# Bank Stocks... A Good Time to buy?



## BrentPv2 (Feb 9, 2015)

I've been looking at getting some of the Coach taters suggestion of BMO ETF: ZEB, basically 7 banks at 17% each, and was wondering if it was a good time, with the rate cut but the dollar drop too.

Any suggestions, advice with Banks, besides they're usually great long terms?


----------



## thepitchedlink (Feb 17, 2014)

Been wondering the same. Everyone moving up this morning. I'd be more inclined to look at buying them individually if it's a long term hold....why pay the MER for 20 years.


----------



## BrentPv2 (Feb 9, 2015)

It's possibly just 4yrs as a "safe" spot in my TFSA.


----------



## tkirk62 (Jul 1, 2015)

I agree that buying them individually is a better way to play them. Their valuations are sometimes off, leading to one of them being a better buy at the time. And the group is homogeneous enough that I think you can buy your favourite two or three and have essentially the same diversification as an ETF. 

But regardless of what you do, yes now is a good time to buy them.


----------



## jerryhung (Mar 28, 2011)

I have BMO, BNS, RY, TD
agree on buying them separately if you have the $

BMO is near 52-week low, which sucks
RY is quite resilient I find
BNS I didn't like much and will probably dump eventually
Analysts seem to recommend RY/TD for future and I somewhat agree


----------



## BrentPv2 (Feb 9, 2015)

So this brings up my questions of, buy say $3500 of 1 Stock, or divide it up among 4 , basically buy 11 to 16 shares of each + $10 trade fee. 
Or buy all in an ETF with a 0.58% mer. Which is ~ 150 shares.


----------



## tkirk62 (Jul 1, 2015)

Is $3500 all you want to allocate to the banks? If I am doing my math right, I think the MER on $3500 will be $20.30. So with $10 trades you could buy two of the banks and still be spending less than the MER. Plus MER is an annually recurring expense, whereas trade commissions are a one time expense.

I would take your $3500, do your research and invest it all in your favourite bank. Then when you have more money you want to invest in the banks, research them again and invest it in your second favourite.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Myself, I do not think it's a good time to invest in the banks.

The financials have out-performed throughout the current bull market. And now I believe we're in the later stages of the bull market. Economic cycles tend to last a few years at a time, and this one has been an incredible 6 years of growth/bull market. Historically speaking that cycle must be near its end.

I generally expect that sectors experience reversion to the mean. Financials have been performing above the mean for 6 years, which is a very long time. It made sense for them to perform so well in an economic rebound where tons of government money (low interest rates & American QE) is pumped into the market. That made sense. But it can't be a perpetual process; even now our economy is giving some negative GDP readings.

Just to remind you... American financials also outperformed for many years before their crisis began in 2007/2008. I think it's a very bad idea to chase high performers late in an economic cycle. I am bearish on the banks.


----------



## tkirk62 (Jul 1, 2015)

It's also debatable how many of the banks you require to be properly diversified. I've done it before, but without looking at their earnings or reports:

RBC - biggest, presence in Canada and US
TD - biggest presence in the US, so it's a way to indirectly play the US economy with a Canadian bank
BNS - biggest international exposure, so a way to play South America's economies
BMO - presence in the US, but less so than TD
CM - very domestic
NA - very domestic, more of a presence in Quebec (not sure about this)
CWB - very domestic and concentrated to Western Canada, very cheap compared to the group now due to oil, smallest yield
LB - smallest, big presence in Quebec, high dividend and perpetually cheaper than peers

Due your own research, but I personally hold TD, BNS and just recently bought CWB, and I feel that I am adequately diversified that I do not need to buy another bank unless it was a very good buy


----------



## BrentPv2 (Feb 9, 2015)

This $3500 is what I roughly have left uninvested in my TFSA trading account, with my TFSA pretty much maxed out.

