Financial Planning Talk

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I've never understood why people think travel is a reasonable expense. It's fine after savings are taken care of, but to prioritize travel over retirement seems crazy. You're just screwing over yourself.

It's all about perspective. Watch several members of your family die young, and you tend to realize that there is more to life than a future that may never happen.

I'm at a point in my life where I am prioritizing both travel and savings/investments. And the former is very much as important as the latter. You only get one life. Don't forget to enjoy it.

[polak]

Yeah, all that money and awesome credit score you saved up in your 20's while your friends were out travelling and living life won't do you much good when you're on your deathbed.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm at a point in my life where I am prioritizing both travel and savings/investments. And the former is very much as important as the latter. You only get one life. Don't forget to enjoy it.

This is where I'm at as well. It's all about finding the right balance in enjoying the present while still being able to save for the future.

I think it's important to get out and enjoy travel while I'm youngish and healthy. It gives me motivation to be frugal throughout my every day living over and above the reasons that I already have. But I also don't piss away every cent I was able to save on travel each year.

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Have you seen those guys that live longer than they expect? The depressed geriatric at Wal-Mart. Old dude in a crappy apartment in a dirty wife beater? I met a couple going through awful cancer treatments living in an RV in a trailer park in Calgary and they were too cold at night so I was helping them add insulation to their RV. An underfunded retirement is a way scarier future to me than knocking off early.

Isn't this why we go through 18+ years of dealing with our kids so that this doesn't happen? With each child you have a better chance at least sharing a home or basement suite with them if you really mess up your savings.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah, all that money and awesome credit score you saved up in your 20's while your friends were out travelling and living life won't do you much good when you're on your deathbed.

It's all about perspective and priorities. For some people, their ideal life style is to work hard in their 20s and 30s retire at 50, read the newspaper and golf in Scottsdale.

For others it's going to the Euro Championships or World Cup and spending a fortune on significant life events in their 20s and 30s with the understanding they'll likely have to work till 65.

Who is to say which lifestyle is better? Unless you were born with a silver spoon, or you really did well for yourself out of university, it's hard to achieve both those life styles.

This is a great thread by the way. This is the kind of stuff they should teach in high schools.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i suppose at the end of the day, i need to create time to read up on these things. i'm reluctant to go to an advisor as it just feels like a commission based sales guy approach, and i don't really have anyone that i talk to openly about these personal topics in my surrondings (parents not very strong in this area either).

Totally valid. Most "advisors" simply are terrible. Set it up yourself and use ETFs if you can, and rebalance one or twice / year. You can easily create a global portfolio across asset classes for like 0.1% in fees.

Check out this website:

http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/

[polak]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

It's all about perspective and priorities. For some people, their ideal life style is to work hard in their 20s and 30s retire at 50, read the newspaper and golf in Scottsdale.

For others it's going to the Euro Championships or World Cup and spending a fortune on significant life events in their 20s and 30s with the understanding they'll likely have to work till 65.

Who is to say which lifestyle is better? Unless you were born with a silver spoon, or you really did well for yourself out of university, it's hard to achieve both those life styles.

This is a great thread by the way. This is the kind of stuff they should teach in high schools.

Completely agree. Sliver (it should be silver) was talking in absolutes saying that all of those who wish to travel in their youth are making a big mistake but I do understand that travelling and living it up isn't for everyone.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Red

Here’s my contribution to this thread. Assuming this is not specific continuation from the layoffs thread.

Don’t wait till 65 to collect CPP, start at 60 at reduced rate.
The 5 extra years of receiving CPP far outweighs the little higher amounts of money you’d otherwise get starting at 65.
If you are still working after 60, put the CPP money in RRSP to lower your taxes. Or get that Corvette you have always wanted.

Good idea? Bad? Hope our resident financial gurus can comment.

I feel like this thread has a lack of poorly formatted spreadsheets posted by me, so I thought I'd take a stab at this one. Taking CPP early reduces your payout by 0.6% for every month you take it early. So taking it 60 months early (at age 60 instead of 65) will result in a 36% reduction in your benefits. Taking it late increases your payout by 0.7% for every month you take it late, or a 42% increase to your benefits if you wait until 70 to take it.

