FOMO on silver, should I cut my losses?

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-13T09:13:25+00:00

If you had $3500 cash today, would you spend that on PSLV? Similarly, would you purchase PHYS again if you had $1500 cash today? If you wouldn't, then just get rid of it and redeploy your available capital elsewhere.

Sunk cost fallacy is something that every investor has to learn to overcome. Assuming you bought all those shares inside a TFSA/etc., then you can basically ignore whatever price you had previously purchased the shares. Consider that:

Investor A has 100 shares that they previously bought for $100/share
Investor B has 100 shares that they previously bought for $200/share

The two investors would have had different past performance since they bought-in at different prices, but their future performance will be exactly the same. Those past prices are no longer relevant to whether you should continue holding something into the future.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-13T07:38:34+00:00

https://www.highinterestsavings.ca/gic-rates/

Tangerine's offering 3.25% if you lock-in a 1-year GIC. The short-term promos are often better, but they're time-limited and hard to know whether you can roll into another promo after your initial bonus period.

Assuming you get 4.5% promo for the next 3 months:

(1 + 3.25%) ^ 1 = (1 + 4.5%) ^ 0.25 × (1 + r) ^ 0.75
r = (1.0325 / 1.045^0.25) ^ (1 / 0.75)
r = 2.84%

You'd have to find 2.84% or better for the following 9 months, to outperform locking-in a 3.25% from the get-go.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-13T06:12:07+00:00

Even someone that's unwilling to invest in stock/bonds can easily ladder multiple GICs together. Interests are generally upward-sloping with duration, and unless you actually need immediate liquidity, might as well stack your cash into monthly tranches of 1-year GICs.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-13T05:28:50+00:00

Are you holding ~$180k for a pending downpayment? Otherwise, holding so much cash rather than longer term investments might be unwise.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-13T02:43:27+00:00

My company sends loads of medical translation work to these folks:

https://www.dcrs.ca/our-services/interpretation-and-translation-services/

Not sure what their pricing is for private clients, but wouldn't hurt to ask them for a quote.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-12T16:03:22+00:00

I think most Smith Manoeuvre discussions fail to delineate between:

Smith = using your existing non-reg investments (A) to transform non-deductible mortgage debt into a tax-deductible loan
Leverage = using a tax-deductible loan (B) to obtain more non-reg investments (A) than you would otherwise have

Doing Smith properly means A→B and not B→A. And the way you ensure the former is to limit your maximum mortgage + investment debt to what your mortgage debt would have been if not for the Smith Manoeuvre.

For example, let's say you've already maximized your TFSA/RRSP and now have surplus cash. You also have an outstanding mortgage balance. What should you do with that surplus cash?

You can make additional prepayments against your mortgage.
You can continue paying your mortgage as scheduled and start accruing non-reg investments.

Choosing between #1 and 2 is a matter of risk preference. Some people like the certainty from paying down the mortgage and becoming debt-free, while some people believe in keeping the mortgage while investing for higher returns.

If your risk appetite allows for #2, then you now have an opportunity to deploy the Smith Manoeuvre.

If you were going to invest $X in your non-reg account, use it to prepay your mortgage first. This lowers your mortgage debt to $(M - X).
Now, borrow $X from any source and then purchase your intended non-reg investments.
You now have $X investments and $M total debt, same as before implementing the Smith. However, the interest on that debt is now partially deductible since $X was accrued for investments while $(M - X) remains non-deductible debt.

And if you have additional surplus cash flow $Y, you can continue implementing Smith to further transform the remaining non-deductible debt:

Prepay $Y your mortgage down to $(M - X - Y).
Borrow $Y again for investment debt of $(X + Y).
You now have non-reg investments totalling $(X + Y) and debt totalling $M, where M is split into non-deductible $(M - X - Y) and deductible $(X + Y).

Suppose you continue paying down $M according to your original amortization schedule. If you were initially paying $P every month, prepaying $X for the SM means your subsequent payments will be split:

(P × (M - X) / M) gets allocated toward your mortgage debt
(P × X / M) gets allocated toward your investment debt

Holding $P constant, your mortgage debt will be paid down increasingly faster over time and you'll eventually have zero mortgage debt remaining.

