Articles

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

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Can Chelsea and Chad ‘make it all work’ with a second baby on the way and a possible career change?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who are 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, 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 October 4, 2019

Chelsea and Chad are earning big and saving mightily, but with a second baby on the way, Chelsea is mulling a possible career change that would cut her income substantially. They are both 34 with a toddler, a mortgage-heavy house in Toronto, and two rental condos.

Chelsea earns $250,000 a year in sales, Chad $115,000 a year in technology. Their condos – their principal residences before they got together – are both generating positive cash flow. With the “main breadwinner” taking a year off and big mortgage payments, they are wondering how to “make it all work.”

They ask whether they should continue paying down their home mortgage aggressively, and whether they should borrow against their rental units to invest. “There is a lot of money coming in and out of our accounts monthly, with property tax, condo fees, and so on,” Chelsea writes in an e-mail. They wonder whether they are managing it optimally.

“We just keep saving but with no clear goal in mind or understanding if our planning is sound,” she adds. They have a “strong desire to maintain a safety net,” and to have a “sound strategy for retirement.”

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

What the expert says

Mr. Ardrey started by running the numbers Chad and Chelsea provided for their income, savings and expenses. To his surprise, his software showed the couple had a $45,000 a year surplus – even after accounting for savings and tax refunds from RRSP contributions. “I believe this is significant leakage in their spending that they have not recorded,” he says.

“Because most people know what they earn and what they save, I can only assume this is being spent,” the planner says. He has included an additional $45,000 worth of expenses in their plan to account for the discrepancy. This takes their adjusted spending to $205,000 a year, including mortgage prepayments.

“This is the primary issue that Chelsea and Chad need to address before any others,” Mr. Ardrey says. “A material change in expenses will affect all financial projections and analysis, including making sure they have sufficient life and disability insurance,” he adds. “I recommend that they go through a detailed budgeting process as soon as possible.”

Both Chelsea and Chad have defined contribution pension plans or group registered retirement savings plans at work to which both they and their employers contribute. As well, they both make maximum contributions to their tax-free savings accounts.

In addition to the registered savings, they make an extra payment of about $12,000 each quarter ($48,000 a year) on their mortgage, and tuck away $2,000 a month ($24,000 a year) in a non-registered savings account. In the past, they have used this money for RRSP top-ups, TFSA contributions and mortgage payments. More recently, they have been setting it aside to help offset the drop in income during Chelsea’s mat leave. Chelsea will get 60 per cent of her salary for the first 16 weeks and employment insurance benefits thereafter.

Their rental properties bring in an additional $19,800 a year for Chelsea and $14,820 for Chad after expenses, but before taxes.

Chelsea and Chad have a $719,000 mortgage on their principal residence and a $42,000 mortgage on one of the rentals.

It is unfortunate that Chelsea and Chad have so little debt against their rental properties and so much against their principal residence, because the rental mortgage interest is tax deductible, but interest on their principal residence mortgage is not.

Although a common thought would be to leverage the equity in the rentals to pay off the principal residence, the Canada Revenue Agency has recently disallowed a similar strategy. For interest to be tax deductible, the use of the borrowed money must be to produce income, the CRA says. The intention of the transaction and the assets pledged for security are both immaterial in this determination. The agency is reviewing tax deductibility on a case by case basis.

Chad and Chelsea ask whether they should use their surplus cash flow to pay off the mortgage or invest. They might be better off financially investing, Mr. Ardrey says. That’s because the after-tax cost of the mortgage interest is low: 2.54 per cent based on the current mortgage rate on their principal residence.

“To break even on investing instead of making extra mortgage payments, assuming a 50 per cent tax bracket and earning interest income, they would need to earn 5.1 per cent on their investments,” he says. This would be even more appealing if they engaged in tax-efficient investment planning and had more of their returns coming from dividends and capital gains, Mr. Ardrey says.

For their children’s education, the annual RESP savings of $2,500 for each child will fall short of the future costs by about 50 per cent, the planner says. The current average cost of postsecondary education is $20,000 a year. Historically, these costs have outpaced inflation, so he assumes the education costs rise at the rate of inflation plus two percentage points. If Chad and Chelsea want to fully fund their children’s education costs, they will be in a position to do so at the time simply by redirecting the surpluses from their non-registered investing to the education expenses, he says.

