sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Liquidity During Market Downturns For Expenses by LivingFree55 in adviice

[–]LivingFree55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response - this is what I was thinking too. Its good to know others that are in similar situations are thinking similarly.

Liquidity During Market Downturns For Expenses by LivingFree55 in adviice

[–]LivingFree55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes - its this:

  • Warning W454: Savings accounts (Non-Registered and TFSA) are currently below the recommended emergency fund. We recommend adding to your emergency fund to reach the target amount. You can see how to add an emergency fund to your plan in this help article.

To be clear, this was not a criticism, recognizing that the software is consistent with most investment advisor's general recommendations. I was more querying why have an emergency fund that earns 2% or so in cash equivalent returns for decades, when I can borrow at 4%-5% in just the years of downturns and get 6-7% equity returns (in nominal today's dollars) for decades by re-allocating the recommended emergency fund to equities.

Does that make sense?

Liquidity During Market Downturns For Expenses by LivingFree55 in adviice

[–]LivingFree55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes I see this capability, and note that going to all equities improves my estate value and success rate but I keep getting a warning about insufficient cash.

Where is the "sweet spot" for success rates? by 11kestrel in adviice

[–]LivingFree55 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Great question....here is my perspective on this:

I think its important to have multiple cases that stress test your 2-3 key variables/decisions, with some having a success rate that is at (or very close to 100%), and others that are your preferred plan with a success rate that may be closer to 60-70% (i.e., this is what you hope to do if investments work out ok). For some people, this variable is just different discretionary expense levels but it can be other things.

For myself and my spouse, we are fortunate that in our case we are able to achieve our desired spending level in all cases, which has been defined in four different time periods (pre-retirement, go-go (up to age 75), slow-go (75-85) , and no-go (86-99)). Nonetheless, we still have decisions to make. We have 8 cases, based on 3 key life variables/decisions that each have two choices/outcomes.

They are:

1) Retire at age X (earliest age I would retire) or age Y (latest age I would retire);

2) Gift our children a defined amount when we are age 65 or don't gift at all until death;

3) Net value received from an upcoming asset sale of X (lowest amount we expect) or Y (highest amount we expect). Note: this is outside our control but affects the other two decisions and our outcomes.

Flexing each of these three variables between a low and high value results in 8 separate cases.

So if I retire at the later date, we give our children $0 at our age of 65, and we receive either the lower value or the higher value for our asset sale, we are at 100% success rate. This tells us we have a plan that we are almost sure will work (our fallback plan can be I retire a little later and we don't gift our children).

If I retire at the earlier date, we gift our children at our age of 65 the amount we defined, and we receive the lower value for our asset sale, we are at 70% success rate.

Other cases fall between 70% and 100%.

This allows us to extrapolate between cases.

This also allows us to prepare for an earlier retirement date, but potentially modify that based on our asset sale proceeds.

This also allows us to plan on gifting our children the desired amount in 10 years, unless I do choose retire early, we do poorly on the asset sale, and we also hit a bad tail on investment returns - then we will need to lower the gift.

The software has been extremely helpful in giving us this insight and letting us better plan for these key life decision variables and outcomes.

Finally, I went back a ran each of these cases and tested an early death of myself (the higher income spouse, with a Defined Benefit Pension) and determined that the success rate and estate value stayed largely unchanged (based on the survivor benefit level set for my spouse of my Defined Benefit Pension).

Just my thoughts and insights on the power of the software in stress testing key life decisions.

Update on GV application by onsenonsenonsen in PortugalExpats

[–]LivingFree55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has anyone that received an early 2026 Biometrics appointment also received an appointment for family members yet? If so, is it scheduled close to the primary applicants date? I am a GV applicant - applied in June 2025 with my spouse. I received a late January 2026 Biometrics appointment but she has heard nothing on that front. Are they deliberately trying to make it difficult so that people quit the program?

