adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

Financial advice: How investment costs affect your return – Victoria – Times Colonist

Published

 on


When initially choosing which investment option to go with, many people don’t realize the impact investment costs have on their investments. The more your investments cost you, the less you have to invest.

Your net return can increase by either improving your return, lowering your cost of investing, or a combination of both. Over time, this can have a significant impact to your bottom line due to the power of compounding growth.

Exploring the costs associated with different investment options

To illustrate, we will use Mrs. Smith, a 60-year-old investor who recently sold her home and has $1,000,000 in the bank in a non-registered account and a fully funded Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). She is in the 30 per cent income tax bracket. Mrs. Smith is not interested in managing her own investments and is curious about four different investment options she has heard of from talking with her neighbours, former colleagues and friends.

300x250x1

We met with Mrs. Smith and assisted her in exploring these four investment options, looking at the transaction costs to initially get investing, ongoing costs, and the tax deductibility of these costs.

Option one: Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) approach

Investing through Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) is often referred to as “couch potato” investing. Exchange Traded Funds are a pooled investment security that trade on an exchange. ETFs will track a certain index, sector, commodity, etc.

This approach is passive as it holds the investments that are in the respective index and these holdings are not actively managed. When investing in ETFs, your returns will only ever be as good as those of the index it tracks, less the embedded cost.

To purchase ETFs, there are upfront costs to initially buy the holdings in the first year, as well as ongoing embedded costs annually thereafter — neither of which can be deducted for income tax purposes.

To illustrate the initial transaction costs, we will assume that Mrs. Smith buys 11 different ETFs at $90,900 each. The equity commission schedule for trades at this amount is 1.75 per cent. This commission cost must be factored into how much of each ETF Mrs. Smith can buy.

Each trade will cost Mrs. Smith $1,591 ($90,900 x 1.75 per cent). Multiply that over the 11 total trades and on day one this option costs Mrs. Smith $17,498. After factoring in the cost of the initial trades, this then leaves Mrs. Smith with an initial investment of $982,502.

There will also be subsequent costs if Mrs. Smith sells and buys ETFs going forward. On top of the initial commission charges, the annual embedded cost of investing for this option can be around 0.5 per cent, or $4,913 in the first year ($982,502 x 0.5 per cent = $4,913). This brings the total cost to investing in the first year up to $22,411.

Option two: Direct holdings in a fee-based account

Another option is to work with a Wealth Advisor or Portfolio Manager and purchase direct holdings in a fee-based account.

The cost for the option of holding direct holdings in a fee-based account can fluctuate depending on the Wealth Advisor or Portfolio Manager you are working with, and the amount you have invested. The fee charged often decreases as the account value increases. The benefit of this option is that an advisor can assist you with strategic adjustments with no additional costs.

Option two is the most transparent with respect to fee disclosure of all options. If Mrs. Smith put the $1,000,000 into a fee-based account, we would price this at 1.00 per cent.

For our example, the 1.00 per cent fee would equal $10,000 in the first year ($1,000,000 x 1.00 per cent = $10,000). This $10,000 is all inclusive and there are no other embedded fees or transaction costs. There are no up-front costs associated, and fees are billed quarterly, at the end of each quarter.

These fees are also considered investment counsel fees for income tax purposes and can be deducted on her income tax return. As Mrs. Smith is in the 30 per cent income tax bracket, this brings her after-tax fee down to 0.7 per cent.

Mrs. Smith’s after-tax cost of investing is brought down to $7,000 with the $3,000 tax savings from being able to deduct our fee ($10,000 x 30 per cent) with this option. The total cost in the first year is $7,000.

Option three: Holding a basket of mutual funds

Mutual funds are actively managed and have embedded annual fees called a Management Expense Ratio (MER) and trading costs referred to as Trading Expense Ratio (TER).

In addition to the MER and TER, mutual funds may be sold on either a no-load or a front-end basis with additional fees of up to five per cent initially. Neither the embedded fees or additional fees are deductible for income tax purposes.

