Articles

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Have Margaret and Simon saved enough to meet their retirement spending goal?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their names and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor & Portfolio Manager, 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 January 7, 2022

Margaret is age 61 and recently retired. Her husband Simon, who is 70, retired from work five years ago. Although neither has a pension, they have a home in the Greater Toronto Area, a cottage, and substantial savings.

“We are looking for advice on how to draw down our assets for the best tax advantage and longevity of our funds,” Margaret writes in an e-mail. Over the past year or so, they withdrew $100,000 from their savings to lend to their daughter to help with a down payment. As well, they bought a new truck.

Short term, they have some foundation work to do on their cottage and they’re planning a trip to Europe.

Simon is drawing $16,800 a year from his registered retirement income fund. He’s getting $12,170 in Canada Pension Plan benefits and $8,255 in Old Age Security. Margaret recently converted her registered retirement savings plan to a RRIF as well and is wondering how much she should draw. She also wonders when to begin collecting CPP and OAS benefits.

Their retirement spending goal is $8,000 a month, or $96,000 a year, after tax. Have they saved enough?

We asked Matthew Ardrey, a vice-president and portfolio manager at TriDelta Financial in Toronto, to look at Simon and Margaret’s situation.

What the expert says

Margaret and Simon want to take stock of their situation and ensure they will have enough to enjoy their retirement, Mr. Ardrey says. They have investment assets of $800,000 ($76,000 in their tax-free savings accounts and the remainder in RRIFs) plus real estate assets of $2.1-million, which include their home and cottage. The cottage has about $400,000 in imbedded capital gains.

“They are willing to sell the cottage to make their retirement work, “but they want to keep their house. “I would agree with their thinking,” the planner says. “With rising costs of long-term care, I believe in keeping the house aside as insurance against these costs and as a financial buffer in a retirement plan.”

Aside from these assets, they have lent their daughter $100,000 toward a home down payment that she is repaying at 1-per-cent interest over 10 years. As well, they recently bought a truck using funds from their TFSAs. While there are no tax implications from this withdrawal, they might have been better off borrowing the funds, he says. “If they could have financed at a low rate, then they would have been better off doing that than using portfolio assets.”

Simon’s income consists of withdrawals from his RRIF and government benefits, for a total of $37,225 a year. The forecast assumes Margaret begins taking CPP and OAS at the age of 65 because the penalties for taking the benefits earlier are “very punitive and are generally not recommended,” Mr. Ardrey says. “We assume 75 per cent of the maximum CPP and full OAS for Margaret,” which will add another $24,865 a year in future dollars.

They want to spend $8,000 a month starting this year. “Based on the above assumptions, they are not able to meet their objectives,” the planner says.

“The goal of the projection is to have enough to cover their spending until Margaret’s age 90, leaving the principal residence intact to cover off any future health care costs,” he says. To avoid the punitive losses of taking CPP early, they must make additional withdrawals from their RRIFs, which are all taxable.

“They run out of investment assets in 2034, when Simon is 83 and Margaret is 74, where we assume they sell the cottage,” Mr. Ardrey says. Even then, they run out of investment assets a second time in 2047. Margaret, who would be 87, would be forced to sell the house at this time to fund her expenses for the remainder of her life.

“This adds the risk of failure to this projection because she would no longer have the financial cushion,” he says. “Although it could work under ideal conditions, life is not always ideal.”

Although the projection works if she sells the house, “things look worse if the projection is stress-tested using a Monte Carlo simulation,” Mr. Ardrey says.

A Monte Carlo simulation introduces randomness to a number of factors, including returns, to stress-test the success of a retirement plan. “In this plan, we have run 500 iterations with the financial planning software to get the results,” he says. For a plan to be considered “likely to succeed” by the program, it must have at least a 90-per-cent success rate, meaning at least 450 trials out of 500 succeed. If it is below 70 per cent, then it is considered unlikely.

“Even if Margaret sells the house in 2047, the probability of success in this plan is only 51 per cent,” Mr. Ardrey says. “To achieve 100 per cent success with their current portfolio construction, they would need to reduce their spending by almost 20 per cent to $6,500 per month.”

Their current portfolio has an expected future return of 2.82 per cent a year on average, the planner says. This is owing to the 60 per cent weight in fixed income. “By changing their portfolio mix to achieve a 5 per cent return (a 3 per cent real rate of return above 2 per cent inflation), the probability of success jumps to 92 per cent,” he says. In his forecast, Mr. Ardrey uses an asset mix of 60 per cent stocks, 20 per cent non-traditional investments and 20 per cent fixed income. “If in addition they lower their expenses by $500 a month to $7,500, the likelihood of success increases to 100 per cent and removes the need to sell their home.”

For the past 40 years or so, fixed income has been a safe haven for investing, the planner says. “This is less so today.” Fixed income faces risks of rising interest rates. An increase in interest rates leads to a decline in the price of existing bonds. Additionally, it has inflation risk. “If the current rate of inflation is stickier than predicted, the real rate of return on bonds will be negative.” In short, Simon and Margaret need to consider taking on more stock market risk and less interest rate and inflation risk, the planner says.

