# Marking down RRSP to 0.85 in net worth



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I've been debating this with myself for a while after the topic came up in another thread. The issue is how to value my RRSP in my net worth calculation. I am decades away from retirement.

Until now I've valued it fully at 1.0 (the same way TFSA and non-registered accounts are) but this seems like a bad idea: this is a tax deferral so I won't get to keep 100%. The problem with fully valuing it came up recently when I looked at how my net worth was increasing at a time I was making large RRSP contributions, and I realized my net worth was not really increasing to this degree.

My current plan is to re-value my RRSP at 0.85. Reading some other tax threads around here, this is an estimate of an after tax value I may realize down the road. Of course I have no idea what my tax rate might be, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't put in a best guess.

How about others? Do you keep your RRSP at 1.0 on your balance sheet, or do you mark it down?


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I've been debating this with myself for a while after the topic came up in another thread. The issue is how to value my RRSP in my net worth calculation. I am decades away from retirement.
> 
> Until now I've valued it fully at 1.0 (the same way TFSA and non-registered accounts are) but this seems like a bad idea: this is a tax deferral so I won't get to keep 100%. The problem with fully valuing it came up recently when I looked at how my net worth was increasing at a time I was making large RRSP contributions, and I realized my net worth was not really increasing to this degree.
> 
> ...


Valuing it at .70 would be more appropriate. You will likely be in a 30% tax bracket when you take it out, so 30% of it belongs to the government.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

30% tax rate seems too high! That's more like my current tax rate with full employment income.

My all-in tax rates over the last three years has been: 26%, 31%, 32% ... surely in retirement my tax rate would be less than this


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It's a bit of a crapshoot as no one knows what taxes will be 25 years down the line. I eyeball it at .75 which is more less correct. Really if it was .7 - .85 nothing would really change


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You have to consider both federal and provincial rates. You will have CPP and OAS as a base plus your taxable account cash flow. I'd assume a minimum 25% rate to take care of, as an approximation, 15% federal and 10% provincial. That is only good to circa $40k gross depending on province, albeit you will have an age amount and a pension amount that will reduce the average overall by a bit...or take you to the $50k level perhaps. The tax tips calculator is a handy tool to play with. Put in age 65 and see what it tells you after inputting various cash flows.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

What is this for? What is the point of discounting the value to 85%? If this will save taxes, go for it. If you want a true picture of your finances today, it is worth 100%. You don't know what it will be worth tomorrow, let alone 20 years from now. Market value today is the only solid thing you have to go on.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> What is this for? What is the point of discounting the value to 85%? If this will save taxes, go for it. If you want a true picture of your finances today, it is worth 100%. You don't know what it will be worth tomorrow, let alone 20 years from now. Market value today is the only solid thing you have to go on.


J4B is acknowledging RRSP/RRIF withdrawals will attract full tax rates, unlike other investments which are only subject to cap gains at most, and then only for the unrealized gains portion. The RRSP is not worth 100%...unless J4B will have no taxable income when he starts withdrawals. It makes sense to at least consider the first combined Fed + Prov tax bracket in net worth.

FWIW, I have made arrangements for my common law wife to get X dollars in event of my death, with the funds coming preferentially as a RRSP/RRIF rollover. The co-hab could only value that rollover at 80% (15% Fed + 5% BC).


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> 30% tax rate seems too high! That's more like my current tax rate with full employment income.
> 
> My all-in tax rates over the last three years has been: 26%, 31%, 32% ... surely in retirement my tax rate would be less than this


What kind of lifestyle will you expect in retirement? If you want to maintain one that is similar to the one you enjoyed while working, you will need a nest egg that produces a similar income when added to any pensions you are eligible for. Those pensions and the minimum required withdrawal from a RRIF (or RRSP withdrawals earlier) will be taxed at max rate - same as interest income. If you have non-registered savings, you may get some tax breaks on dividends and CGs as you would now. You may get some other small tax breaks, such as age allowance and pension deduction. You could have your OAS clawed back. Overall, you could be in just as high a tax bracket as when working. I know we are.