I'm currently watching Cdn Western Bank for about 150 shares, as it is near 52 week low and more closely relating to the economy right now.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I too am eyeing CWB. I do not believe it has bottomed yet though. I suspect Iran will start shipping oil and the price will drop again, with attendant effects on CWB. I do believe in them and have a position that I'll hang onto. Personally I'm, looking for $25.15 or so, to yield 3.5% -- not far.


----------



## tkirk62 (Jul 1, 2015)

Like I said, I like CWB now too. Got 160 shares at 25.66 yesterday. It's entirely possible a better price is coming, but I was comfortable with my 3.38% yield. I think this would be an excellent time to make CWB your first bank pick though.


----------



## jaybee (Nov 28, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Myself, I do not think it's a good time to invest in the banks.
> 
> The financials have out-performed throughout the current bull market. And now I believe we're in the later stages of the bull market. Economic cycles tend to last a few years at a time, and this one has been an incredible 6 years of growth/bull market. Historically speaking that cycle must be near its end.
> 
> ...


Personally I've been buying TD, BMO and BNS periodically for 12 years, and also dripping all three *regardless of cycles.* The three banks combined add up to between 5-10 percent of my net worth. I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I personally like the banks at current valuations. I added to CIBC in the last few months. NA looks good too, followed by BNS with BMO taking up the rear. With the Canadian dollar lower now, you can make a solid argument that you should be buying more Canadian assets rather than taking the currency hit. And CM/NA are the most Canadian of the banks.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i have td,ry and bmo in equal amounts as perpetual holds
any 3 of the big 5 will track ZWB performance closely over time
so if you are going to hold for a long period you can save the .55 and simplify your accounting at the same time


----------



## BrentPv2 (Feb 9, 2015)

From my reading, ZEB is the better ETF over ZWB as 1/2 of ZWB is actually ZEB.

Was watching CWB this afternoon, got busy, looked back and it had shot up $0.25!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

One thing I've learned over the years is that this forum _loves_ Canadian bank stocks. At the same time people here are ignorant of important facts, like that the Canadian banks required significant bailouts in 2008 (a joint effort from the US Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, and Government of Canada). The data has all come out in the years after the crisis, showing that it was covered up at the time.

I understand investing heavily in something you understand, but I'm not sure how much the forum investors understand about the conditions of the Canadian banks. Did you realize that for example CIBC and BMO were at one point completely under-water, at a negative equity position, without disclosing this to you - the investor?

Personally if I was a bank shareholder back in 2008, and the banks and their management pulled that crap on me (being de facto insolvent and never disclosing their financial condition) I would never invest in those shares again. The blind faith that our forum members put in the Canadian banks is ... bewildering to me.

Here's my view of it. Banks are opaque and highly complex businesses that virtually nobody understands. Their financial conditions are opaque. They don't disclose material facts, as seen in 2007-2009. Their balance sheets are inaccurate. Their derivative exposures are impossible to understand. They get secret loans and assistance through back room deals, constantly. They are not accountable to anyone. This is not something I can invest in.


----------



## Shekelstein (Jun 7, 2015)

james4beach said:


> One thing I've learned over the years is that this forum _loves_ Canadian bank stocks. At the same time people here are ignorant of important facts, like that the Canadian banks required significant bailouts in 2008 (a joint effort from the US Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, and Government of Canada). The data has all come out in the years after the crisis, showing that it was covered up at the time.
> 
> I understand investing heavily in something you understand, but I'm not sure how much the forum investors understand about the conditions of the Canadian banks. Did you realize that for example CIBC and BMO were at one point completely under-water, at a negative equity position, without disclosing this to you - the investor?
> 
> ...


Are there any large cap ETFs out there that exclude big banks or would someone have to build their own portfolio comprised of small cap funds and invidividual stocks?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

If you think the Canadian banks are going to meltdown then you may as well just hold gold in your mattress, or perhaps in a vault. Because there is no equity in Canada that wouldn't also get hit 50%+ by a major Canadian bank insolvency black swan event.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> One thing I've learned over the years is that this forum _loves_ Canadian bank stocks. At the same time people here are ignorant of important facts, like that the Canadian banks required significant bailouts in 2008 (a joint effort from the US Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, and Government of Canada). The data has all come out in the years after the crisis, showing that it was covered up at the time.