Previously, funds could also be sold on a back-end basis where you would typically not be charged an initial fee, but would be charged a fee if you sold the fund within the applicable Deferred Sales Charge (DSC) period. Effective June 1, 2022, DSC mutual funds are no longer allowed, and for good reason in my opinion. If Mrs. Smith was sold DSC mutual funds and was not happy with her performance, or wanted to make a change within the DSC period, she may have to pay up to six per cent to sell the mutual fund.

For purposes of the illustration, let’s see what the upfront and ongoing costs would be to Mrs. Smith if she purchases $1,000,000 of front-end mutual funds with a three per cent initial sales charge (ISC).

With this option, the ISC eats into her original investment. Mrs. Smith would pay $30,000 ($1,000,000 x 3.0 per cent) in ISC, leaving $970,000 ($1,000,000 – $30,000) to be invested. On top of the ISC, there is also embedded MER and TER which totals 2.3 per cent annually.

Mrs. Smith will be paying annual embedded MER of $22,310 in the first year ($970,000 x 2.3 per cent). The total cost to Mrs. Smith in the first year is $52,310 ($30,000 ISC + $22,310 MER).

Option four: Holding a basket of segregated funds

Mrs. Smith has heard about some guaranteed insurance products called segregated funds.

The primary difference between mutual funds and segregated funds is that the latter is an insurance product. Being an insurance product, the investments can be set up with different maturity and death benefit guarantees.

Another feature is segregated funds have the ability to name beneficiaries to bypass probate and public record. Similar to mutual funds, segregated funds can also be sold as no-load or ISC, and have embedded MER and TER, neither of which are tax deductible. Effective June 1, 2022, DSC segregated funds are also no longer permitted.

To illustrate, we will see the total and ongoing costs to Mrs. Smith if she purchases $1,000,000 of segregated funds with a three per cent ISC.

Similar to the mutual fund example above, Mrs. Smith is left with a smaller investment after paying the ISC. Mrs. Smith would pay $30,000 ($1,000,000 x 3.0 per cent) in ISC, leaving $970,000 ($1,000,000 – $30,000) invested. On top of the ISC, there is also embedded MER and TER which totals 3.5 per cent annually. Mrs. Smith will be paying an annual embedded MER of

$33,950 in the first year ($970,000 x 3.50 per cent). The total cost to Mrs. Smith in the first year is $63,950 ($30,000 ISC + $33,950 MER).

The power of compounded growth

The long-term effect on accumulated savings can be quite shocking when different net returns are explored over a 10-year period. To help with the illustration, we will assume that investment returns over the next 10 years will be six per cent for all four options.

Running the numbers

Option one: Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) approach

The net return is 5.5 per cent (6.0 per cent less the 0.5 per cent embedded ETF fee). A net return of 5.5 per cent compounded over 10 years would have grown Mrs. Smith’s $982,502 (amount invested after factoring in the initial commission charges) to $1,678,255.

These numbers assume that no changes were made to the basket of ETFs. Costs are low with this option; however, performance is an important component. There is much debate about the performance of ETFs as you will only ever do as well as the index you are tracking, less the embedded costs of the ETF.

With this option, costs can only be kept low with inactivity as there are costs to buy, sell or switch the ETFs held, as illustrated by the initial costs of $17,498. Having a Portfolio Manager making strategic adjustments to your portfolio will result in greater performance than the ETF approach in our opinion.

Option two: Direct holdings in a fee-based account

The net return is 5.3 per cent (6.0 per cent less the 0.7 per cent after-tax fee).

A net return of 5.3 per cent compounded over 10 years would have grown Mrs. Smith’s $1,000,000 to $1,676,037. In the first year, option two is by far the cheapest ($7,000 with option one compared to $22,411 with option two). On an ongoing basis, the cost differential of option two over option one is approximately 0.2 per cent, after tax (5.5 per cent – 5.3 per cent).