The number really does not matter much. I would think that 75% of RRSP/RRIF would be a good number just for Net Worth purposes.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think retire at 45...withdraw 12k/year after that. Makes the TFSA look better all the time... I wonder if Prime Minister O'Leary will raise the TFSA contribution rate for 2020?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Wow this is more complicated than I thought. It sounds like 0.75 scaling might be better as a very rough guideline for the net worth purpose.

I'm about to kiss a lot of paper wealth good bye


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It's wealth you never had. It's was a delusion. 

Many people do complain about the gubment raking dar monies when they retire but it's always better to think of rrsps as tax deferment vehicles that can be used for retirement but don't have to be.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I agree, and it's way better to acknowledge this right now than 30 years later. _That RRSP wealth is a delusion_ -- as none says

It makes me better appreciate my non-registered accounts. These non reg stocks I hold are quite beautiful.

While I'm at it ... are there other kinds of typical accounts that have that similar wealth delusion like the RRSP? I'd rather mark everything down once and get it over with. I am similarly marking down my American 401(k), same tax deferral.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

FWIW, I devalue my RRSP by 30%. I figure that will be my tax rate in retirement. If it's less, that's a bonus


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

A few years ago I had a financial plan done, with software that estimated (amongst other variables) my future net worth and net estate value at yearly intervals. The software applied tax rates on tax sheltered investments based on then current tax law, with inflation accounted for. Of course the tax payable depended on the projected withdrawal pattern, but based on the numbers in this plan I would say that a discount of 30% is a reasonable approximation.



james4beach said:


> While I'm at it ... are there other kinds of typical accounts that have that similar wealth delusion like the RRSP? I'd rather mark everything down once and get it over with.


Yes, a professional corporation or holding company.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Your CPP entitlement grows as you continue to work/reside, but I've never seen anyone on here include the NPV of that as part of their net worth... perhaps the +CPP/-RRSP balances out well enough to consider it a wash? I don't know, I've never done the calculation...

So TFSA :1.0
RRSP/RPP/CPP: 0.7-0.8
Unregistered capital gains: 0.85-0.9
Other: ???

Sounds complicated to me. Your net worth is your net worth at present. Your RRSP liability is a future cash-flow consideration/concern. That doesn't seem very much related to your current net worth, IMO. 

You are currently, and for decades into the future, in full control of 100% of the funds in your RRSP, not 75% of the funds.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> Your net worth is your net worth at present. Your RRSP liability is a future cash-flow consideration/concern. That doesn't seem very much related to your current net worth, IMO. You are currently, and for decades into the future, in full control of 100% of the funds in your RRSP, not 75% of the funds.


Gosh, this is tough. I see your argument and that makes complete sense to me as well.

But if we're looking at net worth as a snapshot, wouldn't it be accurate still to include a future tax liability item relating to the RRSP ? Sure, I have total control of my RRSP money but there's a separate line item under liabilities ... tax liability. That's what a corporate balance sheet looks like.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

A couple of points.
Your tax liability on your rsp will depend on whether you calculate it as an income stream(% tax on annual withdrawals), or what it would be if you died ( %tax on lump sum value). In most cases I suspect it will be a combination of the two since you may indeed have a substantial balance when you die unless you outive your rsp withdrawals.
Also this would assume you would also adjust your non registered net worth assets by any potential capital gains taxes.
Personally I try not to complicate things like this that I cannot control and have no meaningful way of knowing ie future tax rates, time of death etc.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

^+1


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This might be the most conflicted I've ever been on an accounting issue. I just think keeping it at 100% on the books really over-states the wealth I have. Here's the rationale going through my head

1. It's good to be conservative in retirement planning
2. Though the future tax rate can't be known, it's very likely greater than 0%
3. Best practice would be to use a best guess and better approximate tax effect as time goes on


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Could be debated RRSP value could be worth more then 100% of its value as RRSP can grow tax free until with draws. Where as none registered account can not grow tax free (maybe some investments can?). Of course the more years as well as the higher the interest rates & or rate of return to grow tax free the greater the value over 100%. How investment will be tax also plays a roll i.e., capital gains is not taxed the same way as interest.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

The critical thing is to get a reasonable estimate of after-tax income during retirement, and what size portfolio you need to support your income needs.

