A BRIC You Can’t Build With, A Ship That Won’t Sink

The month of August has so far been a repeated drumming for global markets. Falling oil prices, the devalued yuan and a collapsing Chinese stock market have people running scared, and if we’re totally honest it’s probably too soon to know what it really happening as easily panicked sellers jump the gun.

bricInstead I’d like to take a moment to reflect on the fall of the BRICs, the supposed new economies of the developing world. Back  in 2003, two Goldman Sachs analysts wrote a paper called “Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050” which made a convincing case that Brazil, Russia, India and China would grow substantially over the next half century. For a while that seemed true, and the few BRIC mutual funds available returned solid results to investors who bought the BRIC story.

Today much of that story sits in tatters. Russia is more regional gangster than growing economic power, a victim of its own pointless efforts to reestablish hegemonic influence and maybe even undo NATO. Brazil is a longer story, but financial mismanagement has largely undermined Brazil’s early 21st century economic kick start, leaving interest rates too high and an economy on a path to recession. India is perhaps the only country that sits separate from this mess, but as a democracy (one mired in corruption no less) it’s own worst enemy is often protectionist populism that threatens to undo it’s own promise.

Yes, I have managed to shoehorn this image into my article. Have you watched this movie recently? Me neither. I haven't missed it either.
Yes, I have managed to shoehorn this image into my article. Have you watched this movie recently? Me neither. I haven’t missed it either.

But with the Chinese economy heading for what looks to be a potentially prolonged slow down (or worse) it seems safe to say that we’ve lost the path to 2050 and aren’t in danger of finding it anytime soon. This is a useful reminder that predictions about the futures of markets, no matter how grounded in math they may be, are in fact almost always misguided. That may seem obvious with much of the recent history a testament to predictions gone wrong, but it is surprisingly easy to be sold on investment ideas that seem to be an inevitable certainty.

There are a multitude of reasons for this, not the least of which is the human defect to see patterns in randomness. Attempts to control and manage huge events; to understand, tame and control random elements of nature is the underpinning of almost every story of hubristic arrogance that leads to tragedy, both literary and literal. Whether we are watching a history of the Titanic, or Alan Greenspan testifying to the benefits of derivative markets, there is always an iceberg somewhere threatening to make a mockery of our certainty.

This is what travelling the ocean was frequently like in history. Had we waited until we had an unsinkable boat we would never have sailed anywhere.
This is what travelling the ocean was frequently like in history. Had we waited until we had an unsinkable boat we would never have sailed anywhere.

I’m of the opinion that there may be somethings simply to complex to be fully understood. That shouldn’t mean we shy away from complicated markets, rather we should be mindful about the risks of participating. After all, the Titanic sunk largely as a result of the assumption it could not. But people had been sailing across the ocean for centuries with considerably greater danger. That’s a useful reminder about investing. Good investment strategies don’t seek out perfect investments, ones that cannot be undone by bad markets, instead they assume that markets are filled with risks and aim to navigate the dangers.

Oil’s Cheap, So Now What?

mugato oil
Yes. I know I’m using the meme incorrectly. Please don’t email me about this.

The price of oil continues to fall, and it won’t be long before investors and the media will be asking whether it’s time to load up on energy within portfolios. Right now the primary focus is on how low the price can get, with current estimates suggesting that $30/barrel is not out of the question, and some predictions claiming it could go even lower. So when is the right time to buy, and how much of a portfolio should be allocated to energy?

These are good questions, but not for the reasons you might expect. Answering those questions mindfully should help any investor better understand the underlying assumptions that go into making smart investment decisions. For instance, why should a $30 barrel of crude be an attractive price to buy? Superficially we assume that it’s a bargain: the price was $100, now its $30, so you should buy some. But what should matter to an investor is not the new price but whether that price is inherently flawed. The sudden drop in the price of oil may lead us to believe that oil is too cheap, but if so what should the proper price be? Determining what a fair market price should be can be challenging, one matched only by trying to figure out when the price has actually bottomed and won’t go any lower.

Capture

But say you feel comfortable that the price of oil has reached its final low and is significantly undervalued, you’ve still yet to figure out the best way to participate in the rebound. For instance, are you going to invest in individual oil companies, or will you purchase a mutual fund that buys a basket of various energy firms? If the former, what kind of companies do you want? Big energy firms like Shell and BP, or some of the very small producers? Will you be buying into shale oil, tar sands, or investing in energy production farther afield?