Some other considerations:

• Higher CPP payments could impact eligibility for OAS/GIS payments in retirement
• If you're still working from 60-65, your income in those years will also increase your CPP payout
• CPP is inflation adjusted and government guaranteed, which makes it an excellent source of retirement income, and hard to replace with other investments
• You might die without collecting if you wait

On to the spreadsheet. I've calculated the present value for 3 options, taking the CPP at 60, 65 and 70. I have arbitrarily assumed that the CPP entitlement would be $1000/month at 65, and that it won't affect either GIS or OAS. Generally speaking, unless your income is low you won't get GIS, and unless it high you will get OAS. Most people probably fit this assumption. If you don't, I'm a guy on a message board, get your own financial planner. The first spreadsheet just adds up the payments, basically it assumes you spend the money as you get it, and that you're trying to get as much total money from the government as possible.

Start Age 60 65 70
Monthly Payment 640 1000 1420
Age of Death Present Value Present Value Present Value
61 $7,680 $0 $0
62 $15,360 $0 $0
63 $23,040 $0 $0
64 $30,720 $0 $0
65 $38,400 $0 $0
66 $46,080 $12,000 $0
67 $53,760 $24,000 $0
68 $61,440 $36,000 $0
69 $69,120 $48,000 $0
70 $76,800 $60,000 $0
71 $84,480 $72,000 $17,040
72 $92,160 $84,000 $34,080
73 $99,840 $96,000 $51,120
74 $107,520 $108,000 $68,160
75 $115,200 $120,000 $85,200
76 $122,880 $132,000 $102,240
77 $130,560 $144,000 $119,280
78 $138,240 $156,000 $136,320
79 $145,920 $168,000 $153,360
80 $153,600 $180,000 $170,400
81 $161,280 $192,000 $187,440
82 $168,960 $204,000 $204,480
83 $176,640 $216,000 $221,520
84 $184,320 $228,000 $238,560
85 $192,000 $240,000 $255,600
86 $199,680 $252,000 $272,640
87 $207,360 $264,000 $289,680
88 $215,040 $276,000 $306,720
89 $222,720 $288,000 $323,760
90 $230,400 $300,000 $340,800

For this case, if you live past 82 you'd want to defer it as long as possible, and if you die before 73 you'd want to take it as early as possible.

However, that ignores the time value of money. Money now is worth more than money later. The following table uses 4% as a discount rate for the present value. It's lower than the rate I would normally use, but CPP is inflation adjusted, so the actual rate is 4% plus inflation. Essentially, that assumes assets you're using to live off instead of taking CPP early earn 4% + inflation. If you use a lower rate, it makes waiting look better, while a higher rate makes taking it early look better.

Start Age 60 65 70
Monthly Payment 640 1000 1420
Age of Death Present Value Present Value Present Value
61 $7,384.62 $0.00 $0.00
62 $14,485.21 $0.00 $0.00
63 $21,312.70 $0.00 $0.00
64 $27,877.60 $0.00 $0.00
65 $34,190.00 $0.00 $0.00
66 $40,259.61 $9,483.77 $0.00
67 $46,095.78 $18,602.79 $0.00
68 $51,707.48 $27,371.07 $0.00
69 $57,103.35 $35,802.11 $0.00
70 $62,291.68 $43,908.88 $0.00
71 $67,280.46 $51,703.85 $11,068.86
72 $72,077.37 $59,199.02 $21,711.99
73 $76,689.78 $66,405.91 $31,945.78
74 $81,124.78 $73,335.61 $41,785.95
75 $85,389.22 $79,998.78 $51,247.66
76 $89,489.63 $86,405.68 $60,345.45
77 $93,432.34 $92,566.16 $69,093.33
78 $97,223.40 $98,489.70 $77,504.76
79 $100,868.65 $104,185.40 $85,592.66
80 $104,373.71 $109,662.05 $93,369.50
81 $107,743.95 $114,928.05 $100,847.22
82 $110,984.57 $119,991.52 $108,037.34
83 $114,100.54 $124,860.23 $114,950.92
84 $117,096.68 $129,541.69 $121,598.59
85 $119,977.57 $134,043.09 $127,990.58
86 $122,747.67 $138,371.36 $134,136.72
87 $125,411.22 $142,533.16 $140,046.48
88 $127,972.33 $146,534.89 $145,728.93
89 $130,434.93 $150,382.71 $151,192.83
90 $132,802.82 $154,082.53 $156,446.58

In this case, you'd want to delay as long as possible only if you expect to live to 89, and would take it as early as possible if you expect to live to 75 or less.

