|
James Baud posted:Okay, so yes that totally blows for the guy, but seriously what the gently caress, who buys into the crypto "better than banks for moving money internationally" bullshit, particularly for Canada/US transfers? I use transferwise when transferring large amounts between Canada and the UK, it can come out to <0.5% commission and you get the midmarket exchange rate.
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
There are some ETFs that I'm interested in buying, but they are only in USD. When investing in ETFs denominated in USD rather than CAD, apart from having to convert any gains/losses to CAD at tax time, are there any special gotchas to be aware of? What if the gains are in a tfsa, are they still tax sheltered? I just want to make sure I'm not getting in over my head here before buying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I am running VAB for bonds exposure, what’s a good equivalent for non-canadian more diverse bonds? VGAB is an ETF based on a global bond index hedged to the CAD and is probably what you're looking for. qhat fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Nov 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 10:32
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Is a bond ETF outperforming a HISA right now in terms of return and also expected risk? I almost wonder if a GIC (or laddered GIC ETF) or HISA is going to be better than a bond based solution in this weird time. HISAs return around 0.05-0.10% right now which is as close to nothing as to make no odds. I feel like most bonds in bond funds these days will be premium bonds (owing to perpetually falling rates) which aren't tax efficient, but that can be mitigated with specific discount bond ETFs like ZDB. I'm not really an expert on this though, as a disclaimer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Huh? You have several HISA options at 1.5% or higher https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/chart/ Ah, you're right, I was looking at the rates offered by the big banks which seemingly offer terrible returns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
Kal Torak posted:Except that we just had this huge economic and social issue that we are still in the middle in and the exact opposite happened. Instead of calling loans, they were deferring payments. The government has handed out billions under CERB, CEWS, CEBA, etc. The fact it hasn't happened before is something to be more wary about, not less. At the very least the bank can start demanding that you amortize the outstanding debt and then you have to start liquidating your holdings which, if the market has also tanked (likely if the bank is actually doing this) could leave you with outstanding debt after your investments are fully liquidated. The main reason people use their HELOCs to invest is to convert the interest on their mortgage from non-deductable to deductable (lookup the Smith maneuvre), and to then use the tax refunds to either pay down the mortgage faster or re-invest. It's generally not recommended for the average person though since it requires a lot of financial discipline and carries its own risk if both the value of your home and the stock market tanks and you are unable to repay the mortgage and the HELOC with your existing assets. You also have to actually pay the interest on the HELOC out of your own pocket each year, which might be difficult if your investments have not been positive that year. qhat fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
Kal Torak posted:Yeah, I don't agree. This literally just happened. We had a global pandemic and the market tanked. Instead of calling loans, the banks were deferring payments. Reminder: this pandemic has not ended yet, nobody knows what direction the banks are going to take if defaults start increasing in 2021. Kal Torak posted:A HELOC doesn't turn your mortage interest from non-deductible to deductible. A readvanceable mortgage does that. If you use a HELOC to invest, that's all it is. Borrowing to invest. A readvanceable mortgage is just a mortgage bundled with a HELOC that increases proportionally with your equity. Borrowing on that HELOC to invest after every mortgage payment is what effectively converts the interest to tax deductible. qhat fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Dec 14, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:Your guy has a few dozen posts that include an awful lot of weird contradictory nonsense, possibly just financial-topic trolling, some chance of being a way-into-crypto 'free man', otherwise just someone who sees the world through quite an amazing muddle, and not just because he's quebecois. I feel like if the guy had 200k accumulating in his bank account over the past 5 years yet has never filed a return in that time, the CRA would be flagging him up for an audit pretty quick.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
Ben Felix's portfolio weights towards small-cap value stocks. If you're going to go into that, you need to be aware that you could see lagging returns for very significant periods of time, even as long as a decade. So basically the earlier you get into that, the more likely you will see outperformance of market beta by the time you retire. I personally wouldn't bother with it if I was less than 15 years away from retirement, even then I still probably wouldn't. But no, XAW + ZAG + VCN is not outdated, a market cap weighted portfolio is still the best option for anyone who wants to spend less than a minute per month on their finances.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