If that feels too complicated a set of questions to answer you could always buy an exchange traded fund (ETF). ETFs have become quite common today as a method to passively have your investments mirror various indices, but they were initially a way to simplify investing in commodity markets. So rather than focus on the companies that will extract the oil, you’d rather invest in the price of the barrel itself. That has the advantage of removing any extensive analysis that may be needed to be done on a company (profitability, type of oil investment, liabilities), but carries the down side of significant volatility.

MI-CH372_OILfro_DV_20150119163357Getting over all those hurdles leaves only the question of how much of a portfolio should be allocated to the energy sector. The answer here is as frustrating as all the rest, it will depend on how much volatility you can stomach. If you are encroaching on retirement, a good rule of thumb would be not too much (if at all). If you are very young and aren’t intending to use your investments for sometime you can presumably accommodate quite a bit more.

After all that the only thing left is to have the price rise. What could stand in the way of that? Perhaps a prolonged battle for market share that sees a continued lowering of the price, or even nations not sticking to their assigned production targets. Maybe an international treaty that could see a former energy producing nation reenter the market place, flooding it with cheap oil. An extended slowdown in a significant economy might also reduce global demand, prolonging the lowered valuation. Even the arrival of new technology could displace a portion of the market driving down future oil requirements. Or the simple knowledge that proven reserves are abundant can remove market concern of future shortages. In other words, lots of things can still prevent a rapid rebound in the price of oil.

The point here isn’t so much about oil but about more clearly seeing the risks that underlie “sure thing” opportunities. There is no easy money to be made in investing. Opportunities, no matter how superficially guaranteed they may seem still come with dangers that shouldn’t be ignored. Cheap buying opportunities can be good, and if they make sense should be pursued. But all investing comes with risks and not being aware of those risks can lead to serious mistakes in the management of a portfolio. More than one competent investor has been badly burned over-estimating the likelihood of a significant rebound. The lesson is don’t let your lust for opportunity crowd out sound investing strategies.

Donald Trump Is My Pick For Republican Nominee

Look at this guy. What color is that? Orange? Has he got orange hair? Remember when Lloyd Robertson had orange hair? I remember when Lloyd Robertson had orange hair.
Look at this guy. What color is that? Orange? Has he got orange hair? Remember when Lloyd Robertson had orange hair? I remember when Lloyd Robertson had orange hair.

The arrival of Donald Trump to the Republican primaries has been greeted with mock and outrage by much of the media. There he is, an unapologetic billionaire blowhard with something akin to hair on top of his head, now best known for telling celebrities that they are fired. He was an immediate subject of derision, an unserious pretend candidate who says offense things regularly and calls people he doesn’t like “dummy.” To Democrats he has been a welcome addition to the Republican lineup. For Republicans he’s nothing but a headache. And if one thing is clear it’s that nobody thinks he should be the nominee. Except me. I think he will be a great nominee, and importantly I think he may be able to change some fundamentally terrible aspects of the Republican Party.

Talking heads and professional media types tend to disparage people who they don’t think look or act like a politician should. Donald Trump talks at a grade 4 level. He says impolite things and doesn’t seem to care what people say about him. He talks about himself incessantly and, again, the hair. Stubbornly “the Donald” continues to do well in the polls despite this.

But it shouldn’t have escaped anyone’s attention that the Republican Party has been in a holding pattern for the last few elections. Winning the nomination has usually meant a grueling process of ratcheting up the rhetoric around a few hot button issues, important to a dwindling number of older voters and rural Americans and out of touch with the growing urban class that is increasingly defining the voter base of general elections. By the time a winner of the primaries is declared, the candidate now looks to be stuck in an Orwellian, “Shooting an Elephant” conundrum, theoretically in charge of the mob, while totally beholden to its will.

This has been good news for Democrats, who have been happy to have the Republican nominee become an ugly caricature of cruel populism; out of touch with a modern electorate, thumping a bible and alienating moderate conservatives who don’t believe they can trust their own party to lower taxes without forcing women to carry children to term, poor people to die without medicine, and science textbooks to be re-written in ways largely defined as “stupid.” Good for Democrats, but bad for a healthy democracy. One party shouldn’t be electable, while the other crazy.