Obviously individual circumstances vary, and I have no idea what discount rate or assumptions are appropriate for anyone, and I'm not in any way a financial planner. I'm also not commenting on anyone's decisions, ultimately, if spending it now seems like the best plan, have at 'er.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by polak

Completely agree. Sliver (it should be silver) was talking in absolutes saying that all of those who wish to travel in their youth are making a big mistake but I do understand that travelling and living it up isn't for everyone.

polak I don't care what people say behind your back, you are my buddy.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah, future needs that you don't even know if you'll be around to meet.

This perspective changes once you have kids. If I'm not around but they are, having extra financial resources/life insurance is key. It's one thing to make them pay for their own school/downpayment, another thing to leave them destitute orphans...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by heep223

Totally valid. Most "advisors" simply are terrible. Set it up yourself and use ETFs if you can, and rebalance one or twice / year. You can easily create a global portfolio across asset classes for like 0.1% in fees.

Check out this website:

http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/

And if you don't like doing any work go buy a balanced mutual fund pretty much anywhere. Most of the big 5 or your local credit union or whatever will have some stuff available with little or no commission.

My two cents is that while you have less than $100k or even $250 or $500k you are probably better off not paying large transaction fees. And if you're like most people ETFs or online brokerages seem daunting and can get you into a lot of trouble if you follow bad advice. A balanced fund, or something with 60-70% equity and 30-40% bonds and such, will probably do fine for most people who don't have a ton of savings/RSP/TFSAs and don't want high fees.

Yeah the MERs aren't exactly cheap but you'll probably avoid commission if you buy some front end sales charge at 0% commission. Even if there are some DSCs you can avoid them by holding the fund for a while, which won't be a problem if you have a decent portfolio fund that gives you Cdn/US/Int exposure and some safe stuff to keep you from getting all suicidal when the markets are down.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

this thread makes me sad....

we have what i would imagine is a very decent middle/upper middle case family income. However, with the house mortgage, 2 kids (resp, childcare, etc), car costs (1 car paid off, 1 on lease (<350/month), and then dumping just under 10% of our income into RRSPs (crappy mutual funds), we are saving a very small amount month to month. This year, is brutal with the wife being on mat leave, luckily it's a one off, and i think we're done having any more kids.

The rrsp is our biggest nest egg, but it's in a crappy vehicle, and i'm really unsure on where to put this, and how to move this optimally without incurring transfer fees, etc. I'm also being stretched way too thin, between working 60-70 hour weeks this past year, while having a new born and toddler at home, so i know it sounds like the stupidest/laziest excuse ever (which i admit it still is) i just cant' find the time to even go out and do the research to figure this out better.

i've been saying i'll get this sorted as soon as things settle down, but i said that when i exited my 20s, and were almost 5 years past .

Living in toronto, i really want to get into owning some rental properties but en would prefer to have saved up some decent equity in the home or thru income to pay for that, which again requires time.

i suppose at the end of the day, i need to create time to read up on these things. i'm reluctant to go to an advisor as it just feels like a commission based sales guy approach, and i don't really have anyone that i talk to openly about these personal topics in my surrondings (parents not very strong in this area either).

Take this suggestion with a grain of salt.

I hate mutual funds and GICs with a passion the crappy rates of return and the fees... ugh. It's an awful vehicle IMO. After high interest savings accounts, the next investment I suggest that is reasonably conservative and not a rip off, is a Canadian Bank stock.