The 4% rule is based on a retirement period of 25 years using a portfolio with a 50/50 S&P500/bonds allocation. It begins to fail if you are considering longer retirement periods or start adding mutual fund fees into that equation (don't use high fee funds, ever). It also goes without saying that just because the 4% rule has held for the past 50 rolling 25 year periods in the US (changes for other countries also) doesn't mean it will continue to hold into the future. In short, I probably wouldn't use it as a hard and fast rule and I'm personally trying to aim for more to be safe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
Edit: nvm, your accounts aren’t non registered
qhat fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Apr 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
The liquidity is a big deal. Like honestly if you're going to take something for 5 years you really are better off with an ETF, at least you'll be able to access your money in an emergency, which is kind of a major point of holding fixed income.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Just make sure the fees are really low, even 0.15% is a sizeable chunk of your return, you don't want more than that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
What is the principle behind not hiring someone to do it for you?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
Ccs posted:I’ve been working in canada for a while while still maintaining a US address so that I could continue to hold assets in a US brokerage account. Recently the brokerage has decided that they’d rather not work with clients who spend large amounts of time in Canada due to FACTA requirements and Canadian securities laws. Is there an easy way to transfer all the assets in an American brokerage to Canada without selling any of the stocks? I understand I might have to sell the mutual funds but hopefully the ETFs can transfer over even though they’re listed on the NYSE and denominated in USD. What is the issue with selling the securities? If you’re worried about tax, I don’t think you’d be allowed to transfer securities between jurisdictions without it being treated as a taxable event. If you’re worried about leaving your seat, you can sell and use a margin/line of credit to immediately repurchase the securities until your cash transfers over.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
Keep in mind there isn’t really a good reason to invest in dividend stocks over ones that don’t pay. The day a dividend is paid out, the price of the stock falls by exactly the amount of the dividend. There is also no reason to believe that a stock that pays a dividend is any safer than a stock that doesn’t, despite what you might read in the globe and mail who are obsessed with dividend stocks for no good reason.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Is this not a good reason, assuming one could find a fund with eligible dividends? I don’t really know about this. I’m assuming expected returns from a strategy like this is not as clear cut as it seems, like federal tax credits in dividends is explicitly supposed to avoid double taxation (since dividends are paid out post corp tax). How does the expected returns of this strategy compare to a company returning earnings to shareholders through share buy backs (which is pre-tax I think?). Also, what is the riskiness of this strategy as opposed to investing more broadly in non dividend paying stocks and hence being more diversified? I feel less diversification is worse if you’re trying to get higher returns for less risk. I don’t have the answer to these questions though, I automatically assume there is no free lunch and the tax savings are probably already priced into the stock, I’d be interested to see some research or data on this though.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 08:15
|
|
|
I’d be wary about any strategy that specifically targets dividends, especially in the 6-7% range which is bordering on the more junky stocks. I assume people get these dividend paying portfolios because it feels like a replacement to fixed income, but more often than not those returns are a result of taking a lot more risk than the person probably realizes. Like VDY is the vanguard high yield dividend ETF, but it comprises of only 40 companies, the vast majority of which are Canadian banks. This is obviously not well diversified and certainly not a replacement for fixed income. Regarding the eligible dividend tax credits, I still feel if there is a benefit to holding those stocks then it would represent an opportunity and it would evaporate pretty quickly as people bid up the price of the security. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable betting on it making some extra alpha on the tax savings alone without a lot of data to back it up. qhat fucked around with this message at 08:56 on May 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Wise? (Never used them but I would take a look if I was in that situation.) Discussion already ended but fwiw wise is only useful if you’re transferring money to yourself across a border, and it is an extremely useful solution for that purpose. But not for sending arbitrary amounts across a border to other individuals.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
I would usually say gently caress mortgages and gently caress real estate but holy poo poo that's a drat good deal son.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
If you have someone who doesn’t know anything about buying securities and doesn’t care to know, wealthsimple is a real neat solution. They can just put their money into a 50-50 portfolio and just forget about it. I have my girlfriend on it because she literally has no idea about stocks and just wants to have a pot somewhere to put her money monthly that will grow without getting completely fleeced on fees.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
