Are you saving enough for retirement?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

No real estate hasn't had the same growth as equities, but it's also capital gains free and an appreciating asset.

Capital gains free? That's not true, you pay tax on gains on real estate investments the same as gains on equities. Just not your principal residence.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Capital gains free? That's not true, you pay tax on gains on real estate investments the same as gains on equities. Just not your principal residence.

A principal residence is what I was referring to.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

A principal residence is what I was referring to.

But then that's not a true investment. There is housing utility you're driving from that investment. How much more of a premium are you paying when you live in the house as opposed to renting a similar house? That's more of an apples to apples comparison.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Izzle

But then that's not a true investment. There is housing utility you're driving from that investment. How much more of a premium are you paying when you live in the house as opposed to renting a similar house? That's more of an apples to apples comparison.

You’ll see my original comment was about the widening wealth gap, not housing as an investment. The increase in real estate valuations is contributing to the widening wealth gap between the haves and have nots.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

You’ll see my original comment was about the widening wealth gap, not housing as an investment. The increase in real estate valuations is contributing to the widening the wealth gap between the haves and have nots.

Ah I missed that. Yup I agree with the above. Having assets makes the haves have more.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I would just buy XEQT. Lower MER than actively managed, impossible to beat over time.

This is not impossible to beat, and that's just not true. And, of course, another consideration is that this is just equities, which may not be suitable for everyone.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is not impossible to beat, and that's just not true. And, of course, another consideration is that this is just equities, which may not be suitable for everyone.

We've done a mix of VEQT, XCNS (later replaced with TTP), and ZGRO-T. Took some cues from Canadian Couch Potato but TTP was a bit of an off-the-board pick of mine and it is doing rather nicely.

It isn't that it's impossible to beat the market, so much as that most people aren't likely to manage their investments in a manner that will beat the market over time, active management included.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We've done a mix of VEQT, XCNS (later replaced with TTP), and ZGRO-T. Took some cues from Canadian Couch Potato but TTP was a bit of an off-the-board pick of mine and it is doing rather nicely.

It isn't that it's impossible to beat the market, so much as that most people aren't likely to manage their investments in a manner that will beat the market over time, active management included.

Aside from the fact that what you describe is active management, I think that beating the market is only important for marketing and an academic argument. In reality, when the rubber hits the road, if you beat the market and don’t manage to meet your goals, it’s entirely irrelevant.

And the whole “active management can’t beat the market” argument is just full of holes. There are dozens of arguments for why people should pursue active management of their portfolios.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Aside from the fact that what you describe is active management, I think that beating the market is only important for marketing and an academic argument. In reality, when the rubber hits the road, if you beat the market and don’t manage to meet your goals, it’s entirely irrelevant.

And the whole “active management can’t beat the market” argument is just full of holes. There are dozens of arguments for why people should pursue active management of their portfolios.

There are good reasons not to, as well. There are little to no protection for investors when their active manager behaves immorally or illegally. Sure maybe one day you read a news story about how they were reprimanded, fined, whatever, but you, who have one chance at retirement savings success? Ya, that ship sailed with their maleficence. So it ultimately comes down to "do you trust this single individual with your future?" And given how people are these days, I think that's a pretty big leap. Please don't take that personally, it's just my experience.

I have no doubt there are good and bad out there, but that's not a risk I'll ever take again. Not when the alternatives are pretty good, and vastly outperform the half dozen or so "experts" I had before.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There are good reasons not to, as well. There are little to no protection for investors when their active manager behaves immorally or illegally. Sure maybe one day you read a news story about how they were reprimanded, fined, whatever, but you, who have one chance at retirement savings success? Ya, that ship sailed with their maleficence. So it ultimately comes down to "do you trust this single individual with your future?" And given how people are these days, I think that's a pretty big leap. Please don't take that personally, it's just my experience.

I have no doubt there are good and bad out there, but that's not a risk I'll ever take again. Not when the alternatives are pretty good, and vastly outperform the half dozen or so "experts" I had before.

Hahaha, gotta say that this an argument that I never saw coming! So someone was a con-artist and there we should be indexing is a new one to me.

[Dan02]

Pulled the plug on the job on Friday. Probably don't have enough saved to make it a permanent retirement if you're a believer in the 4% rule. I figure worst case scenario is I'll just get back to work in a few years if my investments aren't making enough to cover the expenses.

[Fuzz]

Not con artists. Registered, legitimate advisors in reputable agencies. Come now, you must know this happens in your industry occasionally. There are plenty of news stories over the years.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not con artists. Registered, legitimate advisors in reputable agencies. Come now, you must know this happens in your industry occasionally. There are plenty of news stories over the years.

I don’t deny that every industry has some bad actors who do nefarious things. There are a lot of layers of oversight and investor protection for that very reason, and there should be recourse to make sure that no one is left out in the cold (non-licensed and non-registered “advisors” is a whole different story).

Regardless, I’m not entirely clear on that issue as an influence for investment strategy and how people should structure portfolios.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don’t deny that every industry has some bad actors who do nefarious things. There are a lot of layers of oversight and investor protection for that very reason, and there should be recourse to make sure that no one is left out in the cold (non-licensed and non-registered “advisors” is a whole different story).

Regardless, I’m not entirely clear on that issue as an influence for investment strategy and how people should structure portfolios.

There should be, but there are not. Certainly not in any way that makes investors whole, or anywhere close to it. Lessons learned.

It's relative to the discussion because we are discussing different investment and return strategies. One strategy that many people use is an investment advisor.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not con artists. Registered, legitimate advisors in reputable agencies. Come now, you must know this happens in your industry occasionally. There are plenty of news stories over the years.

A couple of things:

Ask if your money is kept at a separate brokerage. In other words, your FA does not keep your money. He only manages your money. The brokerage provides your performance statements.
Ask if they require your consent for any investment changes.

This keeps the Bernie Madoff situation from happening.

[Torture]

VEQT and chill.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Shazam

A couple of things:

Ask if your money is kept at a separate brokerage. In other words, your FA does not keep your money. He only manages your money.
Ask if they require your consent for any investment changes.

This keeps the Bernie Madoff situation from happening.

Not if they lie. And when they do, you have minimal recourse. Yes, they get punished. Sometimes it ruins their careers, sometimes they get a couple year vacation. But it never puts those lost dollars back in your account, and it certainly doesn't make up for the decade of lost gains while. you fight them for it.


If you disagree, show me the regulations that ensure it. I'll wait.

[Shazam]

They can't hide. Seriously. Because the brokerage will confirm with you the transactions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Shazam

They can't hide. Seriously. Because the brokerage will confirm with you the transactions.

I appreciate you aren't familiar with how these things unfold, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Like, here's a random one I just found with zero effort.

The Toronto-based Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) has ordered a Vancouver advisor to pay $48,000 for recommending unsuitable investments and unauthorized discretionary trading.

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/...r-fined-48000/

So five years later, and if you think they were made whole after, I have an investment in a bridge company to sell you.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Pulled the plug on the job on Friday. Probably don't have enough saved to make it a permanent retirement if you're a believer in the 4% rule. I figure worst case scenario is I'll just get back to work in a few years if my investments aren't making enough to cover the expenses.

Congrats and good luck!
What's the 4% rule?