Remember to use average tax rate, not marginal tax rate. 15% seems like a reasonable estimate. 30% seems high for an average tax rate in retirement unless you have a high income or a multi-million dollar RRSP. Also age 71 is a critical age for many people, as that is when mandatory withdrawals from a registered retirement accounts starts. Before that you may be drawing income from non-registered accounts and paying tax at capital gains or dividend tax rates.

Taxtips.ca has tables of tax rates that are helpful for estimating taxes.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I agree, and it's way better to acknowledge this right now than 30 years later. _That RRSP wealth is a delusion_ -- as none says


Isn't this the pendulum swinging too far the other way?

Sure ... it won't be the full value but it won't be worthless either. Most are likely to have lower income when withdrawing (particularly if they are paying attention and planning, as you are).




james4beach said:


> It makes me better appreciate my non-registered accounts. These non reg stocks I hold are quite beautiful.
> While I'm at it ... are there other kinds of typical accounts that have that similar wealth delusion like the RRSP?


I would argue that taxable investments are a similar delusion for most people. They look at the cost and what the share/unit price is at to get the gross gain but usually don't take the capital gains taxes into account.




james4beach said:


> But if we're looking at net worth as a snapshot, wouldn't it be accurate still to include a future tax liability item relating to the RRSP ? Sure, I have total control of my RRSP money but there's a separate line item under liabilities ... tax liability. That's what a corporate balance sheet looks like.


It would appear that the future tax liability for your taxable stocks is another liability that so far, there does not seem to be an adjustment for it.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is a matter of perspective. As folks have said, what really matters in retirement is the cash flow. Most folks assume a BT cash flow when they are modeling, recognizing in the background that they will have taxes to pay. That is an operating expense, just like rent. The important thing you have latched on to is that gross cash flow from an RRIF will be just like pension income or salary....fully taxed. Thus it is only important to figure in a 25-30% tax operating expense rate 

You are trying to package it in terms of net worth. When you do that, then yes, it is errroneous to believe you have $1 million of net worth in your RRSP. It isn't the case due to latent tax liability on funds borrowed from the government. You can decide what your 'net worth' really is depending on how you want to look at it. Some folks include home equity while others do not. Some include the present value of CPP and DB pensions while others do not. It is YOUR net worth to determine how you wish to rationalize it. For me, net worth numbers are merely a perspective of relative wealth, I don't dwell on it.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Is there this much angst over un-realized capital gains and the anticipated future tax burden on those?


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

We budget everything in after tax dollars. That is what we spend.

You can calculate the value to you by using either your estimated average tax rate or your estimated incremental tax rate. The other variable is how much you draw down each year. If you draw down a significant amount it could place you in a 50 percent plus incremental tax rate. 

We have tended to use RSP's and TFSAs for income funds and non registered accounts for capital gains outside of our registered plans in order to take advantage of the tax treatment of capital gains. My RSP annual contributions were severely limited by my workplace DB plan.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

rikk2 said:


> Fwiw ... ok, one more time ... if I withdraw $1.00 from my RRSP, it will be taxed at 39% and I will give up $0.15 OAS ... that's effectively 54%. When my wife retires, that will change for the better (if in the context of the CMF you'd call a retired spouse with a small pension better) :listening_headphone


