A Financial Advisor’s Thoughts on the Election

2015 election

Politics is personal and we are not in the game of telling you who to vote for, nor are we endorsing one party over another. These are our thoughts about three issues we find relevant to what we do on your behalf and how we look at the market.

Despite however sophisticated we may think we are, elections are still a confusing mess of promises, accusations and distractions. And making sense of what has been promised is quite difficult. Take for example the Liberals promise for an additional $20 billion in transit infrastructure spending over the next decade. That sounds great and will no doubt be welcome, but that works out to $2 billion a year nation wide (it is not being proposed to be allocated that way, but for simplicity purposes this will do). The cost of the controversial Toronto subway expansion is likely to exceed the $3.56 billion currently budgeted. Given the huge cost of transit infrastructure I’m at a loss to know how much difference $2 billion a year make across the country. Its a big sum, but I don’t know what it’s worth and I’d wager neither do you.

For this reason elections regularly fall victim to the desire of political parties and the media for an easier story to tell. And disappointingly this election spent far too much time talking about the niqab, an issue that, despite how you may feel, has only affected two people since the 2011 ban was first introduced.

There are a lot of issues in this election, but some that could have a meaningful impact on your investments and retirement savings, and I thought I’d share some thoughts on them.

TFSAs

Tax Free Savings Accounts have been a popular new tool for investing since they were introduced in 2009. Originally allowing for a $5000 per year contribution, then raised to $5500 and finally to $10,000 per year in 2015, the Liberals and the NDP have both vowed to roll back the increased contribution room to the more modest $5500 arguing that the room only benefits the wealthy. I have previously written that I think this is a bad argument and that TFSAs are a valuable tool for saving regardless of income. Obviously the Conservatives have promised to keep the contribution levels where they currently are, and notably there has been no discussion yet as to how a roll back would affect existing contributions and future contribution room, nor how the CRA would track this year.

Pension & Income Splitting

Pension splitting has been reaffirmed as a necessary and vital tool for retirees by all the parties. Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP have sought to reassure Canada’s most reliable voting block seniors that pension splitting will remain a part of their income options. In a telling move that illustrates how cynical perhaps our politics are and who will reliably turn up to vote, pension splitting will stay, but the NDP and Liberals would like to see income splitting go.

Income splitting, if I’m being honest, makes a lot of sense to me. Designed to help families with a large income earner and where one parent stays at home to raise children, it balances taxes paid where a two income family would pay less even though their combined incomes are equal to one large earner. The tax benefit is only open to families with children under 18 and capped at $2000, so it isn’t a necessarily huge tax write-off.

Interestingly, the argument against income splitting isn’t a great one. According to the Liberals (and backed up by independent think tanks) the tax credit is really only available to about 15% of Canadian households, and so by that logic alone has been described as a $2 billion tax break for the rich. My math suggests otherwise.

According to the 2011 census, there are just over 13 million private households in Canada. Couples with children account for more than 3 million of those households (3,524,915) or around 28%. That means (and I’ll admit I may have this wrong) eligible families for income splitting account for more than half of all households with children. So the idea that it isn’t a useful or widely available tax credit may not be as accurate as portrayed given who it is targeting.

Housing

Economist Canadian DebtAs you know, I hate Canadian housing, (but love talking about it). It’s a known disaster waiting to happen that consistently defies odds and makes everybody nervous. But while it’s where Canadians have accumulated the greatest amount of debt it hasn’t really been an election issue. The importance of reducing the cost of housing hasn’t really been recognized either. There are efforts from all parties to create more affordable housing, but that isn’t the same thing.

https://twitter.com/Walker_Report/status/655065283007225856

To this end both the Conservatives and the Liberals have brought some terrible ideas to the forefront. Conservatives have made their once temporary home renovation tax credit permanent, although they’ve cut it’s value in half to $5000 from the original $10,000 and have pledged to increase the maximum you can borrow from the Home Buyers Plan. The Liberals are offering to allow you to dip into the First Time Home Buyers plan more than once. Neither of these plans are great. The housing market is too hot and encouraging the use of RRSPs (you know, your private retirement savings) to encourage more homeownership highlights the complicity of Canada’s government in the soaring debt levels of Canadian families.

Home Ownership

In the end we may long for a political party that advised caution against further home ownership in a country where it is already at record highs, and one of the highest in the developed world. Just a reminder, the view of the government is that while high debt is a natural byproduct of low rates, too much debt will still be your fault.

https://twitter.com/Walker_Report/status/654734014243205124

We aren’t trying to influence your vote, but we think it is important to understand that underneath the bluster and mudslinging are policies which can directly impact the financial well-being of Canada, and Canadians like you. So please remember, on October 19th, vote!

What Being Poor Should Mean to a Millennial

Last night I was kindly invited to speak at an event for the “Millennial Generation” hosted by AGF Investments. It was an interesting and fun evening filled with a lot of great questions and great food. But of all the questions sent to the advisors at the front of the room the question that I failed at was “what do you tell a poor client?”

Somehow this became my image of the millennial generation.
Somehow this became my image of the millennial generation.

This question took me off guard because when I looked in the room I didn’t see any poor people. I saw a lot of young professionals that weren’t yet at their peak earning potential, but that is part of growing up. These people weren’t poor, they just didn’t have a lot of money.

That distinction may seem academic to someone sitting at home on a Friday night who can’t afford to go out. After all, what is it to be poor if a lack of money doesn’t define you? But poverty is about a permanence of state, and not earning enough money can be temporary. Real poverty is about having a lack of options.