Client situation

The people: Simon, 70, and Margaret, 61.

The problem: How should they draw on their assets to meet their retirement spending goal? Have they saved enough?

The plan: Strive to cut spending. Plan on selling the cottage and investing the proceeds. Consider professional money management to boost investment returns. Margaret may have to sell the family home at some point.

The payoff: The realization they will have to temper their aspirations.

Monthly net income: $8,070

Assets: Cash in bank $50,000; combined TFSAs $76,000; combined RRIFs $724,000; mortgage to daughter $100,000; grandchild’s education savings plan $23,370; cottage $900,000; residence $1.2-million. Total: $3.07-million.

Monthly outlays: Property taxes $1,000; water, sewer, garbage $80; property insurance $290; electricity, heating $390; maintenance, garden $585; transportation $880; grocery store $895; clothing $40; gifts, charity $525; vacation, travel $350; other discretionary $200; dining, drinks, entertainment $865; personal care $25; club membership $20; pets $600; sports, hobbies $175; subscriptions $140; other personal $25; health care $350; communications $475; grandchild’s registered education savings plan $165. Total: $8,075.

Liabilities: None.

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 & Portfolio Manager
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Can Owen and Emily afford to retire next year and spend winters overseas?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their names and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor & Portfolio Manager, 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 5, 2021

Owen and Emily – freelancers in their early 60s – amassed $1.7-million in financial assets the old-fashioned way. No inheritance or real estate windfall helped them. They raised two children, now 22 and 29, and their house in small-town Ontario is fully paid for.

They each draw a salary of $36,000 a year from their corporation, which bills about $130,000 a year.

“The lower cost of living here might have played a small role, but we always spent less than we earned,” Owen writes in an e-mail. “We paid for our house after eight years and we have invested our savings in passive investments, mostly exchange-traded funds, on a buy and hold basis,” he writes.

Emily and Owen are hoping to hang up their hats next year and travel, spending Canadian winters overseas. They wonder whether they can contribute $25,000 a year for a few years for their younger child’s overseas studies. Their retirement spending goal is $70,000 a year, much more than they are spending now.

“What is our best strategy to withdraw our investment money to support our lifestyle?” Owen asks.

We asked Matthew Ardrey, a vice-president, portfolio manager and financial planner at TriDelta Financial in Toronto, to look at Owen and Emily’s situation.

What the expert says

Owen and Emily are looking to retire next summer after years working at a successful business, Mr. Ardrey says. “Before they do, they want to ensure that they have accumulated enough assets to make the switch from earning a living to enjoying retirement.”

They are saving the maximum to their tax-free savings accounts. Any other surpluses are being held in their personal and corporate bank accounts, the planner says. The higher spending they anticipate will be for travelling and “focusing more on enjoying life,” the planner says. Their current spending has likely been constrained by the COVID pandemic, he adds.

Emily and Owen would like to support their son for the next five years while he is overseas by giving him $25,000 a year, Mr. Ardrey says. “If this is not feasible, it’s not necessary, but it’s certainly something they would do if they could.”

Part of what they would like to understand is how to draw down or “decumulate” the assets they hold in their corporation, their registered retirement savings plans and their TFSAs, “not to mention a sizable balance in their cash accounts,” the planner says.

He suggests a fixed draw on the corporate assets to create a steady income stream much like a pension. Spreading out the income they receive also will help keep their tax bill down, he says. “This would provide them with $2,000 per month (total) starting in retirement, indexed to inflation.”

Mr. Ardrey recommends they “melt down” their RRSP assets before they take Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits. They could take withdrawals of $20,000 each a year, which would create a level income stream until they start collecting government benefits at age 65. The forecast assumes they will get 70 per cent of the maximum CPP benefit.

Before analyzing their retirement cash flow, the planner says he must first analyze their portfolio construction. “If we ignore the large cash balances, which will likely be used to pay for their son’s living costs overseas, they have a portfolio that is about 87-per-cent stocks and 13-per-cent fixed income,” Mr. Ardrey says. “Though that mix is great for accumulation, it has considerable volatility risk inherent in it, which is not appropriate for decumulation,” the planner says.

“On top of the volatility risk, there is significant company-specific risk, with one stock making up 32 per cent of the entire portfolio.” This stock has a huge imbedded capital gain, he notes. “The only saving grace is it is in the corporation, so selling the stock will increase the capital dividend account, allowing for tax-free withdrawal of part of the gain.”

The capital dividend account is funded by the non-taxable portion of a capital gain in a corporation, currently 50 per cent. This account permits tax-free withdrawals from the corporation by the shareholders.