There is a museum in Kentucky where this isn't a parody.
There is a museum in Kentucky where this isn’t a parody.

But “The Donald” has the power to change that. Unlike other politicians that try and position themselves as outsiders, Trump really is an outsider. He may not have impressed anyone with his talk about Mexican illegals, but on other issues he has had the ability to surprise. On campaign finance he has denounced the system as broken, highlighting his own political contributions in exchange for favours. He’s called Jeb Bush (the presumed nominee) beholden to his donors. He may not win points from Rosie O’Donnell, but he’s broken the traditional Republican line on Planned Parenthood. Fundamentally, Donald Trump is different from other Republican candidates, in no rush to distance himself from his urban roots, unapologetic about his more liberal leanings, but credible in the eyes of many on business and economy related issues.

As if to make my point, these two helpfully posed for a photo together.
As if to make my point, these two helpfully posed for a photo together.

Trump’s current lead reminds me of Rob Ford, another unapologetic, shameless, larger than life character who seemed to exist in spite of condemnation from the media and the established political class (I found this article after I wrote this piece, but it explains my thoughts well on the two). Yet the sincerity of Rob Ford’s belief that only he would fight for tax payers won many over, even in the face of more polite, more polished and more traditional politicians. You don’t have to love people like Rob Ford or Donald Trump, but their ability to change the political terrain, to question traditional assumptions about the electorate and undo the laziness of identity politics (the ultimately abusive and anti-democratic idea that these are “my voters” and those are “your voters”) is healthy for a democracy, even when you don’t like the messenger (I think the same might be said for Bernie Sanders).

So, whether Donald Trump wins, or implodes dramatically before the July 2016 Republican nomination, he’s my pick to be the next nominee. And he’s going to be big. Big. Uuuuuuuuuge.

This One Thing All Young Couples Need…

estateplanningforpetsSince getting married, my wife and I have been ticking all the traditional boxes that couples are meant to do to mark progress in our lives. We’ve bought a house, started a family and make an earnest effort to save money for our retirement. In addition to all the big boxes, we’ve actively tried to tick the small ones as well. We’ve painted rooms, changed fixtures and done both major and minor repairs to our home. We’ve purchased insurance, attempting to balance the twin pulls of simple and easy term insurance against whole life policies. Our growing family seems to incur a regular monthly unexpected cost, and there rarely seems a week when I am not heading to Home Depot to address some nagging issue that has suddenly come up. But with my second child expected within the coming month I realized that there was still something that neither my wife nor I had done; a will.

This is my daughter. Her financial future shouldn't be compromised because I was too lazy to get a will completed.
This is my daughter. Her financial future shouldn’t be compromised because I was too lazy to get a will completed.

My conversations with clients regarding wills and estates are typically initiated with an older generation. It isn’t uncommon to find that people don’t have wills, or if they do, that they are hopelessly out of date. This makes logical sense, the older someone is the closer to death they are, and ensuring that their will reflects their wishes for their family and estate is important. This is especially true for people who have been divorced, have blended families or complicated estates that need tax protection.

Ha ha ha, we've left you literally nothing but debt!
Ha ha ha, we’ve left you literally nothing but debt!

But it is easy to forget that young couples, particularly those with children also need a will. If anything it is more important that a well thought out will is in place for young families, since an unforeseen accident should not mean that your spouse and children aren’t cared for in the manner you would want. But many young families don’t have wills, and they don’t have them for simple but largely stupid reasons.

Like insurance, getting a will done seems both like an enormous chore and an easily delayed one. There are lots of things to consider and a will means putting some real thought into what should happen to you if you were to die. Where are your assets? What should happen to them and who should get them? Who should care for your children? Should a trust be created? Who should be your executor? Does your will require a financial planner for the estate or assets (yes, I know that seems like a plug but I’m being serious)? Beyond simply answering these questions, you need to have this conversation with the people you name inside the will. All of this can seem quite laborious (or expensive), especially when you think you are too young to need such a document.

I scour the internet looking for pictures that are appropriate for our articles. And you know what, there isn't a lot around on wills that isn't stock photography of documents that say "Last Will and Testament" or pictures like this. What is this? Is he meditating on death? Is he about to walk into the water? It's actually pretty grim when you think about it.
I scour the internet looking for pictures that are appropriate for our articles. And you know what, there isn’t a lot around on wills that isn’t stock photography of documents that say “Last Will and Testament” or pictures like this. What is this? Is he meditating on death? Is he about to walk into the water? It’s actually pretty grim when you think about it.

