Tag Archives: Retire Early

RIP FIRE

Posted By |

By Bob Lai, Tawcan

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

When I created this blog over seven years ago, the sole purpose was to chronicle our journey for financial independence and joyful life. I wanted to share my knowledge with like-minded people. I could have just focused on writing articles about money and personal finance.

But I didn’t.

Right from the start, I put a strong emphasis on the joyful life aspect, because I realized that having all the money in the world does not automatically make one happy. Happiness needs to come from within and finding this internal happiness is a daily practice. I realized, that writing about money gets old quickly; I wanted to write about more than just the money.

Being the sole income earner of the family (for now), early retirement was never really a goal I had in mind. My focus has always been on financial independence. I want to reach financial independence so Mrs. T and I can have more options in life and have the freedom to work because we want to, rather than working because we have to.

Perhaps the reason that early retirement isn’t on my radar is because I enjoy what I do at work. Having been with the same company for 15 years, over a third of my life, I feel fortunate that I am still working at the same company where I started my engineering career.

To me, early retirement has always been just one of the nice things that we would have in life one day. It does not mean I must retire early in my 30s or 40s to make myself happy. Or that I must hit a specific FI number or hit a specific FI date.

Perhaps I am unique compared to most people, as I grew up in a family where multiple family members either retired in their early 40s or became financially independent but continued to work. Money has never been a taboo subject in my family, which has had a very positive impact on my life.

Another unique thing about our family is that we technically are financially independent, but we choose to prolong our financial independence journey. We wanted more flexibility, so we set the goal to create a dividend portfolio that had enough dividend income to cover our annual expenses. We set a goal of becoming “financially independent” by 2025 or earlier, but we aren’t too worried about whether we hit the goal by 2025 or not.

One of the distinctive benefits of having a dad who retired early and a stay-at-home mom is that my parents were always there when I needed them. Unlike many of my school friends, both my dad and mom could attend many of my school functions, like sports games, band concerts, and field trips.

Now I am a dad of two young kids, I am even more appreciative of what my parents could do for me and my brother when we were growing up. Always available and present at my kids’ important life and school events is something I want to achieve. I am practicing it right now as best as I can with a full-time job.

Growing up, we went on extended road trips because both my parents were free during school summer break. When I was in high school, every summer we would go on road trips that usually lasted over a month.

One year, we flew to Toronto and drove around Eastern Canada and the Eastern United States. Another year we drove from Vancouver to Alaska and back. Another time we drove from Vancouver to New Orleans and back. Then once to Prince Edward Island to drive around the Maritimes and Maine. Throughout high school, we also drove to Banff and Alberta multiple times.

My extensive travels growing up is the exact reason why I want travelling to be part of my family’s life in the future. I want Baby T1.0 and Baby T2.0 to learn invaluable lessons that can only be learned from travelling and seeing the world with their own eyes. There are so many things that you simply cannot learn from reading books or sitting in a classroom. You must see them and experience them yourself.

We have been very fortunate to have travelled quite a bit with both kids already. We went to Denmark multiple times, we visited Japan and Taiwan, and various parts of Canada and the US.

We plan to travel around the world for a year and live abroad for an extended period of time in the near future. We can live off dividends via geo-arbitrage already but building up our portfolio will provide even more possibilities.

FIRE the end

Although I am involved in the FIRE community, shamefully I didn’t know the acronym until a few years after I started this blog. For a while, I was confused whenever people used this acronym.

For a while, FIRE was the only acronym, then folks started coming up with different acronyms to categorize FIRE. There’s lean FIRE, fat FIRE, barista FIRE, and the list goes on.

FIRE has been getting more and more mainstream coverage lately. Almost every other day I would come across articles on so-on retired at age 38, or someone who retired at age 27 to travel around the world, or someone who retired after saving extremely aggressively for 5 years, or someone who retired by saving up one million dollars in less 5 years.

To me, FIRE is flawed in these articles.

They don’t provide the general public with what FIRE really means.

Almost all of these articles only focus on the early retirement aspect and provide a false image of relaxed and luxurious life in retirement – travelling around the world, leaving the 9-5 rat race, saying FU to the employers, and sipping piña colada on the beach. Early retirement is all fun and games. There are no drawbacks and no negatives to early retirement.