But isn't this good news? I mean, they basically can't fail as the governments won't let them fail.


----------



## Getafix (Dec 29, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Here's my view of it. Banks are opaque and highly complex businesses that virtually nobody understands. Their financial conditions are opaque. They don't disclose material facts, as seen in 2007-2009. Their balance sheets are inaccurate. Their derivative exposures are impossible to understand. They get secret loans and assistance through back room deals, constantly. They are not accountable to anyone. This is not something I can invest in.


Exactly why i can't bring myself to invest in any bank. Invest in what you know & understand.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

The following is text taken from "myownadvisor" - http://www.myownadvisor.ca/canadian-dividend-stocks-buy-mostly-forget/ about the merits of owning good ol' reliable blue chip stocks that deliver good and boring returns. I like boring, solid and reliable in most stocks. The only one I hold my nose over on the list below that I bought is COS. I hold most of the others. In light of most other dividend stocks, banks IMO offer a good place to invest most of the time. 


*Bank of Montreal (BMO) – paid dividends since 1829.
Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) – paid dividends since 1832.
TD (TD) – paid dividends since 1857.
CIBC (CM) – paid dividends since 1868.
Royal Bank (RY) – paid dividends since 1870.*
Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) – paid dividends since 1880 (formal records date back to 1949).
Laurentian Bank (LB) – paid dividends since 1886.
Imperial Oil (IMO) – paid dividends since 1947.
Canadian Utilities (CU) – paid dividends since 1950.
Enbridge (ENB) – paid dividends since 1953.
Fortis (FTS) – paid dividends since 1972.

Here are some other selected Canadian companies that are on their way to becoming long-term dividend studs:

National Bank (NA) – paid dividends since 1980.
TransCanada Corporation (TRP) – paid dividends “since the early 90s” as per their Investor Relations team.
Emera (EMA) – paid dividends since 1992.
Suncor (SU) – paid dividends since 1992.
RioCan REIT (REI.UN) – paid dividends since 1994.
Canadian Oil Sands (COS) – paid dividends since 1995.
Canadian National Railway (CNR) – paid dividends since 1996.
Inter Pipeline (IPL) – paid dividends since 1997.
Telus (T) – paid dividends since 1999.
And many more…


----------



## BrentPv2 (Feb 9, 2015)

And I pulled the trigger on CWB @25.42. Now lets see how she goes in the next few years....


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

doctrine said:


> If you think the Canadian banks are going to meltdown then you may as well just hold gold in your mattress, or perhaps in a vault. Because there is no equity in Canada that wouldn't also get hit 50%+ by a major Canadian bank insolvency black swan event.


+1 ... the big 5 banks are canada's brand and would be backstopped for sure (which won't prevent investors from getting a haircut) but a reasonable allocation spread among 3 or more banks or an etf makes a huge amount of sense for any portfolio ... canadian banks are among the smartest and most well managed in the world and their history shows it

by james reasoning no one should ever buy a bank or an insurance company and yet these are among the most profitable assets worldwide

p.s doctrine, james does keep gold under his mattress ... to describe him as merely risk averse is like saying hitler didn't much care for the jews


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Getafix said:


> Exactly why i can't bring myself to invest in any bank. Invest in what you know & understand.


I'm shy to ask, but what stocks you are really "know & understand"?!


----------



## Getafix (Dec 29, 2014)

Plenty, i work in the service industry & my family has been in the hospitality business for 3 generations so i understand how these businesses operate & what it takes for them to turn a profit. Similarly there are many sectors with business models that you can explain to a 10 year old, financial's are not one of them. I'm more comfortable investing in a company if i can understand how they're making money, it might be different for you.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

doctrine said:


> If you think the Canadian banks are going to meltdown then you may as well just hold gold in your mattress, or perhaps in a vault. Because there is no equity in Canada that wouldn't also get hit 50%+ by a major Canadian bank insolvency black swan event.