This cost would more than likely be offset by higher returns achieved with a good Portfolio Manager who is able to actively manage your portfolio and make strategic changes. A Portfolio Manager is also able to manage the day-to-day investment decisions and administration of your accounts, while also providing Total Wealth Planning and holistic service.

Mrs. Smith does not want to manage her investments, so by working with a trusted and knowledgeable Portfolio Manager she can focus on what truly matters most to her.

Option three: Holding a basket of mutual funds

Option three has a sizeable increase in fees compared with options one and two. When compounded over 10 years, the difference is significant.

With this option, the net return is 3.7 per cent (6.0 per cent less the 2.3 per cent fee). A net return of 3.7 per cent compounded over ten years would have grown Mrs. Smith’s $970,000 (amount to initially invest after factoring in the $30,000 ISC) into $1,394,952.

This equates to a $281,085 difference over only 10 years when compared to option two ($1,676,037 – $1,394,952).

Option four: Holding a basket of segregated funds

With the segregated funds option, the net return is 2.5 per cent (6.0 per cent less 3.5 per cent fee). A net return of 2.5 per cent compounded over ten years would have grown Mrs. Smith’s $970,000 to $1,241,682.

The difference between option four and option two is a whopping $434,355 ($1,676,037 – $1,241,682)!

We encourage all investors to find out what their cost of investing is and to determine both the initial and ongoing costs. Small differences can have a material impact on your long-term financial success.

Kevin Greenard CPA CA FMA CFP CIM is a Senior Wealth Advisor and Portfolio Manager, Wealth Management, with The Greenard Group at Scotia Wealth Management in Victoria. His column appears every week at timescolonist.com. Call 250-389-2138, email greenard.group@scotiawealth.com, or visit greenardgroup.com.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

How the Indonesia Investment Authority Built Its Portfolio in 2023 – The Diplomat

Published

 on

By


The Indonesia Investment Authority (known as the INA) is Indonesia’s state-run investment fund and has been around for about three years now. When the INA was first proposed, it was not really clear what it was going to do or how it would be structured. But with a few years of operations under its belt, the fund’s role in the Indonesian economy is snapping into sharper focus.

In 2021, the INA was seeded with $5 billion in state capital. This included about $1.7 billion in cash, most of which went into interest-earning bank deposits and government bonds. It also included $3.3 billion worth of shares in two state-owned banks, Bank Mandiri and Bank Rakyat Indonesia. In 2023, the fund’s total assets had grown to around $7.3 billion and it booked a net profit of $269 million.

The INA’s main source of income and operating cash flow right now is not from its investment portfolio, but rather interest income it earns on bonds and bank deposits, as well as the dividends paid out by Bank Mandiri and Bank Rakyat Indonesia. Indonesia’s banking sector is seeing strong growth, and the value of the shares the INA holds in these banks has increased from $3.3 to $4.8 billion over the last two years.

300x250x1

This was actually a pretty clever way to structure the fund because it minimizes the direct cash outlay required by the government. As long as the banking sector continues doing well, the INA’s shares in Bank Mandiri and Bank Rakyat Indonesia will generate cash flow while the fund continues to build its portfolio.

And that brings us to the next big question: what exactly is in that portfolio? The INA’s mandate is to invest in priority sectors such as transportation, logistics, healthcare, green energy, and the digital economy. In previous years the INA created sub-holding companies that invested in telecom tower operator Mitratel and state-owned pharmaceutical company Kimia Farma. They continue to hold these investments.

But most of the INA’s significant activity so far has been in the toll road sector. Through sub-holding companies, the fund has acquired ownership stakes in several toll roads in Java and Sumatra and what it’s doing is very interesting. Let’s look at the Pejagan–Pemalang toll road as an example. This is a stretch of highway in Java operated by the state-owned construction company Waskita Karya. Waskita is struggling financially at the moment in large part because it incurred lots of short-term debt building these toll roads.

