Tag Archives: taxes

Sell everything? Consider these costs and drawbacks first

Depositphotos_14227153_s-2015My latest Financial Post blog addresses the controversial call earlier this week from the Royal Bank of Scotland to “sell everything.” Click on this headline for the blog: If you try to time the market to sell everything you have to time it to get back in.

In a nutshell there are both commissions and taxes to consider. It all depends on whether you’re in discount brokers, full-service brokerages or use Managed Money, and the split between Registered and Non-Registered Funds. It’s going to cost much more to liquidate individual stocks in a taxable portfolio than a single “Go anywhere” global ETF held in registered accounts. And depending on the kind of mutual funds you own, the costs could be negligible or significant.

Guess what Buffett isn’t doing right now

See also an excellent piece by investment writer Dan Solin that ran in today’s Huffington Post: What Warren Buffett isn’t doing. For starters, he’s not listening to media pundits. As Solin points out, the financial media loves market crashes because it creates fear and anxiety, hence more TV ratings or web traffic. And the more people panic by “selling everything,” the more commissions generated for the financial industry, as we demonstrated above.

If anything, people should be considering buying if markets sag much further, the very opposite of selling everything. But that’s a topic for another day. Generally, though refer to the series of videos we’ve been running the last few months, including the one earlier today titled Winning the Loser’s Game, part 5.

Stocks beat bonds, hands down: Bob Cable

Here at the Hub we like to present all points of view. On Tuesday, we ran a guest blog by author and chartered accountant David Trahair about the new second edition of his book, Enough Bull, which explained why he is 100% in fixed-income vehicles like GICs. Today, we do the same thing with a guest blog by Scotia McLeod’s Robert S. Cable, who argues almost the polar opposite in his new book, Inevitable Wealth. We’ll review both books formally in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, over to Bob! – – JC

Stocks beat bonds, hands down

010
Robert Cable

 By Robert S. Cable

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

All of the research I’ve carried out since I began doing this in 1980 and every piece of research I’ve seen comparing stocks to bonds– every single time comes to the same conclusion — that is that stock returns don’t just beat the returns of bonds, stocks clobber bonds. It’s absolutely no contest.

In my book, Inevitable Wealth, I compare 40 years of returns, from 1975 through 2014. I show $100,000 invested in Government of Canada five-year bonds, with money reinvested every five years, to the same $100,000 invested in stocks by way of the TSX Composite Index.

In 1975, those bonds yielded 7.25% so your annual income started out at $7,250. Stocks paid somewhat less, $5,360. Advantage bonds—initially. However just four years later, the dividends paid on stocks had moved higher to the point where the dividends paid on stocks was greater than the bond’s income.

But check out these numbers. In 2014, your bonds paid an annual income of just $2,770, down from $7,250, 40 years earlier. Talk about taking a pay cut! Meanwhile in 2014, stocks paid dividends of $49,560. Your stock income was more than 17 times what bonds paid.

What’s really interesting though is this: while stocks paid a much superior and growing income, they really aren’t income investments. The dividend income paid is simply a by-product of these companies sharing their profits with shareholders.

But as they say, that’s only half the story. We’ve looked at the income stocks and bonds produced. But what about the value of each of these investments over those 40 years?

Stocks beat bonds by 17 to 1 over 40 years

Well, that $100,000 you invested in bonds back in 1975 is still worth right around the same $100,000. If you took inflation into account, your $100,000 would actually be worth more like $15,000. The $100,000 invested in stocks? Well, not including the dividends, at the end of 2014 your stocks would be worth a bit more, $1,732,060. Continue Reading…

7th Eternal Truth: Don’t say no to free money from the Government

Uncle Sam on a white background offering stacks of bills

Today in the Financial Post and online are the seventh and final installment of my series on the 7 Eternal Truths of Personal Finance. The headline and online link is Eternal Truth No. 7: Don’t say no to the few offers of free money from Ottawa.

That applies to Washington to, of course! Either way, and as the article points out, truly free money from Government is a rare thing, since money is really flowing in the opposite direction in the form of taxes.

Still, there are ways to minimize the tax burden in either country, and you shouldn’t say no to them when they’re on offer.

Here’s a summary of the entire series, with links to each of the seven Truths.

 

Budget’s lower RRIF withdrawal rates didn’t go far enough

By Tim Paziuk

Special to the Financial Independence Hub 

tim-paziuk-250
Tim Paziuk

In the recent Federal Budget, the government listened to seniors and advisors and reduced the minimum withdrawal amounts for RRIFs (Registered Retirement Income Funds). But did they go far enough?

If you’re not familiar with minimum withdrawal amounts, here’s a quick overview:

Up until the time you’re age 71 (or if your spouse is younger, their age 71) and you’re earning an income, you can contribute money on a tax deductible basis to a personal or spousal RRSP (Registered Retirement Savings Plan).

When you reach age 71 you have a decision to make. The decision is, do you convert your RRSP to a RRIF, an annuity, or do you cash it out (or a combination of the three). If you choose to convert it to a RRIF, the income payments cannot be deferred any longer than the following year (age 72). Continue Reading…

Why living off dividends no longer appeals to me

robb-engen
Robb Engen, Boomer & Echo

By Robb Engen, Boomer & Echo

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

When I envisioned my retirement years, I dreamed of being so unbelievably wealthy – so fabulously rich – that I’d happily live off the income generated from my multi-million dollar investment portfolio. As I began my investing journey, the idea of living off the dividends had tremendous appeal. After all, what retiree wouldn’t love the thought of collecting a steady stream of dividend cheques while their principal investment remains intact?

There were also some crazy assumptions about what it would take to generate the kind of income I’d need to maintain my lifestyle in retirement. Looking back, it was foolish to assume that a $1,200,000 portfolio can produce up to $90,000 in income each year, when less than half that amount is more realistic (assuming a 3.5% yield).

Related: Financial independence – Why I pushed it back five years

The trouble with a “live off the dividends” approach is Continue Reading…