Dying without a will is also far worse than you may care to guess. No will means no say in who should raise your children. You have no way to designate your beneficiaries, no say over the financial future of your kids and your estate may pass to people you hadn’t intended on. More mundanely, you have no chance to improve the tax efficiency of your estate and the government will be setting the rules for what happens to your assets.

A study from 2012 suggests that more than half of adult Canadians don’t have a signed will. That number grows frighteningly when we look at younger Canadians, with 88% of them between the ages of 27-34 lacking a signed will.

The business of planning for a life after you’re gone may seem grim, boring and expensive, but it is a critical element of being a financially responsible adult. Young families owe it to their children, significant others and the legacy of their own hard work to ensure that an accurate and easily accessible will is part of their financial plans.

If you have any questions about wills, or need help getting one established give us a call!

(Also, if reading this made you realize you also need insurance, give us a call about that too.)

Canada’s Bad Week (Or The Best Recession Ever)

boc

Perennial pessimists like myself have been waiting for something to go wrong with the Canadian economy for some time. But years have passed and the economy continues to defy logic. Despite abundant consumer debt and a housing bubble of record proportions, and an economy dependent on volatile material and natural resource markets, disaster has forever loomed but never struck. And while the TSX hasn’t always been the strongest performer, the Canadian stock market has proven to be quite resilient over the past few years.

TSX performance YTD, July 24, 2015. Yahoo Finance
TSX performance YTD, July 24, 2015. Yahoo Finance

That may be coming to an end however. The TSX has had five negative days in a row, following a sudden cut in Canada’s key interest rate. This is the second unexpected cut this year, dropping the lending rate from 1% to 0.5%. Energy prices remain quite low, off 50% from their high last year, and severely stunting Alberta’s economic engine. The Bank of Canada (BoC) was reportedly taken by surprise by the negative GDP numbers for April, marking four consecutive months of GDP contraction and edging us closer to an “official” recession of two consecutive negative quarters. Just this week the BoC predicted a $1 Billion deficit, challenging the Federal Government’s expectation that they would have a $1.4 Billion surplus.

Joe Oliver flees reports after refusing to take questions
Joe Oliver flees reports after refusing to take questions
The price of West Texas Crude, over the past 18 months. From NASDAQ
The price of West Texas Crude, over the past 18 months. From NASDAQ

The optimism that surrounds Canada’s economic future is an unspoken assumption that a reviving US economy floats all boats, just maybe not this time. As the United States economy continues to improve, the Federal Reserve continues to remain optimistic about raising the lending rate, a sign of burgeoning economic strength. Canada is going the other direction, and for now it seems, the two economies are diverging.

Things could still turn around; the Canadian economy has shown surprising resilience so far, and our falling dollar could very well help super charge the Ontario manufacturing engine, or the price of oil could begin a steep rise (it has in the past) and restart the Alberta economy. But the challenges faced are fairly enormous. 

But if I’m concerned about one thing, it seems to be the general Canadian obliviousness to the problems we are facing. The National Post called this the “Best Recession Ever”, because of how little has changed despite the worsening GDP. The BoC’s June Financial Service Review highlighted that the biggest threats to the Canadian market would be “some event” that would make it difficult for Canadians to service their ballooning debt, but that such an event was “very unlikely”. That was despite the collapsing oil price and the sudden need for two interest rate cuts.

 Optimism can easily become denial as “experts” twist themselves into knots attempting to explain how risks are really benefits, danger is really safety and hurricanes are only storms in teacups. And while business news thrives off of both controversy and hyperbole, there is also a vested interest in making things seem like they are under control. The news should be exciting, but never give the impression that the experts don’t know what is going on. Thus, everything is explainable and only in hindsight do we acknowledge just how out of control it seemed to be. Whether this is the case for Canada right now is hard to say. But the risks associated with Canada have been large for some time, and they have been ignored, dismissed or marginalized regularly by experts within the media. Being a smart investor means facing those risks honestly and acting accordingly.

Is Liquidity Worth the Price?