Why do you guys always jump to dramatic conclusions? You don't need a bank insolvency to have poor return. I think they will under-perform, not become worthless.

I didn't say the Big Five will collapse, just that valuations have grown rapidly during the economic up cycle, and I expect they will weaken a lot in the down cycle. Especially because these have tricky balance sheets and have been proved to be at risk of huge losses in a down cycle.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Why do you guys always jump to dramatic conclusions? You don't need a bank insolvency to have poor return. I think they will under-perform, not become worthless.
> 
> I didn't say the Big Five will collapse, just that valuations have grown rapidly during the economic up cycle, and I expect they will weaken a lot in the down cycle. Especially because these have tricky balance sheets and have been proved to be at risk of huge losses in a down cycle.


so the question becomes, can you make enough on the up cycles to compensate for the down cycles ?

and clearly you can ... most people (retail, small investors) in canada that own the big 5 banks do so as perpetual holds

as in hold for 10-20-30 years and in those time frames you are going to do fine but i do agree, in a depression or severe economic contraction the banks will get hit hard

until then and in the meantime they pay excellent dividends and have excellent capital appreciation, an appropriate allocation makes perfect sense but you want to avoid them completely

james you never take in to account the notion that you may be wrong 

you invest entirely on the premise that you are correct in your prediction of the future and this is a huge mistake in my opinion

though i do agree that you can probably put together a good portfolio without any banks or insurers but you are leaving out a hugely important sector imo


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> james you never take in to account the notion that you may be wrong
> 
> you invest entirely on the premise that you are correct in your prediction of the future and this is a huge mistake in my opinion
> 
> though i do agree that you can probably put together a good portfolio without any banks or insurers but you are leaving out a hugely important sector imo




cat while i agree that avoiding bank stocks is not wise - in fact buying a few shares in the bank where one banks oneself is probably among the 4 or 5 smartest moves a newbie investor can make - nevertheless there is a great deal to be said to commend james4's particular kind of anti-bank journalism.

the truth is that we don't understand our banks. Even less do we understand the reserve banking systems that govern them in every country (bank of canada, federal reserve, bank of england, etc.)

absolutely not at all do we understand the global workings of the IMF, the BIS or the EB.

what we can easily observe is that, every now & then, these galactic networks tremble, shiver & crumble. Even collapse here or there. Right now it's greece, but it might just as well be china. Does any country other than switzerland really have any money at all? or is most of the planet nothing more than a mountain of debt studded with currency printing presses?

i for one am glad to be reminded of these perilous facts & i'm happy to keep them in consideration at all times, even when i top up bank holdings from time to time by adding a few more shares now & then (in recent months i've bought a few more ING & RY.)

james4 is a careful writer on the topic of banks' underbellies. He nearly always has backup, referrals, references, links. Even better, james refrains from quoting the well-known supertwit zerohedge all the time. James4 writes better than that, does our james.

we don't have anyone else digging under the banks' foundations & shining flashlights into the depths. Therefore i for one feel we should be glad to have james4beach as a spokesperson at the far end of the spectrum, even when we don't agree with a single thing he says!


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I agree and I appreciate James contributions here. Now if we could just get someone who can explain the underbellies of Exxon/Mobile and a few other opaque sectors.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> cat while i agree that avoiding bank stocks is not wise - in fact buying a few shares in the bank where one banks oneself is probably among the 4 or 5 smartest moves a newbie investor can make - nevertheless there is a great deal to be said to commend james4's particular kind of anti-bank journalism.
> 
> the truth is that we don't understand our banks. Even less do we understand the reserve banking systems that govern them in every country (bank of canada, federal reserve, bank of england, etc.)
> 
> ...


i agree with what you say about financial institutions both here at home and worldwide, the imf, central banks, and all the manifold ngo and quasi-go's that basically control our financial life are so complex and opaque that no one understands them fully ... 

