Tag Archives: Financial Independence

7 Leaders reveal their favorite Index Funds for Financial Independence

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels

 

In the quest for Financial Independence through savvy investing, we’ve gathered insights from Presidents and CEOs to share their top index fund picks.

From choosing a high-dividend yield ETF to recommending a total stock market index fund, explore the seven expert recommendations that could pave your path to financial freedom.

 

 

  • Choose High-Dividend Yield ETF
  • Suggest Vanguard Total Stock ETF
  • Prefer Zero Fee Total Market Fund
  • Select Australian-Domiciled International ETF
  • Opt for Monthly Distribution Index
  • Pick Broad-Market S&P 500 ETF
  • Recommend Total Stock Market Index Fund

Choose High-Dividend Yield ETF

My go-to for building Financial Independence has got to be the Vanguard High-Dividend Yield ETF. A lot of folks who’ve made it to FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) live off dividends, and if that’s your goal, this ETF is worth considering. It sports a yield of 3.65% and keeps costs low with an expense ratio of just 0.06%. The fund aims to mirror the performance of the FTSE High-Dividend Yield Index.

It’s packed with stocks known for higher-than-average yields. You won’t find many fast-growing tech stocks here because those companies usually reinvest their profits into growth rather than paying out dividends. Instead, the ETF focuses on older, established companies with a strong history of profitability. As of the last update, the top five holdings included big names like Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, Procter & Gamble, Verizon Communications, and Comcast.

While it might not match the S&P 500 in terms of rapid growth or impressive returns, the stability and consistent income it offers can be a major advantage, especially if you’re looking for reliable dividend income. Eric Croak, CFP, President, Croak Capital

Suggest Vanguard Total Stock ETF

As a CFO, I recommend index funds like the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) for building long-term wealth. It provides broad exposure to over 3,600 U.S. stocks with an ultra-low expense ratio of 0.03%. 

Over the past 25 years, the total U.S. stock market has returned over 9% annually. While volatile, for long-term investors, index funds are a simple, low-cost way to earn solid returns. I have leveraged index funds in my own portfolio and for clients to build wealth over time. 

Vanguard’s scale and expertise allow for minimal costs and maximum tax efficiency. For small or large portfolios, VTI should be a core holding. For clients aiming to retire early or build wealth, low-cost broad market exposure is the most effective strategy. Total U.S. stock market funds provide the broadest, most diversified exposure available. Russell Rosario, Owner, RussellRosario.com

Prefer Zero-Fee Total Market Fund

The Fidelity Zero Total Market Index Fund is my top pick for building Financial Independence. It covers the full spectrum of the U.S. market without charging any management fees, which means your investment grows faster without extra costs. This fund’s wide exposure to both established and emerging companies helps balance risk and reward. For anyone serious about long-term growth, it’s a great tool to steadily build wealth over time. Jonathan Gerber, President, RVW Wealth Continue Reading…

Retirement needs a new Definition

By Ryan Donovan

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Before we dive into this article, let’s play a quick game: a word association game. I’ll bet you a crisp $5 bill, or a shiny loonie for the more risk averse out there, that with three chances, I can guess the first word that pops into your head. Now, it has to be the first word, so no cheating. Ready, set… the word is ‘Retirement.

If you said ‘Retirement Income,’ ‘Retirement Savings’ or ‘Retirement Home,’ I’ll come to collect my winnings. If you said anything like ‘Travel,’ ‘Hobbies’ or ‘Exploration,  then good on you; I’ll send along an IOU.

The reason I felt so confident taking that bet is because when I tell people that I work in retirement planning, 99 out of 100 times, they assume that I work in financial services. The other time, people ask about senior living. Retirement has become so synonymous with financial planning, and so associated with ‘old age,’ that they’re practically inseparable. Yet, in reality, retirement is a stage of life, not a date on the calendar, an amount in your bank account, and is certainly not a death sentence.

One of our primary goals when creating our startup, RetireMint, was to reframe the national conversation around “what it means to retire,” which, at its core, requires redefining how Canadians prepare for retirement.

Now, I am not discounting the importance and necessity of a sound financial plan. After all, you are reading this in Financial Independence Hub … Yes, financial planning is the keystone of retirement preparation, as you won’t even be able to flirt with the idea of retiring without it. Yet, retirement planning must adopt a much wider definition and break free from the tethered association of solely financial planning.