LiquidityLiquidity is a sacred cow among the investing professional class and the importance of being able to sell and redeem an investment at a moment’s notice is a cornerstone of presumed investor safety and a hallmark of modern investing. In fact, improving liquidity has been a goal of markets and it’s a major achievement that there isn’t a commonly held mutual fund, ETF or stock that can’t be sold at the drop of a hat.

But in the same way that we can overemphasize the benefits of some health trends to the point of excluding other good for you foods, (I’m looking at you gluten free diet) the assumed exclusive positive benefits of liquidity can crowd out some very reasonable reasons to seek investments with low or limited liquidity.

Why would you choose an investment that can’t be sold easily? It’s worth pointing out all the ways that liquidity make investing worse. Volatility is increased by liquidity. High frequency trading, ETFs and trading platforms that let novice investors monitor the ups and downs of the market provide liquidity while magnifying risk. Sudden events best ignored become focal points for sell-offs. Liquidity is almost always the enemy of cooler heads.

HFT

Liquidity also costs money. For investments that are traditionally illiquid, like some bonds and GICs, redeemable options often trade at a discount. According to RBC’s own website the difference between a redeemable and non-redeemable GIC is 25 bps ( a quarter of 1%), which doesn’t sound like much, but when rates are as low as 1.5% for a five year GIC that is a 16% reduction in return.

Picture of the early Dutch stock market
Picture of the early Dutch stock market

The principle of investing has been that buying and holding something over a period of time would result in returns in greater excess than the rate of inflation. That rate of return is based on the associated risk of the enterprise and how long the investment should be held for. But into this mix we have also come to value (greatly) the ease with which we can walk away from an investment. It is the underpinning of a stock market that your commitment to a corporate venture need not be you, but that your financial role can be assumed by someone else for a price (your share).But that feature has come to dominate much of what we both value and hate about investing. Canadians are relieved to know that can sell their investments on short notice, protecting them from bad markets or freeing up cash for personal needs. But by extension things like High Frequency Trading use that same liquidity to undermine fair dealings within markets.

Are there reasons to not choose a liquid investment (aside from your house)? I think the answer is yes. For one thing we may put an unnatural value on liquidity. We pay for its privilege but we rarely use it wisely. The moment we are tempted to use liquidity to our advantage we usually make the wrong choice. Selling low and buying high are the enemy of smart investing, but all too often that is exactly what happens. Every year DALBAR, a research firm, publishes a report detailing investor behavior and its results are sobering to say the least.

Poor investor decisions have led to chronic underperformance by “average investors”. The inability to separate emotions from investing, and the ease with which changes can be made have led to meager returns. In the 2014 study showed that the “average investor” 10 year return was a paltry 2.6%, nothing compared to the return of most indices. That return got surprisingly worse over time, with a 2.5% annualized return over 20yrs and 1.9% over 30. Reduced liquidity could inadvertently improve returns for investors by simply removing the temptation to sell in poor markets; in those moments when our doubt and emotions tell us to “run”.

This is from the 2014 DALBAR QIAB, or Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior.
This is from the 2014 DALBAR QIAB, or Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior.

So what types of investments are typically “illiquid”? Such products are normally reserved for “accredited investors”, or investors that have higher earnings or larger net savings. These deals are traditionally considered riskier and would be unsuitable for a novice investor (unfamiliar with the risks) or ill-suited to someone who might need to depend on their savings on short notice. That makes a lot of sense and any manager worth their salt would tell you that you shouldn’t tie up your savings if you might need them. But it is worth considering whether we have let our obsession with the convenience of liquidity undermine our goals as investors. Something to consider next time the urge to sell in bad markets comes upon you.

Danger Creeps: Housing Bubbles and Crying Wolf

I can not find a better metaphor for Canada's housing market than this image from the movie UP! (Which is a film I highly recommend)
I can not find a better metaphor for Canada’s housing market than this image from the movie UP! (Which is a film I highly recommend)

If you’re looking for some good reading Google “Canadian Housing Bubble” and you could fill a library with the amount of material available. There isn’t a week that goes by without some new article somewhere screaming with alarm about Canada’s precarious and overvalued housing market. I’ve written many myself, but in conversation almost everyone admits that regardless of the danger nothing seems to abate the growth in home values.