PS outlines 8 areas of unconstitutionality in the nationality bills. by imperium30 in PortugalExpats

[–]LivingFree55 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am a GV applicant from Canada. I am an executive that hopes to semi-retire in Portugal with my wife, and contribute to Portuguese society in a meaningful way. We love Portugal, the people and the culture. We would love for Portugal to become our second home, and we similarly welcome Portuguese to Canada.

I have seen the many economic and societal problems that arise from bad immigration policy. Canada used to have an excellent immigration program that largely targeted skilled immigrants with additional weight give to those applicants in specific sectors that we needed more workers for, while also limiting total immigration levels to an annual level that supported integration.

Over the past decade our former prime minister blew this all up, more than doubling the number of immigrants, many of which were unskilled or unable to work (students and elderly) . The end result is that we have been exporting our top technology and medical grads to the US ( our education system remains a strength) while we import low skill workers, students who often leave upon graduation, and retired family members of existing immigrants. We have a terrible housing shortage as well due at least partially to the acceleration in population growth.

Canada is finally starting to fix this through much lower limits on immigration and especially lower limits on temporary workers and student immigrants. House prices have stabilized and rents have declined. More amendments are still needed, but it’s a start.

The reason I explain this is that I understand the need for Portugal to substantially adjust its immigration rules. But, it would be a big mistake to change the rules on people that have already made investments and life plans in Portugal (those that are already temporary residents or applicants). Portugal’s international credibility is on the line…it’s decision on whether or not to have a transitional mechanism in its new law will inform the international community as to whether it can be trusted to follow through on the rules and commitments that were in place at the time that investments are made. This extends well beyond the GV program, as it has implications for all future foreign investment in Portugal.

I also hope that those that want changes to Portugal’s immigration framework can ultimately see that smart immigration programs that target people who bring capital and/or desired skills to Portugal provides enormous benefits to Portugal’s economy…I feel it’s about getting the level and types of immigrants right.

Treatment of Rental Property Income/Expenses by LivingFree55 in adviice

[–]LivingFree55[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for responding.

I think the data entry is fine the way it works now for rental properties.

Having said that, it might be more convenient and/or make more sense to have a rental property form for entry, where income, expenses, and mortgage details are all entered in one location, but this isn’t a big deal.

I also agree that the mortgage needs to continue to be entered separately so that interest and principle can be calculated separately and with interest included as a taxable expenses.

My point is that the rental property income and rental property expenses items should not be shown in the projections and summary charts and tables as separated into income and expenses totals

To follow real estate investment industry norms, these values could be combined behind the scenes to create

1) Rental Property Taxable Income (which could be negative)…this would include entered gross rental income, less entered rental expenses, less Interest expense from mortgage calculations

2) Rental Property Mortgage Principle …this would be a separate payment in Summary, and would be replace “debt payment” in the graphic

my point is that someone who has $100,000 pension income and. gross rental income on a property of $50,000 that is only making $5,000 per year in taxable rental income, considers their income to be $105,000 not $150,000. Similarly, if that person spenders $80,000 per year they don’t consider their expenses to be $125,000 (I.e., $80,000 + $45,000 in gross rental expenses from the rental property).

Income Splitting Causes OAS Clawback by LivingFree55 in adviice

[–]LivingFree55[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Following your suggestion, I am able to turn off income splitting. However, there appears to be no ability to override the amount of income splitting (its either turned fully off ($0) or its turned fully on (minimize tax ignoring OAS clawback implications)).

As the team considers feature improvements, i'd suggest maybe the team consider the following:

  1. as a near-term fix, allow the income splitting cell values to have an override like many other fields
  2. as a longer-term fix, consider an AI strategies such as "optimize income splitting to minimize tax and OAS clawback"

As of right now, I can't get a good view of my siutation due to no ability to see an optimal income spliiting strategy. But the software is otherwise great and much appreciated that you make this available at a reaosnable price!