In preparing his forecast, the planner assumes Emily and Owen reduce their stock exposure to 60 per cent in retirement and allocate the remainder to bonds. He assumes a rate of return on investments of 3.84 per cent (historical) and an inflation rate of 2 per cent. “Though adding bonds limits the volatility risk, it lowers the return they can earn, and also adds risks from inflation and interest rate increases,” he says. Even so, running the projection under these conditions allows them to meet their retirement spending goal and help their son with his expenses, Mr. Ardrey says.

“Things change if we stress-test the projection using a Monte Carlo simulation.”

A Monte Carlo simulation is a computer program that introduces randomness to a number of factors, including returns. “In this plan, we have run 500 iterations with the financial planning software,” the planner says. For a plan to be considered likely to succeed, it must have at least a 90-per-cent success rate. If it is below 70 per cent, then it is considered unlikely.

“In the case of Owen and Emily, they achieved a success rate of 89 per cent, so they are just under the likely marker,” he says.

“Owen and Emily’s diligent saving has made it possible for their retirement dream to be realized,” Mr. Ardrey says, “although with their portfolio in its current form, there are certainly some risks they need to address.” By addressing these concerns, he says, “they can improve the likelihood they will achieve all of their financial goals.”

Client situation

The people: Owen, 61, Emily, 62, and their two children, 22 and 29.

The problem: Can they afford to retire next year with a budget of $70,000 a year after tax while still helping their younger child with overseas living expenses? What is the best way to draw down their savings?

The plan: Treat the corporate savings like a pension, making regular monthly withdrawals that rise with inflation. Melt down their RRSPs as much as possible before taking government benefits.

The payoff: A secure retirement with enough money to travel and winter overseas.

Monthly net income: $5,655

Assets: Cash in bank $135,000; cash in corporate account $89,000; stocks in corporate account $766,000; his TFSA $77,800; her TFSA $77,500; his RRSP $280,500; her RRSP $310,450; remainder of registered education savings plan $12,600; residence $700,000. Total: $2.4-million

Monthly outlays: Property tax $380; water, sewer, garbage $115; home insurance $50; electricity, heat $165; maintenance, garden $190; transportation $350; groceries $550; clothing $30; gifts, charity $35; vacation, travel $600; other discretionary $200; dining, drinks, entertainment $215; personal care $10; pets $20; club membership $15; health care $140; communications $95; TFSAs $1,000. Total: $4,160. Surplus of $1,495 goes to unallocated spending and saving.

Liabilities: None.

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 & Portfolio Manager
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Can Sébastien and Sofia afford a new cottage on top of their other financial goals?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their names and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor & Portfolio Manager, 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 September 24, 2021

Sébastien and Sofia are in their late 30s with three children, ages 10, 7 and 5. Sébastien works in education, Sofia has gone back to university to get an advanced degree. Their family income is about $200,000 a year. It will rise once Sofia begins full-time work.

“Thus far, Sofia and I have been very careful with our money,” Sébastien writes in an e-mail. “We have avoided debt and we have done well with our investments,” he says. “Our decisions are rarely based on money and almost always on our values, life goals, and what kind of education we want to offer our kids.” The Montreal couple are planning to move to a larger apartment in the next few years to make more room for their family. They want to give their children the option of attending a private high school if they choose. Private schools in Quebec cost about $7,000 a year. They also want to help with their higher education.

An unexpected opportunity has landed amid these well-ordered plans: Sébastien and his brother have been asked whether they’d like to buy the family cottage, a small, three-season place that requires extensive rebuilding. “It’s been in the family for three generations,” Sébastien writes. After the renovation, each family would spend some time at the cottage, and rent it out when they’re not there to help cover expenses.

Can they do it without jeopardizing their other goals? Sébastien asks. If so, how should they finance the purchase and renovation?

“We are not too worried about retirement, but we are more concerned about the period when the kids will go to high school,” he writes.

We asked Matthew Ardrey, a vice-president, portfolio manager and financial planner at TriDelta Financial in Toronto, to look at Sébastien and Sofia’s situation.

What the expert says

If they decide to buy and renovate the family cottage, Sébastien and Sofia will be sharing the cost with Sébastien’s brother 50/50 and expect the total amount to be $550,000, of which Sébastien and Sofia would pay $275,000, Mr. Ardrey says. To pay for the purchase and rebuilding, they have three options: Sébastien and Sofia could sell some securities and pay cash for their portion; together the partners could get a mortgage on the cottage at 2.39 per cent; or Sébastien’s brother could borrow against his condo at 1.05 per cent, with both partners being responsible for the loan.

“Selling securities will result in capital gains and a loss of investment income,” Mr. Ardrey says. “This would only make sense if they could set it up as a Smith Manoeuvre, making the loan interest tax-deductible,” he says. (If they sell some securities to pay for the cottage and then reborrow to reinstate the investments, the interest on the debt would then be tax-deductible.) They would need to compare the cost of taxes on capital gains against tax savings from deductible interest payments.

Financing with a mortgage is most likely the best option, the planner says. “The cost of debt today is very low, and as long as they can exceed the cost of debt with their investment returns, it is the preferable choice.” Their mortgage payments would be about $11,680 a year.