But it is a lie, because no matter where you go, you will always bring yourself. So if you are not in a happy place while pursuing FIRE, you sure won’t be happy once you reach it.

Many of these articles also fail to acknowledge that many of these early retirees are not really “retired” in the traditional sense. In fact, many of these early retirees are still earning money through side hustles or even part-time jobs.

These articles are click baits. They are there to get the average Joes and Janes to click on them, read, and feel more miserable about their lives.

Because most of them cannot fathom the idea of financial independence or early retirement. A small minority even gets so fed up with the idea of early retirement, they become trolls and leave very negative comments on these articles.

The fundamental problem with FIRE

The root of the problem is that too many people hate their jobs.

They despise what they do at work, they don’t like their bosses, they don’t like their co-workers. Through media, these people have been told that owning expensive things will make them happy. Purchasing things will solve all of their problems.

So, they mindlessly spend money on things they don’t need, only to find out that they need to somehow make more money to sustain their expensive-never-ending-purchasing-spree. They work simply because they need the money to pay for the new things that would supposedly make them happier in life.

Therefore, they continue to clock in and clock out every day despite hating their jobs. Due to how they feel about their jobs, they are constantly looking forward to the weekend or their next vacation, because that’s when they can be completely free from their jobs. And so, the Monday blues sets in whenever they are back to work from weekends or their vacations.

To them, FIRE is an escape. The happy ending. The escape route. The finish line.

They tell themselves that they will only be happy once they are retired. Before they get there, they will never be happy. They constantly remind themselves how miserable their life is and how wonderful their life will be once they are free from their 9-5 job. So, they constantly look forward to that retirement day so they can give their employers the middle finger and tell their coworkers to get lost.

This video is a perfect example of this endless vicious cycle of going nowhere and believing that buying things will lead to happiness.

Connecting life problems to not having money, financial independence, or retire early is simply incorrect and fallacious.

Reaching financial independence and retire early does not automatically mean that you have crossed the finish line and that automatically makes you happy. If you are in a bad relationship with your partner or spouse, do you really think everything will be rosy when you have more money? Most divorces are caused by money issues!

If there are marital problems, FIRE certainly won’t solve them. Over the last few years, we have seen some prominent figures in the FIRE community ending their marriages… Continue Reading…

Why the 4% Rule doesn’t work for FIRE/Early Retirement

Posted By |

 

By Mark and Joe

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The 4% rule is a common rule of thumb in many retirement planning circles, including the Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) community in particular.

What does the 4% rule actually mean?

Should the 4% rule be used for any FIRE-seeker?

Does the 4% rule really matter to retirement planning at all?

Read on to find out our take, including what rules of thumb (if any) we’re using at Cashflows & Portfolios for our early retirement dreams.

The 4% rule is really a starting point for a safe withdrawal rate

Unlike 2 + 2 = 4, the 4% rule is not really a universal truth for any retirement plan at all.

It is, however, in our opinion, a great starting point to understand the impacts of asset decumulation, related to inflation, over time.

As you’ll read more about in the sections below, the 4% rule is fraught with many problems. None more so than for an early retiree or FIRE-seeker. In some cases, for the FIRE community, we believe the 4% rule should no longer be used at all.

Are any financial rules really rules?

Backing up, here is the source for the 4% rule.

The article from 1994!

4% rule

Despite the geeky photo, by all accounts, Bill Bengen was one heckuva guy and a smart guy as well!

Potentially no other retirement planning rule of thumb has received more attention over the last 25-30 years than Bengen’s publication about the 4% rule. This publication in 1994 has triggered a new generation of devotees and arm-chair financial planners that are using this quick-math as a way to cement some retirement dreams. We believe that is a mistake for a few reasons.

First, let’s unpack what the 4% rule really means.

What does the 4% rule actually mean?

From the study:

“In Figures 1 (a)-l(d), a series of graphs illustrates the historical performance of portfolios consisting of 50-percent intermediate-term Treasury notes and 50-percent common stocks (an arbitrary asset allocation chosen for purposes of illustration). I have quantified portfolio performance in terms of “portfolio longevity”: how long the portfolio will last before all its investments have been exhausted by
withdrawals. This is an intuitive approach that is easy to explain to my clients, whose primary goal is making it through retirement without exhausting their funds, and whose secondary goal is accumulating wealth for their heirs.”