Next, Mr. Ardrey looked at how Chelsea’s lower income would affect the family finances. If Chelsea changes careers, earning $125,000 a year, they will not be able to make extra payments to their mortgage for the time being. As well, they would not be able to add to their non-registered savings. They would have to reduce their spending by a significant amount: $20,000 a year after-tax, to $137,000 a year. That’s a reduction of the $48,000 for the extra mortgage payments and $20,000 of actual spending. This would continue until their first child is 12, in 2029. If they are both working full-time with good income, they will likely have to have some form of before and after school care, the planner says. By the time the older one is 12, most agree that they can be responsible enough to babysit.

The reduced savings would affect their retirement, but they would still be able to retire comfortably, Mr. Ardrey says.

Finally, Chad and Chelsea would benefit from having a full financial plan prepared, Mr. Ardrey says. “A comprehensive financial plan will create a road map for them to follow.” In their case, it is not the retirement that is unclear, it is the next 10 years, he adds. “Having a plan will help them make the right financial decisions for both today and tomorrow.”

Client situation

The person: Chad and Chelsea, both 34, and their children.

The problem: How to prepare themselves financially for the career change Chelsea is considering. Should they keep paying down the mortgage, or should they borrow to invest?

The plan: Draw up a budget that tracks their actual spending to determine where the leakage is. If Chelsea changes jobs, be prepared to cut spending and halt the mortgage prepayments for a few years.

The payoff: A clear road map across the next decade or so when their cash needs will be greatest to open roads later on.

Monthly net income: $22,900

Assets: Bank accounts $100,000; her TFSA $69,000; his TFSA $71,000; her RRSP (including group RRSP) $233,000; his RRSP $83,000; his DC pension plan $8,000; RESP $9,500; principal residence $1-million; her rental condo $700,000; his rental condo $350,000. Total: $2.6-million.

Monthly outlays: Mortgage $3,820; property tax $695; home insurance $160; utilities $160; maintenance, garden $75; extra mortgage payments $4,000; transportation $455; groceries $350; child care $1,300; clothing $200; gifts $50; vacation, travel $1,000; dining, drinks, entertainment $380; grooming $75; subscriptions, other personal $60; drugstore $10; life insurance $275; disability insurance $225; phones, TV, internet $70; RRSPs $3,500; RESP $210; TFSAs $835. Total: $17,905. Surplus: $4,995.

Liabilities: Residence mortgage $719,000 at 2.54 per cent; rental mortgage $42,000 at 3.15 per cent. Total: $761,000.

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

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Rosy projection for long European vacation, then retirement in B.C. hides ‘substantial risk’

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who are 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, 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 August 2, 2019

To celebrate the sale of their house for an impressive sum, Dave and Deborah are planning a long European holiday followed by a big move: from Toronto to a popular retirement destination in British Columbia, where they plan to buy a new home.

Dave, who is 67 and self-employed, will be retiring from a successful career in communications. Deborah, who is 57, is self-employed in the human-resources field. She plans to continue working part-time after they return from overseas. Together, they have substantial savings and investments.

“Our big change is that we have just sold our house in Toronto for $1.7-million net and will be taking a year and a half to travel in Europe when the sale closes,” Deborah writes in an e-mail. “The idea is to invest the proceeds from the house sale in a self-directed [discount brokerage] account consisting entirely of dividend equities,” Deborah adds. “My husband doesn’t like bonds as an investment.”

They would live off the dividends while they are in Europe, Deborah adds, then use the lion’s share of the principal to buy a house in B.C. Dave manages their investments. “He is the first to admit he is not a professional investor and feels he’s in a bit over his head,” Deborah writes. Once they return to Canada, their retirement spending target is $90,000 a year after tax.

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

What the expert says

When their house sale closes, Dave and Deborah plan to use $53,000 of the $1.7-million proceeds to top off Dave’s tax-free savings account, Mr. Ardrey says. They plan to invest the remainder in “dividend aristocrats” and live off the dividend income while overseas. When they return to Canada at the end of 2020, they plan to buy a home for an estimated cost of $1.3-million.