Though the rate of interest would be lower borrowing against the brother’s condo, they should try to avoid mixing business with family, Mr. Ardrey says. “If for any reason their financial circumstances change for the worse, their brother should not pay the consequences.”

In his forecast, Mr. Ardrey assumes they can get a mortgage for 80 per cent of the value. The remaining capital will come from Sofia’s portfolio because her income is lower and the tax consequences from the capital gains will be less.

Aside from the cost of the mortgage, Sébastien and Sofia expect the net effect on their budget will be an increase in spending of about $1,200 a year because they plan to rent the cottage out part-time to cover some of the costs. As well, having it will lower other vacation costs.

The forecast assumes Sébastien and Sofia move to a larger apartment in 2023, increasing their rent from about $1,500 to $3,000 a month.

Their single largest spending year shows an increase of $26,500 with higher rent, private high school and cottage mortgage payments, Mr. Ardrey says. “That being said, with Sofia’s increased income, their annual surplus savings remain in the $25,000 to $30,000 range,” the planner says. “So there is a significant amount of cushion to deal with these added expenses.”

Sébastien and Sofia save $625 a month in a registered education savings plan toward their children’s higher education. Assuming a cost of $15,000 a year, including living expenses, for postsecondary education (lower due to Quebec’s lower tuition fees), they would be able to cover undergraduate degrees in full for their first two children and two-thirds of the cost for their third child. He assumes any shortfall is covered by Sébastien and Sofia from their personal investments.

Sofia and Sébastien make their annual maximum contributions to their tax-free savings accounts and save another $6,000 a year to Sofia’s registered retirement savings plan. Sébastien also contributes $920 a month to his defined benefit pension plan at work. “They note a surplus of around $49,500 a year in their questionnaire,” Mr. Ardrey says. They have already saved $27,000 as of the end of August. Thus any surplus is assumed to be saved.

“As their income increases and expenses like private school end, their surplus grows substantially and so we assume their annual savings do as well,” the planner says.

Sébastien and Sofia plan to retire at age 65, when they will get full Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits. Sébastien’s pension will pay him $60,280 a year, indexed to inflation. Their retirement spending goal is $80,000 a year after tax.

Their current asset mix is 4 per cent cash, 4 per cent fixed income, 11 per cent preferred shares and 81 per cent equities, which in turn are divided 47 per cent Canada, 41 per cent U.S. and 12 per cent international and emerging markets. This portfolio has had a historical return of 5.03 per cent. They are investing using stocks and exchange-traded funds, which keep costs down, so the planner assumes an average investing cost of 0.25 per cent.

“In retirement we assume that they need to make their portfolio more conservative to avoid the inherent volatility in their current mix,” Mr. Ardrey says. “We assume they move to a 60/40 equity/fixed income portfolio, which lowers their returns to a historical 3.84 per cent.”

Sébastien and Sofia can make their retirement goal with ease, the planner says. “In fact they could more than double their spending and still have funds left over.”

Client situation

The people: Sébastien, 38; Sofia, 39; and their three children.

The problem: Can they afford to buy and renovate the family cottage in partnership with Sébastien’s brother without jeopardizing their other goals? How should they finance it?

The plan: Take out a mortgage to finance 80 per cent of their share of the cottage, selling securities from Sofia’s portfolio to pay for the rest. Continue saving their substantial surplus.

The payoff: All goals achieved.

Monthly net income: $12,600

Assets: Cash $14,500; his stocks $401,455; her stocks $146,000; his TFSA $130,765; her TFSA $135,670; his RRSP $120,345; her RRSP $96,990; estimated present value of his DB pension $157,500; RESP $85,000. Total: $1.29-million

Monthly outlays: Rent $1,540; home insurance $40; electricity $30; car rental $200; other transportation $140; groceries $900; child care $420; clothing $200; gifts, charity $200; vacation, travel $500; dining, drinks, entertainment $380; personal care $20; sports, hobbies $500; subscriptions $20; dentists, drugstore $20; health, dental insurance $70; life, disability $90; communications $145; RRSPs $500; RESP $625; TFSAs $1,000; his pension plan $920. Total: $8,460. Surplus of $4,140 goes to non-registered savings account.

Liabilities: None.

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 & Portfolio Manager
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Can Ben and Lucy retire in their 40s on just one income?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their names and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor & Portfolio Manager, 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 July 9, 2021

Ben and Lucy are in their early 40s with two children, no company pensions and a burning desire to retire very early. Lucy earns $59,000 a year, Ben $79,000 a year. Both have mid-level management jobs.

They own a $1.4-million house in Toronto – their former home – that they rent out for $3,600 a month. Last fall, they moved to a smaller community not far from the city, where they bought a house valued at $850,000. They have about $1.2-million of debt.

