Articles

Why investors should pay for all investment fees out of non-registered accounts

0 Comments

The Department of Finance Canada’s recent letter to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) stating that paying investment fees for registered accounts out of non-registered accounts does not constitute a tax advantage is a big win for investors, who are now free to pay their investment costs from any source they choose.

There are various advantages for investors to pay all investment fees out of a non-registered account. At the core, though, investors will end up with more money, after taxes, if they pay all the investment fees for a tax-free savings account (TFSA) or registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) from assets held outside of those accounts.

So, how did this all come about? In 2016, the CRA announced at a tax conference that its position on paying investment fees for registered accounts from non-registered accounts constituted an unfair advantage. Furthermore, the CRA stated that as of 2018, any taxpayer who engaged in this activity would be subject to a special advantage tax equal to the amount of fees paid outside of the registered account. The implementation was then postponed a couple of times pending a review from the Department of Finance.

Then, the Department of Finance sent a letter this past August recommending that the Income Tax Act be amended to reflect its finding that there is no advantage to paying registered fees outside of a registered account and that such a decision by a taxpayer may not necessarily be tax motivated. In effect, it means the CRA will not penalize a taxpayer for paying investment fees for a registered account from a non-registered account.

For financial advisors and investors, there are various benefits to taking this approach, which is a way to increase assets with no added risk.

For one, investors may have investments that are less liquid in the registered account. So, paying for investment fees from a non-registered account can provide ease of cash management over the portfolio. In addition, paying all investment fees out of one account rather than from multiple accounts may be easier from an administrative perspective.

The main advantage for investors, though, is that registered accounts have an ability for greater compounding of returns than non-registered accounts because of the registered accounts’ tax-deferred or tax-free nature. That was the CRA’s main issue with this practice.

As an example, let’s consider an investor who has $100,000 in a TFSA and $100,000 in a non-registered account. Each account incurs investment expenses of 1.5 per cent, or $1,500, annually.

If all expenses are taken from the non-registered account, it results in more assets growing tax-free within the TFSA, as they’re not impeded by investment costs. Furthermore, it helps the investor save taxes as the capital base in the non-registered account will be lower, which will result in lower taxes against the income within that account as well as lower taxes on the capital gains when the funds are withdrawn.

The strategy is similar for an RRSP, except that the income from the RRSP will be fully taxable when it’s withdrawn from an RRSP or from a registered retirement income fund (RRIF) once the investor reaches retirement. Thus, the investor reduces the capital in the non-registered account today in favour of a much larger payment from a RRIF in the future. Although that payment will be taxable, it will presumably be when the investor is retired and in a lower tax bracket. In addition, as inflation will erode the value of money, it’s preferable to pay $1 of taxes in the future than $1 of taxes today.

Although the advantage in the TFSA is clear, the advantage for the RRSP will be dependent on many factors, such as an investor’s tax bracket now and in retirement, inflation and even potential changes in tax policy.

For investors, this may not be the top tax-saving strategy available, but they should take advantage of every opportunity to improve their returns and reduce their taxes – especially when it can be executed with a simple administrative change.

 

Reprinted from the Globe and Mail, December 18, 2019.

Matthew Ardrey
Presented By:
Matthew Ardrey
VP, Wealth Advisor
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

TriDelta Financial Webinar: Alternative Investments and The New TriDelta Alternative Performance Fund – November 28, 2019

0 Comments

This webinar included two of the top CEO’s in the Canadian Alternative Investment Industry – David Sharpe, CEO, Bridging Finance and Allison Taylor, CEO and Portfolio Manager, Invico Capital Corporation.

It was hosted by Ted Rechtshaffen, President and CEO, TriDelta Financial.

Topics included:

  • Why wealthy Canadians are increasingly investing in Alternative Investments.
  • About top Alternative Investment strategies.
  • About TriDelta’s new Alternative Performance Fund launching in January.
  • Why these investments are not meaningfully correlated to stock markets and are a great portfolio diversifier.

Pensions 101: The importance of understanding your pension

0 Comments

I have been involved with the Financial Facelift articles since 2013 and in the financial planning industry since 2000. In my time working on the Financial Facelifts, I have been asked many questions about my calculations and recommendations; but bar none, questions about pension calculations have been the most frequent.

With that in mind, there is no time like the present to give a refresher course on how pensions work, how their value is calculated and why they are so important.

There are two main types of employee pensions in Canada, defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB). Both are important to the financial well-being of their members in retirement, though they both work in different ways.

