# Current experience with RBC Direct & RBC Wealth Management??



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Being in my 80s, I am starting to look at alternatives to our present DIY investing through BMOIL. 

RBC Wealth Management or PH&N may be options down the road. 

As a result, one thought is to first move our investment accounts from BMOIL to RBCDI and then perhaps have their Wealth management people handle part so we can see if we are happy with them. We do have bank accounts with both BMO & RBC. 

RBC have an office here and will also likely be helpful in developing an estate plan.

So basically just looking for any current experience CMFers may have with RBCDI.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

....just curious....at what approx. $ value of a portfolio would the Wealth management people become interested, or perhaps, viable?........


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Spouse has her banking and DIY investment accounts with RBC. I think they are more than adequate and RBC DI has a similar platform to BMOIL when it comes to trades and Norbert's Gambit. I don't know anything about RBC Wealth Management itself but it is the gold plated bureaucratic standard in Canada and probably does more estate business than anyone else.

An option is to use RBC InvestEase (the RBC robo-advisor) with a 0.5% AUM fee (I think). Trouble is, their portfolio offerings are all iShares ETFs and that may result in a lot of crystallized cap gains in a non-registered account. Some months back, I was curious enough to ask them what the 5-6 portfolios were like, and what percentages they had in which ETFs which underlie the portfolio.

Re: Jargey, I think the starting portfolio size for personal wealth manager attention is around $1M per Why RBC Private Banking? - RBC Private Banking


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

I've no expierence with RBC WealthManagement but, you've talked about estate planning and probate in other threats so thought I would mentioned that RBC Wealth management has a unique feature (I say unique b/c I can't find anyone else that does it) of naming a beneficiary on NON REGISTERED accounts. "*JGBRS " Joint Gift by Right of Survivorship*. The latter part of the attached link talks about it.

f3b97b24-f00d-4b77-b030-d86ef6e73a5c (rbcwealthmanagement.com)


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Re: Jargey, I think the starting portfolio size for personal wealth manager attention is around $1M per Why RBC Private Banking? - RBC Private Banking


When I was looking at their site, in one place it said 2Million, but when I went to the link, it said 500K or near. I imagine the actual amount is negotiable. I know one guy who put about $600k with them, but I don't know in which plan. I don't think RBC Private Banking is the same as RBC Wealth management. Maybe part of it, but banking related?



> If you or your family have complex or comprehensive needs and/or have total investible assets greater than $2 million, then please visit RBC Wealth Management for customized wealth planning advice.


link brings this up:
*



Do you want the guidance and expertise of a dedicated wealth advisor?

Click to expand...

*


> For investible assets close to, or over $500,000 call 1-833-654-2566 Monday-Friday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET or submit this form and have us contact you.


I will have to talk to RBC once I get my head around this. I will only move to RBCDI if RBC wealth management look suitable as an option to transition to down the road.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I find the various Wealth Management divisions highly confusing. There is a lot that seems to be wrapped up in Wealth Management including at least the following divisions:

Dominion Securities
PH&N Investment Counsel
Royal Trust
Private Banking

I don't know where RBC Direct Investing and RBC Invest Ease fits in as subsidiaries of ? I only know RBC Direct Investing provides the back office for RBC InvestEase.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Retiredguy said:


> I've no expierence with RBC WealthManagement but, you've talked about estate planning and probate in other threats so thought I would mentioned that RBC Wealth management has a unique feature (I say unique b/c I can't find anyone else that does it) of naming a beneficiary on NON REGISTERED accounts. "*JGBRS " Joint Gift by Right of Survivorship*. The latter part of the attached link talks about it.
> 
> f3b97b24-f00d-4b77-b030-d86ef6e73a5c (rbcwealthmanagement.com)


Interesting, but not likely applicable while both spouses are alive.

One thing I don't see on RBC wealth management site is anything about costs! Those of us who have been DIY investors for years, will have trouble handing over the reins. Many of the offerings seem to be just a collection of ETFs or mutual funds and GICs. How much of a fee would we want to pay for someone to manage those?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We have been dealing with PH&N (now RBC Wealth Management) ten years. Very pleased. Same advisor since day 1. When we started with them there were two options. DIY with some advice or a managed portfolio. We decided on managed. The costs beyond a certain level were within spitting distance. Returns have been what we expected and we are satisfied. Our adisor also gave us what turned out to be some very prudent advice with regard to stock options that we were holding. 

One of the reasons for selecting PHN was the advisor. He spoke to my spouse like an equal....something that was sorely lacking with our previous revolving door advisors from CIBC's fee for service team. I wanted someone that my wife was comfortable dealing with if I fell off my perch. We moved everything over to them over the next few years.

Also dealt with RBC Direct when we fired our stock broker. Service was fine. Big benefit is that they picked up about $700. in transfer fees that National Bank levied when we closed our brokerage account.

I believe that the advisor is as important, or more important than the firm. We were fortunate, got someone we trusted, who we could relate to, who was qualified, and there was a good support team.
Prior to that it was DIY. I was tired of it. Plus, we were planning to travel internationally for up to a year and wanted the monies managed properly during that time.

Keep in mind that the advisory fees can be deducted from income.