i am concerned about the fact that this is becoming anti-democratic ... i.e our lives our increasingly controlled by people we don't elect 

the entire edifice of debt and derivatives may one day completely deflate and leave me and many others searching the sunday paper for cat food coupons

as to james, he will selectively quote any number of scary facts that he extracts from the morass of indecipherable numbers that you rightly reference always in an attempt to shore up his fundamental outlook which is one of extreme and even radical aversion to risk ... go back and find the post where james tells us he has 3% in equities, perhaps that has changed, if so i'd love to know where and how

this is a man who builds his portfolio on government of canada bonds

which of course is his right and he may well end up dropping a few coins in my cup as he passes me by on the sidewalk one day in the future

but in the meantime i think his bias needs to be pointed out 

and i for one think he is making a huge mistake

the shouldering of appropriate risk is critical for making money, you must do it, especially in this time of undoubted stealth inflation

newbie investors who shy away from an appropriate (5-20%, spread among 4-5 institutions) allocation to canada's banks and insurers are making a big investing mistake

when the politicians sell their bank stocks, then i will also, but as long as they hold them widely and deeply in their pension funds and portfolios, i will stick with them

for the record, i always appreciate james's posts even if i take him to task


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Life is commerce
I own bank stocks for the long run because nearly no one can live in modern society without having to deal with a bank((on going/repeatedly)
I view banks from a boarder prospective than a intimate perspective(trying to understand a bank financial statements)
Life and success is about odds(you have to hedge towards something that gives you a better edge than 50%)
Investing in the big makes the cut
If Canada went to **** over night and the world went black in the proceeding days/weeks the world would begin to reorganize and the business model would resume
If you randomly stopped 20 people on the street I am willing to bet everyone like it or not is using a bank and the bank is profiting 
The business model is almost indestructible 
Can't think of any other sector or business that has a model that underpins modern life
why fight that?


----------



## 0xCC (Jan 5, 2012)

dubmac said:


> The following is text taken from "myownadvisor" - http://www.myownadvisor.ca/canadian-dividend-stocks-buy-mostly-forget/ about the merits of owning good ol' reliable blue chip stocks that deliver good and boring returns.
> Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) – paid dividends since 1880 (formal records date back to 1949).


This is slightly off topic and I do agree with the general sentiment of owning dividend paying blue chip stocks but the BCE information there isn't true. Take a look here:http://www.bce.ca/investors/dividendinfo/dividendhistory and notice that there is a gap in dividend payments from March, 2008 to December, 2008 (so there is a June and a September dividend missing). This was during the Ontario Teacher's Pension buy-out period so it wasn't a reflection of the business but the fact remains that they didn't pay a dividend during that time (and there was never a dividend 'bonus' to make up for the lost dividends).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone, and I like having a diversity of opinions in our forum here.

I appreciate all of your posts as well and I feel good when we don't all think the same thing.



> this is a man who builds his portfolio on government of canada bonds


This is true. I am definitely a risk averse investor. Then again, I bought them at fantastically good yields (the same with my 5 year GIC purchases) by today's standards. I hope you all see that my fixed income purchases were a big win. I got this one right.

I continue to be concerned about the downside risk of bank equities. The way I see it, these are very different companies than many other things in our economy. They're opaque and complex businesses with heavy derivative exposures. They're also very highly leveraged businesses, and that alone amplifies everything. In good times they soar, in bad times they crater.

This article, which I may have posted before (an article in The Atlantic), voices many of my concerns about investment in banks. What's interesting is that even Wall Street bankers themselves lack confidence in their own banks. Even the supposed experts of banking have a lot of doubts about what their big complex boxes do.