Mr. Ardrey’s calculations include spending of $120,000 a year in Europe (which would not be covered entirely by the dividend income), retirement spending of $90,000 a year after tax, an inflation rate of 2 per cent a year, and that Deborah earns $20,000 a year working part-time to the age of 65. Both save the maximum to their TFSAs each year, but they no longer contribute to their registered retirement savings plans. They delay collecting Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits until the age of 70 to get the higher payments.

In addition to their house sale proceeds, the couple have $685,000 in RRSPs and $98,000 in TFSAs. Dave also has $544,000 in a corporate investment account that he can draw tax-free.

Next, Mr. Ardrey looks at the couple’s existing investments. Their current asset mix is 9-per-cent cash equivalents, 1-per-cent bonds and 90-per-cent stocks and stock funds. Of the 90 per cent in stocks, 45 per cent is in Canada, 38 per cent in the United States and 7 per cent is international. The historical rate of return is 5.4 per cent. Because they have a substantial proportion in exchange-traded funds, their investment cost is only 0.39 per cent a year, leaving them with a rate of return net of costs of 5.01 per cent.

“Based on these assumptions, Dave and Deborah will be able to meet their retirement goals,” Mr. Ardrey says. Deborah would still have total assets of $5.3-million by the time she is 90, the planner says. If they wanted to spend more and leave only their home as an estate, they could increase their spending by $24,000 a year to $114,000.

What could go wrong?

“Though this projection looks quite rosy, I would be remiss if I did not address the substantial risk in their plan,” Mr. Ardrey says. “Equity volatility.” Including the house-sale proceeds, Dave and Deborah would have 96 per cent of their assets invested in stocks during their stay in Europe.

They’d be ignoring a basic rule of investing: Don’t invest money that is needed short term in marketable securities.

“What if, during their European dream vacation, stock markets had a major decline?” the planner asks. That would affect their retirement plans dramatically. He looks at a second case where their portfolio suffers a 20-per-cent drop during that time. Rather than being able to surpass their spending target, they’d have to pare it from $90,000 a year to $84,000.

Mr. Ardrey suggests some alternatives. The $1.3-million they’ll need to buy a new home in a year or so should be invested in guaranteed investment certificates, or GICs, where they’d be sure to get their money back. “The primary goal of these funds needs to be capital preservation,” the planner says. Dave and Deborah should keep in mind deposit insurance limits, he says. Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. insures Canadian-dollar deposits at its member institutions up to a maximum of $100,000 (principal and interest) for each account. For example, they could open an account in Dave’s name, another in Deborah’s and a joint account at each of four institutions for $100,000 each. “So they could fill their need with four institutions for most of the savings and $100,000 more at a fifth,” he adds.

“Another option would be to purchase the home in B.C. before leaving on their trip,” Mr. Ardrey says. This would remove any uncertainty about what they will have to pay.

With the remaining investments, Dave and Deborah should look at revising their strategy to reduce their stock-market risk, the planner says. They should have a balanced portfolio of large-capitalization stocks with strong dividends and a mix of corporate and government bonds of different durations. Although Dave isn’t keen on bonds, they could enhance their fixed-income returns – and reduce volatility in their portfolio – by investing a portion of their capital in carefully vetted private debt and income funds, Mr. Ardrey says.

These private funds can be bought through an investment counsellor. If they hired one and put a portion of their fixed-income assets in private debt and income funds, they would have a projected return of 6.5 per cent with 1.25 per cent a year in investment costs, for a net return of 5.25 per cent. That’s better than the 5.01-per-cent historical rate of return on their existing portfolio and it would reduce their investment risk.

Client situation

The person: Dave, 67, and Deborah, 57

The problem: How sound is their plan to invest the proceeds of their house sale in blue-chip stocks and live off the dividends for the time they are in Europe?

The plan: Invest the money needed to buy the new house in GICs, or consider buying the house in B.C. now.

The payoff: Greatly reduced investment risk

Monthly net income: $8,335

Assets: Cash $15,000; stocks $544,070; her TFSA $79,640; his TFSA $18,775; her RRSP $419,995; his RRSP $264,640, residence $1.8-million. Total: $3.1-million

Monthly outlays: Property tax $685; home insurance $195; utilities $250; maintenance, garden $125; transportation $400; groceries $290; clothing $175; gifts, charity $80; vacation, travel $200; personal care $90; dining, drinks, entertainment $255; subscriptions $35; doctors, dentists $165; drugstore $35; phones, TV, internet $280; RRSPs $1,500; TFSAs $900. Total: $5,660

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

The Spousal RRSP – Does it still have a place in Retirement Planning?