Fixed Income has been really awful for a while now and given the low rates environment right now as well as the possibility for high inflation coming up, it’s likely to get worse. Definitely you’ll need some equities to maintain growth long term, but as others have said it’s good to have a pro here. It’s not just about asset allocation, but it’s also to help your parents understand the risk involved and all the possible outcomes of a strategy, and also for the advisor to understand your parent’s tolerance for risk and come up with a strategy appropriately. There are other products, such as annuities, that might also apply to their situation. Ultimately, they have to be completely comfortable with whatever strategy they go with, and a professional financial advisor will be a huge help with that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 09:06
|
|
|
Not always. Wealthsimple trade for example makes money on exorbitant exchange rate spreads, and I think nothing or a very small amount on payment for order flow. If they make significant money on pfof you’d know about, not being completely transparent about this is a great way to get the SEC up your rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Just throwing this in here, but Interactive Brokers very recently eliminated all account minimums and inactivity fees, which has completely changed the game for me. They will still charge a minimum $1 commission on trades, but the execution quality of the trades and the currency exchange rates are second to none, you don't even have to do a Norbert's gambit the spreads are that tight. They don't cover transfer out fees but honestly I put them as the best value brokerage in Canada right now if you're planning on doing anything other than dump everything into VGRO. If any portion of your income is in another currency, you should be using these guys. But that's just my 2c on my current favoured brokerage.
qhat fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:That's interesting for currency conversion. I don't mind doing Norbert's Gambit but I also don't mind not doing it, especially if it's even cheaper. Thanks for mentioning it! For both CAD deposits and withdrawals, they accept Wire and EFT, and Bill pay also for deposits. I usually just have e*trade (company account) wire the USD portion of my income to a USD Savings account at my bank, and then use EFT on IBKR to deposit the cash directly from the savings account, and then convert the currency as I need. I almost never withdraw from my portfolio and deposit once every 6 months so I've never run into issues around compliance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
I don’t think it makes a difference. You’ll see the withholding tax on your statement if you own the US ETF, but I’m pretty sure it’s hidden away in the CAD ETF, but it’s still there. But withholding taxes make up a tiny drag on your return anyway, it’s seriously almost never worth losing sleep over.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2021 09:15
|
|
|
I think the only thing of concern about withholding tax is when you own an ETF like XAW which basically wraps US ETFs that invest in ex-USA securities. There’s a double taxation, one on dividends paid to the fund from foreign securities (the withholding tax is reciprocated), and then again on dividends paid to you the Canadian shareholder. The only way to get around that is to hold a Canadian ETF (like VIU) that holds ex-NA securities directly, and then hold a US total market fund separately.
qhat fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 27, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
It's a bullshit way for liberals to funnel money into housing. If they really gave a poo poo about saving people money on taxes they would tack that amount onto everyone's TFSA rooms, but they won't do that because they actually want the tax money to go to homeowners.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
AegisP posted:So, I'm curious how this would work in practice if implemented. Thinking about it like that, yeah, it does seem like a contradiction. If it’s the former then I imagine you’d have the ability to transfer into the account from an existing RRSP meaning you can withdraw for a home and not have to pay it back, like you do with the HBP. this seems to be the most likely to me. The latter would be a huge gently caress you to over 40s, who are actually the liberals primary voter base.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
First of all, you cannot compare a rent payment and mortgage payment directly and be like it's the same so why not get a mortgage. There are other costs with owning a home and especially a condo; strata fees, property taxes, depreciation costs, general property maintenance. These costs are significant and you wouldn't have to pay them if you were renting since it's all tidily wrapped up in the rent payment. Also, 55k down on a 390k property is a high loan-to-value ratio (less than 20%), so you need mortgage insurance, more money down the drain. On top of that your mortgage interest is probably going to be by far the largest chunk of your payments at least for the foreseeable future, so you shouldn't expect a lot of equity build-up in the medium term. Secondly, interest rates are by no mean fixed for the long term; right now you can afford the mortgage at 1.8% but it's costing you 1/2 of your take home. What is that going to look like in 5 years if interest rates normalize to say 3% or higher? Are you still going to be able to afford it? If you won't be able to, what if you're actually underwater on the mortgage, how is this going to affect your finances in the worst case event that you need to sell? I know this seems unlikely given how house prices have worked in Canada for the past decade, but it's a scenario that you need to take seriously since there is no guarantee they won't fall. Even if interest rates don't rise, if you lost your job, how much runway do you have before you start falling behind on payments? Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with getting a mortgage, but you should be sure that you can not only afford it now, but also that you'll be able to afford it five years from now, and also that you can weather a storm while continuing to make payments.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 08:48