DC pension plan

The DC pension is more like a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) in the way it works than what most people would traditionally think of as a pension. In this type of pension typically both employee and employer make contributions to the plan. They are usually based on a percentage of income, up to the contribution limit. These contributions are then invested in underlying investments directed by the employee and vetted by the employer.

How the contributions affect RRSP room is fairly straightforward to understand as well. For every dollar contributed, the employee accumulates a dollar of pension adjustment and thereby their available RRSP room is reduced by a dollar. This is regardless of who makes the contribution. The only difference in the contributions is the employee contributions are eligible for a tax deduction and the employer contributions are not.

The purpose of the pension adjustment is to equalize the retirement savings an employee with a pension can make versus someone who does not have a pension.

On retirement, the employee can transfer the value of the plan to a locked-in retirement account (LIRA), use it to purchase an annuity or a combination of the two. With recent federal budget changes a variable payment life annuity (VPLA) or an advanced life deferred annuity (ALDA) are also options to consider.

The current value of this pension is easily known by taking a look at the value of the underlying investments. What is unknown is what future income this pension will produce. As the name says, it is a defined contribution pension, which means the contributions to the plan are known, but the retirement income is dependent on the investment returns earned and contributions made.

One of the main benefits of a DC pension is that it forces the employee to make retirement savings. By having it as part of the employment culture, and the savings coming right off of one’s pay, it encourages employees to save for their future.

The other key benefit of the DC pension is the employer contributions to the plan. Each plan is different. Some employers may choose to match employee contributions, some may choose to make contributions regardless and some may combine the two in some fashion. No matter how they do it, the benefit is clear to the employee, it is free money toward their retirement savings.

The DB pension plan

The DB pension is what most people think of when they think of a pension. This type of pension provides a known future income stream to the employee – in other words, a defined benefit to the employee. For this benefit the employer, and sometimes the employee, make contributions to the plan that are invested to provide the future income stream. Depending on the investment performance, this may require more or fewer contributions from the employer.

While the end result – a guaranteed income stream – is easy to understand, getting there is a bit complicated. For starters, the DB pension adjustment is harder to calculate than its DC counterpart. Formulas that determine your future benefit involve such inputs as one’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings (YMPE), final average earnings (FAE) and years of service.

To further complicate the DB pension calculation, some pensions have Canada Pension Plan/Old Age Security integration. This is where a bridge payment is made between when the pension commences and age 65 to be later offset by the receipt of CPP and OAS. To note, this integration is not perfect, often being different than the actual CPP and OAS received.

There is also the matter of survivor benefits. If the pensioner is married/common-law, then the pension will pay out a survivor benefit to the spouse upon the death of the pensioner. The automatic selection is typically 60 per cent of the full pension amount, but a higher or lower percentage can be selected. This will raise or lower the actual calculated pension payment based on mortality rates.

So now that we have a base understanding of how the pension gets paid out at retirement, we can discuss the next problem: What is the pension worth today? Unlike the DC pension which has an easily determined value, the DB pension “commuted value,” is another matter entirely.

So, how much money is needed today to pay the employee a pension for the remainder of their life? The main factors that can influence this calculation include:

· Age at retirement

· Penalties for early retirement

· Mortality of the pensioner and, if applicable, the spouse

· Current age

· Expected rate of return on the investments (often called the discount rate)

· Pension indexed or not

· Rate of inflation

Change any one of these factors and the commuted value can change drastically. Why is this so important? For a number of reasons.

First, if the employee dies before starting the pension, often the surviving spouse does not receive a survivor pension. Instead they receive the commuted value of the pension eligible to transfer into their RRSP. This happens without tax implications, much like an RRSP rollover on death.

Even if the pensioner does not die but ceases employment with the employer who has the pension plan, then one option is to take the commuted value and transfer it into a LIRA in their name. Depending on the length of service, this is a common outcome versus waiting to take the pension at their normal retirement date.

Finally, at retirement the pensioner can choose to take the commuted value instead of taking the pension. Why would someone do that? I have gone through this exercise with many clients over the years and some of the main reasons for making this choice are:

· Financial flexibility – With pension unlocking rules available in some provinces, the pensioner can access more of their funds earlier or keep them tax-deferred longer. Either way, there is increased choice about how to deal with the asset.