Unpacking this further, for those that do not want to read the entire study, here is something more succinct from Bengen:

Assuming a minimum requirement of 30 years of portfolio longevity, a first-year withdrawal of 4 percent, followed by inflation-adjusted withdrawals in subsequent years, should be safe.

 

“Should be safe”.

Again, the theory is one thing. Reality is something different and the financial future is always subject to change. Furthermore, if you’re blindly following this formula without considering whether it’s right for your situation, let alone putting in some guardrail approach to monitor your portfolio value at various checkpoints, you could end up either running out of money prematurely or being left with a huge financial surplus that you could have spent during your retirement. We’ll prove that point in a bit from another leading author.

Should the 4% rule be used for any FIRE-seeker?

Probably not. For many reasons.

Recently, Vanguard published an outstanding article about the need to revise any thinking about the 4% rule for the FIRE movement – a driver for this post.

Although the 4% rule remains a decent rule of thumb we believe most FIRE-seekers should heed the cautions in the Vanguard post. Here are some of our thoughts based on the article’s contents.

  • Caution #1 – FIRE-seekers should not rely on past performance for future returns

We agree. In looking at this Vanguard set of assumptions below, and based on our own personal investing experiences, we believe historical returns should not be used to guarantee any future results.

 

Source: Vanguard article – Fueling the FIRE movement

While the FP Canada Standards Council doesn’t have a multi-year (10-year) return model in mind, they did highlight in their latest projection assumption guidelines that going forward, investor returns may not be as juicy as in years past.

 

Source: FP Canada Standards Council.

This means for any historical studies, while interesting, may not be a great predictor of any future outcomes.

  • Caution #2 – The FIRE-seeking time horizon is longer

Bengen noted in his 1994 study:

“Therefore, I counsel my clients to withdraw at no more than a four-percent rate during the early years of retirement, especially if they retire early (age 60 or younger). Assuming they have normal life expectancies, they should live at least 25-30 years. If they wish to leave some wealth to their heirs, their expected “portfolio lives” should be some longer than that. “

Bengen goes on to say:

“If the client expects to live another 30 years, I point out that the chart shows 31 scenario years when he would outlive his assets, and only 20 which would have been adequate for his purposes (as we shall see later, a different asset allocation would improve this, but it would still be uncomfortable, in my opinion).
This means he has less than a 40-percent chance to successfully negotiate retirement–not very good odds.”

To paraphrase, Bengen’s study was relevant to 30 years in retirement. Not 35 years. Not 40 years and certainly not 50 years like some FIRE-seekers may need if they plan to retire at age 40 and live to age 90 (or beyond).

This is simply a huge reminder that your time horizon is a critical factor when it comes to retirement planning.

  • Caution #3 – FIRE-seekers may need to live with more stocks

Bengen’s 1994 study was based on the following:

“Note that my conclusions above were based on the assumption that the client continually rebalanced a portfolio of 50-percent common stocks and 50-percent intermediate-term Treasuries.” Continue Reading…

How one Tawcan reader lives on $360,000 a year of dividends almost tax-free

Posted By |

 

By Bob Lai, Tawcan

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Long time readers will know that my wife and I are deploying a hybrid investing strategy – we invest in both dividend paying stocks and index ETFs. It is our goal to have our portfolio generating enough dividend income to cover our expenses. When this happens, we can call ourselves financially independent and live off dividends. By constructing our portfolio and selecting stocks that grow dividends each year organically, we believe our dividend income will continue to grow organically and keep up with inflation so we don’t have to ever touch our principal.

In the past, I have done a few simulations showing that living of dividends is possible and that dividend income is very tax-efficient in Canada. But simulations are full of assumptions and the numbers can change. Wouldn’t it be nice to showcase someone that is living off dividends already?

As luck would have it, Reader B, a fellow Canadian, recently mentioned that he retired in 2004 at age 55 and has been living off dividends since. I was very intrigued by B’s story when he told me that he worked as a civil engineer and his wife worked as an administrator.

I fell off the chair when he told me that he and his wife started investing with $10,000 and have amassed a dividend portfolio that generates over $360,000 in dividends each year! 