|
|
|
Not to mention you don’t get to claim capital losses if it’s in a tax shelter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Keep in mind that inflation is expected to go higher in the next year, potentially higher than 5%, so keeping it in cash or very low yield investments will actually lose you significant money. Aside from the already mentioned securities, you could also stick it in an ETF that tracks the total bond market (VAB, for example). It's nowhere near as volatile as equities and you will earn roughly 2-2.5% on your money annually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Don’t assume the bank advisors really know anything about investing either, they really are just salespeople. Case in point, new regulations this year have forced advisors to have a stronger knowledge of the products they are selling, the intent being to protect investors. How did the banks respond to this? They now refuse to sell third party funds to clients, claiming that it’s only reasonable for their advisors to have that “deep” of a knowledge of the banks own products. This is an obvious conflict of interest, but that doesn’t matter because banks have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent any kind of fiduciary duty being applied to them. So yeah that tells you all you need to know about the big bank’s investment arms, steer clear of them like they’re the plague.
qhat fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 21, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
If anyone wants to do currency trades, I would recommend IBKR over Wealthsimple. It doesn't have a monthly fee anymore and the exchange rates are at the interbank rates, and it's dead cheap to execute trades.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
IBKR has the lowest margin rates by far. If you never sell, well, free ETF buys are going to be the best. Use whatever makes you comfortable at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 06:11
|
|
|
Dollar cost averaging is _not_ for newbie investors, it's the same thing as market timing. Sure you might mitigate losses if you buy when the market is up, but what if the market is actually down? Well then you just lost money by not investing everything at the start. The best and most optimal way for the average person to invest is to just invest everything in a diversified low-cost index fund like VGRO and forget about it. Dollar cost averaging adds complexity where there doesn't need to be any and arguably generates more anxiety in the process, not less.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Yeah what I'm really against and what I suspect is the case is that OP is sitting on cash instead of having it in the market all year, and then dumping it in every January. I agree that time in market is the most important thing, if someone is just given a bunch of cash it's different from accumulating it over 12 months and then putting it in, IMO. It's really up to people to figure out how much of a cash buffer they need for their monthly expenses and how much they can afford to invest monthly over that base amount. Everybody has their own personal preference, some people invest a fixed amount each month and some allow it to build up 'just in case', but that's not the same discussions as lump sum vs DCA. DCA is when you already have that lump sum that you can invest right now and explicitly making a decision to spread that investment over time to mitigate future volatility in the market.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
Remember, using a HELOC to invest in stocks means you could be in a bit of trouble if a recession causes a drop in housing prices and stock prices simultaneously. The HELOC is not subject to the same repayment terms as the mortgage and a bank might want you to start amortizing it if they get nervous. Investing in an RRSP in this case is particularly dicey because not only you might have to sell stocks at a low point in the market, but you will also be charged withholding tax on the withdrawals and lose the RRSP room permanently.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:You're almost certainly not loving up either way. One might be more advantageous, but the future is uncertain so we can't know for sure. The key part: Yeah this. But also don’t take for granted the benefits of being able to withdraw from the TFSA with no consequences. This can be very attractive if your life is a bit less predictable and you might actually need the money sometime before retirement. For me anyway, it isn’t really a choice between TFSA and RRSP, but rather between RRSP and a fully taxable non-registered account. For flexibility I generally prefer non registered if my tax rate hasn’t hit the upper-forties/fifties and at some point I’ll dump a huge lump sum in an RRSP and claim a massive refund, but ymmv.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
And my puts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2022 00:16
|
|