· Limited life span – The commuted value can provide a larger death benefit for the surviving spouse. (With most survivor pension benefits being a percentage of the full pension payable or having to take an actuarially reduced pension to receive 100 per cent survivor benefits, the full commuted value can provide more value than taking the payments at a reduced level.)

· Company/pension concerns – though this is rare and there are some funding guarantees, one only has to look at the collapse of Nortel or, more recently, Sears Canada to see examples of where a DB is not fully secure.

· Increased wealth potential – As I mentioned previously, each pension is different. It is prudent to take a look at what the breakeven rate of return is. In other words, what would the portfolio created from the commuted value have to earn to match the pension payments. If the comparable rate of return is reasonable, the pensioner may consider in their best financial interests to take the lump-sum. This happens more often than you might think.

Regardless of what option is chosen, the benefits of the DB pension are apparent. Most of the savings required and all of investment risk in building the retirement portfolio is the responsibility of the employer. This takes the decision to save for retirement out of the hands of the employee.

The value of the DB pension – especially if indexed to inflation – of a long-standing employee will provide a solid base on which to retire, even if the employee has no other assets. If someone worked 35 years at an employer with a DB plan, they could conceivably replace 70 per cent of their pre-retirement salary if they had a pure 2 per cent pension formula. This would, of course, also drive a substantial commuted value if that option was chosen.

For those of you lucky enough to have a workplace pension plan, understanding how it works is an important first step in financial literacy. They don’t teach this in school, though I think they should. Whether it is the more straightforward DC pension or the more complex DB pension, understanding how to maximize the benefits and choose the best options available are important steps on your road to financial independence.

++

The DB plan: crunching the numbers

The pension adjustment (PA) for a defined benefit pension is more complicated to calculate than its defined contribution counterpart.

The calculation for the PA equals nine times the value of the benefit earned for the year (2 per cent of final average earnings is the maximum value of the benefit permitted by the government in pension calculations – someone with a 2 per cent pension who works for 35 years would have 70 per cent of their former income in pension) minus $600.

  • For example, if the employee had a 2 per cent pension with a $100,000 salary, the PA = 9 x ($100,000 x 2%) – $600 = $17,400. Note: While the PA will reduce the amount of available RRSP contribution room available, only a portion – the employee’s contributions to the pension – is tax deductible.

So, based on this example, the DB plan will reduce this person’s RRSP contribution room by $17,400.

The formula to calculate the future benefit varies as well. Most DB pensions work on a percentage of earnings. Often the earnings are a final or best average of some time period, such as three or five years.

Next, a percentage is applied to the average earnings figure. As stated above, 2 per cent is the maximum per year, though the percentage can be lower than this. Plans may also have tiers of earnings often separated by the average year’s maximum pensionable earnings (YMPE) over the final three or five years.

(YMPE is the earnings level set by the government – $55,900 for 2019 – where an employee maxes out on their CPP contributions. So any income above YMPE does not require a payroll deduction for CPP. It is often used in pension formulas as part of a CPP offset.)

Lastly, are the years of service an employee has in the DB pension. The formula of earnings and percentage is multiplied by the years of service.

  • A typical formula for an employee with a salary of $100,000 and 30 years of service may look like this: (1.4% of Final Average Earnings (FAE) up to YMPE plus 2% of FAE above YMPE) x Years of Service, or
  • (1.4% x $55,900 + 2% x 44,100) x 30 = $49,938 for $100,000 of FAE.

So, in this example, the employee can expect to have a future benefit, or annual income post-retirement, of $49,938.

Matthew Ardrey
Presented By:
Matthew Ardrey
VP, Wealth Advisor
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: What can I do to be more financially successful as I enter my 40s?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of an individual who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their name and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor, Matthew Ardrey, to review and analyze the situation and then provide his solutions to the participants.

gam-masthead
Written by:
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published November 8, 2019

Philip has a well-paying government job with a defined benefit pension plan, for which he is “fortunate and grateful,” he writes in an e-mail. He earns $112,000 a year in salary plus another $9,500 a year, net of expenses, consulting.

At 40, though, Philip is feeling uneasy about his prospects and wondering “how to better manage my finances for the near and distant future.” His near-term goals are to buy a new car and, in five years, a larger condo than the one-bedroom he owns now. In pricey Toronto, this would mean taking on a much bigger mortgage. He still has 23 years left to go on his existing mortgage loan.

Long term, Philip’s goal is to retire from work at age 58 and maintain his lifestyle. He recognizes that these might be competing goals. “I’ve been managing my finances to the best of my knowledge, reading up on budgeting and investment strategies, and now worry if I’m on the right track,” he writes. “What can I do to be more financially successful as I enter my 40s?”