0 Comments

One of the more frequent questions I get from clients regarding their retirement planning is, with the pension income splitting legislation, are spousal RRSPs worthwhile anymore? The answer is yes, in several situations.

Before I outline the planning situations that are useful for spousal RRSPs, first a little primer on what they are and how pension income splitting changed the view of them.

Spousal RRSPs

A spousal RRSP is a RRSP account in which one spouse makes contributions based on his/her room to a RRSP in the other spouse’s name. This is a way to income split in retirement, as future withdrawals, subject to restrictions noted below, would be in the recipient spouse’s name and presumably in a lower tax bracket than the contributor spouse.

The restriction is on the withdrawal timing. If the recipient spouse withdraws any amount from the spousal RRSP in the year of a contribution or the two years following, the amount withdrawn attributes back to the contributing spouse. The only exception to that is a minimum RRIF payment.

In summary the contributing spouse receives the RRSP deduction at his/her current marginal tax rate and the future income is withdrawn at the recipient spouse’s lower tax rate in retirement, maximizing the RRSP tax deferral advantage.

Pension Income Splitting

The pension income splitting legislation introduced in 2007 allowed not only defined benefit pension income to be split between spouses, but also RRIF payments after the age of 65. No matter who owned the RRIF, both spouses could share equally in the income for tax purposes. As the RRIF payment could be divided 50/50 between spouses, the income splitting advantage of the spousal RRSP diminished.

The Case for the Spousal RRSP – Tax Efficient Decumulation

After years of saving, much of today’s tax planning is around decumulating assets. My clients not only want to drawdown their registered accounts but do so in the most tax efficient manner possible. For many, this opportunity often lies in time period between retirement and the receipt of CPP and OAS.

This is one of the most advantageous times to employ a RRSP meltdown strategy. With no further employment income, before receiving government pension income and with presumably little to no other income, RRSP withdrawals can be made with minimal tax consequences.

Take the example of an Ontario resident with no other income. If they withdrew $43,900 from their RRSP, they would only pay about $6,450 in taxes, or 14.7%. This is quite a minimal price to pay, especially if deductions for contributions were made at rates in the 40%-50% range. By adding in a spousal RRSP, for someone who would otherwise not have one, both spouses can make the same withdrawal, giving them almost $75,000 of after-tax dollars to live on.

To note, in order to maximize the advantage, the couple would need to plan the timing of the spousal RRSP contributions to avoid attributions on the withdrawals.

Even if the couple does not require this level of income, drawing it out at a lower tax bracket still makes sense. Subject to contribution limits, excess amounts can be saved into a TFSA, creating future tax-free withdrawal availability when incomes are higher due to government pensions.

Even after the age of 65, the spousal RRSP can work in situations where the contributing spouse has income not eligible to split (i.e. non-registered investment income, executive top-up pensions or corporate earnings/dividends). In this case, having the recipient spouse earn the RRIF income solely on their own, instead of splitting 50/50 would be advantageous for tax planning in retirement.

The Case for the Spousal RRSP – Other Situations

Finally, there are some situations in which spousal RRSPs can be beneficial beyond income splitting in retirement.

If only one spouse is employed or has RRSP assets, by creating a spousal RRSP they can double the amount they withdraw to purchase a home under the home buyer’s plan (HBP). Currently the HBP allows for $35,000, based on the 2019 federal budget, to be withdrawn per spouse for the purchase of a qualifying home. If there is only one RRSP, then this is limited to half of the available amount if both spouses had a RRSP, either spousal or personal.

The spousal RRSP also works well if the spouses have a gap in their ages and the contributing spouse continues to work after the age of 71. After 71, they would be forced to convert their RRSP to a RRIF and could no longer contribute to a personal RRSP; however, if they have a spouse younger than age 71, they could continue to contribute to a spousal RRSP.

Though the spousal RRSP lost some of its luster when pension income splitting was introduced, there are still many situations where it is still applicable. Using this as part of your tax planning in both your accumulation and decumulation of your registered assets can save you thousands of dollars in taxes.