Depends on your marginal tax rate. Few people in their 40's, some 20 years before retirement, really has only a broad idea what their marginal tax rate will be during RRIF withdrawal. It is effective enough to make an assumption of some level, e.g. 25-35%. Spin 20 years down the road. If that tax assumption is overstated, that is because one's income will be lower than expected and having the extra AT cash flow will be welcome. If that tax assumption is understated, then one has been more fortunate than expected and can afford the extra taxes. IOW, errors in future tax assumptions can be somewhat perversely self-correcting.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

fraser said:


> We budget everything in after tax dollars. That is what we spend.
> 
> You can calculate the value to you by using either your estimated average tax rate or your estimated incremental tax rate. The other variable is how much you draw down each year. If you draw down a significant amount it could place you in a 50 percent plus incremental tax rate.
> 
> We have tended to use RSP's and TFSAs for income funds and non registered accounts for capital gains outside of our registered plans in order to take advantage of the tax treatment of capital gains. My RSP annual contributions were severely limited by my workplace DB plan.


We also budget everything in after tax dollars because that's all I get 

Capital gains are an efficient form of tax, next up, the dividend tax credit for CDN stocks, so those investments are common stocks that are held in non-registered accounts.

"My RSP annual contributions were severely limited by my workplace DB plan." That's a good problem to have fraser...!


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

If you mark it down to 85%, or 70% or 15%, what difference will it make? How will it change your investment decisions, retirement plan? Fact is, it won't change a thing.
As others have commented, we base our retirement planning on after tax income. Tax rates, credits, etc change from decade to decade, so it's hard to estimate the impact.

Net worth is a pretty arbitrary number and is really just used to track progress. What is important is that you use the same methodology to calculate it year after year. If you continually change things (reduce RRSP by 20%, increase home value to market based on comparables, change DB from contributions to commuted value, etc), then it becomes hard to track the progress.


----------



## 319905 (Mar 7, 2016)

If I was doing a net worth calculation, I'd think along the lines of how many dollars could I scrape together right now today, and so I would include the current after tax value of my RRSP ...


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Whatever discount rate you use on the RRSP is going to have withdrawal and tax assumptions baked in. If you withdraw it today as a lump to pay cash for a Lamborghini, you'll have a high tax whack (parts at 50%+ for big amounts). If you withdraw smaller chunks over the next few years to make time payments on the Lamborghini, the tax rate may be lower. In retirement, it depends on your other taxable income and how you pull it out. If you are interested in your current liquidation value net worth for some reason, calculate the tax hit if you withdrew it all tomorrow. Otherwise, you are looking at before-tax income in retirement, and there isn't a single "right" answer without the assumptions.

StatsCan does include an estimated valuation of DB pension credits in calculating "net worth" for its Survey of Financial Security. If you are comparing yourself to Mr. JustLikeMe next door, and he has DB pension credits and you don't, his net worth could look much smaller than yours, even though your salaries and expenditures have been the same; be careful comparing to less comprehensive "net worth" numbers out there. StatsCan views net worth as "..._the amount of money they would be left with if they sold all of their assets and paid off all of their debts_.", but it is unclear if they make any adjustment for the tax liability of RRSP assets. My guess would be not.


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

This.



nobleea said:


> If you mark it down to 85%, or 70% or 15%, what difference will it make? How will it change your investment decisions, retirement plan? Fact is, it won't change a thing.
> As others have commented, we base our retirement planning on after tax income. Tax rates, credits, etc change from decade to decade, so it's hard to estimate the impact.
> 
> Net worth is a pretty arbitrary number and is really just used to track progress. What is important is that you use the same methodology to calculate it year after year. If you continually change things (reduce RRSP by 20%, increase home value to market based on comparables, change DB from contributions to commuted value, etc), then it becomes hard to track the progress.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

rikk2 said:


> If I was doing a net worth calculation, I'd think along the lines of how many dollars could I scrape together right now today, and so I would include the current after tax value of my RRSP ...


Largely agree. Net worth is a point in time calculation; the difference between current assets and current liabilities. 