He asks, too: “Am I saving enough for retirement at 58 with a desired after-tax income of $70,000? Am I investing my money wisely? Will I be in a position to purchase a bigger condo in five years?”

We asked Matthew Ardrey, a financial planner and vice-president of TriDelta Financial in Toronto, to look at Philip’s situation.

What the expert says

In reviewing the initial numbers Philip submitted, Mr. Ardrey detected a few things that seemed out of whack. As it turned out, Philip had overstated his consulting income and understated his expenses. After adjusting his income, there is still some missing money, the planner says. Philip is saving about $850 a month outside his registered retirement savings plan. “The remaining $895 per month is real budget leakage,” the planner says. “The first thing Philip should do is a full and complete review of his budget.”

Philip acknowledged this in a follow-up e-mail. “I’m clearly not accounting for all my expenses and travelling,” he writes. “I need to be more mindful of this.”

Next, Mr. Ardrey looks at the car purchase. He assumes Philip buys a new car at the beginning of 2021, taking $5,000 from his savings for a down payment and making monthly payments of $300 for five years. If interest rates stay low, he could likely finance the car at zero interest “or near to it.”

Philip is contributing about $12,200 a year to his defined benefit pension plan, plus making $3,100 a year in additional voluntary contributions (AVCs) to a work RRSP run by his pension plan manager. He is putting $10,200 a year into a savings account.

When Philip sells his condo and buys a larger one in 2025, he will no longer be able to tuck away $10,200 a year in his savings account, the planner says. The condo purchase price, adjusted for inflation, is assumed to be $911,000. Not only will he have transaction costs, Philip will have to pay off his existing mortgage. Mr. Ardrey’s forecast assumes Philip takes on a new mortgage of $590,000 at 4 per cent interest, amortized over 25 years. His payments will rise to $3,092 a month from $1,705 now. Unless he makes extra payments, he will still have a mortgage balance of about $344,465 outstanding when he retires from work in 18 years. To pay off the mortgage before then, he would have to make extra payments of $8,800 a year, putting a strain on his finances, the planner says.

At age 58, Philip will be eligible for an unreduced pension of $73,000 a year, plus a bridge benefit of $15,250 a year to age 65. “Both are indexed to inflation, which is assumed to be 2 per cent,” Mr. Ardrey says. By then, Philip’s spending target will have risen in line with inflation.

Philip’s spending goal is over and above any mortgage payments he might still be making, the planner notes. “Based on these assumptions, Philip would fall short of his goal,” Mr. Ardrey says. By the time Philip turned 65, he would be running budget shortfalls of about $45,000 a year in future dollars, the planner says. This would fall after his mortgage was paid off – assuming he could hang in that long – but he would still be in the red by about $20,000 a year.

“He would need to reduce his retirement spending by $1,000 per month or work another six years until age 64,” the planner says. By working longer, his pension would be larger and the number of years he would be retired smaller.

What if Philip stays put and doesn’t buy the more expensive place?

Suppose, instead, he moves his savings ($59,000) to a tax-free savings account, tops it up to the maximum ($63,500) and contributes $6,000 to it each year? With savings of $10,200 a year, that would leave him with $4,200 to put into a non-registered investment account. Both the TFSA and the non-registered account would be invested in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. The assumed rate of return would be 5 per cent, Mr. Ardrey says.

These small changes could be enough to enable Philip to achieve his goal of retiring at 58 and spending $70,000 a year, the planner says. “The big differences would be the better rate of return than he is getting in his savings account, the continued ability to save each year that he is working and a smaller mortgage, hence smaller mortgage payments, in retirement.”

Philip has been using his savings account as an emergency fund, Mr. Ardrey says. “Instead of holding large amounts of cash, I’d suggest he use a secured line of credit against his home.”

Client situation

The person: Philip, 40.

The problem: Can he afford to buy a bigger place and still retire early with $70,000 a year?

The plan: Work longer, invest the cash stash and consider putting off the condo upgrade entirely.

The payoff: Recognizing that he can’t achieve all of his goals at once and may have to make some choices.