That’s $30,000 a month! Holy cow! 

While working, they had above average salary (B made ~$110k and B’s wife made ~$90k in today’s money). The high household income has certainly helped them build the dividend portfolio. But I believe a lot of it is due to B and his wife’s living modestly – not a lavish lifestyle but not penny pinching either.

After a bit of emailing exchanges, he agreed to answer my questions about his experience with living off dividends (it took a bit of convincing haha!). I truly believe B’s knowledge will help a lot of dividend growth investors.

Note: B’s original reply was over 11,000 words not including my comments (our email exchanges were very long too). I went through his answers and edited some parts out. For ease of reading, I have decided to split the post into two posts.

I hope you’ll enjoy this Q&A as much as I did.

Living off dividends – How I’m receiving $360k dividends a year and paying almost no taxes

Q1:  First of all, B, thank you for participating. It’s wonderful to learn that you and your wife have been retired since 2004 and have been dividend investors for over 36 years.

A: Thank you, Bob, for giving me the opportunity to share my 36 plus years of dividend investing experience and results with you and your readers. After following your blog, I realized that we and many others were on the same dividend investing path. The only difference being that I was a few more years along in the investing journey. I felt others might benefit from my experience with dividend investing.

You’re on the right path, Bob, and given your rate of progress to date by the time you reach my age (72) you will certainly attain your dividend income goals and likely well beyond. So I wanted to encourage you to continue along the dividend investing path. It’s a very sound and profitable strategy.

I’m more than happy to share with others a few of my ideas on dividend investing and how it can be done in a tax-effective manner.

Q2:  How long have you been investing in dividend paying stocks?

A: I started investing in stocks in 1985. After the initial period of learning the ropes and finding my way in the investing and stock market world, it was only in 1990 after subscribing to a weekly investing newsletter that I finally saw the investing light and found that dividend investing was right for us.

So I guess you could say I’ve been traveling along the dividend paying stock road for some 31 years now. And we’ve been comfortably supplementing our lifestyle with an ever increasing stream of dividends since we retired in 2004 to the present day.

Diving into the dividend portfolio

Q3:  How much dividend income are you getting each year? Can you provide a detailed breakdown across non-registered and registered accounts? 

A: As of April 30, 2021, my wife and I are receiving $360,000 in combined pre-tax dividend income annually – that’s $30,000 per month – and still growing.

Our combined assets are distributed as follows:

  • RRIFs: 8.2%
  • TFSAs: 1.9%
  • Non-Reg Dividend Income Accounts: 85.5%
  • Other Short-Term Liquid Assets: 4.4%

So the amount we have in registered tax-sheltered plans totals 10.1% and is decreasing annually in compliance with RRIF mandatory withdrawal requirements.

These figures illustrate a problem that can develop gradually over time – a severe imbalance between registered and non-registered  accounts caused by the low contribution limits governing registered savings plans. Allowable contributions to registered plans are capped.

If one’s savings levels exceed the cap limits by a significant amount, then the balance between registered and non-registered accounts can tilt heavily towards the latter. The effect is that registered plans then become less and less significant in the overall account mix. This unbalanced effect means that we now have only 10.1% of our assets in tax sheltered accounts while 85.5% is held in “unsheltered” non-registered accounts.

So that makes it critical to find ways to ensure that holdings in non-registered accounts are as tax efficient as possible. The most optimum way to achieve tax-efficiency under such conditions is to focus on buying and holding Canadian dividend paying stocks in non-registered accounts.

We will continue to shift portions of our “other” assets toward Canadian dividend income as we go forward.

Our non-registered accounts are producing the entire $360K dividend income stream referenced above. The annual yield on market value is 4.2%. The actual yield on cost is much higher than the market yield. Our portfolio has returned nicely over the years.

Our annual mandatory RRIF withdrawals are the minimum required by age and proceeds are immediately re-invested in more dividend stocks and held in our non-registered accounts. We do not touch our TFSAs and contribute the maximum allowable amount each year.

Tawcan: My jaw dropped when you told me about your $360k a year dividend income. That is absolutely amazing! 

