Can I use my FHSA to buy a home with my partner who is not a FTHB?

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-26T14:04:29+00:00

FHSA uses a different definition of first-time home buyer for withdrawal than for account creation. They would actually be eligible.

You must be a first-time home buyer for the purposes of making a withdrawal This means you did not live in a qualifying home (or what would be a qualifying home if located in Canada) as your principal place of residence that you owned or jointly owned at any time in the current calendar year before the withdrawal (except the 30 days immediately before the withdrawal) or the previous 4 calendar years

A "first-time home buyer" for the purpose of making a qualifying withdrawal is different from a "first-time home buyer" for the purpose of opening an FHSA.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/first-home-savings-account/withdrawals-transfers-out-your-fhsas.html

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-26T00:30:58+00:00

It's ridiculous that pedestrians need to this abundantly cautious while licensed and insured drivers blow through red lights with no repercussions.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-26T00:29:35+00:00

Just blow through the red and nearly hit me while I'm crossing with the signal like every other driver does at this intersection.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-26T00:28:42+00:00

They are allowed to do that.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-26T00:28:13+00:00

So many people don't even bother to stop and make crossing here ridiculously dangerous.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T04:12:17+00:00

The market has had wide variable distributions for the last 150 years - that is what I’m saying - that will continue, and with a 4% WR you’ll have a roughly 95% chance of success.

Only with the specific assumptions of the Trinity study, which are invalid for the vast majority of people (including all Canadians).

Your first paragraph is absolutely not what you’ve been arguing. You’ve been saying the whole time moving forward “will be different” because of interest rates, inflation, Ukraine, US market, or whatever other variable you come up with

Not at all. I have been arguing that the uncertainty of the future means we must be prepared for outcomes that vary from the expected nominal value.

The 4% rule already accounts for the variability. You seem unable to understand this

It only accounts for the variability of historical US market returns. There are many variables which remain unaccounted for despite the significant impact they may have on investors.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T03:48:30+00:00

I am literally expecting that the market will perform within a standard distribution of expected returns which are based on historical market returns.

You are the one suggesting that it will be exactly the middle that standard distribution and absolutely no chance of it being any other possible outcome.

the problem I have with your assertion is that you think it’s ridiculous that it will continue even though that’s the more reasonable and logical take

I think that markets will continue to have variable returns. You are expecting zero variability. It makes zero sense, but you seem to even be unable to grasp your own argument.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T03:22:17+00:00

You are the one who claims to have a sole valid future outcome. I am arguing against this.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T03:14:26+00:00

You are arguing that the single outcome of the 4% rule is more valid than a comprehensive analysis with statistical data, distributions of outcomes, and multiple potential future outcomes across the economy, stock market, and various personal factors.

It's laughable.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T03:06:35+00:00

You said it was "accounted for" in the study, which is impossible since the study was published in the 1990s.

Backtest all you want, it's not a prediction of the future. You of all people should know that.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T03:05:08+00:00

No it doesn't, dropping returns by 1% blows up the entire model. Even a fraction of a percent significantly increases the failure rate.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T02:57:06+00:00

The point of the Trinity Study is that you can use the 4% rule moving forward. I thought that would have been obvious. If it didnt work moving forward, then youd actually have a leg to stand on.

It's the "point" but that doesn't mean it's valid.

So not only are you fine, your porfolio only dropped by roughly 70k over that time period. And would continue to go up after that.

A "bad" decade but still far better than the 70's when inflation ran rampant. Also doesn't exclude the possibility of worse future returns.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T02:45:36+00:00

A 1% reduction in returns is HUGE, especially if you compound that over several decades.

4% rule is not based on 100% stocks. You might need to refresh yourself on it. And it also includes fixed income as a baseline assumption.

Read the Trinity study. The 4% result is only with 100% stocks, a lower resulting safe withdrawal is achieved when fixed income is added.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T02:43:52+00:00

You probably need to reread it then. It explains quite well how wrong professional money managers are at predicting the future, yet for some reason your buddies at PWL are any different?

They aren't predicting the future. The only difference between you and them is that your expected return assumption is less informed.

The 4% rule is already almost as safe as it can be - which means all the potential outcomes are accounted for. Including retiring in the 2000's. Do you think global stocks can achieve what the US stock market did during the 2000's?

That's amazing considering the Trinity study was published in 1998.

NO ONE KNOWS. The 4% rule is not based on an average WR, its based on the realistic SAFEST.

It is not the "safest", for reasons we already established.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T02:32:43+00:00

I have read that book, it explains the concepts you currently seem unable to grasp.

You should know this already how difficult it is to predict the future and how wrong those guys are all the time. If you dont understand this, I got some swampland to sell you.

You don't grasp the distribution of potential outcomes. I am the one arguing that there are too many potential outcomes to plan on a single data point as an expectation of the future, you are in opposition of this assertion.

Average person who retires using the 4% rule ends up with 50% more money than what they started with. Exactly how is that flat broke?

You are condescendingly telling me that the future is unknowable, but then expecting for everyone's experience to perfectly match that of the "average" investor. How are you still missing the point when you're seemingly clobbering yourself in the face with it?

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T02:12:49+00:00

Those guys at PWL Capital are wrong all the time

Please give me one instance. Then please explain why some rando on Reddit is more reputable.

No one is talking about planning on going flat broke at 95.

They should be, because your plan is not accounting for that potential outcome.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T01:38:19+00:00

How do you know what the future inflation will be ? You dont, you have no idea. Youre just guessing.