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

Financial Post columnist (Rechtshaffen) shows how many Canadians can afford Retirement Homes

0 Comments

A financial expert and Financial Post columnist compares the costs of senior housing options including home care, long-term care and a retirement home.

A newspaper columnist recently contacted Amica to research an article on the cost of private retirement living. This wasn’t any reporter: it was Ted Rechtshaffen, a personal finance columnist for the Financial Post and the president and CEO of TriDelta Financial, a wealth management company he launched for Canadians looking for objective financial advice. He’s been named one of the Top 50 Financial Advisers in Canada by Wealth Professional Magazine. He’s also the son of a resident at Amica senior living.

Rechtshaffen’s column carried this headline: “Here’s what it costs to live in a retirement home — and the bottom line is less than you might think.” His article looks behind the monthly fee for a high quality seniors’ residence to debunk myths about the cost of private retirement living.

His aging clients often wonder if they can afford to live in a private retirement community, and how much extra in expenses they’ll pay. As he says, some seniors get “sticker shock” when they see that a nice residence costs $6,000 per month. “They wonder how they can suddenly add $72,000 to their annual expenses,” writes Rechtshaffen.

As the financial expert explains, it’s worth looking beyond the price tag to consider how moving to a residence for seniors would impact both your quality of life and your monthly expenses. (You can download this senior living financial planning worksheet to see how your finances compare with retirement expenses.) He says it’s important to consider these five factors behind the cost of retirement homes:

#1 Living at home isn’t free. Even if you have no mortgage, you may still be paying for rent, property taxes or condo fees, maintenance, utilities and food. Monthly expenses vary widely, but Rechtshaffen tallies how you’ll free up funds by moving out of a home. For more info, see six myths about the cost of senior living.

#2 How much does your lifestyle cost? You might be traveling, dining out, buying new clothes and spending on entertainment at age 70. By the time you’re considering a retirement residence you might be 15 to 20 years older: how might your spending change at 88?

#3 Get help from tax credits. If you’re paying for assisted living or a-la-carte health services in a private residence, these might be deducted from income under Medical Expenses or the Disability Tax Credit.

#4 You can tap multiple income sources. If you’re attracted to the high-level service, convenience and camaraderie associated with a good senior living residence, remember that you may have various sources of funding, including Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, RRSPs/RIFs and more.

#5 Will your long-term care insurance cover some costs? Some people carry this kind of insurance, which can help if you find yourself needing assistance and care as you age.

Read the full article by Rechtshaffen to find a list of key issues to consider for your own retirement situation. You can also see his table comparing typical costs associated with living at home with private care, living in a private retirement residence and living in a public nursing home. Living at home with full-time care could wind up costing more than you think, while living in a decent retirement home can offer comparatively great value. Check out the article to see the surprising math behind common senior housing options.

It one of the most tested and long-living medicals on the market using Cheap Levitra.

Reproduced from Amica Conversations.

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

FINANCIAL FACELIFT: Can this couple retire at 60 and afford to keep the cottage in the family?

0 Comments

Below you will find a real life case study of a couple who are 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, 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 24, 2019

François and Jacquie are wondering if they’re on track to retire at the age of 60 and still live comfortably. He is 54, she is 53. They have two children, ages 17 and 19.

François earns $105,000 a year before tax, while Jacquie earns $230,000. They both have defined contribution pension plans to which their employers contribute.

In the meantime, they want to pay off the home equity line of credit (HELOC) taken out to expand their Toronto bungalow. Their next project will be to landscape their yard. Their retirement spending goal is $70,000 a year after tax.

A key goal is to maintain the Muskoka-area cottage François and his sister inherited and pass it on to their children in turn. The cottage is self-sustaining, with rental income covering expenses, François writes in an e-mail. They also want to travel.

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

What the expert says

First, Mr. Ardrey looks at cash flow. Although their spending is taking up much of their income today, that will not be the case once their daughters have graduated from university, he notes. All postsecondary spending is anticipated to end by 2024.

François and Jacquie are aggressively paying down their HELOC – making regular monthly payments plus annual lump-sum ones – and plan to have it paid in full by mid-2020. When that is done, they will landscape their house for $30,000 and buy a new car for $60,000. “After that point, we assume excess cash flow will be saved toward their retirement.”

