Investments Part 3: TFSA

As of January 1, 2009, Canadians have another vehicle they can use to invest for their future. The TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) was introduced as a vehicle that is supposed to help Canadians save. Many investors were getting hit hard with taxes when withdrawing from their RRSPs; many of those because they were not educated properly in regards to the functionality of the RRSP.

First thing I would like to indicate is that the TFSA is supposed to be a mirror image of an RRSP. The two plans are designed to produce the same results. Lets take a look at some of the details of the TFSA.

Pros

- Tax-Free Growth
- Tax-Free withdrawals
- Can withdraw at any time
- Unused balance gets carried forward indefinitely
- Any amount withdrawn gets added to next years contribution limit
- Anybody over 18 with a SIN card can open (does not matter about previous years income, as it would with RRSP)
- No age limit for contributions
- Withdrawals and earnings do not affect government programs such as OAS
- Can contribute in spouse's name without the spouse having to report income
- Transfers to spouse on a tax-free basis upon death (when RRSP transfers to spouse upon death it is also tax-free, but spouse must pay taxes upon withdrawal)

Cons

- Contribution limit
- No tax deductions
- Investing with after-tax dollars
- Cannot re-contribute amount withdrawn until next calendar year
- 1% penalty per month on amount that is over contribution limit
- Cannot be joint or spousal

Many investors were also weary of investing into an RRSP because of the tax consequences upon withdrawal, so the TFSA was started as something to complement the RRSP, and not necessarily compete with it. That being said, there are certain circumstances where one is better then the other. One way of utilizing both vehicles at the same time is by using the money received as the tax refund to fund the TFSA (the same strategy can be used from the tax refund received from an investment loan).

Essentially, I believe the TFSA should be a compliment to either the RRSP, the Non-Registerd vehicle, or both! Lets look at an example of using only TFSA, and using RRSP and TFSA together.

Assumptions:
Annual Pre-Tax Contribution: $5,000
Rate of Return: 8%
Marginal Tax Rate: 40%
Length of Investment (Years): 20

Option #1: TFSA
Total After-Tax Contribution: $60,000.00 ([$5000 x 0.6] x 20 years)
Total Account Value after 20 years: $137,285.89
Net Benefit of Strategy (Growth): $77,285.89

Option #2: RRSP
Total Contribution (Pre-Tax): $100,000
Total Account Value after 20 years: $228,809.82
Net After-Tax Value (40% Tax Rate): $228,809.82 x 0.60 = $137,285.89

As you can see, the after-tax value for both the TFSA and the RRSP are the exact same. This is to prove that the TFSA is designed as a mirror image of the RRSP, because (usually) the money invested into a TFSA is after-tax dollars, whereas the money invested into an RRSP is pre-tax dollar. Let's take a look at using both strategies together.

Option 3: RRSP with TFSA
Total Contributions to RRSP: $100,000
Annual Tax Refund: $2,000 ($5000 x 0.40)
Total Account Value of RRSP after 20 years: $228,809.82
Net After-Tax Value (40% Tax Rate): $228,809.82 x 0.60 = $137,285.89

Tax Refunds invested every year in TFSA: $2,000
Total Contribution to TFSA (20 years): $40,000
Total Account Value of TFSA after 20 years: $91,523.93

Total Combined after-tax Value of the RRSP and TFSA: $137,285.89 + $91,523.93 = $228,809.82

As you can see, using both strategies together results in maximum account value. By using both strategies together, the result is the same as if you were to negate any taxes on the RRSP. So, in essence, both strategies can be benficial.

That being said, in some cases, one strategy is better then the other:

1. If your Marginal Tax Rate is higher at the time of contribution, then the RRSP strategy would make a better choice, because a) you will recieve a larger tax refund, and b) when you withdraw from your RRSP later down the road, you will pay less in taxes.

2. If your Marginal Tax Rate is higher at the time of withdrawal, then the TFSA strategy will be a better choice, because a) when the funds are invested, they are done so with more after-tax dollars, and b) when the funds are withdrawn, they are tax-free.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the investment of funds that are not taxed. For example, we might get a bunch of money for our birthdays, weddings, or just from loving grandparents. These gifts are rarely declared on taxes. Also, there are some professions that work on a cash basis (i.e. taxi drivers, some truck drivers, some labour jobs etc...). In these sort of situations where the cash is not being taxed, then the TFSA will definitely be a better strategy, since the taxation on the invested money is 0. Please note, I think paying taxes is very important, and I am not suggesting that we all try to hide income from the CRA. I think every citizen should pay their share of taxes (but not a penny more!).