At 4.2% yield that means the market value of your portfolio is over $8.5M! Obviously your yield on cost would be much higher than that given you have invested over 30 years. Regardless, I’m betting that the cost basis of your non-registered portfolio is in the multi-million dollars range. It is very impressive considering you and your wife only made around $200k a year in today’s money.  

The Dividend Investing Philosophy

Q4:  Can you give us an idea of your general approach to dividend investing?

A: My dividend investment philosophy can be summed up as: “To buy gradually over time, high-quality Canadian tax-efficient dividend paying stocks and hold them indefinitely.”

I buy stocks gradually in roughly equal amounts and spread the purchases over time. I never invest large lump sums all at once. I’ll take an initial position in a stock, usually in the $10K value range, and then return again at an opportune price point and buy some more (i.e. dollar cost-averaging).

High quality stocks are selected – conservative large cap stocks – most often dividend aristocrats – minimum 2% yield with the odd exception for superior growth stocks or those with growth potential. Great focus is placed on buying dividend aristocrats and stocks in the TSX Composite 60 Index with a nod toward following the Beat the TSX strategy.

Tawcan: Funny B mentioned the BTSX strategy. Check out Matt, the brain behind Beating the TSX strategy, and his family’s amazing story about traveling the world with 4 kids. 

I exclusively buy only Canadian stocks – no USA stocks – none – no exceptions. The only US stocks I would consider are those that have a TSX listing and can be purchased in Canadian dollars for tax efficiency reasons.

Tawcan: It’s interesting that you only hold top Canadian dividend stocks and no US or international dividend paying stocks or ETFs. 

All our stock buys must be held in non-registered accounts – contributions can not be made to RRIFs and our TFSA contribution room is maxed out. My wife and I also invest in REITs and they require special attention (more on that later).

All stocks we buy must pay a dividend. As mentioned, I usually insist on a 2% yield or higher – but not too high. One never wants to over-reach for yield, which is often the warning sign for an impending dividend cut. If a stock does eliminate its dividend, then it’s automatically gone from our portfolios and we move on to another stock that does pay a reliable dividend.

On very rare occasions, it may be advisable/necessary to sell a stock for the following reasons:

  1. When a stock’s prospects have taken a downward turn.
  2. In the event of a takeover bid – friendly or otherwise – one often has little choice but to sell.
  3. For tax-loss selling purposes. We seldom pay any capital gains income tax at all. When we do realize a capital gain from a stock sale, then we’ll sell another stock (or partially sell) to realize an offsetting capital loss. But tax-loss selling is not usually done at year-end along with “the herd.” After waiting the mandatory 30 days and if the stock remains a solid investment, then we will often buy the stock back – hopefully at a lower price.

Under a buy and hold strategy, there is not a lot of opportunity for capital gains. By not selling, no capital gain is realized and so capital gains tax can be deferred indefinitely.

On the other hand, dividend income can be extremely tax efficient when you are income splitting between two people. We’ll get into the specifics a bit later.

Q5:  You mentioned that REITs require special attention. What did you mean by that?

A: Not all REITs are equal in terms of tax efficiency when held in a non-registered account where taxes on REIT distributions can vary from 0% to 53.53% (in Ontario). Therefore, the most tax-efficient place to hold a REIT is in a registered account. Continue Reading…

Retired Money: The trouble with playing with FIRE

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at the trouble with playing with FIRE. Click on the highlighted headline to retrieve the full column: Is Early Retirement a realistic goal for most people?

FIRE is of course an acronym for Financial Independence Retire Early. It turns out that Canadian financial bloggers are a tad more cynical about the term than their American counterparts, some of whom make a very good living evangelizing FIRE through blogs, books and public speaking.

The Hub has periodically republished some of these FIRE critiques from regular contributors Mark Seed, Michael James, Dale Roberts, Robb Engen and a few others, including one prominent American blogger, Fritz Gilbert (of Retirement Manifesto).

No one objects to the FI part of the acronym: Financial Independence. We’re just not so enthusiastic about the RE part: Retire Early. For many FIRE evangelists, “Retire” is hardly an accurate description of what they are doing. If by Retire, they mean the classic full-stop retirement that involves endless rounds of golf and daytime television, then practically no successful FIRE blogger is actually doing this in their 30s, even if through frugal saving and shrewd investing they have generated enough dividend income to actually do nothing if they so chose.

