Tag: equities

Categories
Investing

Questrade Mutual Fund Fee Rebate And Free Transfer Offer

Questrade discount brokerage has just come out with a great way for retail mutual  fund owners to save on high management fees by offering to rebate up to 1% of those  fees.

What’s the deal with the Questrade mutual fund rebate?

Questrade will rebate up to 1% of the management fee for any mutual funds  held at Questrade.  This amount has to exceed $29.95 per month for the  investor to get any rebate.  This means that you need to have more than $36,000 in mutual funds before the rebate kicks in.

How is this possible?

When an investor buys a mutual fund from an advisor then the advisor is paid  a “trailer” each year which is based on the amount of the investment.   Typical trailers for equity mutual funds are 1%.  Bond and money market funds  will be lower.  The amount Questrade will rebate will be equal to the trailer  paid on the funds you owned.

The problem is for a do-it-yourself investor who wants to buy retail mutual  funds is that they can only buy them through an advisor or a discount  brokerage and they are charged for the trailer even if they don’t have an  advisor.  With this new program the investor will be able to save most of the trailer amount.

How much will it cost to transfer my mutual funds to Questrade?

If you transfer before March 2, 2009 from a different financial institution and transfer at least $25,000 then it will be  free of charge.

How much are mutual fund trading fees?

Questrade charges $9.95 per mutual fund trade.

I don’t have $36,000 – is it still worthwhile?

Depends on the situation – if you are close enough to $36k (ie $30k or more)  and will be buying more mutual funds then it might be worth doing even though  you won’t get the rebate for a while.  At the very least it won’t cost you  anything.

Another situation might be if you have some back-end funds that you don’t want to pay commissions on.  If you are planning to just buy low cost ETFs then you might consider moving the mutual funds to the same institution.

Where do I sign up?

Click on the banner below or on any of the links you see in the article.

I demand more information!

Check out my Questrade discount brokerage review and my Questrade referral promotion articles for more information.

Is it really cheaper to pay $10 per trade rather than get my advisor to do it for me?

Let’s look at an example – say you have $100k in mutual funds with an average mer of 2.5% and the only service you get from your “advisor” is he completes 12 trades per year for you “free of charge”.

With the advisor you will pay a total of $2,500 per year for the fund management, the advisor’s services and the 12 trades.

With Questrade you will get a rebate of $1,000 (approx) and you will pay $120 for the trading fees for a grand total of $1620 for the fund management and the 12 trades.

$2,500 (current fees) – $1620 (Questrade fees) = a savings of $880 per year.

Personally, I’d rather invest in passive index funds and ETFs which are way cheaper (also available at Questrade) but for anyone who wants to own retail mutual funds – this is a great deal.

Categories
Announcements

Are You Changing Your Asset Allocation? Contest for $$!

Glenn Cooke, President of InsureCan, is sponsoring a contest on this blog (and a few others listed below) where you can win one of two $50 Chapters gift cards. Here’s how to enter the contest:

In the comments – please answer the following question

“Have you changed (or are you going to change) your asset allocation as a result of the awful equity returns in the past year?   Please indicate any change ie “used to be 100% equities – now I’m zero percent equities”.

Answering this question will give you 1 chance at a gift certificate.  Subscribing to the blog if you don’t already do so, might also help your odds (but not likely) 🙂

Contest will be closed at 8 pm on Thursday, January 22.

Contest is open to Canadian residents only.

Check out similar contests at the Canadian Capitalist and the Financial Blogger.

Categories
Investing

Comparing Market Cap ETF vs Dividend ETF – How Much Duplication?

I had a reader question the other day where they mentioned buying both XIU (iShares Cdn Large Cap 60 ETF) and XDV (iShares Cdn Dividend Index Fund ETF) for their portfolio.  I had responded that although I wasn’t sure, I suspected that might be a lot of duplication in the two funds since XIU has all the biggest public Canadian companies – a lot of which are good dividend stocks and would probably also be in XDV.

Duplicate holdings is a common problem in mutual funds – especially in a market like Canada where there are not a lot of different companies to buy for the larger funds.

I decided to do a bit research and find out if there was as much duplication as I suspected in the two funds.  The question I want to answer is if it is worthwhile to own both funds for diversification purposes or will just one do.

Number of companies in common

The first and simplest criteria was how many companies are in both ETFs.  This isn’t necessarily all that meaningful since one ETF might have a lot of XYZ company whereas the other might only have a small holding.

XIU 60 has 61 holdings (can’t they count?), XDV dividend has 31 holdings, there are 15 companies that they have in common.  This seems like quite a bit since it means that half of the companies in the dividend ETF are also in the XIU ETF.