Retirement should really be a time to enjoy the fruits of your hard labour:  a chapter that will hopefully span decades, fuelled by leisure, exploration, discovery and meaning.

Answering the ‘what, where and how’ of everything you want to see, do and accomplish in this next chapter requires conscious preparation in areas far beyond spreadsheets and bank statements. 

The industry paradigm is that you have about 8,000 days in retirement, or around 22 years. In each of those years, you will have more than 2,000 hours of new-found free time that would have been spent working throughout the majority of your life. Filling these thousands of hours with meaningful and purposeful activity is much more easily said than done.

The common approach to retirement planning (yes, we are now using the wider definition) has been to ‘punt the ball down the field’ and ‘cross that bridge when you get to it.’ Yet, we see time and time again that those who leave their lifestyle planning to their first day of retirement are the ones who have the hardest time transitioning into this next chapter.

The people who say, “I’ll never get tired of sipping Piña Coladas on a beach,” face the same fate as the ones who say “I can’t wait to golf every day.” While these may be dream activities for retirees, they ultimately see diminishing returns if they’re your only activities, because humans are funny creatures:  we need meaning and variation.

Despite its innocent demeanour, retirement has some dark, inconvenient truths: 

  • Ages 50-64, 65-84 and 85+ have the three highest suicide rates in North America, and in the last five years, we’ve seen a 38% increase in suicides among Baby Boomers.
  • Canadians over 65 have a divorce rate three times the national average.
  • Over 25% of older Canadians are socially isolated, which causes a 50% increased risk of dementia.
  • And, 77% of older Canadians live with at least two chronic illnesses or conditions.

It’s statistics like these that starkly highlight the importance of planning for your lifestyle, wellness and purpose, as well as the need for trusted resources to help with this planning. This was the a-ha moment that sparked our urgency to develop RetireMint.

RetireMint stemmed from empirical evidence showing that once people’s finances are at least on the right track, their primary concerns and conversations with their financial advisors shift far beyond the scope of their meetings. “What am I going to do with the grandkids?,” “Where am I going to travel?” “What happens when I lose my work insurance coverage?,” are just a few of the plethora of questions that popped up time and time again.

It’s fantastic that Canadians have this level of trust and comfort with their advisors, but the truth is that financial advisors are not equipped to answer all of these broader retirement inquiries, and they’ll be the first to admit it. It’s clear that this undue burden falls on the shoulders of financial professionals, but if not for them, who is going to provide the answers? Continue Reading…

Gen Z driving surge in mobile Debit spending

Image courtesy Interac Corp.

An Interac survey being released today finds that more than two thirds (69%) of Canada’s Gen Z generation [defined as Canadians aged 18 to 27] have embraced the mobile wallet, while almost as many (63%) would rather leave their old-fashioned physical wallets at home for short trips. Gen Z’s Interac contactless mobile purchases also rose 27% in the first half of 2024, compared to the same period a year earlier.

Gen Z appears to be more enthusiastic than their counterparts in older cohorts: 60% of Millennials [aged 28-43]  embraced mobile wallets, compared to 44% of Gen Xers [aged 44-59] and just 27% of Baby Boomers [aged 60-78.] Only 10% of the older Silent Generation [age 79 or older] did so.

A whopping 63% of Gen Z mobile wallet users have loaded their Interac debit card on their smartphones, and 31% plan to set debit as their default method of payment. For 63% of them, the reason is perceived faster payment times compared to physical card payments.

 “Choosing your default payment method may feel like a small step, but it can play a big role in shaping Canadians’ ongoing spending habits,” said Glenn Wolff, Group Head and Chief Client Officer, Interac in a press release. “When consumers tap to pay with their phones, the decision to select a card from the digital wallet is easy to miss. Canadians could end up unintentionally using a default payment method that prompts them to take on more debt. This differs from traditional physical wallets where the consumer had to select the card they wanted to use each time.”

Majority want to be smarter with money

62% of Gen Z want to be “more mindful when spending” with 57% saying they want the option to use debit when paying in store or online; 79% of them say the cost of living is too expensive and 59% feel the need to be smarter with their money.