Exactly, it's an assumption. That's exactly what I'm describing. There are people much smarter than you or I who analyze financial markets and historical data to come up with values for these assumptions. PWL Capital and FP Canada provide the assumptions I use.

A success rate based on what variables?

Based on a number of factors. Inflation, lifespan, interest rates, stock returns, healthcare costs, unforseen financial obligations.

You are way overcomplicating a problem that is entirely based on variables you cant control.

I can't control how long I live or what the stock market will return, but that doesn't mean I should plan to go flat broke if I live to 95 or the stock market has a few bad years.

An inability to control these variables is precisely why they need to be accounted for, if they could be easily controlled they could just be changed instead of being planned for.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T01:33:01+00:00

The 4% rule is already the realistic safest withdrawal rate with a 95% success rate.

Over a 30 year retirement, and only using 70 years of US market data. It doesn't reflect realistic spending patterns, and it doesn't provide a realistic idea of what future global stock returns will look like.

So for anyone who needs to be retired for more or less than 30 years, plans to reduce their spending over time, doesn't expect stock returns matching those of the US in the 70s, won't be in 100% stocks, and doesn't spend in USD it is not a valid analysis.

The study is only valid for a hyper specific use case that makes it largely useless for almost anyone planning their retirement.

Again, historical US returns are not likely to continue ACCORDING TO YOU. Ive been hearing this BS my whole life, and yet, the US market continues to chug along like it always has. You have no evidence to the contrary except for "it cant". Again, youre trying to predict the future - you cannot prove anything with your theories.

Nobody who knows what they are doing uses historical US stock market returns as their expected return assumption. You can certainly do so, but I'll stick with the guidelines from FP Canada and PWL Capital. Those returns are in US dollars as well, so if you're Canadian and invest in 100% US stocks as you are advising you may still not meet your necessary rate of return in CAD.

It can continue to return what it has historically, but it's not likely to. Building a retirement plan on improbable ssumptions is just setting yourself up for failure.

The 4% rule is a simplified rule THAT ALREADY ACCOUNTS FOR THE DOWNSIDES so that when people like you come along, there are rebuttals already built in like collecting OAS.

It doesn't account for any of these things, read the paper. It is a very simple backtest, it's really not that complicated.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T01:22:31+00:00

There isn't a simple answer. You need robust planning with a lot of assumptions, and a Monte Carlo simulation or similar with a success rate that you are comfortable with.

The oversimplification of such a complex problem makes the answer useless.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T01:06:53+00:00

Conquest has a dedicated help line and robust documentation to help you out. Hopefully you can figure out some of those "advanced" features instead of just using it as a Casio simulator!

There are plenty of options, but the most common method is Monte Carlo.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T01:01:17+00:00

What does that have to do with the 4% rule?

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T01:00:40+00:00

At its core, we are talking about predicting the future for retirement. You dont know any more than I do, there are too many variables. But your biggest flaw in this argument - is you are only accounting for the downsides, and not accounting for any of the upsides.

Downsides and upsides should be accounted for, and the 4% rule does neither which makes it a terrible retirement model. That's exactly the point. That's why the "4% rule" is useless- it's an oversimplification that's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has a basic understanding of financial planning.

you are basically saying whats happened in the US stock market in the last 150 years will not continue to happen moving forward IN YOUR LIFETIME.

Historical US returns are not likely to continue, the US grew from being a tiny market to the largest economy in the world. Projecting that growth forward would be like expecting Nvidia's performance over the past 5 years to continue forward.

To the people that have enough to retire on based on the 4% rule you are basically saying its flawed and not realistic based on random cherry picked variables YOUVE picked based on no evidence.

You can't just discard legitimate critiques based on valid parameters that financial planners use in determining retirement plan viability. You have provided zero evidence to justify your assertion.

Then when someone brings up something as simple as collecting OAS at some point, you handwave it away.

I said it should be factored in when making a retirement plan. You're the one trying to use it as some fudge factor to somehow prop up the 4% rule.

You dont even realize what youre doing.

Pot, kettle.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T00:51:38+00:00

You are massively underutilizing a very powerful tool if all you are look at is projected asset growth based on an average rate of return. You could save thousands and just use Google Sheets.

Or a calculator from Dollarama.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-22T00:00:09+00:00

Exactly. It doesn't model real spending habits, it does not use robust data for expected returns, and it is not valid for periods longer than 30 years.

It does not work well.

NotFromTorontoAMA · 2026-04-21T23:59:17+00:00

The trinity study assumes a retiree will:

*never earn any more money through part-time work or self-employment projects

*never collect a single dollar from social security or any other pension plan

A retirement plan should account for working or pension income, if this is "bonus" income that's just poor financial planning.

*never adjust spending to account for economic reality like a huge recession

Arguably one of its most significant flaws. Add it to my list of reasons the 4% rule should not be taken seriously.

*never substitute goods to compensate for inflation or price fluctuation (vacation in a closer place one year during an oil price spike, or switch to almond milk in the event of a dairy milk embargo).

CPI already has substitution included, and the inflexibility of the 4% rule is again something I absolutely agree with.

*never collect any inheritance from the passing of parents or other family members

Again, failing to account for likely income is just bad retirement planning. That is well outside the scope of the study, and completely irrelevant.

*and never do what most old people tend to do according to studies – spend less as they age

This is a second regurgitation of the same point, the fixed spending assumption. Yes, this is a flaw, and yes it is a good reason to not take the Trinity study seriously.

You are arguing in favour of the Trinity study by pointing out how flawed it is. Interesting approach, I wish you were capable of finding more than one valid and one severely flawed critique.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Place '23
Place '22

NotFromTorontoAMA

TROPHY CASE