The Atlantic article says:


> A recent survey by Barclays Capital found that more than half of institutional investors did not trust how banks measure the riskiness of their assets. When hedge-fund managers were asked how trustworthy they find “risk weightings”—the numbers that banks use to calculate how much capital they should set aside as a safety cushion in case of a business downturn—about 60 percent of those managers answered 1 or 2 on a five-point scale, with 1 being “not trustworthy at all.” None of them gave banks a 5.
> 
> A disturbing number of former bankers have recently declared that the banking industry is broken...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

donald said:


> The business model is almost indestructible


Indestructible? Hardly. Canadian banks received hundreds of billions $ of emergency loans and support in 2008. Yes, they survived, but this is a far cry from indestructible. It took simultaneous loans from: the US Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, and CMHC to keep the Big Five banks running normally.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

As typical you start writing about Canadian banks and then switch it over to US banks. Good writing just poor content.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

They are very similar businesses. They use the same derivatives games, they operate with the same leverage, and they operate under the same capital valuation framework (Basel III). They use the same accounting rules and standards (IFRS). *All* large international banks do.

I don't think they're very different from US banks.

Why do _you_ think Canadian banks are so different?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

0xCC said:


> This is slightly off topic and I do agree with the general sentiment of owning dividend paying blue chip stocks but the BCE information there isn't true. Take a look here:http://www.bce.ca/investors/dividendinfo/dividendhistory and notice that there is a gap in dividend payments from March, 2008 to December, 2008 (so there is a June and a September dividend missing). This was during the Ontario Teacher's Pension buy-out period so it wasn't a reflection of the business but the fact remains that they didn't pay a dividend during that time (and there was never a dividend 'bonus' to make up for the lost dividends).




true, the BCE dividend was interrupted, IIRC the context was more than the OPP takeover initiative. The venerable telco was going to convert into a unit trust. One can recall stories of BCE preferred shareholders/bondholders suing, i believe because their convertible securities would lose so much value.

in any event late finance minister jim flaherty put the kibosh on unit trusts, so that was the end of the OPP shenanigans.

i wouldn't dismiss the episode as a freak event, a kind of story that could never happen to one of the canadian chartered banks. One of those doughty old boys that have been paying dividends since shortly after confederation, egads.

times are weird. Time itself has speeded up. Virtual borders don't exist. How many of the big 5 chartered banks wlll be operating here independently for our children? how many will have been sold to US banks, or (gasp) some other multinational banking conglomerate?

taking a very rough guess, i'd say the national candle will go out on at least one of the big 5 chartered banks within 30 years. The Bank Act will be amended. Already all 5 big banks have farmed out a good part of our personal financial data to the US of A.

put another way, collapse has become a closer cousin to all of us, where once upon a time it wasn't even a member of the clan.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Canadian banks are apples and US banks are oranges. And I understand that anybody that missed a 400% gain has useful knowledge, these market are finally getting interesting. You better get a supply of baby wipes.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> This is true. I am definitely a risk averse investor. Then again, I bought them at fantastically good yields (the same with my 5 year GIC purchases) by today's standards. I hope you all see that my fixed income purchases were a big win. I got this one right.


you did get it right though those of us who bought the s&p500 also got it right

nothing wrong at all about being a risk averse investor, i consider myself to be fairly risk averse

i am just trying for a little context here

james4beach warning me about the risks of the big banks is not the same as if say, warren buffet were to start talking about the risks of owning big banks ...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> james4beach warning me about the risks of the big banks is not the same as if say, warren buffet were to start talking about the risks of owning big banks ...


The problem is there is heavy bias in any finance journalism (or magazines, TV personalities, etc) to be very pro-bank. I doubt that anyone on Bay Street would bite the hand that feeds them. So if you're sitting there waiting to get genuine critical information about the banks, you're not going to hear any.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> The problem is there is heavy bias in any finance journalism (or magazines, TV personalities, etc) to be very pro-bank. I doubt that anyone on Bay Street would bite the hand that feeds them. So if you're sitting there waiting to get genuine critical information about the banks, you're not going to hear any.


fair enough, i am taking a risk but i take some comfort in knowing i am in a very, very big risk pool worldwide since these stocks are among the most widely held on the planet ... financial services are very profitable equities .. will i regret it one day ? maybe ... 

will you regret getting 2.5% on your gic's and bonds in a stealth inflation environment of 2% ? ... maybe ... i hope we both make out ok :biggrin:


----------



## alexasmith (Sep 30, 2014)

I think buying a stock is always a risk but your success depends on how efficient you are in understanding the trading market and stock values.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

What really moved the Gov in 2008 is your precious GIC were frozen no longer were they guaranteed. YOU WERE BROKE flat out BROKE.