Unless someone can tell me otherwise, taxes due in the short term are liability. Just like taxes due back from government (refund) should be considered an asset. It depends how granular (or accurate) you really want to be. 

I don't worry about these things too much since so much can change between years. However, I do devalue my RRSP because not all the RRSP assets belong to me. Unfortunately the government wants its money back at some point!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

As rikk2 and MOA say, I also think of it as: how many dollars could I scrape together today

The net worth calculation feels pretty important to me and I don't think it's as arbitrary as some others believe. It's showing me a measure on how I'm growing my wealth including pace of growth. That's really important feedback: do I need to change my lifestyle? *How well am I managing my finances?* Am I actually getting wealthier? How much wealthier? How bold can I be in risks that I take (e.g. start a business, try a new life project)

Other times I've gone through a rough period like unemployment, and the net worth picture tells me: how much did that hurt me? After resuming work, when am I back to the same place I was before?

I'll give an example. I've worked in three countries now, under different tax regimes and wildly different costs of living. I want to measure the following: at this current job (e.g. in the USA) am I actually coming out ahead? Is my net worth growing? Sure I can look at income & expenses but I need a bigger picture view, net of everything.

That's what net worth gives me, _net of everything_.

When I first asked that question I compared it to my Toronto data and thought I was doing worse than Toronto. But this was erroneous because the high RRSP contributions were rapidly inflating my "net worth". So I think this is a good example of why marking down the RRSP matters, and why the net worth is important to me. Once I account for hidden tax liability on RRSP, I saw that in fact my net worth is currently growing just as well as it did in Toronto. As the RRSP and 401(k) are direct payroll deductions they have a much greater impact in this respect than capital gains tax liability. (At least in a 1 year time frame)


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> As rikk2 and MOA say, I also think of it as: how many dollars could I scrape together today
> 
> The net worth calculation feels pretty important to me and I don't think it's as arbitrary as some others believe. It's showing me a measure on how I'm growing my wealth including pace of growth. That's really important feedback: do I need to change my lifestyle? *How well am I managing my finances?* Am I actually getting wealthier? How much wealthier? How bold can I be in risks that I take (e.g. start a business, try a new life project)


When I say it's an arbitrary number, what I mean is that your methodology on how you calculate it is arbitrary. What is important for tracking the things you mention above, is that you are consistent in how you calculate it from year to year.
Some people don't think houses should be in there, some don't think cars should be in there. Some think it should be the commuted value of a DB pension, or even the cv of CPP, etc etc. For the questions you list above, it makes no difference whether you mark your rrsps to 100%, 85% or 15% of value.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I see what you mean but for that purpose I listed it _does_ matter if I mark down RRSP.



> For the questions you list above, it makes no difference whether you mark your rrsps to 100%, 85% or 15% of value.


If I value the RRSP at 100%, then that comparison gives a false answer: by neglecting the Canadian tax liability it makes it look like I'm growing wealthier in the Canadian job vs the US job.

Similarly if you didn't mark down the RRSP, just a choice of how aggressively you contribute to the RRSP would appear to have a huge impact on your net worth year-to-year.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

You're trying to oversimplify a very complicated problem (cross border taxation, etc). Where are you going to retire? Will you be a Canadian resident for taxation purposes during retirement? Or a non-resident citizen? Will the tax regime be changing in the decades to go until you retire?

Just pick a number and stick with it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

90% certainty retiring in Canada, and this whole time Canada has been my primary tax jurisdiction. I don't think my scenario is that complicated.

Just think about this. If last year you contributed nil to your RRSP, but this year you contribute 30K, then you'll get wildly different "net worth" increments year to year. This is why you need to adjust for RRSP... doesn't have to do with country.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Sigh.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Just think about this. If last year you contributed nil to your RRSP, but this year you contribute 30K, then you'll get wildly different "net worth" increments year to year. This is why you need to adjust for RRSP... doesn't have to do with country.