Just as every other strategy, this isn't the be-all, end-all of investing. And as well as all other strategies, please consult your financial advisor and do your own homework. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me!

Investments Part 2: Open [Non-Registered]

The second vehicle that people can use is the Open or "Non-Registered" vehicle. This is pretty much everything that is not within an RRSP or a TFSA.

The basics of the non-registered vehicle are as follows:

Pros

- No limit to amount of contribution
- No witholding tax upon redemption
- Withdrawal amount does not get added to earned income
- You are taxed ONLY on 50% of capital gains (i.e. You invest $100, and it turns into $200, you are only taxed on $50 --> ($200-$100)/2 )
- No age limit

Cons

- No tax deduction for contributions
- You invest with after-tax dollars
- You must declare any distributions as a part of earned income, whether or not you took them in cash

As you can see there aren't as many rules and regulations for the non-registered investment and there are some pros and cons for this vehicle as well.

If we were to do a dollar-for-dollar comparison between RRSP investing and Non-Registered investing - assuming same rate of return, tax brackets, investment timeline etc.. - RRSP will always win because of the tax-sheltering, tax deductions and tax refunds.

Example.

Lets take a look at an investor who's investing $5000/year for 20 years at a rate of return of 10%. Assumed Marginal Tax Rate is 35%. [all values will be rounded to nearest dollar]

RRSP
After 20 years @ 10% return, the investment will become approximately $315,012. When it comes to withdraw the money, the funds will be taxed fully at the MTR (marginal tax rate) of 35%.

$315,012 x 0.35 = $110,254
$315,012 - $110,254 = $204,758

Therefore, after taxes, the investor is left with approximately $204,758.

Non-Registered
After 20 years @ 10% return, invested will become approximately $206,745. When it comes to withdraw the money, the funds will be taxed at the MTR on only HALF the capital gains.

$206,745 - $100,000 [total invested --> 20 years x $5000/yr] = $106,745 --> Capital gains
$106,745 / 2 = $53,373
$53,373 x 0.35 = $18,681
$206,745 - $18,681 = $188,064

(Calculations came from http://www.mackenziefinancial.com/calc/jsp/RegNonReg/rrsp_vs_non_rrsp.jsp)

As you can see, when we compare dollar for dollar investment, then RRSP will beat out non-registered -- in this case, using the RRSP strategy, the investor would have approximately $16,694 more then the Non-Registered Strategy. This is because the RRSP is growing tax-sheltered and the Non-Registered is not; there are taxes paid annually.

Also to note, that the RRSP is getting a tax refund, so if the investor were to contribute the amount they received back from the government, the RRSP would have accumulated a lot more. But there also other strategies you can use for that tax refund, like paying extra on mortgage, or investing that refund into a TFSA (Tax-Free Savings Account - which I will discuss in the next post).

In the previous example we compared dollar for dollar investment. But, is that the only strategy? No, it is not. There is also the concept of 'leveraging' -- borrowing money to invest. The OPM (other peoples money) Strategy is something the wealthy (and all banks and corporations) have been using for years and years.

Leveraging

Pros

- Starting with a larger sum of money
- Money will grow faster
- Can have options to pay 'interest only' on the leverage loan
- Get a tax deduction for the amount paid in interest
- Money is growing as compound interest vs. interest being paid is simple interest
- Can benefit from tax-deferred compound growth

Cons

- If investments tank, you are still liable for the amount of loan that you took
- If interest rates rise, your payment will increase (however, so will your tax deduction)
- If you get a 'margin call' loan, the lending institution can call the loan at any time and you are required to repay it

Leveraging is also more suitable for those who have higher risk tolerance and longer investment horizon (I would say at least 7-10 years).

Example.

Now lets compare RRSP vs Leveraging for Non-Registered. We will use the same RRSP situation as above and assume that on a $100,000 leverage loan @ 5% interest, the interest charges will be $5000 [using round numbers to make calculations easier and more accurate to compare)

RRSP
After 20 years @ 10% return, investing $5000/month, the investment will become approximately $315,012. When it comes to withdraw the money, the funds will be taxed fully at the MTR (marginal tax rate) of 35%.

$315,012 x 0.35 = $110,254
$315,012 - $110,254 = $204,758

Therefore, after taxes, the investor is left with approximately $204,758.

Leveraging
Lets assume that an investor borrowed $100,000 at an interest rate of 5% - this means the interest payment will be $5000/year. At 10% rate of return, the investment will grow to approximately $672,750. Now lets say you are ready to retire and want to pay back the loan.