We also were broke and the US fixed there banks 1st then your GIC.

Yes I laugh about your lack of knowledge.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Oldroe said:


> What really moved the Gov in 2008 is your precious GIC were frozen no longer were they guaranteed. YOU WERE BROKE flat out BROKE.
> 
> We also were broke and the US fixed there banks 1st then your GIC.
> 
> Yes I laugh about your lack of knowledge.


Anyone else have trouble reading and understanding the above post?? Tried Google translate, but that did not work....


----------



## jaybee (Nov 28, 2014)

^ I know you're being facetious, but all I can gather is that Oldroe is addressing James4beach. Apparently in disagreement over the merits of investing in Canadian bank stocks. That's all I got out of it.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

why bother argue with james4beach, he's a hardcore bear and always writes a ton of non sense ... while people like him keep predicting the end of banks, others make a ton of money


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

42 posts I would learn to read the thread completely before saying stupid.

People that quote and comment can't follow a conversation.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Oldroe said:


> People that quote and comment can't follow a conversation.


I am not interested in your dispute with James4Beach. But a suggestion - it would help if YOU used the "quote" feature. At least we would then know which post you are replying to.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Like I said learn the art of conversation. And say something of interest related to topic.

43 post

Like the banks are down but not enough to start buying.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

dubmac said:


> The following is text taken from "myownadvisor" - http://www.myownadvisor.ca/canadian-dividend-stocks-buy-mostly-forget/ about the merits of owning good ol' reliable blue chip stocks that deliver good and boring returns. I like boring, solid and reliable in most stocks. The only one I hold my nose over on the list below that I bought is COS. I hold most of the others. In light of most other dividend stocks, banks IMO offer a good place to invest most of the time.
> 
> 
> *Bank of Montreal (BMO) – paid dividends since 1829.
> ...


We own all of those as individual stocks except for CNR and COS. But that does not mean I would buy them now. Over the past 12 months, the TSX Composite has lost about 6.5%. If someone had cash at the beginning of that period earning 2.5%, they would be ahead of someone holding the index by something like 9.25%. My gut feeling is that we are nowhere near a bottom yet.

So, I don't think it is a good time to buy the traditional blue chip Canadian stocks. For someone young enough to be able to look at a 15+ yr investment horizon, some of the beaten down stocks might be worth investing in. For example energy stocks and gold or silver miners. But even there, you wouldn't want to pick individual stocks.

In past, I added to our Canadian bank holdings only when our financials allocation was lower than target and dividend yield was in the 4-5% range. We are almost there now, but with Canadian economy not looking too bright, I wouldn't buy anything much until energy and resources start to recover. Besides, our bank allocation is on high side (partly caused by drop in resource allocation value)

For those interested, this site (http://longrundata.com/) allows you calculate the Total Return of many stocks. Enter Canadian stocks as, for example BNS.tsx. It only goes back to 1995, but you can enter various end dates. Over the past 10 years, banks have had mid teen returns. Better than almost everything else we own.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Now their, that's a post as apposed to insulting people.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Oldroe said:


> Now their, that's a post as apposed to insulting people.


Go fish


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

On Tuesday I took advantage of the sale prices and bought
200 TD at 51.37
345 NA at 44.29 and 
370 RY at 73.81
to fill up $21000 in TFSAs and $27000 in RESP.

So far so good.
NA up 5.75%
RY up 3.22%
TD up 2.88%

Just dumb timing luck again...


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

nice work keith. I dropped my bid price on tuesday night for BNS as I thought there would be further declines this week. Missed opportunity? will I get another 
chance? hard to say. greed got the best of me on that one but I still think I may get another chance.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Awesome work I'd say. Not really buying any more bank stocks myself, letting my DRIPs do that every quarter. Currently saving up more cash for SU.


----------