Prior to looking I asked several friends, colleagues, etc. if they dealt with and advisor. If so who, what firm, and were they happy. Not one was overly happy, some even less so. Not certain why. We narrowed it down to PHN on our own.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I owned PH&N funds early on before they were bought out by RBC. 
Right now, the RBC Wealth Management site is confusing. Hard to see what PH&N is - they call it investment counsel. They also offer investing through RBC Dominion, and several other avenues. Hard to see just what the differences are.

So far as costs are concerned Ian, what would you think fees would be for say $1mil+. In PH&N?

Thinking of maybe starting with just our RRIFs and keeping TFSAs and taxable in RBCDI or BMOIL.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

agent99 said:


> I owned PH&N funds early on before they were bought out by RBC


There are some really good PH&N funds which have continued to be champs, even after RBC got them. PH&N Balanced Fund seems like a really good one and would be a fine alternative to Mawer.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

agent99 said:


> I owned PH&N funds early on before they were bought out by RBC.
> Right now, the RBC Wealth Management site is confusing. Hard to see what PH&N is - they call it investment counsel. They also offer investing through RBC Dominion, and several other avenues. Hard to see just what the differences are.
> 
> So far as costs are concerned Ian, what would you think fees would be for say $1mil+. In PH&N?
> ...


The fees for a managed portfolio are based on size, etc. No idea what the fees would be on $1Mil. We pay about .75. We just passed a milestone so it might go down a little. It is not always funds. Our portfolio manager can buy into some occasional unique non RBC/PHN opportunities. Bottom line for us was that fees were less than what we paid at CIBC, there was no comparison between the two in terms of service, knowledge and income generated.

I have been tempted a few times to get back into the market a little with RBC Direct. Never have. Happy where we are.

I look at things a little differently. I like knowing what the fee is. It enables me to compare cost with benefit. Don't like the hidden stuff. As long as a fee justifies a benefit and I am getting good advice, good service, I am happy.

When I started looking and speaking to various firms I found PHN very open and easy to speak to. No pressure whatsoever. I would give them a call, speak to someone and then decide if you want to meet.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

ian said:


> The fees for a managed portfolio are based on size, etc. No idea what the fees would be on $1Mil. We pay about .75.


Each time I look at this, it seems I end up with the same quandary. 

Our DIY portfolio currently yields about 4.0-4.5% (Div & Int) That is $40k+/million. If we moved that to a managed portfolio and they charged 1% of portfolio value, that would reduce our income by $10,000 (25%) unless they can do better than our 4.0%. For our income to remain same, their cash yield would need to be 5%. 

Growth of the portfolio is another factor and can be quite variable. Our portfolio has grown by an average of 3.7% over 18 years after withdrawals for living expenses. Total return in the 7-8% range. Manager would need to get 1% more Can they do that much better?

Giving the bank $10k/million is a hard nut to swallow when they will get this regardless of performance. 

Not sure yet where we are going with this


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our portfolio performance has been much better but of course it depends on allocation.

We focus on the benefit. Clearly, if you are realizing 5 percent goal without fess why would you pay for management unless there were other factors

On the other hand, if you could safely boost that performance to 8 percent (or higher) on average would you be willing to pay and extra. .5 to 1 percent?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm not there yet but this is an interesting thread. From ian's post #8:



> Keep in mind that the advisory fees can be deducted from income.


 ... how much would this be worth / have an impact on the total return? As much as 1% or am I out to lunch here?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The more important criteria is to focus on simplicity as one ages in their retirement years. Ian's example of letting PH&N do the heavy lifting for him frees his time up for a host of other things in the precious time we have left. 1% of AUM or so is basically nothing in a portfolio delivering 5+% CAGR. Further, yield percentage* on the recurring income portion on its own is not all that relevant.

I would have no issue with my POA handing over management of my portfolio to a 1% AUM advisor along a copy of my IPS. I might even be doing that myself before I become incompetent.

* At current stock market valuations as of Sept 3, my portfolio yield percentage is right around the 2.3% mark of portfolio value, versus almost 3% of portfolio value Jan 2020. That makes yield percentage a rather meaningless number because the denominator continuously changed with market valuation increases over the past 18+ months.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> 1% of AUM or so is basically nothing in a portfolio delivering 5+% CAGR. Further, yield percentage* on the recurring income portion on its own is not all that relevant.


I really don't know how you can say that! 

As I posted earlier, that 1% fee can represent 20-25% of a retirees investment income. Is that nothing?????


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't get your math but my calculator says a 1% fee would be 12.5-20% take from a portfolio with a CAGR of 5-8%. A portfolio return of 5% thus sustains a 4% SWR methodology without any portfolio draw down at all. How much better does one need it to be?

As Ian said, a big portfolio of >$1M may be closer to a negotiated 0.6-0.75% AUM model. Robo-advisors are 0.35-0.5% or so.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

You don't need a calculator to determine that if a portfolio yields 5 % and the manager takes 1%, that is 1/5 of the income. Or 20%.

If the investor has 1million, he will have live off $40k instead of $50k. That may not concern you seeing you say that is nothing????


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Yield percentage is not a useful calculated number as I have posted numerous times. My portfolio had almost a 3% yield in Jan 2020. It has a 2.3% yield now because of capital growth via market prices with negligible change in actual recurring investment income. IOW, the numerator stayed relatively constant and only the denominator, e.g. the $1M in your example changed. Neither the 3% or the 2.3% tells me much of anything and I would never base my withdrawal plan on yield percentage for that reason. It would vary every single market day. What would you suggest I use for a portfolio return then?

