirement funding, compared to core stock indices.

Dividend growth plus quality

At the core of the index is a meaningful dividend growth history (10 years or more) working in concert with financial health screens. It leads to a high quality skew. Given those parameters the dividend achievers index will certainly hold many dividend aristocrats (NOBL).

The 15 companies that I purchased in early 2015 are 3M (MMM), PepsiCo (PEP), CVS Health Corporation (CVS), Walmart (WMT), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Qualcomm (QCOM), United Technologies, Lowe’s (LOW), Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA), Medtronic (MDT), Nike (NKE), Abbott Labs (ABT), Colgate-Palmolive (CL), Texas Instruments (TXN) and Microsoft (MSFT).

United Technologies merged with Raytheon (RTX) and then spun off Carrier Global Corporation (CARR) and Otis Worldwide (OTIS). We continue to hold all three and they have been wonderful additions to the portfolio. Given that those stocks are not available for the full period, they are not a part of this evaluation. That said, the United Technologies spin-offs added to the outperformance.

Previous to 2015 we had three picks by way of Apple (AAPL), BlackRock (BLK) and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B). Those stocks are overweighted in the portfolio. As you might expect, Apple has contributed greatly to the portfolio outperformance. Though the achievers also outperform the market with less volatility.

In total it is a portfolio of 20 U.S. stocks.

The Canadians

I hold a concentrated portfolio of Canadian stocks. What I give up in greater diversification, I gain in the business strength and potential for the companies that I own to not fail. They have wide moats or exist in an oligopoly situation. For the majority of the Canadian component of my RRSP account I own 7 companies in the banking, telco and pipeline space. I like to call it the Canadian wide moat portfolio. They also provide very generous and growing dividends. These days, they’d combine to offer a starting yield in the 6% range.

Here are the stocks:

Canadian banking

Royal Bank of Canada (RY), Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) and Scotiabank (BNS).

Telco space

Bell Canada (BCE) and Telus (T).

Pipelines

Canada’s two big pipelines are Enbridge (ENB) and TC Energy (TRP).

*Total performance would be improved by holding the greater wide moat portfolio that includes grocers and railway stocks. That is a consideration for those in retirment and in the accumulation stage.

The Canadian mix outperforms the market, the TSX Composite. You’ll also find that outperformance in the Beat The TSX Portfolio. That BTSX strategy (like the Wide Moat 7) finds big dividends, strong profitability and value.

Once again, my wife holds an ETF – the Vanguard High Dividend (VDY) and a modest position in XIU. I did not want to expose her portfolio to concentration risk.

The charts

Here’s the returns of the U.S. and Canadian portfolios, plus a 50/50 U.S/CAD mix as the total portfolio. The period is January of 2015 to end of September 2022. Please keep in mind the returns are not adjusted for currency fluctuations. A Canadian investor has received a boost thanks to the strong U.S. dollar. U.S. investors owning Canadian stocks would experience a negative currency experience. Continue Reading…

Retired Money: Are Balanced Funds really dead or destined to rise again?

Posted By |
Is the classic 60/40 balanced fund destined to rise again, like the phoenix?

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column addresses the unique phenomenon investors have faced in 2022: for the first times in decades, both the Stock and Bond sides of the classic balanced fund or ETF are down.

Click on the highlighted headline to access the full column: The 60/40 portfolio: A phoenix or a dud for retirees? 

While the column focuses on the Classic 60/40 Balanced Fund or ETF, the insights apply equally to more aggressive mixes of 80% stocks to 20% bonds, or more conservative mixes of 40% bonds to 60% stocks or even 80% bonds to 20% stocks. Most of the major makers of Asset Allocation ETFs provide all these alternatives. Younger investors may gravitate to the 100% stocks option: indeed with most US stocks down 20% or more year to date, it’s an opportune time to load up on equities if you have a long time horizon.

However, we retirees may find the notion of 100% equity ETFs to be far too stressful in environments like these, even if the Bonds complement has thus far let down the tea. As Vanguard says in a backgrounder referenced in the column, the classic 60/40 may yet rise phoenix-like from the ashes of the 2022 doldrums.

“We’ve been here before.”

On July 7th, indexing giant Vanguard released a paper bearing the reassuring headline “Like the phoenix, the 60/40 portfolio will rise again.”  “We’ve been here before,” the paper asserts, “Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.” It goes on to say that “brief, simultaneous declines in stocks and bonds are not unusual … Viewed monthly since early 1976, the nominal total returns of both U.S. stocks and investment-grade bonds have been negative nearly 15% of the time. That’s a month of joint declines every seven months or so, on average. Extend the time horizon, however, and joint declines have struck less frequently. Over the last 46 years, investors never encountered a three-year span of losses in both asset classes.”