$672,750 - $100,000 [loan amount] = $572,750 Capital Gain
$572,750 / 2 = $286,375
$286,375 x 0.35 [MTR] = $100,231 [taxes payable]
$572,750 - $100,231 = $472,519

Therefore, after taxes, the investor is left with approximately $472,519.

As you can see, the leveraging strategy works out a lot better then the RRSP strategy; in fact, with leveraging, the investor would have made $267,761 more, then if he would have invested the same amount of money into an RRSP -- that's more then twice the amount of the RRSP!

If we were to put a twist on this, and assumed that the RRSP investor also invested his tax refund of $1750 ($5000 x 0.35) right back into his RRSP, making his annual contribution $6750, the RRSP would grow to approximately $425,267. After taxes, the investor would be left with approximately $276,424, which is still way behind the leveraging strategy.


(Calculations came from http://www.mackenziefinancial.com/calc/jsp/RegNonReg/rrsp_vs_non_rrsp.jsp)

That being said, be very careful with leveraging. It is NOT suitable for everybody. It requires a high risk tolerance and the investor must give time for their investment to compound over and over. Just as the RRSP is not right for everybody, the leveraging strategy is not either. Please consult your financial advisor before making any decision like this.

What might make sense is to do both strategies or mix and match different strategies together.

If you require any more information please do not hesitate to contact me!

Investments Part 1: RRSP

We've already covered few things on the 2 other industries, the Debt(making) Industry, and the Insurance Industry. In this post we'll take a look into the 3rd industry, the Investment/Savings Industry, and more specifically, RRSPs (Registered Retirement Savings Plans).

Essentially, in Canada, we have 3 investment vehicles we can use to accumulate our assets/wealth. We can use RRSPs, Open (Non-registered) Plans, and the newly introduced TFSA (Tax-Free Savings Account). Each one of them has their pros and cons and each must be used according to the clients situation and goals.

What is an RRSP?

An RRSP is an investment vehicle that allows Canadians to grow money tax-deferred (this means you don't pay taxes on the money until it is withdrawn). When a person makes a contribution to their plan, they get a tax deduction for the amount that was contributed. This can be a great thing for those who are in higher tax brackets, and can also help them get into a lower tax bracket.

Any income within the RRSP is not taxable while it is still within the plan and grows tax-free until it is withdrawn. The funds can be withdrawn at any time, but not without any consequence. The withdrawn amount gets added to the persons earned income and can potentially put them into a higher tax bracket. There are also taxes that are witheld at time of withdrawal, which is based on the amount withdrawn.

A person can keep funds within an RRSP until the end of the year in which they turn 71, at which point it must be converted into a RRIF (Registered Retirement Income Fund -- something we will discuss at another point).

Why RRSP?

An RRSP can be a great way to invest for your future, if it is done properly. Lets take a look at a few benefits of the RRSP:

- Tax Deduction
- Tax Deferred Growth
- Possibility of putting you in a lower tax bracket
- You can use funds within an RRSP for First Time Home Buyers plan [HBP] (funds must be repayed within 15 years of withdrawal otherwise they are subject to taxation)
- You can set up a Spousal RRSP to split income (which will be discussed in another post)
- Unused contribution gets carried forward
- You can use funds within an RRSP for Lifelong Learning Plan [LLP] (funds must be repayed within 10 years of withdrawal otherwise they are subject to taxation)
- In the event of death, the RRSP can be transferred to a spouse's or a common-law partner's RRSP tax-free

As you can see, the RRSP can offer several benefits to those, IF it is used properly.

Things to be aware of

Even though there are many benefits to an RRSP, there are also many things to be aware of, that most people are not aware of because they are not told. Some of these things include:

- There is contribution limit (based on previous years income as stated on taxes)

- All growth within the RRSP is considered as "interest income" no matter which type of growth it was (capital gains, dividends, or interest). This means when you withdrawal, you will be taxed at your tax bracket and there are no tax benefits for different types of investments

- You will be taxed on the FULL amount of withdrawal, and not just the growth, within the RRSP

- Once you reach age 71, you MUST either a) transfer the funds into a RRIF (which results in forced withdrawal from the RRSP) b) purchase an annuity or c) withdrawal the amount in full

- You can end up paying more money in taxes in your later years if your income is higher; this could negate any tax deductions you had received in previous years; you can possibly pay more money in taxes in retirement then you saved in the earlier years

- There is a limit that you are able to contribute every year; A Tax of 1% per month applies on the portion of your RRSP contribution that exceeds your RRSP deduction limit and the over-contribution limit of $2000

- Interest on funds borrowed to invest into an RRSP are not tax-deductible (as they would if they were invested into an Open [non-RRSP] Investment)