Interact says this generation’s desire to control overspending is heightened by back-to-school season: last year, family clothing stores saw almost twice as many Interac Debit mobile purchases in September and October compared to earlier that year in January and February. 54% of Gen Zs see the need to develop new habits to stay in control over their finances, while 56% are setting a timeline for this September to introduce new habits. Continue Reading…

Safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada (for any Retirement Age)

So you have been reading Million Dollar Journey (MDJ) for years, have used your Canadian online broker account to DIY-invest your way to a solid nest egg.

You’ve got a TFSA, and RRSP, and maybe even a non-registered account – full of good revenue-generating assets.

Kudos!

Now comes the tough part: How do you turn that nest egg into a usable stream of money that you can spend as you enter retirement?

Surprisingly, when it comes to discussing Canadian safe retirement withdrawal rates, and talking to folks who have retired at all ages, spending their retirement savings represented a massive mental strain for them.  I guess (as someone who has never retired or sold investments to pay for retirement) that I always thought that saving for retirement would be the hard part.

Isn’t spending supposed to be more fun than squirreling away?

It turns out that once you get into that savings mindset, it can be hard to flip the switch back to enjoying spending the fruits of your labour.  This is especially true for folks who are looking at strategies for an early retirement because they are much more likely to have been super-aggressive savers during their time in the workforce.

I didn’t go into the topic of safe withdrawal rates for retirement expecting the topic to be so deep and full of variables! Afterall, the concept seems simple enough right?

How much can I take out of my investment portfolio each year, if I need that nest egg to last for 30, 35, 40, or even 50 years?

Ok, so let’s maybe start with the rule of thumb that advisors have used when looking at retirement drawdown plans for a while now.

Back in 1994 a financial advisor named William Bengen looked at the last 80 or so years of markets and retirement, did a bunch of math, and arrived at a concept we now call “The 4% rule.”

The basic idea of the 4% retirement withdrawal plan is that someone could safely withdraw 4% of their investment/savings portfolio each year and – assuming a 60/40 or 50/50 split of bonds/stocks in their portfolio – they would never run out of money.  This idea of withdrawing a certain percentage of your portfolio to fund your retirement is called the Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR). The math behind this magic 4% figure means that if you have the nice round $1 Million investment portfolio that we all dream of, you could safely pull out $40,000 the first year, and then adjust for inflation and withdraw 4% plus inflation after that. (So if there was 2% inflation between year one and year two, you could now withdraw $40,800.)

Bengen, and another highly influential study took their rule and retroactively applied it to retirees from every single year from 1926 to 1994.  They found that nearly 100% of the time (depending on what was in the investment portfolio) people could retire, and withdraw 4% of their portfolio for 30 years of retirement – and not run out of money.  In fact, a large percentage of the time, if retirees followed the 4% rule, they not only didn’t run out of money, they finished life with more money than when they started retirement!

Keep in mind, these authors didn’t worry about OAS or CPP, or a workplace pension, or even the tax implications of different types of withdrawals.  They were simply trying to come up with a useful rule of thumb for how much a person could safely withdraw from their retirement portfolio.

What the 4% Rule means for your Magic Retirement Portfolio Number

If you can safely withdraw 4% of your portfolio to fund your retirement, then the simple math tells us that if you can accumulate 25x your annual retirement budget, you no longer have to work.

Here’s the breakdown:

  • Jane looks at her budget and realizes that once she retires she will have a lot less spending demands.  She carefully weighs the numbers and believes she’ll need $40,000 per year to quit her 9-to-5.
  • Consequently, Jane needs the magical “4% of her portfolio” to equal $40,000 per year.
  • For a 4% withdrawal to equal $40,000, Jane will need a $1,000,000 portfolio.
  • If Jane reassess and realizes she needs $60,000 per year in retirement, Jane would need 25 times $60,000 (because 4% goes into 100% twenty-five times) which is $1.5 Million.
  • Jane might not need anywhere close to $1.5M if she intends to do a little part-time work in retirement, and is willing to use some math + research strategies to help herself out a bit when it comes to managing her nest egg!  But more on that later…

4% Safe Withdrawal Rate: Potential Problems

Up until the 4% rule became a thing, when financial advisors were asked about safe withdrawal rates, the only thing they could really say is, “it depends.”