My actual CAGR return is the sum of the investment income and capital appreciation and it has averaged about 10% CAGR over the past 10+ years. A "1% of AUM" advisory fee would result in a net portfolio return of 9% (about 10% less than my current DIY returns). That is probably in the ballpark of what Ian is seeing with PH&N on a rolling average basis..

Your statement


> If the investor has 1million, he will have live off $40k instead of $50k. That may not concern you seeing you say that is nothing????


 is the real issue. The investor doesn't just live off the recurring income the portfolio spins off. The investor can easily take the capital appreciation every year and still be net zero on portfolio withdrawal. I truly suggest you start to look at your portfolio on a holistic TR basis. Otherwise you will likely not get over the hurdle you seem to be struggling with as regards to farming out portfolio management to a third party.

Added later: Agent99's issue is a constraint a number of investors get caught up in and can't seem to find a way off that train, i.e. living on investment income alone. It is an absurd premise taken over a 30 year retirement. Firstly one would need a hefty portfolio to begin with to start retirement on 'investment income' alone. Perhaps $1M at a minimum to generate $40-50k of annual investment income. That will only be one component of the portfolio return. The rest of it is capital growth, perhaps in the order of 3-5%. Using the rule of 72:

3% annual capital appreciation will result in a doubling of portfolio invested capital ever 24 years, or a $2+M portfolio in 30 years
5% annual capital appreciation will double the portfolio every 14.5 years, or $4+M in 30 years
That seems a bit perverse to be taking all those gold bricks to one's grave but if that is how one wishes to constrain themselves, their beneficiaries will be cheering in the grandstand. So will that % of AUM advisor.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

..................."My actual CAGR return is the sum of the investment income and capital appreciation and it has averaged about 10% CAGR over the past 10+ years. A "1% of AUM" advisory fee would result in a net portfolio return of 9% (about 10% less than my current DIY returns). That is probably in the ballpark of what Ian is seeing with PH&N on a rolling average basis."

.

Yes, you are in the ballpark. Our view is typically a 10 year rolling average thought we do look at the 5 year number.

When it comes to many things I am very much a bit of a DIY. But not everything. I have never been reluctant to engage professional services when I feel that I required them. And on the few occasions when we did our focus was squarely on the result and the benefit, net of cost. The value to us not the price of the service.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Yield percentage is not a useful calculated number as I have posted numerous times.


I never said it was. I have posted same thing many times too. As your portfolio market value goes down your % yield obviously goes down. And vice-versa. And actual $ yield stays same. Big advantage of having dividend income.



AltaRed said:


> My actual CAGR return is the sum of the investment income and capital appreciation and it has averaged about 10% CAGR over the past 10+ years.


Assume your CAGR remains 10% on your millions in future (unlikely). Lets say $5million, you are saying you would not be unhappy about paying a manager $50,000/yr to manage it?
Or someone here with $1million paying $10,000 a year? In retirement, including 1% on 40-50% of portfolio's fixed income that is only yielding 2% before taxes?

CAGR includes growth. In year when that is negative, that person might actually, like you, earn only 3% or less in div & int, say $30,000 a year, but still pay manager 1% of whatever the portfolio value is. If no growth, then still $10,000. If he/she needs $50k/yr, they will have to use their capital. They may soon be broke.



AltaRed said:


> Your statement is the real issue. The investor doesn't just live off the recurring income the portfolio spins off. The investor can easily take the capital appreciation every year and still be net zero on portfolio withdrawal.


No, I think it is your statement that is dangerous for the investor. There is no certainty that portfolio will grow. In fact there are many indicators at present that say that the opposite will happen looking forward, rather than back.

Anyone retiring should _try_ to live off the income their portfolio produces. Growth of 2-3% will be needed to cover inflation. Don't spend that, otherwise your real income will drop. Yield on portfolio could be 4% at present interest rates for a balanced portfolio (say 60/40 eq/FI) or $40k/yr on $1million generally unaffected by pull-backs in market. Less on a more conservative portfolio like Alta's. Total needed 6-7% including growth. Draw your capital and you are at risk. (read about sequence of returns) here. Chart below uses 5% draw. Maybe 4% for investor, 1% for adviser?












AltaRed said:


> That seems a bit perverse to be taking all those gold bricks to one's grave but if that is how one wishes to constrain themselves, their beneficiaries will be cheering in the grandstand. So will that % of AUM advisor.


I see nothing perverse about maintaining capital. Life events can occur that may require it, especially later in retirement - Health issues, disabilities etc. If those don't occur, I personally will be very happy to leave our children and grandchildren a legacy. Our unselfish holistic view is for family, not just ourselves.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We view our investment returns in the same way. Net of inflation. 

We were on the right side of of sequence of returns. Because of timing, not because of any skill.

I do know one or two people who had to delay retirement because of sequence of returns. They have the same thing in common. The market tanked when they were in their mid/late fifties. They withdrew from the market in a panic and failed tor re-enter rather than taking the longer term view. The result was a significant financial hit that was difficult to overcome.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Sequence of returns risk is a real issue but it would help if the author of that linked piece actually used real historical data rather than 'made up' stuff. The RRIF withdrawal schedule (to age 95) AND the VPW table withdrawal schedule (to age 100) will never leave anyone dying broke. There are a few examples where 4%SWR indexed for inflation would result in portfolio failure before age 100 but statistically virtually none. Much has been written about all of those withdrawal methodologies and all of them tap into invested capital. The fearmongering in the link in post #21 is designed to make people run to financial advisors (to save their souls) and to build stashes far beyond that necessary to get to age 100 and beyond.