You can buy it, and forget it. Every once in a while figure out what to do with the cash dividends (might be able to auto reinvest it in its own stock for no additional fees). Canadian stocks aren't sexy, but should reasonably expected to pay dividends that don't cut and should give you a decent increase in value until the day you retire. You'll even be able to learn about how to do stocks while acquiring them without having to monitor and be worried every day.

http://www.fool.ca/2016/02/01/should...-in-your-rrsp/ (recent one)

Again, it's not a perfect suggestion, but IMO, TD, RY, NA, BNS, BMO aren't bad options to constantly purchase as stocks in an RRSP until you have the time to figure out something else you want to invest in. Transactions fees are like $10 each time now which isn't to pricey.

[malcolmk14]

My girlfriend and I both have decent salaries and we each save about 25% of our pre-tax income. We're pretty lucky to have the salaries we do and are saving a lot just in case one or both of those salaries is suddenly gone.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It wasn't him. It was hockeyilliterate and it's an absolute fantasy to think that's achievable for anything other than a very small minority.

Presumably, by 'professionals' he meant a surgeon and lawyer couple with no kids.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I've never understood why people think travel is a reasonable expense. It's fine after savings are taken care of, but to prioritize travel over retirement seems crazy. You're just screwing over yourself.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think you necessarily need to be in a different physical location that is expensive to get to in order to enjoy life.

Not all travel is to expensive places. I went to Europe by myself when I was 19. Saved up the money working for a year in a loading dock. All in, with plane tickets and rail passes and what I spent for three months backpacking and staying in hostels, it cost $5,000. And it was the best $5,000 I've ever spent. Those memories, and how I grew as a person on that trip, were invaluable.

I did the same thing again when I was 24. Again, lifelong memories and a tremendous growth experience.

I could have put that $10k away, and it might be $40k by the time I retire. Don't care. I won't be able to backpack all over the world when I'm 67.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

My girlfriend and I both have decent salaries and we each save about 25% of our pre-tax income. We're pretty lucky to have the salaries we do and are saving a lot just in case one or both of those salaries is suddenly gone.

Enjoy this till you have ur kids 😊

[Red]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I feel like this thread has a lack of poorly formatted spreadsheets posted by me, so I thought I'd take a stab at this one. Taking CPP early reduces your payout by 0.6% for every month you take it early. So taking it 60 months early (at age 60 instead of 65) will result in a 36% reduction in your benefits. Taking it late increases your payout by 0.7% for every month you take it late, or a 42% increase to your benefits if you wait until 70 to take it.

Some other considerations:

• Higher CPP payments could impact eligibility for OAS/GIS payments in retirement
• If you're still working from 60-65, your income in those years will also increase your CPP payout
• CPP is inflation adjusted and government guaranteed, which makes it an excellent source of retirement income, and hard to replace with other investments
• You might die without collecting if you wait

On to the spreadsheet. I've calculated the present value for 3 options, taking the CPP at 60, 65 and 70. I have arbitrarily assumed that the CPP entitlement would be $1000/month at 65, and that it won't affect either GIS or OAS. Generally speaking, unless your income is low you won't get GIS, and unless it high you will get OAS. Most people probably fit this assumption. If you don't, I'm a guy on a message board, get your own financial planner. The first spreadsheet just adds up the payments, basically it assumes you spend the money as you get it, and that you're trying to get as much total money from the government as possible.

Start Age 60 65 70
Monthly Payment 640 1000 1420
Age of Death Present Value Present Value Present Value
61 $7,680 $0 $0
62 $15,360 $0 $0
63 $23,040 $0 $0
64 $30,720 $0 $0
65 $38,400 $0 $0
66 $46,080 $12,000 $0
67 $53,760 $24,000 $0
68 $61,440 $36,000 $0
69 $69,120 $48,000 $0
70 $76,800 $60,000 $0
71 $84,480 $72,000 $17,040
72 $92,160 $84,000 $34,080
73 $99,840 $96,000 $51,120
74 $107,520 $108,000 $68,160
75 $115,200 $120,000 $85,200
76 $122,880 $132,000 $102,240
77 $130,560 $144,000 $119,280
78 $138,240 $156,000 $136,320
79 $145,920 $168,000 $153,360
80 $153,600 $180,000 $170,400
81 $161,280 $192,000 $187,440
82 $168,960 $204,000 $204,480
83 $176,640 $216,000 $221,520
84 $184,320 $228,000 $238,560
85 $192,000 $240,000 $255,600
86 $199,680 $252,000 $272,640
87 $207,360 $264,000 $289,680
88 $215,040 $276,000 $306,720
89 $222,720 $288,000 $323,760
90 $230,400 $300,000 $340,800

For this case, if you live past 82 you'd want to defer it as long as possible, and if you die before 73 you'd want to take it as early as possible.