From the Globe and Mail, published May 13, 2015
The history of the average five year mortgage in Canada going back to the mid 1960s. It’s hard to believe that Canadians once paid interest rates in excess of 20% to buy a home. Today rates are at an all time low and unlikely to rise anytime soon. From the Globe and Mail, published May 13, 2015

This defying of financial gravity gives ammunition to those that doubt there is any real risk at all. The combination of low interest rates, willing banks, rising prices and an aggressive housing market has given a veneer of stability to an otherwise risky situation. Combined with the “sky is falling” talk about the house prices and it is easy to understand why many simply accept, or outright dismiss, the growing chorus of concerns about house prices.

26621859Nissam Taleb’s book “The Black Swan” highlighted that negative Black Swan events tended to be fast, like 2008, while positive Black Swan events tended to be slow moving, like the progressive improvement in standards of living since the end of the Second World War. But it would be fair to say that creating a negative event requires a prolonged period of danger creep, a period where a known danger continues to grow but remains benign, fooling many to believe that there isn’t any real danger at all.

I would argue we are living in such a period now. The housing market is continuing to grow more precarious and many Canadians are finding that their own financial well being is connected to their home’s appreciating value. Between large mortgages and HELOCs, Canadians are deeply indebted and need their home prices to continue to inflate to offset the absurd level of borrowing that is going on.

As an example of how the “danger creeps” have a look at this article from last week’s Globe and Mail which highlights a young couple living in Mississauga with a burdensome debt and an unexpected pregnancy. They are classified as some of the “most indebted” of Canadians; house rich and cash poor. By their own estimates they are over budget every month and 100% of one of their incomes goes exclusively to pay the mortgage, stressful as that is they aren’t worried. It may seem irresponsible on their part to buy such a home, but they couldn’t do it if there weren’t many others complicit in making such a bad financial arrangement. Between lax rules from the government, a willing lending officer and well intentioned families that help out, it turns out that creating a financially fragile family takes a village.

A nation of debtors is a vulnerable one indeed. I’ve often said that financial strength comes through being able to withstand financial shocks, and this is exactly where Canadians are falling short. It’s the high debt load and minimal savings (and that these two issues are self-reinforcing) that make Canadians vulnerable. A change in the economic fortunes would force many Canadians to deleverage and in the process would inflict further damage to the economy and likely many homes onto the market.

Such an event is strictly in the “uncharted seas” sector of the economy. No one has a clear idea what it would take to shift the housing sector loose, or what would happen once it did. And that’s just the unknown stuff. With interest rates at an all time low it would also only take a small increase in the interest rate (say 2%) to bump up many people out of their once affordable mortgage and into unaffordable territory.

That’s the problem with slow growing danger, it has a glacial pace but when it arrives it is already too large to be dealt with easily. In one of my favorite movies, the Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey utters the line “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”. That’s something we should all be wary of, the longer the housing market stays aloft the more convinced we become that not only is it not dangerous, but that there was never any danger at all.

Is It Time To End The “Senior” Citizen?

Margaret Wente is both enjoying the perks of her
Margaret Wente is both enjoying the perks of her “seniority” and worries that we may be undermining the future.

Over the weekend one of my clients posted an article from Margaret Wente about the many privileges bestowed upon seniors in Canada. Listing an almost unbelievable number of perks for “elderly” Canadians, which ranged from discounts at drug stores and movie theaters to government pensions and new federal tweaks to retirement programs, in every way seniors in Canada have it pretty good.

So good in fact that Margaret Wente has begun to despair. Not for herself, but for the future. The younger generation is definitely having a tougher time than their parents. And while none of this predicts that the Millennial’s will be poor, it does go to the heart of the uneven balance about finances that exists between generations.

Who has the most money and assets in Canada?
Who has the most money and assets in Canada?

One of the big changes in the federal budget was a reduction in the mandatory RRIF withdrawals that will effect everyone over 71. Putting the final nail in the coffin of the often heard and mostly pointless “RRSP/RRIF tax trap” the Conservative government has slowed the income coming to retirees from their long term retirement savings. This is being lamented as little more than “tax avoidance” for one generation by Carleton economics professor Francis Woolley, who has her own piece in the Globe & Mail about RRIF and Taxes. It’s a good read but if I may, her essential point is: “people don’t like to pay taxes.”