FWIW, I agree almost no one wants to die broke at 100 so people do design in buffers to leave some legacy. I don't withdraw to the full extent VPW methodology says I can but I do draw down some invested capital on a regular basis. That is a different issue than saying a '1% or AUM' advisory fee rips off 20% or 25% of the portfolio return on an ongoing basis.. Portfolio returns on a rolling average basis have been in the order of 6-10% over the past 20-40 years (and more) as evidenced by REAL LIFE data in Stingy Investor: The Stingy Investor Asset Mixer and that means a 1% of AUM advisory fee is in the order of 10-15% of the portfolio return. A robo-advisor from the likes of RBC Invest Ease can cut that in half. It is certainly not 20-25% which I think is the assertion in this thread.

Clearly that is more than nothing but everyone is going to need a third party sometime in their lifetime to manage the portfolio and as Ian says, there is (should be) other tax and estate planning advice that comes with such advisory fees. Being penny wise and pound foolish with a fear of paying others to do things on one's behalf when they no longer want too, or are capable to do so, seems terribly counter-productive. We pay for selective services every day, and more of them as we age. Paying for a financial advisory service is just one more of them.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

To add a bit more context, withdrawal strategies like RRIF withdrawal schedules and the VPW table make allowances for 'sequence of return' risk automatically by basing withdrawals on portfolio value at the beginning of each year. If the portfolio is having a down year, the withdrawal amount is less. That is an engineered basis for adjustment than an arbitrary 4% SWR risk.

I am a living example of managing SORR. I retired in early 2006 at age 57. I subsequently went through a divorce in 2007/08 with a division of assets completed before mid-year 2008. We each then went through the 2008-2009 financial crisis without any residual scars and have been tapping into invested capital all these years to varying degrees. Clearly the last 10 or so of those years have been good in the markets to more than cover our withdrawals. That all said, neither my ex or I would hesitate employing a '% of AUM' advisor when the time comes to do so - probably within the next 10 years. There is a time and place for everything.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Alta, it may be time for you to hire an advisor 



AltaRed said:


> 1% of AUM or so is basically nothing in a portfolio delivering 5+% CAGR.


This is what you said earlier. But now you are changing your numbers to support your argument? Isn't 1% of a 5% CAGR not 20%? At least you now admit that 1% is not *nothing*!

You claimed Baird made up the numbers in the sequence of returns chart? Do you know that for a fact? 

They may have for all I know, but I would not guess and post that. They may have cherry picked periods in time off one of the US markets. 

Going forward, we have no idea what markets will do. Baird's chart is just an example of what could happen in future if you start drawing at a bad time. Without drawing the portfolio down, it still did fine regardless of starting point. We have little control over that starting point. Many retirees are faced with that problem. 

Even right now, reading the forums, many of those soon too retire are concerned with markets at all-time highs. I would rather be drawing dividends and interest than capital right now.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You are well aware that my context of it being "nothing" is based on the principle that with a net 4+% CAGR (after deducting 1% AUM), 4% SWR still works. To that extent, it does not harm the porfolio. I forget the advisory fee that was used in the 4% SWR studies but it was at or near 1%. May have been 0.75% but I am too lazy to look it up. Someone here probably has it at their fingertips.

I said


> Clearly that is more than nothing but everyone is going to need......


 because by definition it is not zero, but feel free to interpret and define as you wish. You are the one struggling with the concept of third party advisory fees for your own portfolio. Some of us are willing to pay it when we feel it is worth it to us.

You are right that the future is unknown, but we do know methodologies that work and all of them tap into invested capital. Post #24 is a clear example of what can be done. It is easy enough to reduce one's cash flow spend to minimize draw down of invested capital in bear market years.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our goal is to have our equity continue to grow at a rate higher than inflation and higher than any withdrawal we might take. Our intention is to pass this on to our children and grandchildren at the appropriate time. 

Pension income and our current long term investment returns make this easily doable.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> It is easy enough to reduce one's cash flow spend to minimize draw down of invested capital in bear market years.


It may be from your viewpoint, but not for many. Not everyone has a portfolio worth multi-millions as you appear to!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

agent99 said:


> It may be from your viewpoint, but not for many. Not everyone has a portfolio worth multi-millions!


Think through what you just said.That is a contradictory statement. If you (and I mean you literally) are only using investment income for your withdrawal in the first place and that is what you are advocating as a principle, then you have already cut back from what could have been withdrawn 100% of the time.

Someone who is also withdrawing invested capital along with investment income needs to only cut back to 'investment income only' when there is a bear equity market, e.g. 20+% decline. That may be for 1-2 years, every 10 or 20 years. What you have just said is that everyone needs multi-millions to rely on investment income only.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I s


ian said:


> Our goal is to have our equity continue to grow at a rate higher than inflation and higher than any withdrawal we might take. Our intention is to pass this on to our children and grandchildren at the appropriate time.
> 
> Pension income and our current long term investment returns make this easily doable.


We hardly have any pension income, but have maintained similar growth objectives over 18+ years.. Doubled portfolio value while drawing about 4%. Our legacy objectives are the same as yours.