The INA came in and acquired 100 percent of the Pejagan–Pemalang toll road from Waskita, which will help relieve some of the financial pressure on the state-owned construction firm. I think we are likely to see more of this, as Indonesia’s toll roads have significant long-term economic value and operators like Waskita can use injections of fresh capital. In the case of Pejagan–Pemalang, the INA then turned around and sold 53 percent of the toll road to a pair of foreign investors from the UAE and the Netherlands.

These kinds of co-investment partnerships are starting to develop in other areas as well. In 2023, the INA created a sub-holding company called PT INA DP World in which it owns a 51 percent stake. The other 49 percent is held by DP World, a massive logistics firm based in Dubai. Right now this co-venture is small in terms of its book value, but they are clearly setting it up to be a major conduit for Middle Eastern investment into Indonesia’s port infrastructure. A similar co-investment deal is in the works with China’s GDS to develop data centers, and there are big plans for green energy in the near future.

And this, it is becoming clear, is what the INA’s main function is likely to be. It isn’t funded nor does it really operate like a traditional sovereign wealth fund, such as Singapore’s Temasek. Temasek mainly reinvests accumulated reserves by buying and selling assets, often overseas, to maximize returns to the state. Instead, the INA is more of a co-investment fund designed to attract foreign capital into key parts of the Indonesian economy.

Historically, a big barrier to foreign investment in Indonesia has been investor uncertainty. Regulatory hurdles can be significant, and breaking into a market that is heavily dominated by state-owned companies can be daunting. Throughout 2023 it has become clear that one of the INA’s main functions is to help allay those concerns by partnering with foreign investors in priority sectors and we should expect to see a lot more of this activity in toll roads, logistics, green energy, and the digital economy moving forward.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Honda Commits to E.V.s With Big Investment in Canada

Published

 on

Honda Motor on Thursday said it would invest $11 billion to build batteries and electric cars in Ontario, a significant commitment from a company that has been slow to embrace the technology.

Like Toyota and other Japanese carmakers, Honda has emphasized hybrid vehicles, in which gasoline engines are augmented by electric motors, rather than cars powered solely by batteries. The Honda Prologue, a sport-utility vehicle made in Mexico, is the company’s only fully electric vehicle on sale in the United States.

But the investment adjacent to the company’s factory in Alliston, Ontario, near Toronto, is a shift in direction, raising the possibility that Honda and other Japanese carmakers could use their manufacturing expertise to push down the cost of electric vehicles and make them affordable to more people.

“This is a very big day for the region, for the province and for the country,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at an announcement event in Alliston, where Honda manufactures the Civic sedan and CR-V S.U.V. The investment is the largest by an automaker in Canadian history, he said.

300x250x1

The company also plans to retool its flagship factory in Marysville, Ohio, near Columbus, to produce electric vehicles in 2026. The investment in Canada is a sign that Honda expects the technology to grow in popularity, despite a recent slowdown in sales.

Canadian leaders have been wooing carmakers with financial incentives as it tries to become a major player in the electric vehicle supply chain. Vehicles made in Canada can qualify for $7,500 U.S. federal tax credits, which are available only to cars made in North America.

Volkswagen said last year it would invest up to $5 billion to construct a battery factory in Thomas, Ontario. Northvolt, a Swedish battery company, announced plans last year for a $5 billion battery factory near Montreal.

Honda will benefit from up to $1.8 billion in tax credits available to companies that invest in electric vehicle projects, Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian finance minister, said Thursday at the event.

Canada also has reserves of lithium and other materials needed to make batteries, and generates a lot of its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which allows carmakers to advertise that their vehicles are made with energy that releases no greenhouse gas emissions.

“As we aim to conduct our business with zero environmental impact, Canada is very attractive,” Toshihiro Mibe, the chief executive of Honda, said Thursday in Alliston. Honda will also work with partners to convert raw materials into battery components, he said.