Vanguard also urges investors to remember that the goal of the 60/40 portfolio is to achieve long-term returns of roughly 7%. “This is meant to be achieved over time and on average, not each and every year. The annualized return of 60% U.S. stock and 40% U.S. bond portfolio from January 1, 1926, through December 31, 2021, was 8.8%. Going forward, the Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM) projects the long-term average return to be around 7% for the 60/40 portfolio.”

It also points out that similar principles apply to balanced funds with different mixes of stocks and bonds: its own VRIF, for example, is a 50/50 mix and its Asset Allocation ETFs vary from 100% stocks to just 20%, with the rest in bonds.

Tweaking the Classic 60/40 portfolio

While very patient investors may choose to wait for the classic 60/40 Fund to rise again, others may choose to tweak around the edges. The column mentions how TriDelta Financial’s Matthew Ardrey started to shift many client bond allocations to shorter-term bonds, thereby lessening the damage inflicted to portfolios by bond funds heavily concentrated in longer-duration bonds. Continue Reading…

5 Reasons why the 60/40 Portfolio is NOT Dead

Posted By |

By Bilal Hasanjee, Senior Investment Strategist, Vanguard Canada

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

In the current record-breaking inflation and rising interest rate environment across all major markets, stocks and bonds have declined in values simultaneously.

As a result, many analysts and commentators have speculated on the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolios. But we have seen this before. Based on Vanguard’s research, balanced portfolios have proved critics wrong before and we believe they will prove them wrong, again. Here are five reasons why a 60% stock/40% bond portfolio is NOT dead.

Reason 1: Stock-bonds simultaneous decline is not long lasting

A simultaneous decline or positive correlation in stocks and bonds has typically not lasted long and the phenomenon has never occurred over a three-year span. A similar trend is visible on a 60/40 (stocks/bonds) portfolio.

Drawdowns in 60/40 portfolios have occurred more regularly than simultaneous declines in stocks and bonds; however, their frequency of occurrence also declines over longer periods. More regular occurrence is due to the far-higher volatility of stocks and their greater weight in that asset mix. One-month total returns were negative one-third of the time over the last 46 years. The one-year returns of such portfolios were negative about 14% of the time, or once every seven years or so, on average.

Figure 1

Source: Vanguard

Data reflect rolling period total returns for the periods shown and are based on underlying monthly total returns for the period from February 1976 through April 2022. The S&P 500 Index and the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index were used as proxies for stocks and bonds.

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index.

Stock-Bonds correlation remains negative in the long term

Our study of 60-day and 24-month stock-bonds rolling correlations from 1992 to 2022 suggests that over a long-term, correlation between stocks and bonds remains negative. That said, long-term inflation is one of the determinants of correlation between the two asset classes

Figure 2: Long-term correlations expected to remain negative

Notes: Rolling correlations are calculated on total returns of the S&P 500 Index and the S&P U.S. Treasury Bond Current 10-year Index, using daily return data for the period between 1989 and May 31, 2022.

Sources: Vanguard, using data from Refinitiv, as of May 31, 2022. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

The performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index.

Reason 2: Long-term expected returns from 60/40 are still achievable

The goal of a 60/40 portfolio is to achieve long-term annualized returns of roughly 7%. This is meant to be achieved over time and on average, and not every year. The annualized return of 60% U.S. stock and 40% U.S. bond portfolio from January 1, 1926, through December 31, 2021, was 8.8%.1 On a forward-looking basis, Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM) projects the long-term average return to be around 7% for the 60/40 portfolio, over the next 10 years. Market volatility means diversified portfolio returns will always remain uneven, comprising periods of higher or lower: and, yes, even negative returns.

The average return we expect can still be achieved if periods of negative returns (like this year) follow periods of high returns. During the three previous years (2019–2021), a 60/40 portfolio delivered an annualized 14.3% return, so losses of up to –12% for all of 2022 would just bring the four-year annualized return to 7%, back in line with historical norms.

Our forecast points to improved stocks and bond returns

On the flip side, the math of average returns suggests that periods of negative returns must be followed by years with higher-than-average returns. Indeed, with the painful market adjustments year-to-date, the return outlook for the 60/40 portfolio has improved, not declined. Driven by lower equity valuations and higher bond yields, our 10-year annualized average return outlook for the 60/40 is now higher by 1.3 percentage points than before the recent market adjustment.

Reason 3: Selling bonds in a rising rate environment is like selling low and buying high (in short, don’t try to time the market)

Chasing performance and reacting to headlines are doomed to fail as a timing strategy every time, since it amounts to buying high and selling low. Far from abandoning balanced portfolios, investors should keep their investment programs on track, adding to them in a disciplined way over time. Continue Reading…

Powered by the Financial Independence Hub.
© 2013-2024 All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use
Financial Independence Hub Logo

Sign up for our Daily Digest E-Mail!

Get daily updates from the FindependenceHub.com straight to your inbox.