We have been able to do this in part because, although we live a comfortable life, we are not big spenders. Our recent trip to Hamilton was a splurge for us - we used the 407 toll road end to end for the first time - Both ways  Still awaiting the big bill 

I started this thread to get some feedback on RBCDI and RBC Wealth Management. It has digressed. Seems not many use RBC, but thanks to those who provided input.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

agent99 said:


> Seems not many use RBC, but thanks to those who provided input.


I suspect most on CMF are in accumulation and not interested in Wealth Management services, or for those in withdrawal mode are sill into DIY style management. I've not done much investigation yet other then to poke a little around robo-advisory services, RBC Invest Ease included. This offering does provide some human touch and oversight and may actually fit what you are looking for... all for 0.5%or so.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

To make a judgement on InvestEase, we need to dig in a little further and see what we get for the 0.5%

For a mid-risk portfolio, it appears that they would include 6 ETFs.
XGGB 15% (1.4% yield) Global FI
XBB 28% (2.5% yield) Canadian FI
XEC 5% Emerging markets (1.07% yield)
XEF 10% Int equity (2% yield)
XUS 20% US Equity (0.88% yield)
XIC 20% Can Equity. (2.5% yield)

Overall yield about 1.84%. Perhaps OK to cover inflation in registered account, but no div/interest income otherwise. 

The 0.5% annual fee is charged monthly. (6 months free at start.)

Trading of ETFs at RBCDI cost $9.95. In addition to purchasing the 6 ETFs, there would be rebalancing at some interval. No idea how often. Lets say another 6 trades per year. Equivalent for DIY investor would be about $60/yr.
So, if you had $12,000 in InvestEase, you would break even. More than that, it would be lower in cost to own the etfs in RBCDI (Then maybe check their site for guidance and do your own rebalancing  )
Running through this on their site, it does seem that it is aimed at smaller investors. They suggested a $3000 monthly contribution after I had entered $100,000!
If you had say $500,000, $2500/yr would be a lot to pay for annual rebalancing of 6 ETFs. (admittedly by experts)


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Sure but after all, the point is third party portfolio management for when one no longer wants to manage their portfolio and/or is incapable of doing so. There is no free lunch nor has it ever been argued otherwise. Ian says he gets value for his money with value being defined by each and every person in their own way. 

It is strictly personal choice if and when one makes that decision for themselves. FWIW, I have recommended to two different individuals to have a look at RBC Invest Ease. One has a mid 7 digit portfolio with no interest in DIY and the other is a millenial with a very small 6 digit portfolio with no time to consider self-management (RBC DI) but is keen to look at robo-advisors. There is something for everyone.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I am happy to pay an advisor. My view is that the cost of the advisor is the delta between the advisory charge and the MER that I would otherwise pay on DIY. 

Plus, I no longer want to do it.

The portfolio is healthy. We are realizing good growth with marginal risk. I have been given some very good financial advice, tax advice, and some estate advice.

The other benefit is knowing that if I get hit by a bus my spouse will have only one call to make to someone she feels comfortable with and who she trusts.

When I retired I thought that I was past the accumulation stage (net of inflation) however the last ten years of retirement have definitely turned out to be one the best accumulation stages ever.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

In thinking more about it after working through their site. it seems to me that RBC InvestEase is likely aimed mainly at new investors.

It could best suit those still working who have a few thousand a month to invest. Less expensive than buying additional ETFs every month at RBCDI. (But not the case at brokerages offering zero fee ETF purchases.)

Not something I would use or recommend except perhaps for those just starting out.. I looked at it today, just as a possibility for our TFSAs, but even for those, it doesn't make sense for us.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

ian said:


> The portfolio is healthy. We are realizing good growth with marginal risk. I have been given some very good financial advice, tax advice, and some estate advice.
> 
> The other benefit is knowing that if I get hit by a bus my spouse will have only one call to make to someone she feels comfortable with and who she trusts.
> 
> When I retired I thought that I was past the accumulation stage (net of inflation) however the last ten years of retirement have definitely turned out to be one the best accumulation stages ever.


I have only just started looking at this. InvestEase has now been scratched off my list. I will talk to RBC Wealth about their other programs. One is PH&N, but it seems PH&N only have advisors near us in in Ottawa and Toronto. I would like someone closer by. Perhaps RBC local advisors handle all their wealth offerings.

Your last two paragraphs match our situation exactly!


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I deal with PHN Calgary. They are originally a Vancouver based firm.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

agent99 said:


> Being in my 80s, I am starting to look at alternatives to our present DIY investing through BMOIL.
> 
> RBC Wealth Management or PH&N may be options down the road.
> 
> ...


We are with RBC Wealth Management and have been very happy with them. However, I don't know if our experience is the same as we moved to this advisor as he is a long time friend of my extended family. He has been handling some of my extended family accounts for decades. He took us on really as a favour because I got annoyed with our previous advisory. Our advisor is close to retirement age and is only doing this for fun, as he does not need the money, they let him work the hours he wants. He consistently gives us what he says are the lowest fees, the same ones as my family members who have over 8 digits invested with him. I know he does look at us as a paycheck because he didn't even know how much our fees were. When he had his assistant send over statements and the fees, our total fees were 0.37% of our portfolio. That seemed really low considering what I have read. 

Most of his clients are in a decumulation phase and are high net worth. We are one of the few clients that are still working and have a lower net worth than most. He knew our goals was to eventually move away from an advisory and become DIY, so he has been helping build a portfolio that I will be able to manage myself. If I go unexpectedly before I am DIY, then my spouse and kids will be still under him. In the meantime, he does help me determine if we are on track and has helped my extended family with estate plans. 