Monthly net income: $7,940

Assets: Savings account $59,000; chequing account $5,000; RRSP and AVC (additional voluntary contributions) $63,000; estimated present value of DB pension $376,800; residence $610,000. Total: $1.1-million

Monthly outlays: Mortgage $1,705; condo fee $455; property tax $200; home insurance $30; hydro $35; car insurance $250; fuel, maintenance, parking $355; groceries $250; clothing $55; vacation, travel $200; dining, drinks, entertainment $950; personal care $35; club memberships $35; other personal $25; health care $20; disability insurance $200; phones, TV, internet $125; RRSP $255; pension plan $1,015; spending that is unaccounted for $895. Total: $7,090. Surplus $850 to savings

Liabilities: Mortgage $345,000

Want a free financial facelift? E-mail finfacelift@gmail.com.

Some details may be changed to protect the privacy of the persons profiled.

Matthew Ardrey
Presented By:
Matthew Ardrey
VP, Wealth Advisor
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

This alternative to stocks and bonds is gaining a following among wealthy investors

0 Comments

I hear a lot of the following these days:

“The stock market is too volatile and there is a recession coming. I am nervous about stocks.”

“With interest rates so low, I will lose money owning bonds after tax and inflation.”

“Preferred shares have not performed very well over the past few years so I don’t want those.”

What often comes next is a question similar to, “If I don’t want to put money into those, do you have anything else you might recommend?”

As it turns out, we do have a lot that we would recommend, and it generally comes under the category of “alternative investments,” which are not publicly traded on markets. Most of the investments that we have in this area have been providing steady returns in the six per cent to 10 per cent range annually over the past several years.

Before you think that these are some strange and extreme types of investments, it is worth noting that according to Benefits Canada, almost 40 per cent of Canadian pension plans are now invested in alternative investments. The plan managers are doing this for all of the reasons raised in the opening three quotes. They are worried about volatility and risk-adjusted returns from stocks. They are especially concerned that in a low interest rate world, the plans can’t generate the required returns with only traditional conservative government or high-quality corporate bonds.

While alternative investments include infrastructure, commodities and private equity, much of our investment focus is in the areas of private debt and real estate. In a nutshell, private debt is lending that is not done by traditional banks and does not include bonds traded on public markets. Ever since 2008, the banking landscape has changed and their lending strategy narrowed. This left many companies and individuals who required debt to look for alternative sources of funds. Over the past decade, private debt has grown over four-fold and is now close to US$1 trillion in assets globally, according to the alternative credit council. Our real estate investments, meanwhile, tend to be focused on managers that lend to developers and building owners and who have a global reach.

To help understand the increase in interest in alternative investments, and why the returns are higher than most publicly traded bonds, here are some examples of how private debt works. In some cases, the borrowers can be higher risk than traditional banks are comfortable with, but often the borrowers fall into a variety of buckets that banks can’t or won’t service for other reasons.

Examples include a business that requires a loan to close an acquisition. The business may be a perfect candidate for a loan but requires the funds in 3 weeks, while a traditional bank may take 3 to 6 months to approve it. Eventually the company may shift its borrowing to a bank at lower rates, but in the short term, the company is fine paying a high interest rate for the benefit of having the financing completed quickly. In other cases, a company may be in an industry that a bank may not lend to for reputational reasons, but which might otherwise be a great candidate for lending. For personal borrowers, sometimes they are business owners with a lot of assets and good credit, but low personal taxable income. A bank may not give them a mortgage but a mortgage investment corporation may think they are a great loan candidate, especially if they are only lending them 70 per cent of the value of their house, and the house is the first collateral on the loan.

In all of these cases, the borrowing rates would be higher, and often could be anywhere from six per cent to 20 per cent depending on the situation. It is these borrowing rates, along with strong risk management practices and full collateral that can provide steady returns at rates much higher than public bonds. These represent just a few examples of the many situations where someone is willing to borrow at high rates, for the ability to get the lending that they require.

The benefits to the investor are significant. First, they provide investment diversification and very low connection or correlation to the stock market. Second, over the past five years (as many funds were not around prior to this), returns have been quite steady with very low downside volatility. Having said that, a full investment cycle of 10 to 20 years would probably provide a little better test. And third, returns are often relatively high, with many funds providing returns in the six per cent to ten per cent range.

The main negative to private debt investments is that they are not very liquid. While publicly traded securities are often easily sold daily, many private debt investments might require anywhere from 30 days to a full year to redeem. This is one of the main reasons why private debt might only be one component of an overall portfolio. Because the risks on lending are often only as strong as the operational skill of the manager and the security against the loan, it is important to be able to assess whether any particular manager has top level skills to minimize the risk of losses.