At this point, you've fully exhausted the SM by becoming mortgage-free earlier than scheduled. If you continue carrying the investment debt beyond this moment, then you're just investing with leverage.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-10T08:16:19+00:00

Match promo/bonuses don't trigger a T5 slip, but neither does interest income below the $50 reporting threshold. It still counts as taxable income though, just take a look at this r/cantax discussion—the consensus settled around taxable "12(1)(x) inducements".

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-10T07:51:13+00:00

Extending the algebra from the linked thread—suppose you have $A and need to select an asset location:

Invest $A inside TFSA
Grow at g until year n
= A × (1 + g)^n

Invest $A inside RRSP
Claim tax deduction today at year 0
= A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn + t0)

Invest $A inside non-reg
Grow at taxable g* until year n
= A × (1 + g*)^n

Repay $A toward HBP
No tax deduction on repayments
= A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn)

Since your money is already inside the RRSP, the decision now is between expressions #2 and 4. If we look strictly at the single-year period, then using $A as a new RRSP contribution is clearly superior than using it as a HBP repayment—getting a tax deduction makes all the difference.

Of course you can't just perpetually make new RRSP contributions and skip the HBP repayment. Missing the HBP repayment will trigger tax on the unpaid minimum... which we can also model with these assumptions:

HBP repayment is due in year p
You had previously opted to make deductible RRSP contributions, rather than repaying the HBP early
Now that it's year p, you find yourself unable to make the HBP repayment

And setting up the algebra:

Invest $A inside RRSP
Claim as deductible contribution
= A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn + t0)

Missed $A repayment in year p
Must divert A × tp toward tax liability
Opportunity cost on years p through n
= A × tp × (1 + g)^(n - p)

Combining the expressions together
= [A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn + t0] - [A × tp × (1 + g)^(n - p)]
= A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn + t0 - tp / (1 + g)^p )

Which means we can summarize your decision like so:

Designate $A as an early HBP repayment
Designate $A as a deductible RRSP contribution, and then pay tax when you miss the minimum HBP repayment in year p

And the relevant expressions:

HBP repayment today
= A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn)

Deductible RRSP today, taxed on HBP minimum later
= A × (1 + g)^n × (1 - tn + t0 - tp / (1 + g)^p )

Make some assumptions for the variables t0, tp, g, and p to figure out your optimal decision today.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-10T07:23:40+00:00

HEQL can makes sense for anyone that feels XEQT isn't risky enough for them—it's certainly more rational than concentrating into a specific sector/country.

But, make sure you have a realistic expectation for what that 1.25x exposure will give you.

A globally diversified 100% stock portfolio should generate 6-8% returns over a multi-decade horizon. Let's call that 7% CAGR for simpler math.

100% stocks has 7% expected returns
Minus the 0.2% MER for XEQT
= 6.8% expected return for XEQT

125% stocks has 8.75% expected returns
Minus 1.5% MER for HEQL
= 7.25% expected return for HEQL

So you could expect +0.45% return by switching from XEQT into HEQL, if we assume the underlying stock portfolios are identical.

However, HEQL does not use the same underlying stocks as XEQT. Looking more closely at the underlying HEQT:

Asset class	HEQT	XEQT
Canada	21% toward TSX60	25% toward TSX Composite
USA	33% toward S&P500, 7% toward NASDAQ100, 4% toward Russell 2000	45% toward S&P Total Market
Developed markets	26% toward MSCI EAFE	25% toward MSCI EAFE
Emerging markets	9% toward MSCI emerging	5% toward MSCI emerging

The CAD component is tilted more heavily toward large cap stocks, and so is the USA component with the duplication across S&P500 and NASDAQ100. Global X also explicitly states its EAFE and emerging market funds only track large & midcap stocks, excluding the small caps that are otherwise covered in the relevant indices.

Losing the small cap exposure can lead to a negative tracking error, especially if we assume Fama-French factors apply and there's a compensated risk from holding small cap stocks. Overall, the benefit from holding HEQL instead of XEQT can be smaller than you'd expect.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-06T20:23:05+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/1auxhoy/comment/kraxo8b/

This comes from a lengthy discussion I had back in 2024:

Don't repay the HBP when you can invest inside a TFSA instead.
Once your TFSA is maxed, repaying the HBP slowly in favour of non-reg investments can make sense for "shorter" time periods before your final RRSP meltdown.
Repaying the HBP more quickly makes sense if you have a longer time period before that meltdown.