“What we would like to know is the best path to achieve a retirement with $55,000 a year income after tax,” Ben writes in an e-mail. “My wife is planning to quit her job soon.” Once Lucy stops working, Ben wonders how much longer he will have to work to achieve their spending target. “Should we sell the house in Toronto as soon as possible and pay off the mortgages and the home equity line of credit?” Ben asks. They would invest the net proceeds. Ben is anticipating a $400,000 inheritance in about 10 years.

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

What the expert says

Lucy plans to stop working by month end, just before she turns 45, Mr. Ardrey says. Working from home during the pandemic led her to conclude she needed to spend more time with the children. Ben plans to retire in about 10 years, if possible, when he is 51.

They have an investment portfolio of about $770,000 in various accounts, invested in geographically diversified equities. The one exception is the leveraged investment account worth $447,000, which is all invested in the iShares S&P/TSX Composite High Dividend Index ETF. In addition to their investment portfolio, they own their home worth $850,000 and a rental property valued at $1.4-million.

Against these investments, they have a $473,000 mortgage on their principal residence, a mortgage and line of credit totalling $371,000 against their rental property and a loan of $385,000 against their investment portfolio, the planner says. These loans, other than the line of credit, come up for renewal in the next three or four years.

“With $1.23-million of debt, the risks associated with rising interest rates are considerable, especially when mixed with a reduction in family income,” Mr. Ardrey says.

Ben and Lucy are not setting aside money for retirement at the moment, but Ben is expecting a large inheritance. “Typically, I would exclude an inheritance from any financial projection unless it is quite certain, which in this case Ben feels it is.”

One of the main questions Lucy and Ben ask is whether they should sell their rental property or keep it. Mr. Ardrey prepared two scenarios. In the first, they keep the rental property. It earns them $3,600 a month gross, less expenses of $1,195 and debt repayment costs of about $1,330.

Ben and Lucy have been living frugally, spending about $43,000 a year excluding debt repayment, rental costs and savings. They want to loosen the purse strings a bit in a few years, increasing their spending to $55,000 a year to cover home repairs, a new car, children’s activities and more travel. Without Lucy’s income, they will need to draw about $3,000 a year from their investments, increasing to about $15,000 a year once they hike their spending.

Their current rate of return on their portfolio is 6.14 per cent, less an average management expense ratio of 0.29 per cent, for a net return of 5.85 per cent. “To maintain their asset mix at 100 per cent equities once Ben stops working would be very risky,” Mr. Ardrey says. So in preparing his forecast, he assumes they move to a balanced asset mix of 60 per cent stocks and 40 per cent bonds at Ben’s retirement. This lowers the rate of return to 4.1 per cent gross and 3.81 per cent net of MERs. When Ben receives the inheritance, the planner assumes they catch up with their contributions to their tax-free savings accounts and make their annual maximum contribution thereafter.

“In the first scenario, they can achieve their retirement goal, though with very little financial cushion if the rental property is never sold,” Mr. Ardrey says. Though there is a net worth of $7.7-million at Ben’s age 90, it is almost entirely real estate.

In the second scenario, they sell the rental property in 2022 and retire all of the associated debts. Based on a cost base of $790,000 there is a capital gain of $660,000. This capital gain is reduced by estimated selling costs of 5 per cent, or $72,500, making the net gain $587,500. The same investment drawdown and rate of return figures apply in this scenario. The one change is they fund their TFSAs earlier using the proceeds of the rental sale.

“In the second scenario, they can also achieve their retirement goal and have more financial cushion when doing so,” Mr. Ardrey says. Their net worth is $6.8-million at Ben’s age 90, but they are able to spend $24,000 more than their target each year – or $79,000 – from Ben’s retirement to his age 90, adding much more financial flexibility.

“Looking at these scenarios, it is apparent that there are some major risks to their retirement success,” the planner says. The first is future interest rates. “With so much debt, a rise in interest rates could have a significant impact on their monthly costs,” the planner says. The second risk is rates of return. Given the more than 50-year time horizon, Mr. Ardrey used what is called a Monte Carlo simulation – a software program – to stress-test the success of the couple’s retirement plan. For a plan to be considered “likely” to succeed, it must have at least a 90-per-cent success rate. Less than 70 per cent is considered “unlikely.”

Both the first and second scenarios fall into the “somewhat likely” category, with success rates of 75 per cent and 86 per cent, respectively. Because this is below the 90 per cent threshold, Mr. Ardrey suggests some changes to their portfolio allocation, replacing a portion with private investments such as real estate investment trusts or mortgage investment corporations.

To invest in these asset types, they will need to access them through an investment counsellor who could charge 1.5 per cent a year, tax deductible on non-registered accounts, he says. Such investments carry risks, but may lessen the reliance on traditional fixed-income securities on which yields are historically low.

Client situation

The people: Ben, 41, Lucy, 44, and their children, 7 and 9.

The problem: After Lucy quits this month, how much longer will Ben have to work to achieve a retirement spending target of $55,000 a year? Should they sell their rental property to pay off debt?