- If funds are not payed within the specified timelines for the Home Buyers Plan and the Lifelong Learning Plan, you will be subject to taxation

Contribution Limit



The maximum RRSP contribution limit 2012 is $22,970. However, if you did not use all of your RRSP contribution limit for the years 1991-2011, you can carry forward the unused amount to 2012. Therefore, your RRSP contribution limit for 2012 may be more than $22,970.
The maximum RRSP contribution limit for subsequent years is as follows:
  • 2012 maximum RRSP contribution limit: $22,970
  • 2011 maximum RRSP contribution limit: $22,450
  • 2013 maximum RRSP contribution limit: $23,500 plus inflation index amount
  • 2014 maximum RRSP contribution limit: Indexed to inflation
  • 2015 maximum RRSP contribution limit: Indexed to inflation

Now, it is evident that there are many things that you should be aware of before using RRSPs as your investment vehicle. Like I said before, they can be a great investment vehicle IF used properly. What I don't like is how they are marketed; they're marketed as the "one size fits all, for everybody, in every situation". The traditional industry (specifically the banks) have done a terrible job in setting up RRSPs and with educating Canadians about all the pros and cons of them.

When using this investment vehicle, do your homework and consult your advisor. Find out everything you think you will need to know about them. I hope this has helped! If you require any more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Happy investing!

Mortgage vs HELOC: Compound vs Simple Interest

Let's talk financing for homes! Since the Mortgage is the largest financial headache (for most families), I thought it would be a great way to start this 'crusade' of mine.

Mortgage

Now, let's start with the conventional mortgage. Why do people get mortgages? Most people need to borrow money to purchase a home. There is a down payment for a percentage of money they need to borrow, and the lending company (usually the bank) provides the rest. We do this because most of us don't have the cash sitting in our bank account to purchase a home, which the majority of cases is in the hundreds of thousands. Therefore, we need help with financing the property which we need to purchase.

Most people walk into a bank, and the bank is often more then happy to provide a product called "The Mortgage" (granted the client qualifies for it). First let's break down the meaning of this product. It is actually comprised of 2 words "mort" and "gage": "mort", which is the root word of mortality, i.e. death, and "gage", which is like a 'pledge' i.e. debt. So the word "mortgage" pretty much means 'debt until death'. The way the product is designed today is pretty much to keep the client in debt for the rest of their lives. I often see the case, where there are people in their 50s and even 60s who have $200,000 or even $300,000 mortgages. They don't ever expect to pay it off, all they know is that when they pass on, their kids will be taking over the payments and will hopefully pay it off in their lifetime.

Mortgages are calculated as compound interest, which is calculated semi-annually. In English: every 6 months your mortgage calculates the interest you owe on the balance of the mortgage, at whatever your interest rate is, and then ADDS it to your mortgage balance. So, if you look at your mortgage ammortization payment schedule, you will see your mortgage balance increase a little every 6 months, after the previous months declining. This compounding effect can pretty much mean, after you've paid off your mortgage you would have paid the original value of the house 2 or 3 times over again.

For example, on a $300,000 mortgage, you could quite possibly pay 3/4 of a million dollars over the entire term (assuming interest rates stay around the 5% mark and there are no extra payments made during the term). I'm having a hard time finding proper mortgage calculators online which actually show the compounding effect, but the ones that don't show the compounding effect indicate that on a $300,000 mortgage, you will end up paying almost $600,000 over a 25 year term (assuming a constant 5% interest rate and no pre-payments). I would only assume that on a proper calculator that showed the compounding effect, that figure would be a lot higher.

To the majority of the population (the approximately 90% who will not retire financially independent), this 'mortgage' product is pretty much the 'be all, end all' of home financing. We're just not taught anything else different by the banks, lending companies, or even our mortgage brokers (I know this personally having worked in a bank for 6 years and having people in my family who are mortgage brokers).

But, what other form of financing can we use for our homes? The great mystery, is not really a mystery at all. The strategy that the wealthy have been using for years is pretty much right under our nose as well. It is called a HELOC, or a Home Equity Line of Credit; pretty much just a line of credit used to finance the purchase of your home. What's the difference between the two?

HELOC

-> Simple Interest -- you pay interest only on the balance remaining; therefore, no compounding, which can save you tens of thousands of dollars in interest, and reduce your borrowing term by years. Please also note that I suggest, if you can afford it, to put the same amount of payment toward a HELOC that you would have the mortgage. This is also how you can accurately compare the 2 products.