This was followed by a whole lot of graphs, math, and other boring stuff that no one really understood, but didn’t want to admit to not understanding.

The 4% rule of thumb was a BIG deal when it came to financial planning.  It provided the best answer yet to the millions of retirees who desperately wanted an answer to the question:

“How much money can I take out of this portfolio each year without going broke and eating cat food as an 80-year-old?!!!

Before we get into discussing the nitty gritty of safe withdrawal rates today, we must understand the limitations of the 4% rule.  Here are the major rules that I came across after reading for roughly a hundred hours. The research I read was mostly done by people who have dedicated a major part of their life’s work to studying retirement and spending patterns across the globe.  As far as I can tell, they are our best hope for trying to define just what the range of outcomes will be for various types of retirement spending + investing plans. The two major experts that I relied on most were Wade D. Pfau and Michael Kitces, with major assists to the writers behind Early Retirement Now, The Mad Fientist, and Millennial Revolution.

1) There is no way to know the future returns for any asset class.  We’ll get into this more later on in the show, but basically, the vast majority of the math that these folks are basing their withdrawal rates on is underpinned by a US stock market that has done incredibly well over the last 100+ years.  A few other stock markets of developed countries have done as well (Yay Canada!), but the majority of stock markets DO NOT return 10%+ over the long haul.

It turns out that when you don’t know how much money your nest egg will be generating, solving for how much money to take out becomes kind of hard to answer!

2) These withdrawal plans were mostly created with a 30-year retirement time horizon in mind.  When most people were retiring at 60 or 65, and living to 75-80, a 30-year window looked like a pretty safe horizon for most people.  If this still describes your plan, a 30-year horizon is probably still a pretty safe rule of thumb. If you’re looking at leaving your job at 40-50 years of age (or even earlier) and living well into your 90s, you could easily be looking at a retirement that lasts 50+ years!  (Which is pretty cool to think about, really!)

3) The 4% rule doesn’t reflect how many Canadians actually invest and pay for investment advice.  In a perfect world, we would all handle our own withdrawal plan and DIY our portfolio allocations and withdrawals.  But many of us aren’t interested in diving into the deep end of handling our own assets. Consequently, we have to take those pesky investment-related fees into account when looking at our safe withdrawal plans.  If you’re paying 2% of your returns to a mutual fund salesperson each year, you will need a lot more than $1 Million to safely withdraw 4% each year.

4) The 4% rule doesn’t take into account adjustment in behaviour.  For example, Jane might take on a little part-time work to make $10,000 per year if she sees her account balance going down too fast.  Or she may decide to move somewhere that has much lower living costs. A blanket rule that tries to predict 30 years into the future can’t possibly allow for all of these variables.

5) There is no OAS and/or CPP taken into consideration when looking at the 4% rule.  It’s also likely that Jane might not have considered how taxes might affect how much she needs to withdraw each year.

6) The 4% rule tries to address what us finance geeks call Sequence of Return Risk – but it gets really hard to do so after you go beyond the 30-year mark of retirement.  More on this below.

So, now that we know what the rules of thumb are for safe withdrawal rates that the professors of all things money have come up with, as well as some of the limitations of those rules of thumb, let’s take a look at what this might mean when applied to your retirement!

How has the 4% Rule Done in the Past

Given all of these variables that the 4% rule doesn’t account for, you might be wondering just why it is so widely used.

The truth is that I put all that naysayer stuff first because folks love to poke holes in financial theories. (For good reason, we’re talking about people’s life plans here.) Let’s look at just why the 4% rule has become the rule of thumb.

As always when discussing financial planning and financial projects, one must understand that while looking at past results in the stock and bond markets is one of the best tools we have, it does not guarantee future results!

Drawing on what I’ve read from Bengen, the Trinity Study, and recent authors such as Pfau and Kitces, here’s some summary notes on just how the 4% rule would have worked in the past in the USA market. (The Canadian market has actually done slightly better most of the time, so the conclusions would be quite similar when looking at past Canadian returns.)

1) When you apply the original 4% withdrawal philosophy, not only does your money never run out over any 30-year period over the last 100 years – But 95% of the time the retiree would have finished with MORE THAN THEY STARTED WITH!