The plan: The scenario in which they sell the rental and pay off their debts offers a greater degree of security and allows them to spend even more if they choose to. Consider diversifying the investment portfolio into private, income-producing assets such as REITs.

The payoff: The path forward they are asking for.

Monthly net income: $14,030

Assets: Cash $19,000; ETFs $447,470; his TFSA $170; his RRSP $132,490; her RRSP $127,365; RESP $62,190; residence $850,000; rental property $1.45-million. Total: $3.09-million

Monthly outlays: Home mortgage $1,725; property tax $370; home insurance $100; utilities $385; transportation $180; groceries $950; clothing $50; line of credit $400; other loans $2,570; gifts, charity $120; rental property fees, tax, maintenance $1,195; dining, drinks, entertainment $250; pets $40; sports, hobbies $600; subscriptions $20; children’s activities $240; life, disability insurance $80; phones, TV, internet $190; RESP $165. Total: $9,630

Liabilities: Residence mortgage $472,915; rental mortgage $182,475; HELOC $188,430; investment loan $385,155. Total: $1.23-million

 

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 & Portfolio Manager
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Can Richard and Jane afford an expensive renovation without infringing on Jane’s retirement plans?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their names and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor & Portfolio Manager, 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 May 28, 2021

Richard is 59, retired and collecting a defined benefit pension, not indexed, of $39,660 a year. He also has substantial savings and investments. Jane is 53 and works in health care, earning about $80,000 a year. She has recently joined her pension plan at work and has the option of buying back some years of service. She wonders if it makes sense financially to do so. She hopes to retire from work at age 60.

They also wonder whether they can afford a major renovation to their small-town Ontario house without infringing on Jane’s retirement plans.

“Can we afford to indulge our interest in architecture with a major modern home renovation valued at $300,000 and still have Jane retire when she turns 60 years of age?” Richard asks in an e-mail. Their house is valued at $700,000 with a $215,000 mortgage that they took out some time ago to invest. As a result, the mortgage interest is tax-deductible. They have cash and short-term investments of about $139,000.

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

What the expert says

Jane is earning $73,320 a year, plus $6,800, which her employer contributes to her registered retirement savings plan, Mr. Ardrey says. Jane and Richard maximize their tax-free savings account contributions annually. Any surplus they earn is being saved for their renovation, planned for 2022.

With no buyback, Jane’s pension will be $9,360 a year at age 60 indexed to inflation plus a bridge benefit of $2,280 until age 65. If she purchases the buyback for $168,000, the pension increases to $18,840 at age 60 plus a bridge of $4,560.

To fund the buyback, Mr. Ardrey assumes Jane transfers her existing RRSP and locked-in retirement account, which together amount to $114,000, to her pension plan. The remainder would come from their $50,000 guaranteed investment certificate and $4,000 from the joint bank account. “Whether or not she chooses the buyback will impact the funding for the renovation, so we will look at each scenario independently,” Mr. Ardrey says.

The average rate of return for their investment portfolio is 5.16 per cent, with an average management expense ratio of 0.29 per cent – resulting in a net return of 4.87 per cent. The assumed rate of inflation is 2 per cent.

They estimate their Canada Pension Plan benefit will be $1,100 a month for Richard and $1,000 a month for Jane at age 65. The forecast assumes they take Old Age Security benefits at age 65 as well.

In the first scenario, Jane does not take the pension buyback. They take all of their cash savings, which amount to $150,000 by mid-2022, for the renovation, financing the rest of the work on their line of credit at a rate of prime plus 0.5 percentage points, or 2.95 per cent. The forecast assumes they pay this off over 10 years.

“Using the cash, which has a negative real rate of return after inflation and taxes, is a good place to start,” the planner says. For the remainder, using debt over cashing in investments is preferred. With a rate of interest of only 2.95 per cent, the “hurdle rate” to earn more than that on their investments is low.

“That being said, they certainly have the assets to pay off the entire renovation,” Mr. Ardrey says. If they were to pay for it all with investment proceeds and then borrow against the line of credit to re-establish those investments, the interest would be tax-deductible.

“They should watch interest rates,” the planner says. “If rates rise, the hurdle rate would become higher and it may be more beneficial to pay off the debt rather than reinvest it.”

In retirement, they plan to spend $65,000 a year after tax and adjusted for inflation. At Jane’s age 90, there will be an estate of $8.4-million (with inflation), including investments and real estate. “If instead of leaving a large estate, if they exhaust all of their investment assets, leaving only real estate, they can increase their spending in retirement by $48,000 per year,” Mr. Ardrey says.

In the second scenario, he looks at what happens if Jane takes the pension buyback. “As this impacts their cash savings for the renovation, they will need to borrow $210,000 from the line of credit,” he says. The result is surprisingly similar. “With the increased pension and larger loan, we would expect to see a difference, but in fact the two scenarios play out almost identically,” the planner says.

“The most likely reason is the rate of return used in the forecast and the discount rate for the pension plan are virtually the same,” Mr. Ardrey says. (The discount rate is the rate of return assumed by the actuaries when calculating the current value needed to fund a future pension.)