-> Flexibility -- There is an option to pay the minimum of interest only every month. Anything over and above that is your own choice. This is especially beneficial for those who might go through hard times. i.e. loss of job or large emergency expense incurred, where they are not able to afford the entire full payment that a mortgage would require.

-> Open-ness -- You can pay as much as you want, whenever you want; there is no penalty for paying it off early and no limit to extra payments (as opposed to mortgage which will only allow you pay a certain percentage extra per year -- usually 20% or 25% of the principal-- anything above that will be subject to penalty; there is also a penalty for paying off the mortgage before the term is up).

-> Taxes -- If done properly, some (or all) of the interest paid on the HELOC can be deducted off your taxes. I won't get into the specifics of this now, but if you need more information please consult your financial advisor or contact me directly for more advice.

-> Interest Calculation -- HELOC interest rates are 'open' and usually float with prime. They can be competitive with mortgages sometimes, although usually are a little bit higher. However, the great advantage is that, if you feel prime rate is going too high, you can change the HELOC into a mortgage and LOCK the rate in at any time. Another added flexibility benefit!

-> Qualifications -- Essentially, the process to get approved for both Mortgage and HELOC are pretty much the same. However, it is a little more difficult to get approved for a HELOC because the maximum Loan-to-Value ration is 80%. In English: Means you cannot borrow more then 80% o the homes value as a HELOC. This might be a challenge for some who do not have that amount saved for down payment, or as equity in their home.

Now, begs the question: Why aren't we told about the HELOC?

The answer is very simple: Money talks! This can be said true for both the banks/other lending companies and some brokers out there. It is a lot more profitable for the banks to sell this product as opposed to a HELOC (and remember, every bank carries a HELOC type product), because they make a LOT more money off the interest from selling a mortgage.

For brokers, they get paid more money to sell a mortgage, as they would a HELOC. Some banks don't even pay the broker to sell HELOC, which is why many don't ever talk about it to their clients. The scary thing is, many brokers I've sat down with don't know the difference between the 2 and are not able to distinguish the difference between compound and simple interest.

Now, this is not to say that HELOC is ALWAYS better then a mortgage, and not to say that all brokers are only in it for the money, but if we were to assume the same interest rate on both products, then it might make sense for a lot more people out there. I say 'MIGHT' make sense, because this type of product usually requires more discipline, as there's no requirement to pay anything above the interest, and sometimes what happens is when people have built some equity into their homes, they might see the 'available' credit on their HELOC as "savings" or additional "cash flow" for them, even though it really isn't. For someone who thinks they might not have the discipline required and they need to on a fixed payment schedule, this type of strategy might not work for them.

Also note, that the 'rich' have been dealing with this strategy for decades; those high-network investment firms (the ones who don't sit down with clients unless they have at least $500K of investable cash), mostly deal with this product for their clients, because they know the benefits of going simple interest vs compound interest when you're borrowing money.

Many people would be weary of doing a HELOC because it's not 'fixed rate' (i.e. its variable rate, floating with prime). But, people don't realize the power of using the variable rate. There was a study done by Professor Moshe A. Milevsky, at York University (in Toronto) that I found on the RBC Mortgage website (http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/mortgages/variable-rate-advantage.html), and he came up with a couple of conclusions:

- Choosing a variable rate mortgage would have saved consumers $20,000 in interest
payments over 15 years (based on a $100,000 mortgage).
- Consumers would have been better off borrowing at prime rate (variable) compared to a 5-year fixed rate 89% of the time.

(full research paper found here: http://www.ifid.ca/pdf_newsletters/PFA_2007SEPT_Mortgage.pdf)

Also note, that savings of $20,000 in interest is based on compound interest vs compound interest. Imagine how much more would be saved if it was simple interest being calculated vs a compound interest fixed term mortgage. Once again, this is why the rich get richer; because they know these strategies and are taking advantage of them, while the banks try to convince all of us to go into fixed rate mortgages because its "safe".

Again, this is not something that every client should be doing, because everybody's situation and habits are different. This post is just to shed light on another option that is available for home-owners out there, that is not being promoted often. Every strategy has its pros and cons, so best to sit down with your Financial Advisor and they can show you all the numbers, and see what makes sense for you.

My last point will be this: In my opinion, Variable Rate Mortgages should be used when rates are relatively low and stable, or you think will be going down. However, in very low interest rate environments, where you feel rates will increase (and maybe increase drastically) I would generally recommend people to get a Fixed Rate Mortgage, as it doesn't make sense to continue to have your Mortgage Rate increase every time the Prime Lending Rate increases.

I hope you have learned something from this post, and if you have anymore questions about these 2 products or want me to clear something up, please do not hesitate to contact me!