However, that ignores the time value of money. Money now is worth more than money later. The following table uses 4% as a discount rate for the present value. It's lower than the rate I would normally use, but CPP is inflation adjusted, so the actual rate is 4% plus inflation. Essentially, that assumes assets you're using to live off instead of taking CPP early earn 4% + inflation. If you use a lower rate, it makes waiting look better, while a higher rate makes taking it early look better.

Start Age 60 65 70
Monthly Payment 640 1000 1420
Age of Death Present Value Present Value Present Value
61 $7,384.62 $0.00 $0.00
62 $14,485.21 $0.00 $0.00
63 $21,312.70 $0.00 $0.00
64 $27,877.60 $0.00 $0.00
65 $34,190.00 $0.00 $0.00
66 $40,259.61 $9,483.77 $0.00
67 $46,095.78 $18,602.79 $0.00
68 $51,707.48 $27,371.07 $0.00
69 $57,103.35 $35,802.11 $0.00
70 $62,291.68 $43,908.88 $0.00
71 $67,280.46 $51,703.85 $11,068.86
72 $72,077.37 $59,199.02 $21,711.99
73 $76,689.78 $66,405.91 $31,945.78
74 $81,124.78 $73,335.61 $41,785.95
75 $85,389.22 $79,998.78 $51,247.66
76 $89,489.63 $86,405.68 $60,345.45
77 $93,432.34 $92,566.16 $69,093.33
78 $97,223.40 $98,489.70 $77,504.76
79 $100,868.65 $104,185.40 $85,592.66
80 $104,373.71 $109,662.05 $93,369.50
81 $107,743.95 $114,928.05 $100,847.22
82 $110,984.57 $119,991.52 $108,037.34
83 $114,100.54 $124,860.23 $114,950.92
84 $117,096.68 $129,541.69 $121,598.59
85 $119,977.57 $134,043.09 $127,990.58
86 $122,747.67 $138,371.36 $134,136.72
87 $125,411.22 $142,533.16 $140,046.48
88 $127,972.33 $146,534.89 $145,728.93
89 $130,434.93 $150,382.71 $151,192.83
90 $132,802.82 $154,082.53 $156,446.58

In this case, you'd want to delay as long as possible only if you expect to live to 89, and would take it as early as possible if you expect to live to 75 or less.

Obviously individual circumstances vary, and I have no idea what discount rate or assumptions are appropriate for anyone, and I'm not in any way a financial planner. I'm also not commenting on anyone's decisions, ultimately, if spending it now seems like the best plan, have at 'er.

Great breakdown, thanks for doing this.

Sadly it's a gamble either way, we don't know how long we will live. I'd say this becomes less of an issue if the CPP is only a part of your retirement income. In that case it might make more sense to take it early so you can "use it while you still can".

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I recently had a financial mid life crisis. Slava to the rescue! Not that I was in bad shape, just started to realize I am old. Like a year end project suddenly approaching, it was time to do more than think about it.

Anyway, 2 things to add if they are of value to anyone else.
- I think at some point a financial advisor makes sense. Once your money starts to get close to earning as much as you add in savings, I think you have to be a lot more thoughtful. Or once you start to think about how it is going to come out not just go in. In my case for example I should have been putting more into a spousal rrsp. First world problem, but still.
- I liked this article and the calculator http://www.moneysense.ca/save/retire...gs-calculator/. It's not completely intuitive but I like the notion of 'life cycle smoothing' and getting a plan to balance your current lifestyle and future lifestyle.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by heep223

Totally valid. Most "advisors" simply are terrible. Set it up yourself and use ETFs if you can, and rebalance one or twice / year. You can easily create a global portfolio across asset classes for like 0.1% in fees.