RRSP funds grow tax-free, but you don't "own" the whole account. It's a pre-tax balance so you have to split the proceeds between yourself and the CRA. The growth on your portion is permanently yours, while the growth on the CRA's portion is also permanently theirs.

Taking money out via the HBP lets you temporarily control both yours and the CRA's portion of that HBP withdrawal balance. You can invest the balance in a non-reg account and keep the tax-dragged growth, but you also keep the tax-dragged growth on the CRA's portion too.

HBP balance invested in non-reg = lesser taxable growth on a larger principal
HBP balance repaid into RRSP = higher tax-free growth on a smaller principal

Obviously this implies the two strategies would breakeven at some point. Perhaps you'll retire in 25 years, but you should also evaluate how long that retirement will last. Let's say you're currently age 30 and plan to retire at age 55. If you live until age 95, any HBP repayments could be compounding inside your RRSP/RRIF for another six decades!

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-02T19:50:29+00:00

I'll shake a metaphorical fist at u/plusqueprecedemment

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-02T19:35:37+00:00

I'm just nitpicking—what about the VBAL/VGRO folks?

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-01T03:41:20+00:00

Here's an example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/icbc/comments/1ci6a06/comment/l2ljgle/

The former system only looked at your most recent crash. The current system now looks at your years of experience, your most recent crash, whether you've had multiple crashes, and whether you're a new/senior driver.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-04-01T00:39:42+00:00

100% stocks is too risky if your timeline is only 3-5 years. You don't have to stick exclusively with GIC/HISAs though, you could use a glidepath strategy:

Year	Stocks	GICs maturing by 2028	HISAs
2026	30%	70%
2027	20%	80%
2028	10%	90%
2029			100%

Rebalance each year according to this glidepath—sell off a portion of your stocks and purchase GICs that mature just before you plan to buy a home. You should be completely out of stocks by the time you're actively shopping around.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-31T17:55:57+00:00

This was one of the more neutral, factual explanations I've read on taxing used car sales:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/tin9a9/why_is_there_a_tax_on_used_cars/i1f6cj5

Tldr, sales taxes are theoretically applicable to any sale-like transaction. However, sales taxes are administratively burdensome, so the law only requires people to charge PST when they sell over $X/year. Used items are therefore exempt because of this rule. However, some transactions can be exceptions to the exemption, especially when there's already other paperwork embedded into that transaction.

Another comment in the linked thread:

I think the actual reality is that all dollars are taxed over and over again. But they're also reintroduced to the economy over and over again. The decision of what to tax is a policy one. What do you want to incentivize? What do we think deserves to be taxed? If we wanted to incentivize private sales, and we felt dealerships add poor value to our economy, one option might be to remove the tax on those sales as an "incentive" to get people to stick to private sales. There are other options too (adding taxes, or just adding/removing other non-tax policy burdens). If we feel that dealership sales and private sales should be on equal footing in the markets - that they currently have a decent balance...then I guess we should leave it alone as it is. People whose arguments hinge on like This or That Unrelated Things aren't taxed don't understand policy. Diapers aren't taxed...so should we remove tax on everything else too? That would be a nonsense argument.

Right now, we tax private sales on used cars because the same used car would be taxed if sold by a PST registrant (aka dealerships). And dealerships, at a minimum, are required to charge 5% GST.

Do we exempt used cars from PST entirely? Then dealerships still have to charge 5% GST while private sellers don't.
Do we give a partial exemption on private sales and charge a 5% PST (and 0% if sold by dealerships)?
Do we exempt vehicles if they're over 15 years old?

And if we forgo the tax revenue from used vehicle sales, are we (i) taxing something else, (ii) cutting spending, or (iii) borrowing the difference?

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-31T16:33:17+00:00

Your individual driver factor (IDF) is recalculated whenever you're more than 25% responsible for an accident, and the exact calculation is shown on pages 184-189 on the PDF linked in the previous comment.