Since the quantitative factors are identical, Jane and Richard need to look at other factors when making the pension buyback decision. These would include Jane’s life expectancy, the expected rate of return on the portfolio, their willingness to assume the investment risk versus the certainty of receiving pension income, the need for financial flexibility and how much interest rates are expected to rise over time.

“The main risk in each analysis is the asset mix of their investments,” Mr. Ardrey says. Their asset mix is 10 per cent cash, 3 per cent fixed income, 35 per cent preferred shares, 4 per cent in alternative investments and 48 per cent equities, of which about 80 per cent is in Canadian stocks or stock funds. “With about 75 per cent of their portfolio invested in Canadian stocks and preferred shares, some additional geographic diversification would be beneficial,” he says.

With preferred shares, an increase in interest rates can lead to a decline in value. As well, preferred shares can be more volatile than their traditional fixed-income counterparts such as corporate bonds, he adds.

Dividend income could also affect Old Age Security benefits. “Dividends are grossed up and an offsetting dividend tax credit is given to reduce the overall tax payable. The problem with this is that the grossed-up dividend is used in the OAS calculation, increasing the chances for the OAS clawback.”

To increase their diversification, Richard and Jane might consider adding some real estate investment trusts, private or publicly traded, to their investment mix, the planner says. “REITs that invest in a large, diversified residential portfolio or perhaps specific areas like wireless network infrastructure are preferable to one that has a large exposure to retail,” Mr. Ardrey says.

Client situation

The people: Richard, 59, and Jane, 53.

The problem: Can they afford an expensive renovation? Should Jane buy back some pension benefits?

The plan: The pension decision depends on considerations such as investment expectations, risk tolerance and their outlook for interest rates. Diversify their portfolio geographically.

The payoff: A clear view of their options.

Monthly net income: $8,820

Assets: Cash $89,000; GIC $50,000; his non-registered stocks $360,000; his private investment $60,000; his TFSA $100,000; her TFSA $88,000; his RRSP $510,000; her RRSP and locked-in retirement account $114,000; his defined contribution pension plan $100,000; estimated present value of his pension $700,000; his locked-in retirement account $52,000; residence $700,000. Total: $2.9-million

Monthly outlays: Mortgage $905; property tax $380; home insurance $50; utilities $180; maintenance, garden $320; transportation $755; groceries $670; clothing $135; gifts, charity $305; vacation, travel $670; dining, drinks, entertainment $630; personal care, club membership $55; pets $150; sports, hobbies, subscriptions $170; health care $115; disability insurance $70; communications $275; RRSP $565; TFSAs $1,000. Total: $7,400

Liabilities: Mortgage $215,000

 

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 & Portfolio Manager
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Couple whose income has taken a big hit want to sell home and retire early by ‘leaning hard into dividends’

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who is looking for financial advice on how best to arrange their financial affairs. Their names and details have been changed to protect their identity. The Globe and Mail often seeks the advice of our VP, Wealth Advisor & Portfolio Manager, 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 March 12, 2021

A year ago, Frannie and Frank were earning a combined $100,000 a year after tax, Frannie in a restaurant, Frank in a bar. The value of their two-bedroom condo townhouse in Toronto was rising by the month.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit and they were out of work. Frannie is 37, Frank 31. They’ve managed to earn some money since then but they’re a long way from making ends meet.

“We are needing to make some huge and life-altering decisions,” Frannie writes in e-mail. Since they can’t foresee their income rebounding any time soon, they have decided to sell their townhouse. They plan to rent and invest the profit.

“Our thoughts are to lean hard into dividends,” Frannie adds. They’ve set their sights on one Canadian closed-end dividend income fund, attracted by its double-digit distribution. “How do we invest the dividends? Is this plan too high-risk? When can we retire? Can we retire?!?” Ideally, they’d like to hang up their hats at age 55 with $62,000 a year after tax to spend.

We asked Matthew Ardrey, a vice-president and portfolio manager at TriDelta Financial in Toronto, to look at Frannie and Frank’s situation. Mr. Ardrey also holds the certified financial planner and advanced registered financial planner designations.

What the expert says

“With the ultra-hot real estate market in the city, Frannie and Frank should have no problem selling their home and getting the price they want,” Mr. Ardrey says. They expect to get $950,000. They will pay off their mortgage of $377,500 and cover selling costs, estimated to be $66,500.

They plan to look for a smaller apartment for $2,000 plus $200 for utilities and parking. “This move will save them $650 per month in expenses.”

When the house closes, they plan to spend $7,000 on a vacation, leaving them with $499,000. They will both top up their tax-free savings accounts for a total of $120,000. “They may want to consider placing some funds aside for an emergency fund.”

Frank and Frannie plan to use the income from their investments to supplement their living expenses. They wonder whether their fund of choice is too risky.