I know this sounds crazy, but companies have made a lot of money the last 100 years.  If you owned a piece of them, you’ve done pretty well!

2) More than half of the time, the retiree who stuck to the 4% rule would have DOUBLED THEIR MONEY at the end of the 30-year time frame.

What this means, is that in the past, it is far more likely that retirees could have spent substantially more than that 4% withdrawal safety number, than it was that they would ever run out of money.

3) Rather than use Bengen’s 60/40 portfolio, you can actually increase your chances of favourable outcomes by skewing your portfolio to take on more stocks.  Of course, your portfolio will also be likely to cause a bit more heartburn as you watch stocks gyrate up and down over the years.

4) Even folks who retired during the rough decade of the 2000s are doing just fine.

If I Want to Retire Early or do this whole “FIRE” Thing – Does the 4% Work for Me?

The short answer is: Probably Not

When you start to take rules that were created for a 30-year safe withdrawal period, and stretch them out over 50+ years, it makes sense that the rules of thumb don’t really work anymore.

Taking money out of your nest egg for that long means that you’re more likely to encounter a long-term period of rough markets, and have your money run out.

The website Early Retirement Now (created by folks who are fluent in high-level economics math and Monte Carlo simulations) have created the following chart and conclusions when it comes to safe withdrawal rates and long retirement periods.

I’ve checked their assumptions with a ton of really smart people that I trust, as well as doing the math myself, and if you assume the same returns that we’ve had the past 100 years or so in North America, I can’t find anything to argue with!

The Ultimate Guide to Safe Withdrawal Rates in Canada

1) The 30-year 4% rule still works pretty well, and a 5% withdrawal rate is only fit for the very adventurous or flexible-minded out there!

2) Tilting your portfolio towards stocks over bonds increases your chances of the best outcomes – assuming that you don’t panic when markets go down and sell at the worst times.

3) At high stock allocations, the 4% rule still worked pretty darn well for a 50- or 60-year retirement! (With past returns that is.) Continue Reading…

Retired Money: Review of Die with Zero and 4,000 Weeks

Chapters Indigo

My latest Retired Money column looks at two related books: Die with Zero and Four Thousand Weeks.

You can as always find the full version of the MoneySense column by clicking on the highlighted text: Why these authors want you to spend your money and die with $0 saved.

I start with Die with Zero because it most directly deals with the topic of money as we age. In fact, as most retirees know, one of the biggest fears behind the whole retirement saving concept is running out of money before you run out of life.

But it appears that many of us have become so fixated with saving for retirement, we may end up wasting much of our precious life energy, and being the proverbial richest inhabitant of the cemetery. For you super savers out there, this book may be an eye opener, as is the other book, 4,000 Weeks.

As I note in the column, this genre of personal finance started with Die Broke, by Stephen Pollan and Mark Levine, which I read shortly after it was first published in 1998. That’s where I encountered the amusing quip that “The last check you write should be to your undertaker … and it should bounce.”

The premise is similar in both books: there are trade-offs between time, money and health. Indeed,  as you can see from the cover shot above, its subtitle is Getting all you can from your money and your life. As with another influential book, Your Money or Your Life,  we exchange our time and life energy for money, which can therefore be viewed as a form of stored life energy. So if you die with lots of money, you’ve in effect “wasted” some of your precious life energy. Similarly, if you encounter mobility issues or other afflictions in your 70s or 80s, you may not be able to travel and engage in many activities that you may have thought you had been “saving up” for.

A treatise on Life’s Brevity and appreciating the moment

Amazon.com

The companion book is Four Thousand Weeks : Time Management for Mortals, by Oliver Burkeman. If you haven’t already guessed, 4,000 weeks is roughly the number of weeks someone will live if they reach age 77 [77 years multiplied by 52 equals 4,004.] Even the oldest person on record, Jeanne Calment, lived only 6,400 weeks, having died at age 122.

I actually enjoyed this book more than Die with Zero. It’s more philosophical and amusing in spots. Some of the more intriguing chapters are “Becoming a better procrastinator” and “Cosmic Insignificance Therapy.” I underlined way too many passages to flag here but here’s a sample from the former chapter: “The core challenge of managing our limited time isn’t about how to get everything done – that’s never going to happen – but how to decide most wisely what not to do … we need to learn to get better at procrastinating.”