However, recent declines in the price of lithium have raised questions about whether mining the metal in Canada will be profitable.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Investment Statistics (10 Investment Statistics Investors Need To Know) – Forbes

Published

 on

By


Understanding investment markets can be difficult, as there’s so much information to sort through. Fortunately, you don’t need to understand every single concept or piece of data to have success as an investor.

A few important, simple and often surprising investment statistics can guide your choices and make you a better investor in the long term. Here are a few worth considering.

.myfi-widget-mb-0 iframe margin-bottom: 0px !important;

300x250x1

1. The Annual Return of the S&P 500 (10% Per Year)

The stock market has been a consistent way to build wealth over the past 100 years. Likewise, from April 1, 1936 through March 31, 2024, the S&P 500 Index–a widely followed barometer for the broad U.S. stock market–averaged an annual return of 10.75%.

To put that return into perspective, if you earn 10% per year on your savings, and your gains compound quarterly, you’ll double your money roughly every seven years. Put $20,000 in an S&P 500 fund today, and if you earn the historical return of 10% per year, you’ll have $40,000 in about seven years.

Of course, the stock market is unpredictable and goes through swings. Your portfolio might go down some years and up by more than 10% in others. The key takeaway is that the stock market posts a substantial average annual return over time.

2. The Average Annual Inflation Rate (3.8% Per Year)

Inflation is another reason why it’s essential to invest. When prices go up, the purchasing power of each of your dollars goes down. On average, U.S. inflation has been 3.8% percent per year from 1960 to 2022. If you aren’t earning at least that much on your money, it’s losing value. Your balance might stay the same in a bank account, but it buys less and less, making you poorer.

Investments like stocks historically outperform inflation. By investing some of your money in stocks and stock funds, your savings and spending power can keep up with rising prices.

3. The Number of Active Day Traders Who Lose Money (80%)

Using an index fund, you can often match the performance of the entire S&P 500 and various major stock markets. This is different from buying and selling–or trading–individual stocks. Trading individual stocks can be exciting when it succeeds, leading sometimes to sharp short-term gains, but profiting consistently is very hard.

In fact, 75% of day traders trying to invest professionally quit within two years, and 80% of their trades are unprofitable, according to a University of Berkeley study. And individual stock day traders working through a taxable account often generate short-term capital gains, which are taxed at higher ordinary income rates than long-term capital gains. Day traders can also trigger a lot of investment fees. Also, as a day trader you’re competing against the best professional investors on Wall Street, many backed by big research teams.

Most regular investors are better off using mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, that aim to match the stock market instead. It’s less exciting but still lucrative in the long term.

4. The Cost of an Index Fund vs. an Active Fund for a $1 Million Portfolio ($1,200 vs. $6,000 Per Year)

If you’re trying to pick an investment fund, consider the cost. An index fund keeps costs low by simply trying to mimic the performance of a specific segment of the market. The S&P 500 is one. It consists of 500 of the largest companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. The Nasdaq 100 consists of stocks issued by 100 of the largest nonfinancial businesses listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange.

Many index funds track each of those groups. Generally, their costs are kept low because they don’t have to pay for lots of investors, analysts and software wizards to find stocks. In contrast, actively managed funds do pay for talented people who can pick stocks that outperform. Those costs get passed on to shareholders like you.

Index funds, on average, charge 0.12% per year versus the 0.60% charged by active investment funds. That means on a $1 million portfolio, you’d pay $1,200 per year for an index fund versus $6,000 a year for an active fund.

Despite charging much more, 79% of active funds, trying to earn higher returns, underperformed the S&P 500 in 2021. Often, you’re paying extra fees for actively managed funds without getting any additional return in exchange.

5. The Average Length of a Bear Market (14 Months)

One drawback to investing is that your returns are not guaranteed. In some years you’ll earn a lot. In others, your portfolio could lose money. It’s not fun to lose money, but during this stretch, remind yourself that the market will turn around eventually.