Amount of market cap in common

What I did here is take the companies that are in both ETFs and compare the percentage holdings and add up the smaller number.  For example if CIBC was 9% of the dividend fund and 5% of the XIU then I counted that as 5% in common (by market cap).   This totalled up to 31%.  This was a smaller number than I expected which means that a good portion of the dividend ETF is not represented in the XIU 60.

Measuring correlation between the ETFs

The next test I did, which should have been the first and only test since it is the only one that has any real meaning is to measure the amount of correlation between the two ETFs.   Correlation is a measure of the relationship between the prices of the two ETFs.

A measure of 1 means that they always move in price exactly the same way, a measure of 0 means they are completely uncorrelated and a measure of -1 means they always move in price in exactly the opposite direction.  One of the main concepts behind building a portfolio is to try to find different assets that are not correlated with each other.

To accomplish this I needed some historical price data which I managed to find at Yahoo Finance.  To figure out the correlation I used the Excel correl function (is there anything Excel can’t do?).  XDV dividend has only been around since the end of 2005 so the data is only for a bit less than 4 years.  Not being a stats guy I’m not sure if this is a long enough period to be meaningful but it’s all I’ve got.  Regardless, the correlation “r” number was 0.72 which implies some benefit for diversification but not a whole lot.

Performance

The last thing I looked at was performance.  Since the time period is fairly short I’m not looking to see which ETF did better but rather to look at the difference in performance.  Ishares.ca website has a handy calculator just for this purpose.  I choose the last 3 years since the next category was 5 years which wouldn’t work for XDV dividend.

3 year total return

  • XIU Large Cap 60 = -12.98%
  • XDV Dividend = -18.19%

From what I’ve read the XDV dividend has a higher ratio of financials than the XIU 60 which is probably one of the reasons for the big performance difference.  The XDV dividend has a higher mer (0.5%) than XIU 60 (0.17%) which would account for about 1% of the 5% difference.

Conclusion

I looked at 4 categories to see how different XIU and XDV are:

  • Similar companies – half of the XDV dividend companies are in XIU.
  • Similar companies by stock market capitalization – 31% of the companies market cap are in both ETFs.
  • Correlation – over the last 4 years the correlation is 0.72.
  • Performance – the two ETFs were about 5% off in terms of total performance over 3 years.

What does it all mean?   Hard to say – there are much better ways to diversify your portfolio – REITs, small cap, foreign holdings would likely all have correlations that are less than 0.72.  I’m also not crazy about the higher mer of the dividend ETF.

I think if you want to have most of your equity in Canada then buying partially overlapping ETFs might be the only way to diversify without getting into individual stocks.  Personally I like to be diversified over the whole world so for me, the XIU Large Cap 60 by itself is good enough – in my case adding XDV would not increase my diversification enough to make the higher mer worthwhile.  XIC (TSX 300) is also a good choice.

Categories
Investing

The Death Of Index Investing And Other Silly Stats

I recently came across yet another post on investing which goes something along the lines of “If you invested 10 years ago in the Dow then you would have earned exactly nothing in that time”.  I hate to pick on any one blogger since I’ve read these articles all across the blogosphere but this one is the latest and he also had the temerity to tie in poor index performance with the death of index investing.  Of course all the stock pickers out there ALWAYS beat the index so poor market are no concern to them…!  I want to emphasise that Jacob at Extreme Early Retirement does a great job with his blog and I don’t want to sound like I don’t like the blog – just that one post!  🙂

What about the dividends?

Usually these posts look at the point value of an index at a previous time, say 10 years ago and compare it to the present index point value.  This is incorrect because they are missing dividends.  Published index returns always included reinvested dividends and any type of analysis on index performance should always include the same.  Admittedly, if you are looking at a 10 year period where the index point value hasn’t changed, the addition of dividends isn’t going to change the argument very much but it should be there.

Selectivity of stats

Why is it that all the articles always pick the worst peak to trough period to illustrate their rather suspect point that maybe equity investing or even index investing is evil?  Have you ever heard of such a person who invests all their money on the same day the markets peak and then doesn’t invest any more?  Doesn’t seem all that likely to me.  Most people invest their money over time because that’s how they earn it, then save it, then invest it.  Picking one particular time period to prove or disprove a theory is like measuring your gas mileage one mile at a time and then using the best or worst mile to prove your point.