While every person is different, in the 2019 investing world, we often have 10 per cent to 35 per cent of a clients’ overall portfolio invested in a diversified mix of private debt and other alternative investments. If your portfolio is 100 per cent invested in publicly traded investments, it is worth noting that many wealthy individuals and most pension plans believe that you are making a mistake. Now may be the time to consider looking beyond traditional investments to meet your long-term goals.

Reproduced from the National Post newspaper article November 18, 2019.

Ted Rechtshaffen
Written By:
Ted Rechtshaffen, MBA, CFP
President and CEO
tedr@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x 221

Ted Rechtshaffen: Why I made my daughter pay for her first year of university

0 Comments

Teaching financial responsibility and financial lessons should be an important part of a university education

A few years back I wrote an article that was not very popular with high school students. I suggested that a great financial lesson to teach a child or grandchild is to have them pay for at least one year of post-secondary tuition, ideally the first year. Among the many reasons is that the child becomes a partner in their own education and it helps them to take school seriously from day one.

Well, now my oldest child is in first year university and she has paid her first year’s tuition. So far, it didn’t turn out to be that difficult.

One of the key lessons is that I told my daughter of this expectation when she was in Grade 8 or 9 so she had time to work and save up money. Thankfully, she took on the challenge and she has been a good worker and saver along the way. I know that this will not work so smoothly with different personalities. One important benefit of having a responsible oldest child is that my two younger children looked at their sister and have said, “I better start working at 14 or 15 so I will have money to spend and have enough for tuition in first year.” The bar has been set and the expectation communicated.

This all sounds nice, but the important financial lessons are just getting started.

In the days before heading off to school, my daughter asked me a good question. Who will pay for my basic expenses that aren’t covered? Clothes, food beyond the meal plan, some extra spending money. We could answer one of three ways: 1) You are covering all of it; 2) We are covering all of it;
3) We will help cover it.

I know what I don’t want to happen. I have seen many young adults graduate from university without ever being responsible for their own bills and their own budgets. Suddenly at 22 or 23 or 24 the parents are surprised that their kids do not have any of these important financial skills. We view this as an important part of her university education.

What we want to do is to teach financial responsibility and financial lessons. After some thought, we decided that we were not comfortable with either of the first two answers. We were more comfortable with number three, but that still leaves important questions such as: How much will we help? How will you receive the help? What happens if you “run out of money”?

Here is how we answered them.

I reviewed this with my daughter to come up with what we thought was a reasonable budget for these expenses. I told her that we would review it in January to see how it was going.

I told her that I want to pass financial responsibility for her spending to her. That meant that we were going to transfer a monthly amount to her bank account at the beginning of each month. That was hers to use as she saw fit, but she is not getting any more money if she runs out. We don’t want to tell her how to spend her money, we want her to figure it out. If she wants to spend all her extra money on Zola, her African Grey Parrot (don’t ask), and nothing else, it is up to her.

If she does run out of money, it isn’t a crisis. She has a roof over her head and a food plan. She can last until the following month.

Another area for financial lessons comes from credit cards. I actually want her to get a credit card. I want her to understand that putting things on a card is simply deferred payment. If she is late paying, I want her to understand the interest rate. I want her to understand that a minimum monthly payment is not the amount owing.

If the credit card bill comes to her parents, she will not learn these important lessons.

There are a few cards with no fees that require no personal income, and can be obtained by a student as long as you are a Canadian resident over 18.

A great resource to find these cards can be found here:

https://www.savvynewcanadians.com/best-student-credit-cards-canada/

Most importantly, we want to raise someone who appreciates that money doesn’t simply come from her parents. She needs to work for the money and understand its’ value.

She needs to learn to be a good shopper.

She needs to learn how to pay bills.

She needs to feel the consequences of being a saver or a spender.

Ultimately, just like the other parts of being a parent, we want her to develop the skills to be a strong, smart and independent person. The only way that will happen on the financial side is by giving her the freedom to succeed and fail financially. The best way I know to ensure financial problems is to not give your child any of these tools until they have a full-time job.

As someone once told me, “Little people, little problems; big people, big problems.” Just as in other parts of life, it is much easier to learn lessons from the little problems so that you don’t have to face big problems unprepared.

Reproduced from The Financial Post – October 29, 2019.

Ted Rechtshaffen
Written By:
Ted Rechtshaffen, MBA, CFP
President and CEO
tedr@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x 221
↓