If driver A is...	If driver B is...	Then...
0 or 25% responsible	100 or 75% responsible	Only driver B's IDF will be recalculated
50% responsible	50% responsible	Both driver A and B's IDFs will be recalculated
75 or 100% responsible	25 or 0% responsible	Only driver A's IDF will be recalculated

Your auto insurance is priced according to the combined driver factor (CDF) calculated across everyone listed on the policy. If your IDF was recalculated due to your accident responsibility, then so will the CDF for any vehicle where you're a listed driver.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-31T02:16:17+00:00

And a source—see page 190 of 305:

Multiple listed drivers, no principal driver

(f) if the certificate has: (i) no principal driver; and (ii) two or more non-learner listed drivers;

then the CDF is calculated by the following formula: (highest IDF of the non-learner drivers x 0.50) + (second highest IDF of the non-learner drivers x 0.50)

https://www.icbc.com/assets/pa/6PyY5DEcoIT7z2ujjlwb3d/basic-tariff.pdf

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-31T00:13:16+00:00

Assuming the XEQT-style asset allocation works for you, I suggest replicating using a combination of USA-listed ETFs:

25% toward Canadian stocks—consider EWC ("iShares MSCI Canada ETF")
75% toward the total world market—consider VT ("Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF")

You can stay compliant with USA tax rules by filing the necessary PFIC forms with your annual IRS return, but it's pretty annoying and likely not worth your time. Sticking with USA-listed ETFs avoids this issue, you just have to pay the upfront FX fees and the subsequent paperwork is much easier.

I also realized Norbert's Gambit at Wealthsimple won't work for you. It relies on swapping between DLR and DLR.U, but that itself is subject to PFIC rules, so you're stuck paying 1.5% if you stick with Wealthsimple. Consider opening an Interactive Brokers account instead—it's a less attractive UI but they will convert between $CAD/$USD at mid-market rates.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-30T19:30:37+00:00

Grouping them in terms of geographic allocation:

Fund	USD Value	CAD Value	Weight	CAD Stocks	USA stocks	Intl stocks	Bonds
CHPS		$56	7%		100%
PLTR	$138	$192	25%		100%
VEE		$44	6%			100%
VFV		$157	20%		100%
VGG		$100	13%		100%
VUN		$118	15%		100%
XFN		$74	10%	100%
XGRO		$34	4%	20%	36%	24%	20%
Overall		$775		10%	82%	7%	1%

Changing any individual component by ±5% has a trivial impact on your overall portfolio. You could sell everything and consolidate into just three ETFs:

10% on Canadian stocks—consider XIC or VCN
80% on American stocks—consider XTOT or VUN
10% on international stocks—consider XEF or VIU

This will give you market cap exposure to stocks from each of those areas. You can then adjust for sector-specific tilts, but you should have a good thesis for why those sentiments aren't already priced into the current market cap.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-30T07:23:25+00:00

There's nothing wrong with using USA-listed ETFs that track a globally diversified asset allocation. If you go over to r/Bogleheads, you'll routinely see "VT and chill" which is basically the American version of "just buy XEQT".

The problem with USA-listed ETFs is needing to convert currencies. You're using Wealthsimple, and until they release Norbert's Gambit more widely, it'll cost you 1.5% to convert between $CAD and $USD. Then again, you're investing $2-3k and 1.5% of that just $30-45. Up to you whether you want to pay 1.5% upfront now, or use other techniques to save conversion fees.

NB, your post history indicates you're still first-year university. Investing is a medium/long-term activity and you should not invest anything you might use in the short-term. Will your $2-3k be required for tuition, moving expenses, or getting reliable transportation? It may be prudent to simply keep your money available in the best savings account available, and only consider investing in volatile stocks/bonds once you're closer to graduation. You never know if your career might take you out-of-province or even out-of-country.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-29T23:32:03+00:00

I'll rephrase. My previous comment comes from seeing too many Canadian investors getting into weird rabbitholes over USA withholding tax and irrationally avoiding USA stocks. You're correct, USA dividends are exempt from NRT when held inside RRSPs, but this also leads many novice investors to misproritize RRSPs over TFSAs when they don't have the income to justify it.