Investment performance

And what about active stock pickers – did they all do better than the indexers over that period?  Or did some of them do better, some of them the same, and some of them didn’t do as well?  I’ve asked many bloggers and non-bloggers who claim they can beat the index by picking their own stocks to prove it – measure their performance and let me know if they did better than the market or not.  You know what?  Not one of them has ever shown that they can beat the market – oddly enough, most of them don’t even bother to measure their performance.  How can someone who doesn’t even know how their own investment method measures up criticize someone else’s?

What is average?

One of the criticisms of indexing is that you will only achieve “average” results – again – will I do better by randomly picking stocks or paying someone lots of money to pick them for me?  One thing about indexing is that you will get the index return minus a very small fee – you will never beat the index but more importantly you won’t underperform the index (except for the small fee) either.  Active pickers can certainly outperform the market but they can also underperform as well – sometimes by a huge margin.  I like making money – if I thought it was possible for me to beat the market then you can rest assured that I would give it my best effort.

Dividends, smividends

Ok – one more rant… I like getting dividends just as much as the next investor but I really think there is an over-weighting on the importance of dividends in the blogosphere.  Yes, the idea of living off your dividends is nice but investment performance measures total return which is capital gains plus any reinvested dividends and interest payments.  That’s it.  I don’t care in what form the company pays out in the end – if the total return is higher, then its a better investment.  If that includes dividends, fine – if not, that’s fine too.

Categories
Investing

Will A Big Canadian Bank Fail?

I have to admit that while I haven’t been bothered by the falling markets, today I found it a bit tough for some reason.  It seems like every day the market falls and if it’s only 1 or 2% then that is ok.  Well today the Canadian market fell 9%.  9%!!! That would be a bad year by itself and it was only one crappy trading day of many crappy trading days.  The worst part was the banks – they have been pummelled this year and today the big 5 went down by an average of almost 13%.  13%!!! Very depressing I thinks.

Now, I haven’t gone all anti-Bernstein or anything – I have no plans to sell any equities under any circumstance.  What my concern is now is will one of the big Canadian banks fail? Here are some things I’m worried about:

Canadian banks own bad US mortgages as well

Our banking system was recently named as the best in the world.  Our lending standards were much stricter than the US banks so everything should be ok?  The only problem is that from what I understand, the US banks got in trouble buying investments containing bad mortgages – it wasn’t necessarily all just from writing bad mortgages themselves.

The problem is that the Canadian banks also bought these same investments and have been slowly taking related writedowns all the while not talking about what their real exposure is.  These investments were enough to bring down some big US banks so why can’t they bring down a Canadian bank?  Yes, the Canadian banks have good business models so did Washington Mutual and Wachovia.  They had customers, lots of assets – a normal bank in other words – but they lost it all on the investment side.

A bad dividend trend

The thing that concerns me is that the US banks I mentioned all paid a dividend at one time.  When the stock went down the dividend yield went up…and up and up and up.  First there was a dividend cut and then the bank went out of business.

The dividend yields for the Canadian banks in order are:

  • BMO 8.4%
  • CIBC 7.3%
  • BNS 5.9%
  • Royal 5.6%
  • TD 5.4%

The ones that really stand out for me are BMO and CIBC – 7 or 8% dividends that don’t pay return of capital are too high.  Either they are mispriced or investors are expecting a dividend cut.  Now we haven’t seen the double digit dividend yields enjoyed by the US banks before they went belly up but the yield on BMO and CIBC has roughly doubled over the last year or so.

Summary

I really hope that none of the banks go under but I am concerned about it.  Can anyone please tell me that I’m wrong??

Categories
Personal Finance

The Danger Of Being Too Conservative

For out non-Canadian readers, GIC stands for Guaranteed Investment Certificate, and its pretty well the same as an American CD. You put the money in for a fixed length of time at a fixed interest rate, then at the end of the term, you get your money back plus the interest (or you can get the interest paid out over the term of the loan). They’re guaranteed by the government, so are a very safe, very conservative investment. They’re typically referred to a “fixed income”.

Most of my family and friends are VERY conservative investors. We’re talking GICs, Canada Savings Bonds and savings accounts conservative investors. My mom won’t touch mutual funds because they’re too volatile and she wouldn’t be able to weather the market fluctuations. While I’m certainly sympathetic to taking a conservative position with investments, there’s a price and a danger when this is how you invest.

The price you’ll pay is that your return is going to be about equal to inflation, so you’ll lose whatever you make.

If you were getting 5% on your GIC, it may seem pretty good until you take away 40% for taxes (this puts you down to 3%), then take 3% away for inflation (this puts you down to 0%). In real terms, you’re just preserving your capital. This isn’t unnecessarily a BAD idea (your capital is VERY safe), but the problem is that your money isn’t working for you. All your savings will simply be what you’ve earned and stashed away: it won’t grow.