Check out this website:

http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/

I'm all for people looking after their own portfolios. If they bleed, sweat and cry over their pay check money they should spend a bit more time on their saved money. Apologies in advance for my big fat opinion but I don't think buying a portfolio of ETF's accomplishes diversification anymore. They are so widely traded now that the individual stocks they contain often move in correlation by the ETF buying. Like the tail wagging the dog. So you're not really buying yourself a basket or diversity any more. And if you're not knowledgeable about managing risk you can get chewed up just as easily as if you had bought individual stocks. If the average person is going to do this, and by all means they should, they should have some sort of strategy that includes risk management which includes a prescribed risk tolerance. Rebalancing sure, but big loses like 2008 and like what is possible now, will still wipe you out across all sectors and classes.

[peter12]

Did somebody actually recommend buying a Canadian Bank Stock?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by heep223

Totally valid. Most "advisors" simply are terrible. Set it up yourself and use ETFs if you can, and rebalance one or twice / year. You can easily create a global portfolio across asset classes for like 0.1% in fees.

Check out this website:

http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/

Comments like this along with one earlier from peter12 (saying that you shouldn't pay advisors 2.7%...when no one is paying their advisor 2.7%!) just irritate me. Sure, its my profession, so I have a bias, but the evidence for financial advice is pretty definitive.

Not only are there numerous studies about people saving more and being more financially secure with an advisor, but there are other issues with people doing things on their own.

First, I think its a little disingenuous of the financial industry to suggest that everyone just use ETFs. Frankly a lot of people have no understanding of how mutual funds work, or how stocks and the stock market works...so we're going to combine these ideas and add some complexity to the mix so they can do it on their own now? What could possibly go wrong?

Second, as we've no doubt seen in this thread and in our lives over the past year or two, people have next to no idea how to build a proper portfolio for their investments. They buy too many assets in their home country and invest in things that they don't understand. They fail to properly recognize risk, and as long as the markets are rising that is great...but the markets aren't always rising.

I could go on for a while, but let me just say a couple things with regard to the couch potato portfolio. First of all, the whole thing is based on William Sharpe and the "global markets" that he was referencing. The fact is that none of the portfolios that are advocated by the CCP site accurately reflect that portfolio though; essentially what you're getting is a watered down attempt to mimic it, and its not close. There are numerous asset classes missing, and even though the entire system is based on this global markets portfolio there are numerous deviations. One is the idea of "just adding more bonds" to make things lower risk. There are a number of problems with this (which I will explain in a minute), but the original global markets portfolio wasn't adjusted by bonds for risk at all. It was to suggest the entire globe of investment options. So realistically the idea of adding bonds is just pure asset allocation (and lazy asset allocation at that).

So let me digress into the use of bond indexes and why its less than ideal. I looked at the Vanguard mandates in case you want to follow along because I am most familiar with Vanguard and they are a global leader in ETFs. So the first thing you note is that they recommend VAB, which is a Canadian Aggregate Bond Index. So the first issue is that to represent a global portfolio we need more than just Canadian bonds. Of course they're trying to keep things simple, and I understand that, but to me that criticism still holds. Second here are some more broad reasons why indexing bonds is not the same as indexing equities and why you want to be careful (in no particular order):

- Bond indexes can be weighted heavily towards those issuers who borrow the most. That means that if one issuer goes to the market a lot, you buy the index and are weighted there more than others. This can distort the credit and risk quality of the index, often without the retail investor being aware.

- Bond indexes are reconstituted quarterly or sometimes annually, but the bond market changes more frequently. What that means is that this index can have some lag in actually representing the current scenarios. Again the concern is that the risk in the bond index is not quite representative of the broader market.

- Many bonds have no secondary market at all; they're sold once and held to maturity. So what that means is that they are represented in the index.

- Bond indexes might look the same from the outside, but there can be significant differences. You have some that include options (callable and putable bonds) and others do not. Some might have sinking funds and others do not. Its a big difference in the actual make-up of the bond index.

Anyway, suffice it to say there are better ways to do this. I know its the seemingly easy way to just buy some indexes and call it a day, but I wonder what kind of downside protection you get from these mandates. Don't even get me started on the model portfolios given from Tangerine and the TD e-Series either; its pure asset allocation dressed up as a global index.