The surplus funds will go first to catch up with their tax-free savings account contributions. They will be caught up by 2022, after which they will contribute the maximum each year. The remaining surplus will go to a non-registered investment account.

François is saving $100 a month to his TFSA and Jacquie $300 to hers. François is also saving $917 a month to his RRSP and $533 to his defined contribution pension plan (DCPP), which is matched by his employer. Jacquie is saving $1,600 a month to her DCPP, with her employer contributing $610 a month. They also have $210 going to a registered education savings plan.

Jacquie and François plan to downsize their home when he is 70 and move into a condo that is half the value of their current home. They plan to begin taking Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits at 65.

Next, their investments. Based on the underlying asset mix (60-per-cent globally diversified equities and 40-per-cent Canadian and global bonds), they have a historical rate of return of 4.88 per cent. Their non-DCPP investments are invested primarily in “F”-class mutual funds with wrap account fees. The total fee is 1.99 per cent. (F-class funds have lower management expense ratios because they do not pay trailer fees to the adviser.) The planner assumes their pension assets will have the same asset mix when they retire. He uses an inflation rate of 2 per cent, retirement spending of $70,000 a year, including $10,000 a year for travel, and that both of them live to the age of 90.

“Based on these assumptions, they will have more than enough wealth to carry them through retirement,” Mr. Ardrey says. At Jacquie’s age 90, they will have an estate of $8.7-million, of which $4-million is in investments and $4.7-million is in real estate and personal effects. If they chose to spend the $4-million of investment assets, they could increase their spending by $4,000 a month or $48,000 a year.

“That being said, there is a significant tax liability remaining on the cottage when passing it to their two daughters,” Mr. Ardrey says. If the cottage rises in value along with inflation, there would be a $2-million capital gain on François’s half when he dies.

To effectively prepay the tax for their children, François could consider buying some permanent life insurance. The funds from the policy could be used to pay the taxes owing on the cottage and make it less likely the beneficiaries would need to sell it to pay the tax.

Depending on François’s health, this could be expensive, Mr. Ardrey says. But it would give François and Jacquie the freedom to spending their savings without worrying whether there will be enough left in their estate to pay the capital-gains tax.

By the time François and Jacquie retire in a few years, they will have about $2-million in investments. “Paying 2 per cent in investment costs and using mutual funds to execute their strategy is not the best plan,” Mr. Ardrey says.

Instead, they should consider hiring an investment counsellor to develop a well-rounded and lower-cost portfolio of large-cap stocks with strong dividends as well as corporate and government bonds. Investment counselling firms have a fiduciary duty – like a trustee – to act in the best interests of their clients.

If Jacquie and François wanted to diversity the bond portion of their portfolio to boost their returns, they could look into fixed-income securities not available to the average investor, Mr. Ardrey says. Like government bonds, these fixed-income alternatives tend to have little correlation to the stock market. “We would recommend carefully vetted private debt and income funds with solid track records.”

Client situation

The person: François, 54, Jacquie 53, and their children, 17 and 19

The problem: Can they retire at 60 with $70,000 after tax? Can they afford to keep the cottage in the family?

The plan: Retire as planned with a comfortable cushion. Consider taking out permanent insurance to help offset capital-gains tax that will be payable on François’s share of the family cottage when he dies. Review investment portfolio to lower costs and perhaps boost returns.

The payoff: Financial security with the option of spending more than planned.

Monthly net income: $17,100

Assets: His TFSA $6,000; her TFSA $15,000; his RRSP $351,000; her RRSP $227,000; market value of his DCPP $91,000; market value of her DCPP $350,000; RESP $77,000; residence $1.95-million; share of cottage $1.5-million. Total: $4.56-million

Monthly outlays: HELOC $3,480; property tax $760; property insurance $300; utilities $385; maintenance $100; transportation (insurance, fuel, maintenance for two cars) $930; grocery store $900; clothing $50; university expenses $800; additional HELOC (annual lump-sum payment divided by 12) $2,700; gifts, charity $220; vacation, travel $1,000; other discretionary $100; dining, drinks, entertainment $885; personal care $250; pets $100; dentists $50; life insurance $76; TV, internet $180; his RRSP $917; RESP $210; TFSAs $400; pension plan contributions $2,133. Total: $16,926

Liabilities: Line of credit $120,000

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
↓