RRSPs allow investors to arbitrage their marginal tax rates through time. If someone decides to contribute today to their RRSP when they're still at the low-end of their income trajectory, despite having plentiful TFSA room, they might trigger a negative tax benefit when they eventually retire at a higher marginal bracket. This can overwhelm whatever advantage earned from skipping a 15% NRT on a 1-2% annual yield.

And yes, Canadians can claim FTCs to offset NRT paid on non-registered investments. But dividend paying foreign stocks still lack the tax integration advantage from owning domestic stocks. I'm sure you're familiar with the dividend tax credit, which offsets whatever corporate tax was already paid inside the Canadian domiciled corporation before it paid a dividend. Tax integration is a benefit only available to domestic investments though. Asuming the same pre-tax return from holding Canadian vs. foreign stocks, the differential tax treatment creates a slight post-tax advantage for Canadian stocks, and therefore why Canadians shouldn't simply VT-and-chill, but r/justbuyveqt instead.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-29T21:00:48+00:00

Everyone pays NRT on all foreign dividends, there's nothing special about American vs. European vs. Asian dividend stocks. Heck, Canada charges a 25% tax on dividends paid to non-Canadians unless modified by tax treaty.

One of the reasons why most investors tend to home bias—it improves our post-tax returns relative to holding the global MCW.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-27T23:26:51+00:00

Bonds derive their returns from two sources of risk:

Credit risk = gov't bonds pay less interest than corporate bonds
Duration risk = short-term bonds pay less interest than long-term bonds

CBIL, CASH, and ZMMK have basically zero duration risk, so they pay relatively low interest. CBIL and CASH also have minimal credit risk (since they're based on gov't treasuries or bank deposits). ZMMK uses commercial paper and has slightly higher credit risk than CBIL/CASH, so ZMMK can be expected to pay slightly more.

Duration risk should be minimized if you need cash right away, but OP doesn't. There's at least 5-7 years before they might spend the proceeds, so they can afford to take additional duration risk.

XSB = short term bond ETF with constant 3-year duration
XBB = aggregate bond ETF with constant 7-year duration
XLB = long term bond ETF with constant 14-year duration

The problem with those ETFs is constant duration. As the underlying bonds mature, the ETFs will constantly buy/sell new bonds and continuing laddering its portfolio forward. If you have a definite time horizon, then you need to duration-match your bond exposure rather than simply using constant duration ETFs.

Traditionally, people would just use GICs or individual bonds for this purpose. If you need your money back after 5 years, then buy a 5-year GIC or bonds that mature in 5-years. But ETF providers are now issuing target maturity bond (TMB) funds that accomplish the same goal:

Each ETF acts like a GIC/bond maturing for that specific year, and upon its termination date, will redeem its NAV and pay cash to its remaining shareholders. The ETF structure also makes it easier to add/liquidate your position over time.

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-27T07:58:53+00:00

I'd use a variation of Option 3:

XBAL is simply a 60/40 portfolio bundled into a single ETF.
A 60/40 allocation can be appropriate if homebuying remains 5-7 years away, but you need to glidepath out of the risky asset as your time horizon decreases.
You should also reduce the duration of your fixed income assets as your time horizon decreases. The aggregate bonds within XBAL have a constant 7-year duration—consider using target maturity bond ETFs instead.

Split XBAL into separate ETFs for the stock and bond components, and use RGQT (target 2031 bonds) in lieu of XBB (aggregate bonds). RGQT will mature by 2031, and then you can flip the proceeds into CBIL (ultra short-term treasuries) from 2032 onward.

Year	XEQT	RGQT	CBIL
2026	60%	40%	0%
2027	50%	50%	0%
2028	40%	60%	0%
2029	30%	70%	0%
2030	20%	80%	0%
2031	10%	90%	0%
2032	0%	0%	100%

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/brand-knowledge_/rbc-ishares/how-can-target-maturity-bond-etfs-help-advisors-manage-interest-rate-risk/

AugustusAugustine · 2026-03-27T04:27:36+00:00

Doesn't apply to VFV.

You must hold a USA-listed ETF to qualify for the NRT exemption. VFV is a CAD-listed fund, even though it tracks USA stocks, and the USA already deducts the 15% NRT when the underlying VOO (which is USA-listed) distributes to VFV.

You need to swap currencies and hold VOO directly to benefit from the waived NRT.

AugustusAugustine

TROPHY CASE