I believe my experience is based on my unique situation and family relationships, but if he retires I will stick with them unless the new person is untrustworthy.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> ....just curious....at what approx. $ value of a portfolio would the Wealth management people become interested, or perhaps, viable?........


Our FA isn't taking any new customers (he's older), but $1 MIL was his threshold. Some of the newer wealth managers will start at $500K. I have seen other institutions look lower at $250K


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Most banks have a mish mash of overlapping areas under Wealth Management. RBC is roughly set up as follow.

*RBCDI* - self directed brokerage

*RBC Financial Planning*. In branch Financial Planners(CFP or PFP) who manage portfolios from 250,000 to a 1,000,000 typically. Third Party and Proprietary MF and some wrap programs. Offer financial plans but limited access to insurance products. They also look after the clients day to day banking and credit needs. This is technically under personal banking report structure I believe.

*RBCDS* - Full service brokerage targeted at 500,000 and over. Most are fee based and may use individual stocks and bonds (rarer), but often use managed portfolios, pooled funds or wrap programs of some type. Can offer access to financial plans and more complex estate planning. Some are registered portfolio managers and may do discretionary management.

*RBC PH&N Investment Counsel* - This is the discretionary investment management arm. Depending on size of portfolio and your objectives they may use individual securities or various pooled or other wrap services. Target client is probably in the multi million dollar range but may be much smaller if younger and excellent potential for growth.

*Private Banking* - Over lying the last two may be Private Banking. An account manager would ever see your day to day banking, fx, credit card and lending needs and assist with access to RBCDS or RBC PH&N Investment Council and work with them on your overall investment strategy. High end service for a price. This is a negotiated monthly fee. When I left the banking world fees could range from from several hundred dollars a month to multiple thousand dollars a month depending on needs. Likely higher now. Some folks with private banking have no investment portfolio with the bank.

RBCDS and PHN Investment Council and Private Banking have access to specialist advisors in financial planning and estates that your advisor can call in for assistance. (usually part of the package). These people usually are either a lawyer or CPA depending on the advice required.

*RBC Trust Services & Estates* - these encompass all of the above divisions. For clients with sufficient assets they will act as Executor (estate trustee) or as *agent for executor*. In other words they will do some or all of the work for an executor with the executor having final sign off. - for a negotiated fee of course. Trust services will manage money for trusts, endowments, foundations, charities and other similar portfolios under the guidelines of the trust document.

Like others have said, it depends more on the individual account manager than the big brand although that certainly value. Don't pick someone a few years from retirement. otherwise you may end up with someone you don't know managing your portfolio after you are unable to make changes.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

My head hurt reading that but not surprising. No wonder we can't figure it out.......


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

man, I am just here to say AltaRed is a damn national treasure. I would buy a book of just collected forum posts from this man. Thank you sir for sharing so much wisdom over the years. I owe you a LOT of investment return from reading your stuff and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Hope you know you've made a difference even if you were just doing it for fun and conversation.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

twa2w said:


> *Private Banking* - Over lying the last two may be Private Banking. An account manager would ever see your day to day banking, fx, credit card and lending needs and assist with access to RBCDS or RBC PH&N Investment Council and work with them on your overall investment strategy. High end service for a price. This is a negotiated monthly fee. When I left the banking world fees could range from from several hundred dollars a month to multiple thousand dollars a month depending on needs. Likely higher now. Some folks with private banking have no investment portfolio with the bank.


This made me actually LOL. what on earth. private banking client = sucker at the table


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

agent99 said:


> I really don't know how you can say that!
> 
> As I posted earlier, that 1% fee can represent 20-25% of a retirees investment income. Is that nothing?????


I think you guys are arguing (again) on the difference between a portfolio's yield, and the total return.

For example my portfolio is performing at 7% CAGR but has a yield of around 2.5%, not a particularly high yield. But that also doesn't matter.

At the end of the day I've been making 7% annually. If I were to pay 1% in fees, yes that hurts, but then the return is 6% CAGR. That's still a very high return.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

wayward__son said:


> man, I am just here to say AltaRed is a damn national treasure. I would buy a book of just collected forum posts from this man. Thank you sir for sharing so much wisdom over the years. I owe you a LOT of investment return from reading your stuff and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Hope you know you've made a difference even if you were just doing it for fun and conversation.


I second that. And I really should print PDFs of some of his posts to keep around for the long term.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

twa2w said:


> Most banks have a mish mash of overlapping areas under Wealth Management. RBC is roughly set up as follow.
> 
> *RBCDI* - self directed brokerage
> 
> ...


This is similar to the model at TD….at least it was when I left a few years ago. I know efforts were underway to streamline.

TD simplified a bit by saying:
Financial planning - $100k - $500k. Mass market.
DI - self directed. “I’ll do it”
Full service brokerage . “Let’s do it together”
Private investment counsel. “You do it”.
PB - was $100 month, but I can tell you that the customers who had it, loved it. It’s really for high-end, high income customers who are extremely busy. you have one contact who does everything for you outside of the investment management.

it really boils down to how much you have to invest and how much involvement you want.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> PB - w*as $100 month, but I can tell you that the customers who had it, loved it. *It’s really for high-end, high income customers who are extremely busy. you have one contact who does everything for you outside of the investment management.