What’s happening is that we live in unprecedented times. Unprecedented in the life span of those living, the material wealth we have available to us, and the inverted demographics that comprise many countries around the globe. Everywhere people are richer, living longer and getting older. Many of our concerns about the economy, the cost of living, or the security of programs like CPP, or Social Security in the United States, are born directly from our success at creating a higher standard of living. Higher wages, better medicine and  a declining birth rate make us materially richer, until they don’t.

Courtesy of Gapminder
Courtesy of Gapminder

What you are looking at in the above chart is the changing nature of both Canada’s and the worlds age. From 1950 on Canada briefly saw a boom in the birth rate that has since reversed itself. The number of Canadians over 60 (the y-axis) is now better than 20% of the total Canadian population, while the number of children (on the x-axis) has been steady at about 5%.

“So, we’ll give them a little money to tide them over until they die, which will only be in a couple of years anyway, no long term financial entitlements for us!”

All the goodies that benefit the senior class of Canadians are getting more costly both because Canadians are living longer, but also because the tax-base needed to support many of those services is shrinking. But are seniors “too rich” as Margaret Wente thinks? Probably not. While Canadian poverty rates for the elderly are some of the lowest in the world, people who retire at 65 need to make all their savings last them until they are ninety, or older. You try and figure out what you are going to spend for the next 20-30 years. When Otto Von Bismark introduced the worlds first old age pension, it was for people who were 70 years old and their life expectancy was for maybe two more years. Today people retire and they live another lifetime. As we’ve previously said, when you’ve retired you’ve earned your last dollar. That can be a pretty scary thought.

The solution? There isn’t one. As I said these are unprecedented times. We still treat retirement like those who hit 65 are “old”. When my grandfather was 12 he had finished school, worked in

This book was written in 1997. 1997! It's taken 20 years for it to be relevant.
This book was written in 1997. 1997! It’s taken 20 years for it to be relevant.

a factory and eventually fought in the Second World War. By the time he was 65, suffering from lung deterioration after a life time of smoking, his face bore every year like the rings of a felled tree. My father on the other hand just had his 70th birthday and looks barely 60. That isn’t good genetics, that’s the product of good living. This trend is global, affecting everyone from China to Canada, and it will be with us for a long time. For many years people have been sounding the alarm about the demographic storm that is approaching, but such storms are slow moving. This is the beginning of a much larger set of conversations that will begin to address how we perceive retirement, savings, economic growth and government programs like the CPP. How we ultimately address and resolve the burgeoning conflicts about age and wealth will put many of us, and our retirement plans, to the test.

TFSAs Aren’t Just For The Rich

“Justin is in favour of making you pay more taxes! Vote Justin!” Okay, maybe it needs work…
We recognize that articles that involve politics can be pretty personal. The Walker Report is not endorsing or denouncing any politician or party, but merely commenting on current events.

On Tuesday the Conservative government effectively outlined their election campaign in their federal budget, and the most contentious issue (so far) has been the expansion of the annual TFSA contribution room from $5500 to $10,000. The TFSA is still a small part of the makeup of most Canadians savings, and yet the proposal of this program has already prompted Justin Trudeau to denounce it and promise to roll back the reform.

The growth of TFSAs definitely will hit tax revenues for the government. This year alone it is estimated to reduce revenue by $85 million, and in a few years that number will be over $350 million. By 2035 estimates put it will be close to $650 million in lost tax revenue. However we should be wary about attaching too much importance to long term estimates. Economic growth, population trends, even the price of oil will play a larger role in government revenues than the TFSA. We can barely get a fix on the price of oil over the next six months, so there is little use in getting worked-up over decade scaled predictions.

This leaves the other chief complaint about the TFSAs, that they only benefit the wealthy. There is some truth to this. The wealthiest Canadians are certainly in a better place to capitalize on multiple different forms of tax sheltering. But that is always the case. The wealthiest among us are able to capitalize on all things more effectively, from designer purses to sports cars. The question for average Canadians is can we also benefit from TFSAs?

Notably, this car will likely only benefit the wealthy.
Notably, this car will likely only benefit the wealthy.
I think the answer here is a resounding yes, and in some ways we may be able to capitalize on TFSAs more effectively. For young Canadians who still find their finances precarious it can be beneficial to place money somewhere to grow while still retaining access to it. For Canadians who receive an inheritance (a situation that will become increasingly common in the coming decades) such a sum might overwhelm available RRSP room. The TFSA will prove to be welcome relief for intergenerational wealth. For retirees who are forced to take more from their RRIFs than they would like or need, the TFSA is a suitable home to reinvest going forward.

