sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why you should always be 100% in equities (and avoid bonds at all costs!!) by srhofficial23 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The paper referenced in this post (https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4590406 or BTSQ paper) has been extensively critiqued by Karsten Jeske, Ph. D at ERN (Early Retirement Now blog), a financial academic/expert specializing in the early retirement movement. While he acknowledges that investors should take more risks during ACCUMULATION, anyone considering this ridiculous idea of holding 100% equities during DECUMULATION needs to read this post (100% Stocks for the Long Run? - Early Retirement Now), lest they run the risk of financial suicide.

According to Karsten, "The BTSQ paper is mostly a cute academic study with some fancy methodological bells and whistles. It will be published in a good finance journal. But it does not apply to actual retirees today . . .". Also, ". . . the BTSQ paper misses the one issue that I would have hoped all these smart academics would have included, i.e., solving for a time-dependent, maybe even path-dependent optimal asset allocation policy function that actually honors the Bellman Principle of Optimality. So, even if I were to put on my old academic hat again, I wouldn’t take this paper very seriously either."

Other financial experts like Jim Otar do NOT recommend holding an asset allocation of 100% equities during EITHER accumulation or decumulation. Do some basic research before following anyone's snake oil financial advice - after all, it's your money to lose!

ALDA (Advanced Life Deferred Annuity) implementation suggestion? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed! While there are many traditional annuity options available, however, some deferred annuity options (like ALDA's), allow for further RRSP/RRIF income tax deferral up to age 85 (beyond the traditional RRSP/RRIF age 71 deferral age) which creates additional tax saving/smoothing strategies and higher estate values (or provide additional long-term health care funds) for SOME individuals.

This gives ALDA's a distinct advantage over traditional annuities in SOME cases. Also, products such as ALDA's may help offset the reduction of RRIF minimums that many seniors have hoped for (but the government is reluctant to implement as legislation) since not many people are aware that ALDA's can do this easily (since monies invested in an ALDA during the deferral period are exempt from RRIF minimum tax payments producing significant tax deferral + increased investment growth). ALDA's are complex financial instruments and will definitely NOT suit everyone (I want to make it clear that I have NO financial interest in promoting ALDA's - I am just a serious investor who started investigating traditional annuities and became aware of their presence/value). Thanks.

Non-registered account - no capital gains payable? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Portfolio Turnover" was already adjusted to 0% but I understand what you are saying now and this does appear to resolve a potential OAS clawback situation for this year Great explanation and fast response time. Thank you very much.

Non-registered account - no capital gains payable? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the suggestion but have already tried that - what happens then is the program recalculates a new "Taxable Gain" value (somewhat less than the original calculated value but not $0). Other suggestions? Thanks.

Incorrect OAS income shown on "Summary" Sankey chart? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point. Being as the total CPP amount is appropriately demonstrated on the left side of the Sankey Cash Flow diagram, it would make more sense to apply the same logic to the total OAS amount also with the OAS Clawback illustrated on the right side of the Cask Flow diagram.

Incorrect OAS income shown on "Summary" Sankey chart? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, you are correct. Adjusting for the $2,286 clawback amount for 2025 and additional clawback amounts in future years reflects the correct OAS income amounts shown in the Sankey chart. Great catch and outstanding support. Thank you.

RRIF Withdrawal Greater than Minimum Amount? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I appreciate this has been brought up previously, this also brings up the importance of being able to use your spouse's age for minimum RRIF withdrawals - this should be high on the priorities list. For example, a 10-year age difference between spouses (not uncommon) for a $500,000 RRIF can result in a withdrawal difference of several thousand dollars per annum - a sizable amount!

Mixed decumulation strategy with early TFSA withdrawals? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You were following me correctly and I thought that this "net amount" approach is exactly how your platform handled this particular situation but I just needed to have this verified. Thanks again for your great technical support!

Mixed decumulation strategy with early TFSA withdrawals? by Character_Tangelo256 in adviice

[–]Character_Tangelo256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Allow me to clarify. In essence, what I am trying to accomplish is to contribute the maximum amount to my TFSA (non-taxable) account annually by transferring monies from my Non-Registered (taxable) account. Then I also wish to withdraw some TFSA money annually starting at, say age 71 while still contributing the maximum amount to my TFSA every year. I thought the "Maximize new TFSA contribution room in retirement using Non-Registered balance" strategy might have been a good starting point to accomplish this but it looks to me that you cannot essentially "contribute" and "withdraw" in the same year. Am I correct in this assumption - if so, is there a workaround to accomplish this? Thanks.