 ... this sounds like a substitute for the absent spouse ... someone else/thing to pay the bills automatically, never mind coffee making/delivery (one example).


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

wayward__son said:


> This made me actually LOL. what on earth. private banking client = sucker at the table


Why would you need the experts at a major financial Institution when you have the internet and a "National Treasure" to guide you


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> This is similar to the model at TD….at least it was when I left a few years ago. I know efforts were underway to streamline.
> 
> TD simplified a bit by saying:
> Financial planning - $100k - $500k. Mass market.
> ...


Thanks Money & Twa for summarizing the RBC and TD wealth management offerings.

I haven't looked at TD, but did take the time to read the RBC Wealth management site. They do have diverse offerings depending on the client's needs. Not hard to understand if you take the time, but they do encourage you to contact them to find the best fit and adviser to match your needs. The adviser will draw on the expertise that the various divisions offer e,g banking, investing, estate planning, taxation etc.
Other major banks like BMO, CIBC, National and Scotia have similar offerings.

Choosing an adviser that you can trust and feel comfortable with seems to be the key, regardless of which institution you choose. Plugging Along was lucky to get someone their family already trusted and Ian also has someone he and his spouse trusts. Both of them enjoy management costs that are quite a bit less than the 1% often quoted.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is strictly a cost/benefit equation for us. What we pay for advisory services, what return we realize over an extended period and how much financial risk we expose ourselves to achieve it. Cost is important but the end goal is always net return after fees. This is what counts for us.

Plus any other tangibles and intangibles over and above financial return.

The equation and the the subjectives will no doubt be different for everyone.

It took some time when we decided to go this route and shop ten years ago. Sorting through all the BS that some financial institutions were peddling. We had the advantage of seeing the delta between the fee for service that our previous financial institution offered and what they actually delivered. We had a sense of what we wanted. And what we did not want.

A former colleague in Central Canada went through the same process for the same reason. We compared notes....very similar experiences led both of us to shop.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

agent99 said:


> ...
> 
> *Choosing an adviser that you can trust and feel comfortable with seems to be the key, regardless of which institution you choose. Plugging Along was lucky to get someone their family already trusted and Ian also has someone he and his spouse trusts.* Both of them enjoy management costs that are quite a bit less than the 1% often quoted.


 ... I think you hit the "nugget/gem" here, aside from being comfortable with that person in terms of communications, views, style, etc. Seems like a marriage, only no lifelong committment.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I think you hit the "nugget/gem" here, aside from being comfortable with that person in terms of communications, views, style, etc. Seems like a marriage, only no lifelong committment.


This was one of our most important considerations. When you consider fee/investment return it is very much a rear mirror view.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

ian said:


> Cost is important but the end goal is always net return after fees. This is what counts for us.
> Plus any other tangibles and intangibles over and above financial return.
> The equation and the the subjectives will no doubt be different for everyone.


In our case, I would fully expect a net total return that will be lower than what we enjoy now with our DIY investing. We are only looking at this because of our age and the possibility of our current investment manager (me) becoming incapacitated.

What I would ideally like to do, is develop a relationship with a wealth manager while still continuing to manage our own investments. Our registered and unregistered accounts are both of a size that most wealth managers would accept.

One option I have thought about, is to have the manager take over our RRIFs. However, those include about 2/3 fixed income. With rates so low, paying a 1% fee to manage GICs and Bonds with maturity out to 2025 doesn't make much sense!

The other option is to have them manage the unregistered funds. But these are mainly in solid dividend payers that would attract large CG taxes if the accounts were collapsed.

I need to discuss this with RBC and perhaps others. We probably need someone who will initially become familiar with our investments, and perhaps offer some advice with a view to taking over when the need arises. We could also benefit from some estate planning advice, especially for the surviving spouse.

As Ian said - different for everyone. Not everyone here is into the final stretch.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There will always be a financial (fee) cost when engaging a third party wealth management professional. On a '% of AUM' basis, it will almost always be at least 0.5% even with a 7 digit portfolio. Maybe what you are looking for initially is 'fee for service' rather than % of AUM but I doubt the big wealth management providers are into that sort of thing, i.e. starting with 'fee for service' transitioning to '% of AUM' over time. 

You may want to consider an independent from the Fee Only Planners and Coaches Directory


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I won't be hiring any fee for service financial adviser. Their services are not what we need. 

I will first see what RBC and others suggest as a practical way and timeline for transitioning. We may end up with something like Ian has, but no rush. We can do this gradually.

Putting this on back burner until golf season is over


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

wayward__son said:


> This made me actually LOL. what on earth. private banking client = sucker at the table


yes the rich are very different from you and I.

if you need your Visa limit raised from 100,000 to 200,000 temporarily and you need it in two hours, who you going to call.
If find you need to make a trip to Europe last minute and you want to take a few Euros in cash and you want it delivered to the airport on your way out, who you going to call.

Need an American Express card or a Diners Club Card, who you going to call. Private bankers can do all this and more. Yes some Canadian Banks offer these cards to their best clients.