“But Mr. Cheap” you protest, “what about times when there are high interest rates, like when it was 12% back in the 80’s?” Well, back in the 80’s when we had high interest rates inflation was very high as well. What fixed-income giveth, inflation taketh away.

Inflation isn’t too big of a worry, since with high inflation, interest rates will go up, so if you set up laddering (where different GICs come due at different times), you’ll get pretty close to the average interest rate. What inflation taketh away, fixed-income giveth.

The real danger with this is simply that you won’t be able to save enough money to live off of in retirement. Compounding won’t be working for you, so even if you’ve been saving since a young age, it will be hard to accumulate enough to be comfortable in retirement. Of course, if you put the money into a RRSP, you won’t be taking the tax hit mentioned above, but at 2% compounding it’s going to be quite meager. This can work if you live well below your means, and save aggressively, but I think there are better options.

When you allow a little more volatility in an investment (give up the absolute guarantee of GICs), the market rewards investors richly for taking on this risk. If you earn the average nominal return on equities, 10%, you’ll lose 4% to taxes (40%), and 3% to inflation, leaving you with 3% to compound (7% if its in your RRSP). Certainly better than treading water.

Something like the couch potato portfolio is an easy way to set up a very diversified equities portfolio. You don’t have to put all your savings into it (start small, maybe with 10 or 20% of your savings until you get your sea legs). If you can set it up, re-balance once a year and ignore it the rest of the time, you’ll do fine. The danger is if there’s a correction and you’re tempted to sell and flee back to GICs (don’t do this!). It may be a good idea to keep your investment small until you have gone through a real dip to make sure you have the stomach for it. Over time you’ll see that you’re getting a lot more growth from the equities compared to your fixed income (the GICs) and hopefully will become comfortable with the idea of exchanging a bit of volatility for dramatically higher returns.

Categories
Investing

Why Retirees Need Equity In Their Portfolios

One of the standard pieces of advice for retirees is that they have to have a very conservative portfolio since they are too old to take any chances with equities. There are “rules” around what percentage of fixed income (ie bonds) a retiree should have. “90 minus your age” is one that I’ve heard a lot.

These rules were probably pretty good guidance at a time when your average retiree finished work at 65 and could reasonably be expected to live for another ten years or so. With a short term investment horizon it didn’t make sense to invest a lot of money in equities because the retiree wouldn’t live long enough to recover from any major losses. Inflation was also not a major concern since the time line was fairly short.

Fast forward to now and there are two major differences in retirees – first of all they are retiring earlier which lengthens the retirement time and they are living longer which of course also increases the retirement time which in turn means that they have a longer investment time horizon so a higher allocation of equities is appropriate. Typically most financial planners will assume an estimate lifetime of around 90, so if an investor retired at aged 60 and lived until age 90 – that’s a 30 year time horizon.

You might be asking – who cares how long the retirement lasts for? Shouldn’t you just be conservative and buy guaranteed fixed income products or annuities and live off the payments? One problem is that while retirees might be living longer once retired, they aren’t working longer, in fact they might even have slightly shorter careers on average so current retirees might not have any more money saved (adjusted for inflation) than someone who retired a generation or two ago and they are less likely to have any kind of company pension plan to help fund the retirement.

The reality is that historically equities have outperformed bonds by a long shot. According to William Bernstein – author of “The Four Pillars of Investing”, two reasons to invest in equities are for the higher expected return and because equities can keep up to rising inflation. If you are retired and your portfolio is entirely fixed income (or annuity) you might run into the problem of a steadily lower standard of living if inflation increases.

Other reasons to invest in equities are that interest is taxed at a higher rate than dividends and capital gains (in Canada and USA) so you will probably be better off if you can only pay dividend and capital gains taxes rather than income tax on interest payments.

What to do?

The answer is two fold. First of all, retirees should have a significant equity holding in their portfolio. Bernstein recommends anywhere between 50% to 75% equities depending on your tolerance for risk. One of the key points that Bernstein emphasizes is that whatever asset allocation you choose, you have to stick with it so pick an allocation that you can handle in rough times. If you choose a higher percentage of equities and then sell when the equities drop and then buy back in when they go up, then you will be further behind compared to if you had just picked a more conservative portfolio and stuck with it. Even if you choose to have an equity allocation of less than 50% then stick with that allocation.

Tomorrow we’re going to discuss the 4% withdrawal rule which will help determine when you can retire.