“Aside from the risk of putting all their eggs in one basket, a deeper review of this fund has revealed a number of concerns,” Mr. Ardrey says. It boasts a yield of 10.97 per cent. “With a yield that high, how the distributions are generated is of utmost importance,” he says. “The fund does not hold anything that would generate that high a yield.” Instead, it generates its returns mainly through capital gains and return of capital; that is, giving investors some of their own money back.

When return of capital to unitholders becomes substantial, it can depress the value of the fund, Mr. Ardrey says. The fund’s return on capital has been around 47 per cent a year for the past four years – with the exception of 2019, when it was 88 per cent. Typically, fund distributions come from dividends and capital gains. In 2019, those accounted for only 12 per cent of the distribution. “For the rest, they had to encroach on capital.” The balance of the distribution for the past four years came mainly from capital gains – “not very typical of an income fund.”

The question is how long the fund company can sustain such high distributions, he adds. “What would happen if markets went through a prolonged downturn? It would likely be an unsustainable distribution.”

Finally, this fund locks in their investments, Mr. Ardrey says. Frank and Frannie would be able to redeem only once a year and when they do, they will get only 95 per cent of the value. “This is not an investment I would recommend they undertake.”

Instead, Mr. Ardrey looks at how the couple would fare with a diversified portfolio of 75 per cent equities and 25 per cent fixed income, and a historical rate of return of 4.78 per cent. If they invest with an online portfolio manager, they would pay 0.65 per cent in fees, leaving them with 4.13 per cent.

Frannie’s income is $19,000 a year, which she expects to remain static post-COVID, the planner says. Frank expects his income to rise from $44,000 back to its historical average of $56,000. The investment income alone will not be sufficient to meet the couple’s ongoing needs. They would need to start drawing down $4,000 a year of capital in 2022, increasing by $2,000 every few years, he says. “As time goes on, the frequency of these increases will rise as the capital pool diminishes.” By the time Frannie reaches age 55, the annual capital withdrawal would be $12,000 a year.

If they retire that early, Frannie will be entitled to 30 per cent of the maximum Canada Pension Plan benefit at age 65 and Frank 60 per cent, he estimates. The inflation rate is forecast at 2 per cent a year. “Based on these assumptions, they will run out of capital by 2051, when Frannie is 68 and Frank is 61.”

What if they worked another decade to age 65 and invested in the same portfolio? Working longer would have the effect of increasing their CPP benefits to 40 per cent of the maximum for Frannie and 75 per cent for Frank. “However, it would also add to the length of time they would need to be making pre-retirement withdrawals.” By the time Frannie retired at age 65, they would be withdrawing $22,000 a year.

“Leaving all other assumptions the same, they would still not be able to achieve their retirement spending goal,” Mr. Ardrey says. They would run out of capital by 2072, when Frank is 82 and Frannie is 89.

To improve their return, he recommends they hire an investment counselling firm and invest in a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds and alternative income funds. Good-quality private income funds have returned 7 per cent to 9 per cent over the past few years with virtually no correlation to stock markets, he says. Private funds do have liquidity risk because they are subject to redemption periods.

“A portfolio like the one described above should be able to earn them 5 per cent net of investment costs or 6.5 per cent before,” the planner says. “With this change, they will reduce the amount needed from the portfolio pre-retirement,” he adds. They would start with $1,000 in 2026 and end with withdrawals of $14,000 when they retire. “So the improved returns delay the withdrawals by four years and reduce the amount needed at retirement by 36 per cent.”

These changes would be enough to put Frank and Frannie on the positive side of the ledger, but “the margin for error is very small.” They would be left with $575,000 at Frank’s age 90.

“So in addition to delaying retirement and improving their investment return, they must find a way to earn more income or reduce their expenses further,” the planner says. Because Frannie is in a lower tax bracket, the ideal would be for her to earn at least another $10,000 gross a year, he says.

Client situation

The people: Frank, 31, and Frannie, 37.

The problem: How should they invest the proceeds of their house sale? When can they afford to retire?

The plan: Invest in a diversified and balanced portfolio. Plan on working to age 65. Strive to make at least another $10,000 a year.

The payoff: A realistic assessment of what they need to do to achieve their goals.

Monthly net income (budgeted): $4,360

Assets: Bank $13,710; non-registered $17,020; her TFSA $10,105; his TFSA $1,520; residence $950,000. Total: $992,355

Monthly outlays: Mortgage $1,775; condo fee $475; property tax $250; utilities $240; home insurance $90; maintenance $25; transportation $600; groceries $720; clothing $100; gifts, charity $35; vacation, travel $0; dining, drinks, entertainment $0; personal care $50; sports, hobbies $65; pets $205; subscriptions $30; other personal $100; health care $30; phones, TV, internet $225. Total $5,015. Shortfall comes from savings. (Discretionary spending on travel, dining out, entertainment has been suspended.)

Liabilities: Home mortgage $377,500

 

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 & Portfolio Manager
matt@tridelta.ca
(416) 733-3292 x230
↓