Not sure what your point is here. If you earned 30K extra this year, then for sure your net worth should go up. Whether it went up by 30K or 22K is not that big of a deal.
If you just held off on contributing, but had the funds available, then there'll probably be no net change to your net worth since the 30K would have shown up in a savings account prior. 
The difference between 22K and 30K is not going to change what you do in the slightest (change jobs, start a business, etc).

You're insisting on making things complicated for the sake of making them complicated.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I agree. This is not complicated. Pick a reasonable number and stick with it. Not rocket science. Just give it your best estimate based on the facts as you know them. Who knows what will happen in 5, 10, 20 years.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

I believe Walmart's featuring a sale on dartboards this week.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

There are a million things that may affect yout marginal tax rate on RRSP or other pension benefits. In my case, it's best to grab enough to take DW (pension splitting with low income spouse) to the max of her lowest bracket.

At the point in life you're at, I wouldn't sweat the calculation at all. Your RRSP will end with a number. Your tax bill will have a marginal rate. You can't do anything about it other than contribute the right amount and vary the income of any spouse you may have. FWIW, I always 'valued' my registed $ at about 65%. 85% may be too high, but it doesn't matter unless you are playing "mine is bigger than your's" with the cube-rat beside you.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> As rikk2 and MOA say, I also think of it as: how many dollars could I scrape together today
> The net worth calculation feels pretty important to me and I don't think it's as arbitrary as some others believe ...


Lots of variation to this version as well ... for example, does it mean liquidating everything or selected withdrawals where one can better manage the tax hit?
This sort of variation is where I see it as arbitrary. The discount used can be reasonable but may end up being substantially different than what one experiences.





james4beach said:


> That's really important feedback: do I need to change my lifestyle? *How well am I managing my finances?* Am I actually getting wealthier? How much wealthier? How bold can I be in risks that I take (e.g. start a business, try a new life project) ...


I am not sure this measure alone is enough information ... lots of high income earners have had their net worth go up while spending lots on toys/businesses then had to declare bankruptcy. IMO it is a useful indicator when there is context - otherwise, it may not be all that useful.




james4beach said:


> So I think this is a good example of why marking down the RRSP matters, and why the net worth is important to me. Once I account for hidden tax liability on RRSP, I saw that in fact my net worth is currently growing just as well as it did in Toronto ...


+1 that it is good to discount it ... the amount of discount is something that won't be reasonably known until closer to retirement so getting hung up on the exact number so early on seems less useful. This is not the exact system that say designing a shed, estimating materials and then in relative short order building it would be.


Cheers


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> As rikk2 and MOA say, I also think of it as: how many dollars could I scrape together today


I'd be thinking of 'liquidation value' then if I wanted to consider all the nuances. Recognizing that you wouldn't and can't necessarily liquidate everything (such as a DB pension), but if you could - what would you end up with? Cash in all my investments, registered/tax-deferred accounts, sell my house, my car, my dog, pay off all my tax liabilities and debts (including any impacts of the tax jurisdiction I'm living in). 
Now, standing here in my underwear, how big a pile of (CDN?) dollars do I have compared to this time last year. eaceful:


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> +1 that it is good to discount it ... the amount of discount is something that won't be reasonably known until closer to retirement so getting hung up on the exact number so early on seems less useful. This is not the exact system that say designing a shed, estimating materials and then in relative short order building it would be.


I agree there is no way to know what one's tax situation will be like by the time withdrawal starts. All one can do is pick a reasonable number, e.g. 25% or so, and simply stick with it for the indefinite future.


----------



## CalgaryPotato (Mar 7, 2015)

I guess it depends on how you are calculating out what your goal is for replacement. 

For example I think for most people they look at their salary as their gross, not their net and try to replace 70 or whatever percentage of their gross with their post retirement earnings. If that is the case you could argue that instead of marking down your RRSP you should actually be marking UP your TFSA and non registered investments.


----------