For instance, most Canadians would likely say that don’t have enough money, which isn’t the same as saying they are impoverished. It is simply a reflection of how our wants increase and grow with our incomes. In 2014 the research firm YouGov, Inc. did a survey looking for people to identify how much they needed to earn to be “rich”. Unsurprisingly as people earned more their idea of what constituted “rich” grew with their income bracket, which is why so few people self-identify as being wealthy.

Rich You can read the whole story about that from the New York Times. But for young Canadians who are fresh out of university, the climb up the financial ladder to long term wealth can seem daunting to say the least, and living in big cities can make modest salaries seem virtually impoverishing.

This place is awesome but it costs a fortune!
This place is awesome but it costs a fortune!

But that doesn’t make you “poor”.

Poor means a lack of options, or opportunities to change your situation. Well educated young Canadians in junior professional roles have lots of opportunities. But there is also a reason that we say youth is wasted on the young. Because young Canadians who don’t start saving, defer starting RRSPs and TFSAs, find that they are scrambling in their 40s and 50s to save for their retirement. They do have fewer options and are a great deal poorer for it. This isn’t a hypothetical; lots of Canadians are finding themselves in exactly this situation. Saving isn’t just about putting money aside, it’s about keeping options open in the future.

Globe & Mail Senior

The other day the Globe and Mail talked about the growth of debt among seniors, a move that was described as making seniors “Financially Fragile”. The core of investing revolves might be described as revolving around this principle: avoiding fragility. Frequently we represent investing as freeing people to enjoy their retirement on the beaches of Cape Cod, with sweaters draped over shoulders. But investing and saving is about being able to deal with all the rough spots in life.

Is this your retirement? Commercials for retirement planning frequently feature retirement as one of endless vacation.
Is this your retirement? Commercials for retirement planning frequently feature retirement as one of endless vacation.

Unexpected costs like new furnaces or car repairs can undo vacation plans and cottage retreats. Saving early doesn’t just help plan a life of leisure, it insures that your best laid plans aren’t upended by all the other things that life throws at you. It is far easier to be poor in old age once you’ve earned your last dollar than it is when you are younger and millions of opportunities await you.

So if you were one of the young Canadians worried that you don’t make very much, keep in mind that it is temporary. But if you want to avoid being actually poor in the future, start saving today so you aren’t panicking tomorrow.

Don’t want to defer your saving any longer? Drop us a message!

 

You Won’t Believe How RRSPs Can Ruin Your Retirement!

h64ocNo seriously, you won’t believe it. That’s because RRSPs really can’t ruin your retirement, and yet every year someone, somewhere writes an article about the RRSP Tax Trap! This year’s contribution is from the Globe and Mail, which was also the source of last year’s main entry (also by the same author). The argument in these articles is that your RRSPs can become a taxation nightmare, forcing up your annual income and making you pay a higher marginal tax rate in retirement than you did in your working years! Cue panic.

Wondering why you don’t hear this complaint more? Why you don’t see lots of special reports on the nightly news of some sad-sack sitting at his kitchen table opening letters and then explaining to the camera how he “never foresaw the tax nightmare he’s in” happening? That’s because this particular issue is often overlooked as being one of having too much money, and is not widely regarded as a significant problem by most people (in fact the opposite for most Canadians is true). And while it’s true that being wealthy can create more complexity in investment strategies the “mo’ money, mo’ problems” aspect here has yet to stir a vast number of people to forgo their wealth and move to a commune.

The crux of these regular articles however (the reason why your average middle class Canadian should worry) is because RRSPs don’t save you taxes, but DEFER them. This emphasis on deferral, that your taxes will come back to haunt you is the kind of half truth that the media cheaply peddles without much thought for whether it does any real harm to the investor reading the article. It’s also bad math, because in addition to the taxes you deferred by contributing to your RRSP, there is also all the taxes you didn’t pay over the lifetime of the investment.

Let’s create a simple scenario to better illustrate what I mean. Assume the following things:

  1. You are 50.
  2. You currently earn, and will never earn more than $125,000 from now until you are 71.
  3. That you contribute every year $22,000 to your RRSP
  4. That your investments will return an average of 6% per year.
  5. That you start your RRSPs at age 50 with $100,000
  6. You invest $5500 of your tax refund into a TFSA with a 6% ROI

Let’s also create a second scenario, identical to the first, but instead of saving in an RRSP you do it in an unregistered savings account, splitting the $22,000 contribution between that and a TFSA, with a taxable rebalance triggered every 5 years. In all other respects the scenarios would be identical. What would happen?

Well thanks to excel it would look something like this:

20 Year Savings Plan

That gap in returns is the compounding difference of avoiding ongoing taxes from rebalancing and investing a portion of your tax refund into your TFSA. In essence you made each dollar travel farther over that twenty years by utilizing your RRSP more than you did without out, to the tune of nearly 25% additional savings.

There are a lot of ways to play with this, with numerous avenues to improve or refine this scenario, but no matter how you slice up these hypothetical scenarios there will never be a version where having less money is inherently better than having more. Having more is the whole reason you’ve been saving in RRSPs in the first place.

h64pl

That isn’t to say that you shouldn’t be mindful of taxes in retirement, or that your retirement strategies shouldn’t include things like debt reduction or trying to maximize different investment pools, like TFSAs. It also doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to be more sensible with your savings for retirement. What it does mean though is that realistic threats to your retirement are unlikely to come from having saved too much, and that concerns over your taxes being too high because you were good at saving your money is the literal definition of a first world problem. In short, don’t worry that your RRSPs are going to ruin your retirement when they will likely underpin a successful retirement plan.