Need a letter of credit or a letter of introduction to facilitate a business transaction, who you going to call. How about advice on an offshore trust.

time is money and the rich will pay extra for convenience.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

twa2w said:


> yes the rich are very different from you and I.
> 
> if you need your Visa limit raised from 100,000 to 200,000 temporarily and you need it in two hours, who you going to call.
> If find you need to make a trip to Europe last minute and you want to take a few Euros in cash and you want it delivered to the airport on your way out, who you going to call.
> ...


several hundred to multiple thousand a month or more for the services you describe seems like a bad trade to me, but, fair enough -- you are absolutely right that we all have decisions to make about how we spend our time and money and some may see value where others do not.

apologies agent99 for contributing nothing to your questions. wish you the best in your search


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

wayward__son said:


> several hundred to multiple thousand a month or more for the services you describe seems like a bad trade to me, but, fair enough -- you are absolutely right that we all have decisions to make about *how we spend our time and money and some may see value where others do not.*
> 
> apologies agent99 for contributing nothing to your questions. wish you the best in your search


 ... I think the "rich" twa2w was describing in need of those services is more applicable to the "ULTRA-rich", you know the "billionaires". Even then, don't be surprised, the richer they are, the cheaper they are. Have to count the pennies before getting that dollar.

Now I just need to hit the Powerball jackpot and enlist a PB and disappear from this forum ...


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

twa2w said:


> yes the rich are very different from you and I.
> time is money and the rich will pay extra for convenience.





wayward__son said:


> apologies agent99 for contributing nothing to your questions. wish you the best in your search


No problems W_S. Seems hardly anyone here uses those RBC services anyway. Especially those services aimed at the really wealthy.

Once we all start to travel more, maybe we should discuss the merits of Netjets vs ONEFlight International. (The one Shark Tank's Robert Herjavec, promotes). Is there anyone here who uses those services? 

When we next go South for the winter, it would be great to do as Robert does and call up OneFlight. Have them pick us up at Kingston airport and then have a car waiting for us at our destination. Definitely convenient and worthwhile - if you can afford it!

Just joking to point out that not everyone can afford to pay for services they could possibly benefit from. There is a limit! Paying 1-2% of portfolio value is not the same for someone barely getting by in retirement compared with someone with several millions invested.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

One pays for the services they believe they get value from one way or the other. For some, the fees associated with discretionary management are well worth the unloading of the burden (time and effort) needed to undertake some task. That might be oil changes in the car or yard maintenance for others. I would suggest a significant number of folk utilize the wealth management services of the big banks given the size of those organizations and it would be wrong to assume the vast majority of investors do not pay 1+% AUM for portfolio management one way or the other.

All those retail customers with bank branches do so with their mutual fund portfolios, even if unknowingly so. Others like Ian see value in their % of AUM arrangements. So will I in time when I am no longer interested or capable of managing my own portfolio.


----------



## OneSeat (Apr 15, 2020)

agent99 said:


> - - - not everyone can afford to pay for services they could possibly benefit from - - -





AltaRed said:


> - - - pay for the services they believe they get value from - - -


As the French say 'Everyone has gout'


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OneSeat said:


> As the French say 'Everyone has gout'


I hope you/they mean goût , not gout!


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Nothing new about the impact of fees. When you have more money than you need, spend it on something you deem to have value????? If you barely have enough money to live off, then watch your pennies. Decision is not just about goût


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

We all know the effect of fees but they cannot be viewed in isolation of other variables. The utlimate issue is the ability or willingness of an investor to manage their own portfolio as well as, or better than, professional advice. Statistical studies have shown that most investors (of all ages) do considerably more poorly managing their own portfolios on their own (the sum of all investors is the market). Generally by 'buying high and selling low' and /or chasing performance. The good news is the cost of portfolio management has decreased considerably with a number of options including robo-advisors and for that, we should be thankful. I expect the trend to continue.

At some point, almost all of us DIYers will have to turn over portfolio management to a third party at some cost to avoid the risks of doing untold damage to ourselves through poor decision making (neglect, poor judgement and/or incompetence). The key is how to decide when to make the move before the probability of damage accelerates too far.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that y


AltaRed said:


> One pays for the services they believe they get value from one way or the other. For some, the fees associated with discretionary management are well worth the unloading of the burden (time and effort) needed to undertake some task. That might be oil changes in the car or yard maintenance for others. I would suggest a significant number of folk utilize the wealth management services of the big banks given the size of those organizations and it would be wrong to assume the vast majority of investors do not pay 1+% AUM for portfolio management one way or the other.
> 
> All those retail customers with bank branches do so with their mutual fund portfolios, even if unknowingly so. Others like Ian see value in their % of AUM arrangements. So will I in time when I am no longer interested or capable of managing my own portfolio.


Canadian bank stocks have always been a great investment. Between service fees, MERS, and credit cards they always seem to do well. In good times and in bad times. Just look at the recent earning announcements. Years of 3 percent MERS, combined with a trusting and passive customer base, have made them fat and very happy.

How many trusting customers accept the advice of those so called bonused/rewarded in branch investment advisors to place their money in funds without even bothering to inquire about something as unimportant as a MER? I remember one advisor, quite some time ago, who looked at us like we had two heads when we questioned a fund with a high MER.

Fortunately more and more people are smartening up and looking more closely at those 'recommendations', the expense ratios, and the longer term growth numbers.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

the average Canadian doesn’t have the time or the inclination to learn more about investing.
below is the performance of a fund (monthly income) that is most often recommended to retail customers at TD. MER is 1.48%. Most people are happy with the returns and ok with the fee. Seems pretty good up against the canadian index fund. (Disclosure- former Td employee. Just using TD funds as an example. I’ve moved all my reg. Assets to all in one ETFs with vanguard and black rock.



















@


----------