Savings rate

But we should all keep in mind how often a dollar that is earned, invested and spent again will be taxed. Income taxes come off your earnings, capital gains and dividend taxes will be carved from your investments, and sales taxes will be collected when it is spent again. TFSAs promise to relieve only one part of this equation, we should welcome even this small relief. Canadians in particular have need of it. Our savings’ rate is pitifully small, and has been declining for decades. The number of Canadians without pensions and suitable retirement funds is alarmingly high, and we have no simple solution to fix any of it. Decreasing long term tax revenues in favour of creating better savings opportunities isn’t a crime, it’s a blessing, one that we can all benefit from.

Cities Are Hurting Your Retirement

The Economist endorses the Walker Report!

Well not really, but they have joined my cause on the problems we face with regards to urbanism and increasing urban density. It’s not everyday that you can say that the economist endorses your position (even if they don’t know it) but in early April my constant nagging about the insane price of housing became a feature for the weekly.

Most Expensive Cities In The World To Live In

How it felt when I saw The Economist article on wasted space in cities.
How it felt when I saw The Economist article on wasted space in cities.

If you haven’t been keeping up, I essentially have three big issues with homes in Canada:

  1. House prices are too high, especially in cities, which is driving a debt problem for many Canadians.
  2. Inflation in the housing market is likely creating a bubble, and considerable risk is building into the Canadian housing market as people over extend themselves.
  3. This problem is compounded by the need for city living. Increasingly people’s jobs depend on living in one of Canada’s big cities, where restrictions on development are aggrivating the situation.

Canada’s housing market is therefore a confusing and expensive mess. The risk is high but the need for housing is great and this fuels a great deal of arguments over how great the problem in Canadian housing really is.

The Economist’s take on this matter is an interesting one. It’s not just Canada that has an urban housing problem. Name a major urban centre and you are likely to see the same problem repeated. From Tokyo to London to New York and back to Vancouver urbanites everywhere are dealing with escalating home prices.Rising Property Prices

But the problem goes beyond merely being frustrated by increasing realty costs. Housing is a significant aspect to any economy. Building homes makes a lot of jobs, but affordable housing encourages a growing economy. As home prices eat up income there is simply less money to go around. It hurts domestic growth, slows trade and reduces standards of living.

The culprit is not a big bogeyman like the banks (though they are benefiting from this situation) but ourselves. In an effort to improve aesthetic standards of living by restricting changes to our surroundings we have unwittingly hurt our economic standard of living. Almost every city today is burdened with development guidelines and urban bylaws that restrict density and height. These rules run into the hundreds of pages and fill volumes in most city halls around the globe. It’s made cities like Bombay one of the most expensive in the world in a country that is one of the poorest. It restricts taxes and hinders economic and city improvements.

And cities need taxes. We tend to be critical of enormous budgetary outlays for cities, but whether it’s a new subway line in Toronto or a super-sewage pipe in Mexico City, cities depend on the taxes that are generated primarily through dense urbanization. This week the free newspaper Metro published an article showing which wards in the city of Toronto contribute the greatest amount in taxes. Unsurprisingly the “downtown” wards contributed the bulk of city revenue. Wards out in Scarborough had some of the lowest, a difference in the hundreds of millions of dollars for city revenue. Some are quick to point out that the “lie” about spoiled downtowners, but the reality is that density improves economic performance and reduces the burden of taxes while improving its efficiency.

https://twitter.com/Walker_Report/status/590534234059706368

The Economist argues that we waste space in cities, and that comes with a high cost. According to their article the US economy is 13.4% smaller than it could have been in 2009, a total of $2 trillion. Because cities that offer high incomes (like San Francisco) become too expensive people endup working in lower productivity sectors, while making it difficult to live for those that choose to reside in those cities. In the case of Canada this potentially fueling an enormous and dangerous housing bubble while undermining our economic growth. But this is a problem of our own doing. Through our own efforts we have masterminded a situation that threatens our own economic well being. The question that remains is whether we can be clever enough to undo it before it hurts us all.

As for The Economist I will assume they should be calling me anytime to start writing for them regularly….

That phone call should be coming any minute now...
That phone call should be coming any minute now…