What the FIRE crowd really is doing is shifting from salaried employment or wage slavery to self-employment and entrepreneurship. Most of them launch a FIRE blog that accepts advertising, and publish or self-publish books meant to generate revenue, and/or launch speaking careers with paid gigs that tell everyone else how they “retired” so early in life.

How about FIE or FIWOOT or Findependence?

Some of us don’t consider such a lifestyle to be truly retired in the classic sense of the word. Continue Reading…

The hard truth about the FIRE movement [Financial Independence, Retire Early]

Posted By |

By Maria Weyman, creditcardGenius

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Retirement, whether near or far, is a pretty big milestone in a person’s life.

We start saving for it as early as possible and put as much towards it as we can in order to be better prepared.

Whether we want to spend it travelling, immersing ourselves in our favourite hobbies, or spending some quality time with loved ones, most of us look forward to our retirement but don’t see it happening in the near future.

The average age of retirement in Canada is 64 years old, but the popularized FIRE movement – which stands for “Financial Independence, Retire Early” – is the lifestyle concept that proposes an alternative scenario.

By living as frugally as possible and saving every bit possible while maximizing income and revenue, FIRE-devotees plan on retiring much earlier than the Canadian average.

Although we all want to retire early, and being financially independent enough to retire at a young age is possible, it might not be attainable for everyone.

We can all dream, but it’s important to look at the concept without those rose-colored, heart-shaped glasses we all get when thinking about early retirement. Realistically, the FIRE movement can be quite extreme.

Reasonable income

Living from paycheque to paycheque is still the sad reality for many Canadians, some not even being able to set aside money for normal retirement. Living as frugally as possible is just a means of survival rather than a means to a bigger end.

Stagnant wages and the ever-increasing cost of living has made it harder than ever to be financially stable, let alone financially independent, especially for lower or middle-income brackets.

Not to mention getting higher-income jobs in the first place requires many years of education and consequently entails large amounts of student loans, which in itself can take decades to pay off.

Investment risks

Even if you have an income that allows some wiggle room, saving alone probably isn’t enough. To be successful in the FIRE movement requires some savvy investing.

And since we’re taking away the option of long-term, stable, compounded interest savings, the timeframe is much shorter.

But with higher rewards usually come higher risks.

It’s up to you to decide if the risk is worth the potential payout.

Retirement timeframe

Another glitch in the FIRE movement lifestyle is retirement timeframe: how long you’ll actually be retired for.

Savings breakdown

Let’s crunch some numbers just to get a general idea. The most complicated part of this calculation is compounding interest. Thankfully, we can summarize the effects of compound interest using a multiplier.

Let’s say you’re 23 years old and you plan on retiring early at 40 years old. The average life expectancy in Canada is 82 years old, meaning your retirement fund will have to be sufficient enough to carry on for over 42 years.

Compound interest allows our savings to “go further” than they otherwise would. If we are looking at a compound interest of 3.5% (moderate yield rate) we can calculate how much further savings would go for a period of 42 years:

Savings Multiplier = (1 + Annual Interest Rate)^42 = 1.035^42
Savings Multiplier = 4.241

Where the “^” indicates an exponential power (that is 2^3 =  2x2x2). This means that over a period of 42 years, your savings will essentially be multiplied by a factor of 4.2, which shows you how powerful a force compounding interest really is.

While it’s nice that our savings can grow exponentially with compound interest, taking money out of our savings results in losses that grow with compound interest. As such, if we take money out of our savings at the beginning of that 42 year period, that money is also multiplied by a factor of 4.241. Taking the money out one month after would have a slightly lower multiplier and so on. By summing the total effect of each monthly withdrawal we can also obtain a monthly expense multiplier. The first step is to find the monthly interest rate. This can be obtained as follows:

Monthly Interest Rate = (1+Annual Interest Rate)^(1/12) – 1 = (1+0.035)^(1/12) – 1
Monthly Interest Rate = 0.28708987%

Note that calculating a power x^(1/12) is a 12th root and will require a scientific calculator. After obtaining the monthly interest rate, you need to do a recursive sum representing the multipliers for all monthly withdrawals: Continue Reading…