Tag Archives: Financial Independence

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.”

 

 

Private Equity: A Portfolio Perspective

So don’t ask me no questions
And I won’t tell you no lies
So don’t ask me about my business
And I won’t tell you goodbye

  • Lynyrd Skynyrd
Image courtesy Outcome/Shutterstock

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

I know virtually nothing about investing in private companies. However, I do know a thing or two about the theoretical and practical aspects of asset allocation and portfolio construction. In this vein, I will discuss the value of private equity (PE) investments within a portfolio context. Importantly, I will explain why PE investments may contribute less to one’s portfolio than is widely perceived.

Before I get into it, I am compelled to state one important caveat. Generalized statements about PE are less meaningful than is the case with public equities. The dispersion of returns across public equity funds is far lower than across PE managers. Whereas most long stock funds fall within +/- 5% of the average over a several year period, there is a far wider dispersion among underperformers and outperformers in the PE space. As such, it is important to note that the following analysis does not apply to any specific PE investment but rather to PE as an asset class in general.

The Perfect Asset Class?

PE allocations are broadly perceived as offering higher returns than their publicly traded counterparts. In addition, they are regarded as having lower volatility than and lower correlation to stocks. Given these perceived attributes, PE investments can be regarded as the “magic sauce” for increasing portfolio returns while lowering portfolio volatility. In combination, these attributes can significantly enhance portfolios’ risk-adjusted returns. However, the assumptions underlying these features are highly questionable.

Saturation, Lower Returns, & Echoes of Charlie Munger

It is reasonable to expect that average returns within the PE industry will be lower than in decades past. The number of active PE firms has increased more than fivefold, from just under two thousand in 2000 to over 9000 today. This impressive increase pales in comparison to growth in assets under management, which went from roughly $600 billion in 2000 to $7.6 trillion as of the end of 2022. It seems unlikely if not impossible that the number of attractive investment opportunities can keep pace with the dramatic increase in the amount of money chasing them.

Another reason to suspect that PE managers’ returns will be lower going forward is that their incentives and objectives have changed. The smaller PE industry of yesteryear was incentivized to deliver strong returns to maximize performance fees.  In contrast, today’s behemoth managers are motivated to maximize assets under management and management fees. The name of the game is to raise as much money as possible, invest it as quickly as possible, and begin raising money for the next fund. The objective is no longer to produce the best returns, but rather to deliver acceptable returns on the largest asset base possible. As the great Charlie Munger stated, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.”

There are no Bear Markets in Private Equity!

It is also likely that PE investments on average have both higher volatility and greater correlation to stocks than may appear. The values of public equities are determined by exchange-quoted prices every single day. In contrast, private assets are not marked to market daily. Not only do PE managers value their holdings infrequently, but they also must employ a significant degree of subjectivity in determining the value of their holdings. Importantly, there is an inherent bias for not adjusting private valuations when public equities suffer losses. Continue Reading…

Then and Now – Revisiting the need for bonds

Image courtesy myownadvisor/Pexels

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub

It has been said bonds make bad times better.

Is this the reason to own bonds?

Welcome to another Then and Now post, a continuation of my series where I revisit some older blogposts and either rip them to shreds (because my thinking has totally changed on such subjects) or I’ll confirm my position on various personal finance topics or specific stock and ETF investments.

Since my last Then and Now post (whereby I shared I sold out of all Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) stock to buy other equities in recent years), I figured it might be interesting to review this post and update my thinking from a few years ago before the pandemic hit – on bonds.

Then – on bonds

Back in 2015 when the original post was shared, I referenced this quote that frames my own portfolio management approach when it comes to my bias to owning stocks over bonds:

“If you want to make the most money, you should invest in stocks. But if you want to keep the money you made in stocks, you should invest in bonds.” – Paul Merriman.

Bonds are essentially parachutes when equity markets fall; bonds will cushion the portfolio landing. And equity markets can fail big at times!

While I understand there are different ways to measure the “equity risk premium,” the summary IMO is the same: the risk premium is the measure of the additional return that investors demand or expect for taking on a particular kind of risk, relative to some alternative.

Buy a bond and hold it until it matures and you know what you will get back.

Invest in equities and the range of outcomes is wide.

With equities, you could make a lot of money, but you could lose a lot.

Equities have to have a higher expected return to compensate investors for taking on this risk.

Otherwise, if the risk premium is not there – why bother with stocks at all?

Now – on bonds

That’s the rub these days, for many investors. Why invest in stocks when interest rates are higher and you can earn 4-5% essentially risk-free?

Of course, there is no way of knowing how equities or bonds will perform until returns for each happen. You can consider rebalancing your portfolio from time to time between stocks and bonds because you expect equities will do better longer-term but that doesn’t mean they will short-term.

Which brings me back to this: risk is the price of the entry ticket to buy and hold stocks. Continue Reading…