The average historical bear market, a period when stocks are losing value, has lasted 14 months. On the other hand, the average historical bull market, when stocks go up in value, has lasted five years.

The market will go through cycles of gains and losses. Remember that the positive stretches last longer than the negative ones.

6. The Number of ‘Best Investing Days’ That Can Turn a Positive Portfolio Negative If Missed (20 Days Over Two Decades)

When the market crashes, you might feel tempted to cash out and wait until things start picking up again. This is one of the most expensive mistakes investors make.

Why is that? Because so much of the stock market’s long-term returns come from single-day gains. The market sometimes shoots up by 5%, 7% or even 10% in a single day. Those days are impossible to predict. And they often occur at the start of a rally.

Individual retail investors often miss those explosive, unexpected upturns because they cashed out or moved to bonds amid the market’s earlier downturn.

A JPMorgan report found that if investors missed the top 10 best days of investing over a two-decade period from January 1999 to December 2018, it cut their portfolio return in half. If investors missed the top 20 best investing days, their return turned negative, meaning that they lost money over that two-decade period. Don’t try to time the market. Stay invested for the long term for the best results.

7. The Monthly Investment Needed to Reach $1 Million If You Start at Age 25 vs. Age 45 ($350 vs. $1,650)

The earlier you start investing, the more time you have to build wealth. This makes it easier to hit your long-term financial goals.

Let’s say you want $1 million in your nest egg for retirement at age 67. You expect to earn 7% a year, a reasonable return for a portfolio of stocks and bonds. If you start at age 25, you would need to save about $350 per month. If you start at age 45, you must save around $1,650 a month.

If you’re still early in your career, consider ways to save more money. Even a little extra today will make reaching your future financial goals easier. Don’t get discouraged if you are later in your career. You may wish you had started earlier, but anything you put aside now will help you once you retire. As the saying goes, perhaps the best time to start was years ago, but the second-best is now.

8. The Number of People With a Workplace Retirement Plan (44%)

A workplace retirement plan, like a 401(k), can help you invest. Those plans let you save money and defer yearly tax on growth in your investments inside your account. With a traditional 401(k), you also get a tax deduction for the money you kick into your account. In most cases, your employer also contributes to your account.

Only 44% of American workers have access to a workplace retirement plan. If you have one, study how it works to take full advantage.

The majority of workers, 56%, do not have a retirement plan at their job. Consider an individual retirement account, or IRA, if you are in that situation. It offers similar tax advantages for your retirement savings and investment goals.

9. The Expected Life Expectancy of Males and Females Turning 65 (82 and 85 Years)

The top reason most people invest is to save for retirement. And retirement might last a lot longer than you expect. The typical male turning 65 today is expected to live until 82, while females are expected to live until 85, according to the Social Security Administration.

That is a retirement lasting an average of nearly two decades. Some people will live even longer, reaching 90, 100 or even older. This is why saving and investing regularly is important—to build extra savings to fund your retirement lifestyle.

10. The Average Baby Boomer 401(k) Balance ($230,900)

Fidelity measured the average 401(k) balance by age of its customers. This can give you an idea of where your savings stack up against your peers:

  • Gen Z: $9,800
  • Millennials: $54,000
  • Gen X: $165,300
  • Baby Boomers: $230,900

This represents investments in a 401(k). People may have more money in an IRA or other investment account. Still, those figures show that the typical person does not retire with $1 million. Therefore, you shouldn’t feel behind if you’re just starting to save for retirement. Do what you can to beat these averages and grow your portfolio.

Hopefully, these statistics help shed some light on the importance of investing and investing wisely. Consider meeting with a financial advisor to discuss your portfolio for more advice.

Looking For A Financial Advisor?

Get In Touch With A Pre-screened Financial Advisor In 3 Minutes

Looking For A Financial Advisor?

Get In Touch With A Pre-screened Financial Advisor In 3 Minutes

Find A Financial Advisor

Via Datalign Advisory

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending