# Canada senior stimulus because of coronavirus



## Selena (Jun 23, 2019)

Hello,

Does somebody have information regarding Canada senior stimulus because of coronavirus?

Thank you!

Selena


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

https://globalnews.ca/news/6694574/coronavirus-trudeau-economic-measures/

Keep scrolling down, you'll see that minimum mandatory RRIF withdrawals will be reduced by 25% for 2020. That's all I see specific to seniors.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Userkare said:


> https://globalnews.ca/news/6694574/coronavirus-trudeau-economic-measures/
> 
> Keep scrolling down, you'll see that minimum mandatory RRIF withdrawals will be reduced by 25% for 2020. That's all I see specific to seniors.


And that is the right way to address the issue for seniors whose 2020 withdrawal, if not yet done at the start of the year, will take a bigger chunk of the nest egg. Of course, no one has to spend the withdrawal amount, though that is what seems to be the concept stuck in many minds.

Other than being in higher risk groups for a fatal experience with COVID-19, there really is nothing else in the current crisis that should create a hardship for seniors.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

I think all of us over 75 are supposed to get a 10% OAS boost around midyear.

They could just do it for all recipients.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It looks like seniors who are still working will be able to collect the same benefits as everyone else.

I know my wife is a senior who still works and contributes and is eligible for EI. It doesn't look there is anything for seniors who are not working.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Zipper said:


> I think all of us over 75 are supposed to get a 10% OAS boost around midyear.
> 
> They could just do it for all recipients.


Why boost for everyone? Most seniors (the retired ones anyway) already have a steady income and don't need special financial help at this time.

It's the people unable to work who are hurting the most.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> It looks like seniors who are still working will be able to collect the same benefits as everyone else.
> 
> I know my wife is a senior who still works and contributes and is eligible for EI. It doesn't look there is anything for seniors who are not working.


The retired seniors before Coronavirus weren't working but they had pensions, CPP, OAS, investments, RRSP's, etc. I expect that most of them are not and shouldn't be eligible for EI "just because".


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Zipper said:


> I think all of us over 75 are supposed to get a 10% OAS boost around midyear.
> 
> They could just do it for all recipients.


No reason for seniors (not in the workforce and RRIFing) to get anything specific and temporary (2020) for COVID-19 beyond the RRIF 25% reduction for this year only. Obviously if a senior is still in the workforce, they will be part of the EI thingy. The only ones not getting anything is a senior who is not working and not withdrawing from a RRIF. Presumably they live on annuity and investment income alone and thus wealthy enough not to worry about such things.

Still, JT did indicate something for seniors is coming. Stay tuned.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> The only ones not getting anything is a senior who is not working and *not withdrawing from a RRIF*.


But, as you know, there's a minimum mandatory yearly withdrawal. I would say that the only ones not getting anything are those that withdraw more than the mandatory minimum.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

> But, as you know, there's a minimum mandatory yearly withdrawal. I would say that the only ones not getting anything are those that withdraw more than the mandatory minimum.


I dont see that reducing the rrif required min withdrawal helps anyone except those who dont need to withdraw. They may reduce their taxable income by withdrawing less.

Others may still withdraw the same amount in $$, because that is what they need to live off. So no help to them.

We have already made our withdrawal. Maybe we could move some of that back? They allowed that previous time min was reduced.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Userkare said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > ... The only ones not getting anything is a senior who is not working and *not withdrawing from a RRIF* ...
> ...


I'm confident AltaRed is aware that RRIFs have mandatory minimum withdrawals, based on other posts.

My guess is that the "not withdrawing from a RRIF" really means those who skipped RRSPs/RRIFs and/or those who are retired but have not opened a RRIF yet.


Cheers


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I heard the tail end of a comment on the news yesterday about 'what happens to retirees who are seeing their savings invested in stocks tank right now.' Something like that.

It made me shake my head. First, their savings are not tanking, only the 'paper' value is tanking. Second, when they chose to GAMBLE on the stock market, they made their choice. I do not see any reason why anyone should expect the government to aid them in such a case. If they don't sell, they have no loss, only a diminished value on the market. Again, their choice to make.

I don't see how anything about Covid-19 that doesn't apply to how it will affect all ages should be different for retirees. As a retiree, I see NO affect on me financially at all. Perhaps some prices of goods and services will become higher as a result, just as the price of gasoline is currently lower as a result but I see no major implications to me financially. But then, I am not sitting here saying, 'oh my savings that I GAMBLED on the stock market are tanking. What if I go broke.'


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

That's one way of looking at it LTA.

I agree that the stock market is a gamble, put in its best light. But very few of us think that way. The word drilled into people, particularly since the days when the older crowd could park their life savings in GICs, CSBs and such interest-bearing things, with returns at 10-20% p.a., is that one must get into "equities". Or gold. Or _something_. Don't just sit there dammit, is what we have been told. 

I have eschewed both the stock market and gold. Well, not quite. Back in the 80s I got suckered into putting some money into mutual funds as an RRSP "investment". It was a popular thing to do once upon a time. I chipped in for a few years then got cold feet. I think perhaps in light of the market meltdown that occurred circa 1987 or so (which was probably a mere piffle compared to what's happening in the market now). I put in maybe a total of $20,000 or so and forgot about it. The last time I saw a statement my "market value" was reported at something like $140,000. No, I have not bothered to look lately. Probably now worth half of that or less and still vanishing. Not material to my retirement (unless all else fails, as it might). 

So it's that "unless all else fails" that I would like you to address. You retired around age 40 and I am guessing you do not have something like an indexed civil service pension paying $75,000 or so a year. But you are faring well and seem unconcerned. So in what are you "invested"? Or are you? Is it that you simply have a warehouse full of cash that will not be exhausted in your lifetime come what may?

In my case, I have an indexed pension that will not likely go bankrupt, but it only pays about $38,000 a year, so not enuff to live on. I'll soon be able to add to that the current max CPP of $1,000 a month or whatever current max is. A bit of help. I'll be told I am too rich for OAS, not that anyone with an income under about $250,000 a year is anywhere close to rich. I have rental real estate in Los Angeles that pays in US dollars. But, if the world goes to hell in a handbasket, as it well might, that might well crap out on me. There are dire reports out of California. The tenants will be allowed to discontinue paying rent, they will be protected by law from eviction and I'll be paying their way for as long as I can afford to subsidize them. It will be me that pays the $1,000 US a month property tax on the place, and a few other bills, not them. And, thanks to Proposition 13, I am lucky after owning the place for about 25 years that the tax is at that low level. But Prop 13 might disappear in the new order.

I have forest lands in my portfolio and a goodly number of cubic meters of mostly Douglas fir and western red cedar I can harvest, but will it be worth anything in the times ahead? I have no idea. 

In brief compass, what i am saying is that I "gambled" on the stock market with my mutual RRSP funds. That has proven to be a loser. I accept I gambled and lost. Mind you, if the taxpayers want to bail me out, well.... Then I "gambled" in real estate. Plainly a gamble by any yardstick. The outcome there remains at large. Then I "gambled" with forest lands. Again, I knew all along that timber prices were not guaranteed to climb forever. What might lead to a loss of value was never sure, but one could guess. Maybe, for eg. Doug fir would no longer be used for framing houses. It would be aluminum or something else. Maybe some disease would kill the trees. Or climate change would usher in their demise. Now, maybe COVID-19 will kill off a large part of the world population and no new construction of any kind will be needed for a long, long, time. There will be vacant houses everywhere and selling or renting real estate will provide no income.

LTA, in you post you profess to be immune to any financial difficulty come hell or high water and I would really like to know, if you care to share, how you are able to pull that off. I am mostly in the gambling camp, as revealed above, and might get walloped. Even my government pensions might not be so secure. If government moves to hand out money hand over fist (as would appear to be the current tack), how long can governments maintain payments to pensioners? Perhaps the only hope is for COVID-19 to kill all the pensioners.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm confident AltaRed is aware that RRIFs have mandatory minimum withdrawals, based on other posts.
> 
> My guess is that the "not withdrawing from a RRIF" really means those who skipped RRSPs/RRIFs and/or those who are retired but have not opened a RRIF yet.
> 
> ...


Indeed. There are retired seniors who are not yet 72 and not yet RRIFing and/or don't even have RRSPs/RRIFs.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Indeed. There are retired seniors who are not yet 72 and not yet RRIFing and/or don't even have RRSPs/RRIFs.


O.K. Guess I didn't see it. Seniors without registered retirement savings income b/c 1. They never had any money they could put towards it. 2. They have so much money that they don't need RRSP/RRIF. 3. They are pre-RRIF withdrawal age. 4. Anyone else?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Inconsequential perhaps, but a few seniors will see a bump in the child benefits if they are raising kids or perhaps serving as a temporary home for the Children's Aid Society.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> I heard the tail end of a comment on the news yesterday about 'what happens to retirees who are seeing their savings invested in stocks tank right now.' Something like that.
> 
> It made me shake my head. First, their savings are not tanking, only the 'paper' value is tanking. Second, when they chose to GAMBLE on the stock market, they made their choice. I do not see any reason why anyone should expect the government to aid them in such a case. If they don't sell, they have no loss, only a diminished value on the market. Again, their choice to make.
> 
> I don't see how anything about Covid-19 that doesn't apply to how it will affect all ages should be different for retirees. As a retiree, I see NO affect on me financially at all. Perhaps some prices of goods and services will become higher as a result, just as the price of gasoline is currently lower as a result but I see no major implications to me financially. But then, I am not sitting here saying, 'oh my savings that I GAMBLED on the stock market are tanking. What if I go broke.'


I think the point is that they are forced to sell when taking their RIF payment. Lowering the minimum allows them to preserve more of their capital in the hopes of a rebound. Agree that the portfolio should be positioned to withstand some downturns, but I guess this is one way to help them recover a bit.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Money172375 said:


> I think the point is that they are forced to sell when taking their RIF payment. Lowering the minimum allows them to preserve more of their capital in the hopes of a rebound. Agree that the portfolio should be positioned to withstand some downturns, but I guess this is one way to help them recover a bit.


It is a gesture so that almost everyone gets something, and it is a logical outcome for this year for those that didn't organize their RRIFs properly. Plus it theoretically helps all those with RRIFs because that lower withdrawal this year allows the residual to compound and grow tax deferred for the life of the RRIF. I say theoretically because in practice, less than perfect investment decisions and market returns will overwhelm the effect of that deferred withdrawal in mere months.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Money172375 said:


> I think the point is that they are forced to sell when taking their RIF payment. Lowering the minimum allows them to preserve more of their capital in the hopes of a rebound.


That preservation doesn't help those who live off the current minimum (or a higher) withdrawal. Unless they tighten their belts and live off less. It will help those who don't actually need the withdrawal. For those, an eventual recovery will be a benefit if they yet have to make their withdrawal. As will lower taxes for current year. Based on past reductions, we will likely be able to return some of our early withdrawal, if we so wish. Details still to come? I doubt I would do that anyway.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I usually wait till mid December to make the RRIF withdrawal - so that's the TFSA contribution early in January. If the 2020 adjusted minimum means that I'll not have as much excess to deal with, then that's a benefit for me, I guess.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

agent99 said:


> That preservation doesn't help those who live off the current minimum (or a higher) withdrawal. Unless they tighten their belts and live off less. It will help those who don't actually need the withdrawal.


That's exactly what I thought when I heard of this scheme. 

Myself, I'm not keen to make the mandatory withdrawals in a year or so that will be required of me. That's because I don't need the funds to live and would rather the money just remain sheltered in the RRIF. When I'm forced to remove the mandatory withdrawal it will just be re-invested in my non-registered account. 

So it seems this new scheme would definitely help me. Do I need the help - NO - it's crazy. 

For myself, I keep a GIC ladder in my RRSP and will continue to do so with my RRIF. The bear market has no effect. If I was of RRIF age, why would I need this help from the government?

Now we look at those who use the RRIF as it was intended for their *"income"*. How does lowering the mandatory withdrawals help these people in need? They need the freaking income to live. If they have stocks in that RRIF, they'll need to sell many more shares to get their income.

Please, someone explain....

ltr


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> That's exactly what I thought when I heard of this scheme.
> 
> Myself, I'm not keen to make the mandatory withdrawals in a year or so that will be required of me. That's because I don't need the funds to live and would rather the money just remain sheltered in the RRIF. When I'm forced to remove the mandatory withdrawal it will just be re-invested in my non-registered account.
> 
> ...


You explained my quick assessment better than I could  

The way I see it, is that it is a way for those that don't need the current withdrawal to keep more in their RRIFs and perhaps not have to sell equities at low prices. So,not a fix for those hurting right now, but a longer term fix so that retirees don't lose their retirement nest eggs. 

We withdrew in-kind in January when stocks were high and mostly just moved them to our taxable accounts where they are now getting hammered  Luckily, I rearranged some of the holdings there and still have about $50k in cash. It is doing fine


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Prairie Guy said:


> Why boost for everyone? Most seniors (the retired ones anyway) already have a steady income and don't need special financial help at this time.
> 
> It's the people unable to work who are hurting the most.


 Steal from Paul to pay Peter.

Who pays for the benefits ? Those not receiving the benefits pay. 

The government steals from Paul ( those not receiving benefits) to pay Peter ( those receiving the benefits)

The government destroys the money world

The government with the use of social programs makes wimps of grown people that cant even hold themselves up. When your treated like a child you act like a child.

Trudeau hasn't grown up yet. The young are all for social programs till they get out of Moms basement & start having to pay taxes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The assumption that "seniors" are all sitting at home collecting pensions is a false one. Many seniors are still working because they have to or want to.

They pay into the EI program so they are entitled to the same benefits as everyone else.

There is no major financial relief for seniors, just because they are seniors.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I know many seniors who have no savings ,RRSP and only pensions are CPP ,OAS.My old cleaning lady is 72 and rents drives a 7 year old car and has maybe $10,000 which is really her burial money.This forum is not a true representation of most seniors and their situations.Having said that her financial situation is the same today as it was 6 months ago and her income/expenses will not change much.People who struggled before will likely struggle more due to job loss and we will really see how close people are to going bankrupt in coming weeks and months.I see so many posts online of people saying they cannot pay April rent or bills which is unbelievable to me given these shuts downs only occurred a week ago.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> That's one way of looking at it LTA.
> 
> 
> 
> LTA, in you post you profess to be immune to any financial difficulty come hell or high water and I would really like to know, if you care to share, how you are able to pull that off. I am mostly in the gambling camp, as revealed above, and might get walloped. Even my government pensions might not be so secure. If government moves to hand out money hand over fist (as would appear to be the current tack), how long can governments maintain payments to pensioners? Perhaps the only hope is for COVID-19 to kill all the pensioners.


I have started writing a response to you several times Mukhang pera and deleted what I wrote each time. I can't find an easy way to answer your question without having to go into too many specifics and too much detail.

The basics are that you must earn more than you spend. By that I mean using something like the Rule of 3s which I try to follow in regards to income. That says, you spend 1/3 on expenses, 1/3 on discretionary spending and leave 1/3 for saving/investing. Most retirees come nowhere near that for various reasons including not being very good at managing their expenses and spending too much on discretionary spending. It requires an entire paradigm shift from how money is handled while still working to how it is handled when retired.

For example, someone who comes home from a long day of work may be too tired to cook and either order-in food or go out to a restaurant. In retirement, some people expect to continue doing that to the same degree even though they no longer have the same need to do so. It's a simple example of continuing habits that were applicable to another lifestyle. This same continuing of habits applies to all kinds of things to do with what people spend money on.

People get told if you earn $100k a year when working, they need to have $70k per year when retired. I say that is absolute nonsense. You reveal you have an indexed pension of $38k and then note, 'not enuff to live on'. I say poppycock. You can easily live on that amount if you choose to. It won't be enough to follow the Rule of 3s I outlined but it will certainly be enough to live on if you have no debt when you retire.

Something like 25% of Canadians go into retirement still owing on a mortgage or paying rent. The two biggest expenses anyone has are food and shelter. There are ways to spend less on food some as simple as reducing order-in food or going out to restaurants so often that I mentioned above. Others are simply about learning to be a smarter food shopper. No one in my opinion should be going into retirement without a home bought and paid for. No rent, no mortgage. Eliminate that and you reduce your income requirement significantly.

People struggle with the question of 'how much is enough' in terms of capital and/or income. They struggle because they always come at it from one perspective. First they start listing their expenditures and then they look to see how to generate that much income and how much capital they will need to generate it. Then they discover they will need a LOT of capital to actually generate that much income UNLESS they start drawing down their capital (savings). They then become the people who when times are bad, have a problem. They can see their savings suddenly being worth less on paper because they are in stocks and that since the MUST withdraw to eat, their savings are going to have to actually diminish in real terms because they must withdraw and turn the paper loss into a real loss.

But it is possible to approach the whole thing from a different perspective. Shift the paradigm. Instead of starting from what are my expenses and how much income do I therefore need to generate, it is entirely possible to change the start to, 'how much income can I generate and how much therefore MUST my expenses be limited to.' 

When you approach it from that perspective it changes all kinds of things in your thinking. Spending does NOT dictate income, income dictates spending. Let's suppose I only have 38k annual income. I have a home bought and paid for, I can't retire without that, it's a rule I have set for myself based on how I intend to manage my retirement. My income will not ALLOW me to do otherwise. Income dictates spending. I can't afford a mortgage or rent, that's non-negotiable.

So I have my home and $38k. Now I decide I am going to use the Rule of 3s (you can other rules if you want, here is a popular one: https://www.thebalance.com/the-50-30-20-rule-of-thumb-453922)

So I take my $38k and divide by 3 which then tells me I MUST maintain my expenses around $12,600 per year. That's all my fixed expenses including groceries(biggest fixed expense). If that means I cannot afford the 'all bells and whistles' TV package or fasting in the world internet package, so be it. If I must learn to shop for groceries wisely enough to manage it on $400 per month, so be it. Income dictates spending. So I learn to be frugal.

But I'm not suffering. I also have $12,600 of discretionary spending. So I can go out to a restaurant if I want or buy a new shirt just because I happen to really like that one I see in the store. I also have $12,600 that I can save each year and it along with my discretionary funds mean that if I have some unexpected real expense come along like needing a new furnace in the house, I have the money to pay for that without having to worry about it.

Obviously, the more income I have, the more of each category I have but there is almost NO reasonable number that is so low that I cannot still enjoy life. There are plenty of retirees who would be more than happy to have an income of $38k per year and that brings us to perhaps the biggest paradigm shift of all for our society. Money does NOT buy happiness. Studies have shown repeatedly more wealth simply create more wants, not more happiness. 

When people think they need more money than they have, it is to feed wants and what they should really be asking themselves, 'why am I not happy with what I have and how can I be happy with what I have. What's missing, it isn't money once I have enough to meet my actual needs.'

Someone who has some index linked pension income, perhaps some GIC's that they take the income from and portion in thirds in the same way, a home they own and who learn to live on the income they have, has no need to worry themselves with the stock market or drawing down savings, etc. The object of the game is in the end to learn to live a happy life and that is not dependent on money.

https://www.livescience.com/10881-global-study-money-buy-happiness.html


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Thanks for that response LTA.

When I say I cannot live on $38k/yr., of course I can if that's all there is. I am sure I could cut that in half and still survive. But, I have carved out a certain lifestyle that demands more and, so long as the income is there, I'll carry on as always.

But the one thing you have not even hinted at, is your income sources. And I'll not press on that. Maybe not something you care to touch upon. But, whatever they may be, you seem to be quite confident that they are bulletproof. I do not think too many have such sources. Sure, I expect some here on CMF to have such. Some here are at Level 7 (I think that's the number I saw on FWF) - "Financial Abundance". That probably starts somewhere around $15 -20 million or so. Those with such resources are probably able to weather just about any storm.

For me, as I have said, almost all of my income sources are tied to some sort of gamble. To a lesser extent are my government pensions, but given how things are unfolding today, I would not regard their security as immutable. Also as I said, I expect the bit I have in RRSP mutual funds to be essentially rendered worthless in the past week or so and unlikely to return to any real value in my lifetime. Further, I am not too far off having to RRIF those funds, so I'll have to start to draw down what little might remain, unable to allow the value to rebuild. But I never regarded my RRSP as part of my retirement strategy. I gave up on it years ago and just left what I had there to sit there, largely unnoticed. 

No one here on CMF seems to be expressing any angst about markets of late and that is probably because they are lifelong students of these things and got out at the peak and will soon be happily scooping up bargains. Either that, or they hold dividend stocks. From what I glean here, dividend stocks are about as bulletproof an investment as one can get. Even if share prices take a beating, dividends only go up. Seems odd to me, but then I have never had any savvy about the market.

The only consolation I have at the moment is that I have a variety of income sources and I would not expect all to crap out at once. But that might be wishful thinking. The US rents have been a bonus of late, what with the strong US dollar, but I understand LA is now on lockdown. Stick your nose outside your door and it will be shot off, or something. So maybe my tenants will say they can't work, ergo can't pay rent and they'll be sending me thank you notes for taking care of them. I am hoping that those able to pay rents of $5,000 US or so a month have their financial houses in order and will continue to pay their bills, but, again, that might be wishful thinking. I'll know soon. At least I'll know if I make it much longer as someone over 60 in a covid-19 world. And, if I don't, I won't care, will I? Come to think of it, any concern I have is not for me, but those I leave behind.

The other thing that consoles me is that, if just about all fails, I can pull in my horns, stay where I am, and kinda' live off the land. We won't starve here and the surroundings are agreeable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have never been able to understand how there can be any level of enjoyment from being frugal. To me that would be akin to enjoying torture.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Given the current circumstances I would like to have the commuted value of my pension now please.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> No one here on CMF seems to be expressing any angst about markets of late and that is probably because they are lifelong students of these things and got out at the peak and will soon be happily scooping up bargains. Either that, or they hold dividend stocks. From what I glean here, dividend stocks are about as bulletproof an investment as one can get. Even if share prices take a beating, dividends only go up.



the idea that dividends can only rise towards infinity is Part 1 of the story. Part 2 lags behind some distance.

part 2 says that a recession-prolonged bear market will see dividends cut. Some even eliminated. 

we're not hearing any sounds about this yet but if the above scenario should play itself out, part 2 will see a wailing & a moaning the likes of which will carry all the way across the sea to your sweet little island.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

The Americans want to bump up Social Security payments by $200.00 a month ASAP.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Userkare said:


> O.K. Guess I didn't see it. Seniors without registered retirement savings income b/c 1. They never had any money they could put towards it. 2. They have so much money that they don't need RRSP/RRIF. 3. They are pre-RRIF withdrawal age. 4. Anyone else?


4)… Yes, those who made pension contributions which negated them being able to put money into a RRSP.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Thanks for that response LTA.
> 
> When I say I cannot live on $38k/yr., of course I can if that's all there is. I am sure I could cut that in half and still survive. But, I have carved out a certain lifestyle that demands more and, so long as the income is there, I'll carry on as always.
> 
> ...


Well let's clarify a few things. I have never said my income is 'bulletproof'. What I said earlier was that I couldn't care less about the stock market and that my income would continue to roll in regardless of that market. Nothing is bulletproof obviously but things like pensions are about as good as you can get in that regard. My wife and I have 6 streams of pension income between us with 4 of them index linked. Also fairly safe to a lesser degree are things like a GIC ladder. They depend on interest rates of course but not on the stock market. So they may take a hit in the future but not in the present. It depends on where interest rates are next year. At the same time, the income from them continues to be a known factor this year. Having a 'known' income each year is not like gambling on the stock market to produce income which is never known in advance. Another source of income is direct investing in something which does depend on making a profit and so is less 'bulletproof' but at the same time, it has intrinsic value which still be there at the end of the day unlike the 'paper' value of a stock which could conceivably have no value at all at the end of the day. Your forest investment is an example of that as are your rental properties. You might not get paid any rent for a while but the bricks and mortar will still be there and are never going to go down to zero in value.

When there is a big drop in the market as there is now or during the 2008 recession, that's when you start seeing people in trouble with things like agent99 said, " That preservation doesn't help those who live off the current minimum (or a higher) withdrawal. Unless they tighten their belts and live off less. It will help those who don't actually need the withdrawal." During the 2008 recession as I have said in this forum before, I saw plenty of people complaining about exactly that kind of issue. Anyone using any kind of 'withdrawal of capital' plan to fund their retirement had a problem and many of them ended up back at work as Walmart greeters, etc. to make ends meet. But that was the game they chose to play. They tied themselves to the market and a 'SWR'(Safe Withdrawal Rate) strategy.

When I was a young man, my Father told me two things which I continue to hold as wise financial advice. He told me to NEVER have debt other than a mortgage and NEVER spend your savings. So when I follow my Rule of 3s, that means if I want to buy a new car, the money must be in my 1/3 discretionary spending fund. My 1/3 expenses is pretty much fixed obviously and my 1/3 savings continue to add to my capital, only the 1/3 discretionary tends to go up and down as I buy a car or go on a hiking vacation in Switzerland, etc. I have never had any debt since I was around 35 except a mortgage and I have never had a mortgage since around age 40. 

You mention 15-20 million as a measure you saw of 'Financial Abundance'. But that number as is the usual case, comes from it from ONE perspective. That is, 'how much capital do I have to have to retire?' It sets people down a specific road in all their thinking after that. I don't care how much capital I have, I only care about how much income I have. If someone with half that capital can generate twice as much income, what advantage does the person with more capital have? Answer, none. If someone starts from the position of I want to generate X income and I have Y capital with which to do so, they take a whole different road, they have to. Change the paradigm.

Like you, I enjoy a lifestyle that requires more than $38k in income. I wouldn't be taking vacations in Switzerland if that was my income obviously. But the point of course was that income should determine spending and not come at it from the point of 'I need X capital to derive Y income because my spending is Z'. The latter approach is what takes people down the road to saying, 'well, I can't get enough income from the capital I have, so I have to start withdrawing from capital and hope it doesn't run out before I die.' I sometimes wonder if people realize they are in fact betting on dying sooner rather than later. 'I better hurry up and die or I'm gonna run out of money'. My way is to continue to grow my capital(savings), thus protecting against inflation while enjoying a good life on 2/3rds of my total income rather than needing to spend MORE than my income which they are obviously doing if they are withdrawing from savings each year. Live on less than your income. Withdrawn savings are NOT income.

As for living off the land, well, it's one of those things that if you say it fast enough it sounds good. In reality, trying to do so would be beyond the skill set of most people these days. We are not the hardy pioneers who first cleared the land and planted corn, etc. They lived very hard lives and tended to die young as a result. If it comes to that point when everything collapses and anarchy reins, nothing will help us much. Time then to find a peaceful and painless way to end.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> I have never been able to understand how there can be any level of enjoyment from being frugal. To me that would be akin to enjoying torture.


Sags, do not confuse 'frugal' with 'cheap', or with 'doing without.' They are different things entirely. Frugal simply means finding the best price for something you want. In other words, trying to find the best 'value for money' that you can. 

So for example, if I want to vacation in Switzerland, I will not fly economy class. Now all I have to do is find the best possible prices that meet those criteria for me and then I go ahead and do what I enjoy doing, hiking in Switzerland. I will spend more for an airplane seat because I see comfort as being worth more value for money than flying 8 hours with my knees up around my chin. But I will still look for the lowest price for that seat that I can find. That's being frugal and has nothing to do with being cheap.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> I have never been able to understand how there can be any level of enjoyment from being frugal. To me that would be akin to enjoying torture.


Frugal and cheap are not the same. Frugal means getting a good deal and not wasting money. Cheap means needlessly doing without, or buying junk that falls apart, or taking advantage of other people's generosity.

I'm frugal and that means that on my modest income I can live like many people who earn 50% or more than me. If you can give me one good reason to pay more for the same product I'd love to hear it!! But I'll also spend what some people think is far too much money on a quality item if I think the value to me is worth it.


----------



## ClimberMel (Nov 2, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> Thanks for that response LTA.
> 
> When I say I cannot live on $38k/yr., of course I can if that's all there is. I am sure I could cut that in half and still survive. But, I have carved out a certain lifestyle that demands more and, so long as the income is there, I'll carry on as always.
> ...
> No one here on CMF seems to be expressing any angst about markets of late and that is probably because they are lifelong students of these things and got out at the peak and will soon be happily scooping up bargains. Either that, or they hold dividend stocks. From what I glean here, dividend stocks are about as bulletproof an investment as one can get. Even if share prices take a beating, dividends only go up. Seems odd to me, but then I have never had any savvy about the market.


I went through my fixed expenses and if I take out ALL non essentials such shopping, gym membership, buying kids and grandkids gifts etc. I still would not be able to live on $38k. Now neither of you mentioned if that is per person, I'm talking about a couple. It also depends very much where you live. There is an enormous difference in cost of living between say small town Sask. or a big city like Toronto or Vancouver.

I'm struggling desperately as the markets are where my income comes from. I'm so called retired since I'm not employed by anyone. I decided years ago to manage our investments after seeing them get hammered when managed by professionals. When I felt I had enough investments to sustain us, we retired and have been living off the returns on our investments. I have done quite well up to now, I have weathered a few market crashes and recovered fine. Now by quite well, I don’t imply we are wealthy… I mean we have been able to live our frugal style of life and enjoy simple things like hiking and kayaking and cooking at home.

The markets can be a gamble if you treat them that way, just as real estate that LTA says is a mandatory part of his retirement can be. My frustration is that I sometimes put in as many hours a week to make that money as some so called working people, yet there is no help for us. Some on here have commented about many people today looking for handouts… that is not what I am saying. I’m bothered by the handouts being given out without question to the unemployed and others that are also out of income getting nothing but the bill for those handouts!


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ClimberMel said:


> I went through my fixed expenses and if I take out ALL non essentials such shopping, gym membership, buying kids and grandkids gifts etc. I still would not be able to live on $38k. Now neither of you mentioned if that is per person, I'm talking about a couple. It also depends very much where you live. There is an enormous difference in cost of living between say small town Sask. or a big city like Toronto or Vancouver.
> 
> I'm struggling desperately as the markets are where my income comes from.


What do you want to hear ClimberMel? You chose to base your income on the stock market. To me, that means you chose to gamble for your income. No different than say becoming a professional poker player. If you wanted security of capital then putting all your money in a GIC ladder would have been a better bet by far. My guess is that you chose the stock market because you believed you could get higher returns that way and fund your retirement on less capital.

I didn't say real estate is a mandatory part of my retirement, you must have misread that part somewhere. I said direct investments including real estate would at least hold some intrinsic value such as bricks and mortar value as an example.

If you want to discuss how much income is needed then you need to say more about that. Personally, I think any couple can live a 'frugal lifestyle' as you claim you are living, on $38k per year net income. But it does depend as you also say on where you live and what you consider 'essential expenses.' In my experience, those differ by individual by considerable amounts. 

The only essential expenses anyone has are basically food and shelter. Beyond that really everything is discretionary. If you choose to live in a house where the property taxes are say $5k per year, you may consider that $5k as an essential cost. But you could have the same shelter somewhere else where the property tax was only $2500 per year. The difference is in where you CHOOSE to live and if you have a choice then making that choice moves it into discretionary spending. What you are probably going to say is, 'yeah BUT, we don't want to live where the taxes are lower'. That's fine, but you have to agree that it is a choice you are making.

What you have also not mentioned is how you apportion your income. As I wrote above, I use the 'Rule of 3's' to do so. One third expenses, one third discretionary, one third continued savings'. When you write that you are 'struggling desperately', if you are referring to struggling to make ends meet given a reduction in income, then that would suggest you have been using most of your income for expenses alone. All I can say to that is that it is a bad strategy to follow. If you were using a 1/3 each strategy or even a 60/20/20 strategy, you would not be struggling unless your entire cushion of 40-60% was gone.

This current situation is going to cause a lot of retirees to have financial difficulties just as the 2008 recession did. At that time I saw lots of people taking jobs as Walmart greeters etc. to make ends meet because the stock market was no longer providing them enough income. Some of them learned from that, some did not.

I don't care what anyone says, the stock market is GAMBLING pure and simple. You pays your money and you take your chances as they say.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> I don't care what anyone says, the stock market is GAMBLING pure and simple. You pays your money and you take your chances as they say.


So when you state 1/3 savings you mean what exactly?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> So when you state 1/3 savings you mean what exactly?


Umm, I'm not sure what you want to hear cainvest. I mean 1/3 more or less of your total income is set aside to continue increasing your capital value. Whether you just sit that in a bank savings account or put into GICs or GAMBLE with it on the stock market, is up to the individual.

But the whole point of using a Rule of 3s system or some similar system Budgeting rule: The 50/20/30 and 60/20/20 budget - Entourage

is that when things go wrong, you have a CUSHION to fall back on. Let's say someone has an income of $100 they are deriving solely from GICs. They know already that they will get $100 from them at the end of this year and so have no current problem this year. But next year if they are turning over some of those GICs and interest rates are still as low as they have now fallen to, they know they will be able to still take out less than $100 if they don't want to touch their capital in future years BUT it will not affect their ability to meet their needs because they have a cushion to work with. They will NOT have to touch capital to meet their needs. They may not be able to add to capital perhaps but they will not lose any capital, only buying power at the rate of inflation.

That does not apply however to someone who is gambling on the stock market for their income even if they are working with an income cushion. It doesn't apply because they can lose a large percentage of capital and/or income or even all of it if the market really tanks and they still have to eat which forces them to withdraw and lose CAPITAL.

The problem most people have is that they don't manage their expenses well enough to be able to work with a budget that allows them a decent cushion and they don't manage their income in a way that keeps their capital safe. They believe they need more income than a safe way of managing their investments to derive income simply will not get them. They turn to gambling in the belief that they will derive more income from their existing capital.

There are different ways to look at a problem. Someone can say, I need more income, so I have to find investments that I believe will pay me more. Or someone can say, my income which I am deriving from relatively safe investments pays me less income than I am spending. I need to REDUCE my spending. Most people only ever explore the first way of looking at it.

When we see someone saying I CANNOT live on $38k per year, it is quite obvious to me which way they are looking at the picture. I don't want to live on $38k myself but if the choice is live on it or spend capital, I'll find ways to live on it and still be HAPPY with my life.

It's all about being happy, not about how much we spend. Happiness does not come from how much money we have to spend beyond the basics of food and shelter. Really, is there any significant difference between living in a house that cost $1 million in Toronto and living in a $300,000 house in a small town? Both houses nearly identical in all they provide you with. Neither will increase or decrease your happiness in and of themselves.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Umm, I'm not sure what you want to hear cainvest. I mean 1/3 more or less of your total income is set aside to continue increasing your capital value. Whether you just sit that in a bank savings account or put into GICs or GAMBLE with it on the stock market, is up to the individual.


Was just wondering where you'd put "savings" ... so no risk (or very low I should say) investments like bank accounts and GICs are good. Gotcha!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I have 2 years worth of living expenses in cash right now. I know I may not be 'usual' but I hope this is a wake up call for most of the need to have liquidity and that forgoing a bit of consumption now can mean less stress in the event of an unexpected loss of income. I am resigned to having to pay for everyone else to get bailed out in this situation.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> Was just wondering where you'd put "savings" ... so no risk (or very low I should say) investments like bank accounts and GICs are good. Gotcha!


Well, GICs yes but bank accounts no. It has to pay more than the rate of inflation to make any sense, otherwise you might as well just buy something now for future need before the price goes up.

I and others like Just A Guy have written here before about 'direct investing'. That's a category that not many seem to understand and few use. For example, dial back a decade or so ago and a guy I knew was buying video rental machines that he placed in minimarkets etc.in downtown Toronto and from which people could go and rent a video using a credit card. He owned a couple of dozen of them and was making quite good money from them. Today, that would be a bad idea since less and less people are even renting videos anymore, they're 'streaming' their movies instead. But that guy sold his video machines and invested in something else.

My point there is that what makes sense to invest in today is not necessarily what would have made sense in the past or will in the future. Many people seem to think you can find one thing whether it be stocks or bonds or GICs or some kind of direct investment and just sit back forever. 

You somehow read 'low risk'. Risk is a term that is defined by an individual. The guy with the video rentals saw that as low risk. Others may have seen it as high risk. People only agree on what is low risk, when they are all seeing things the same way. So most here see a GIC as low risk but would probably also see video machines as high risk. You're only dealing with a specific group of people with a pretty common viewpoint. Look at the push back Just A Guy gets for saying real estate is a good way to invest. The majority here disagree with him and some quite vehemently. Yet he is making money and I am more than willing to bet that even right now when he will no doubt take a hit on rental income, that he will have sufficient 'cushion' in other investments like GICs perhaps, to weather the storm. That's unlike most who do not have sufficient if any cushion and are seeing their income from stocks taking a real hit.

It's a combination of things that have to be considered.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> I have 2 years worth of living expenses in cash right now. I know I may not be 'usual' but I hope this is a wake up call for most of the need to have liquidity and that forgoing a bit of consumption now can mean less stress in the event of an unexpected loss of income. I am resigned to having to pay for everyone else to get bailed out in this situation.


A year or so ago on this forum people were talking about a survey that found nearly half of all Canadians were only $200 away from insolvency with insolvency being defined as unable to pay their bills. Many here were saying they found it hard to believe. Well now we are seeing it happen as we read about people who do not even have enough savings to pay their rent literally TOMORROW after being laid off 2 weeks ago due to Covid-19.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/200-financial-insolvency-2019-1.4986586



Whether they will learn anything from the experience though andrewf, I tend to doubt. We are going to have to bail them out as you say and what that will teach them is what? That if they fail, someone (in this case the government) will bail them out.

Those that have never learned to take responsibility for themselves before aren't likely to learn it now. We would have to let them get just on the verge of starving to death and being thrown out on the street and even then I don't know if they would learn, they'd probably just complain more about why no one helped them sooner.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I understand what you're saying LTA ... it's all a matter of perspective.

You see investing in company stocks as a gamble and it is. I see starting your own company as a gamble and it is. I just prefer to invest in someone elses company where you may prefer to invest directly into your own ... both methods can work and both can fail.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The risk with illiquid assets like RE and video rental machine is if you need cash, it is hard to convert those assets to cash in tumultuous times. And with things like RE, you might think that the risk of any one tenant defaulting on rent is mostly independent/uncorrelated. This situation puts the lie to that as many people are not going to have the money to pay their rent this month. Banks may be less understanding when it comes to mortgages.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> ... Well now we are seeing it happen as we read about people who do not even have enough savings to pay their rent literally TOMORROW after being laid off 2 weeks ago due to Covid-19 ...


Perhaps you linked the wrong story?
The link seems to be for the Jan 2019 story about how people were $200 away from insolvency.

Or perhaps you meant that the current examples will be showing up in the media over the next several days.


Cheers


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> The risk with illiquid assets like RE and video rental machine is if you need cash, it is hard to convert those assets to cash in tumultuous times. And with things like RE, you might think that the risk of any one tenant defaulting on rent is mostly independent/uncorrelated. This situation puts the lie to that as many people are not going to have the money to pay their rent this month. Banks may be less understanding when it comes to mortgages.


You are right andrewf but then, liquid or illiquid, RE, stocks and possibly even gold are gambles (and I have never owned gold, but apparently it's what everyone wants in tumultuous times, more than food or shelter). And it's in recognition of that reality most of us gamblers usually learn early on that one must never gamble what one is not prepared to lose. 

So, even with the scary notion of owning a rental real estate property, one should plan for the worst case scenario when buying, which would be that its value drops to zero and the mortgage (if you incur that obligation), must still be paid, along with all the other bills. If you cannot foresee holding out indefinitely with no income from the property, while paying the expenses, then it's not a risk you should take. Same for stocks. If you think their losing the bulk of their value in a short time and many years to recover -if ever - will cause issues for you, stay out. 

Whether it's starting a business, buying an "investment" or whatever, what most accountants learn in their training (at least when I was studying accounting) is the credo: "Anticipate all losses; expect no gains." Those words ring as true today as they did when I was starting out. Time has only served to enhance their meaning.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I realized a long time ago my father had the right idea on how to protect yourself from times like this .He has never had much debt and always lived within his means ,he owned one stock in his life which was Newfoundland Light and Power ,now Fortis and bought it around 1982.Other than that he always bought GICs and was lucky to have money way back when interest rates were double digits.
He and My Mom have $30,000 a year income and actually save from that income as they only pay utilities small property taxes and their food and entertainment budgets.They are 80 and 81 still have full TFSA and since my brother passed 6 years ago they have been giving their 3 grand kids $xxxx a year cash gifts .He does not expect any money from the government and does not need it.The big factor for my parents that others do not have is they have owned their home free and clear and never have paid rent.Even 40 years ago when they built a new home for $90000 it was all cash.I have a feeling in next year we may see the 50+ age group downsizing their debt and many investors will be getting out of their rentals after the tenants get to live for free most of 2020.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Q: _What is an Economic Stimulus payment?_
A: It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q: _Where will the government get this money?_
A: From taxpayers.

_Q: So the government is giving me back my own money?_
A: Only a smidgen of it.

_Q: What is the purpose of this payment?_
A: The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high definition television set, a new iPad, or a new SUV, thus stimulating the economy.

Q: _Isn’t that stimulating the economy of China ?_
A: Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U. S. Economy with and your stimulus check wisely:


If you spend the stimulus money at Walmart the money will go to China or Sri Lanka.
if you spend it on gasoline, your money goes to the Arabs.
if you purchase a computer, it goes to India, Taiwan or China.
if you purchase fruits and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.
if you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea.
if you purchase useless stuff, it goes to Taiwan.
if you pay your credit card off, or buy stock, it will go to the management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
 
Instead keep the money in America by:
(1) Spending it at a yard sale, or
(2) Go to a ballgame, or
(3) Spend it on prostitutes, or
(4) Beer, or
(5) Tattoos 
(These are the only American businesses still operating in the U.S.)

CONCLUSION: Go to a ballgame with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink beer all day. No need to thank me, I’m just glad I could be of help.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> The risk with illiquid assets like RE and video rental machine is if you need cash, it is hard to convert those assets to cash in tumultuous times. And with things like RE, you might think that the risk of any one tenant defaulting on rent is mostly independent/uncorrelated. This situation puts the lie to that as many people are not going to have the money to pay their rent this month. Banks may be less understanding when it comes to mortgages.


All true andrewf but the assumption you are making is that someone puts all their eggs in one basket. If someone invests in say RE as a landlord but that only represents 10% of their income, where's the problem? Especially as I have said, if their budget is reasonably split between expenses, discretionary and savings. When you can afford to lose 50% of your income and still have enough to meet all your true expenses, you do not need liquidity and if your sources of income are spread over various investments, you are not dependent on any one source for that income.

So while you may say RE or video rental machines is illiquid, you cannot hang your hat on that as a reason to avoid RE (which by the way, I currently hold none of personally). Anyone who has all their eggs in one basket whether it is stocks, bonds, GICs, direct investments or any other category someone wants to name is simply not a very wise investor. Anyone who relies on having 100% of their income to be able to meet their living costs is simply not a very wise budgetter.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> All true andrewf but the assumption you are making is that someone puts all their eggs in one basket. If someone invests in say RE as a landlord but that only represents 10% of their income, where's the problem? Especially as I have said, if their budget is reasonably split between expenses, discretionary and savings. When you can afford to lose 50% of your income and still have enough to meet all your true expenses, you do not need liquidity and if your sources of income are spread over various investments, you are not dependent on any one source for that income.
> 
> So while you may say RE or video rental machines is illiquid, you cannot hang your hat on that as a reason to avoid RE (which by the way, I currently hold none of personally). Anyone who has all their eggs in one basket whether it is stocks, bonds, GICs, direct investments or any other category someone wants to name is simply not a very wise investor. Anyone who relies on having 100% of their income to be able to meet their living costs is simply not a very wise budgetter.


I think you'll find it pretty uncommon for most individual landlords to only have a small % of their net worth in real estate.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

andrewf said:


> I think you'll find it pretty uncommon for most individual landlords to only have a small % of their net worth in real estate.


That's probably true. But for some, while their real estate might represent a more significant chunk of net worth, their income from real estate can be a much smaller %.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

From my dad:



> Here is a link for what Trudeau is doing for all Canadian Seniors for
> staying home for the 14 day quarantine period: All Canadian Seniors are Entitled to $750 CDN Dollars per week to stay at home to avoid the spread of COVID-19 novel Coronavirus, starting from March 16, 2020. The Government grant pay is accessible to all Seniors. Read full article here on how to claim:
> 
> https://external-preview.redd.it/vx...bp&s=db7685262e9b352a4888e547f52a244e2ea2cb9f


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> That's probably true. But for some, while their real estate might represent a more significant chunk of net worth, their income from real estate can be a much smaller %.


It's anecdotal, but I'm hearing sob stories on the news from landlords who don't know how they are going to pay their bills in their tenants don't cough up the rent.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> It's anecdotal, but I'm hearing sob stories on the news from landlords who don't know how they are going to pay their bills in their tenants don't cough up the rent.


Of course you are andrewf but so what? As I wrote it will depend on what percentage of their total investments it represents and as Mukhang Pera has added, what percentage of their income it involves.

People keep looking at things like this as if they were all absolutes. All or nothing is simply not necessarily the case. Any wise investor should NEVER have all their eggs in one basket or need 100% of their projected income to live on. But there are plenty of not so wise investors of course. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it as the saying goes.

My wife commented to me this morning that she hopes this will wake people up and cause them to look at their financial position a lot closer after this is all over. My response was, 'I doubt it.'

There was a guy being interviewed in a what was obviously being aired as a bit of a 'feel good' story. He earns his living as a 'speaker'. He speaks on mental health and is self-employed. All his bookings for the next 6 months have been cancelled. He has no income now and the story was about how when he called his landlord to say he could not pay his rent, his landlord had said, 'that's OK, don't worry about it, we'll work something out as we go, I'm not going to evict you.'

But my question was, why has this guy got no savings to fall back on? He referred to being used to a certain lifestyle his occupation afforded his family. He was obviously intelligent, educated and no doubt earning a very decent income up until now. Why does this guy have to phone his landlord to say he isn't going to be able to pay his April rent? The answer is obvious, they spend at least as much as they earn.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> People keep looking at things like this as if they were all absolutes. All or nothing is simply not necessarily the case. Any wise investor should NEVER have all their eggs in one basket or need 100% of their projected income to live on. But there are plenty of not so wise investors of course. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it as the saying goes.
> <end of relevant quote>
> My wife commented to me this morning that she hopes this will wake people up and cause them to look at their financial position a lot closer after this is all over. My response was, 'I doubt it.'
> 
> ...


Just as direct investments should be spread among different types, the market makes asset allocation easier and the friction involved in changing is nearly negligible. This is the big advantage to most of us. High yield bonds to be held to maturity, GICs for cash flow , dividends stocks for regular distributions.

Most people understand that all these approaches work if they are well-managed. No one approach fits all!


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> Just as direct investments should be spread among different types, the market makes asset allocation easier and the friction involved in changing is nearly negligible. This is the big advantage to most of us. High yield bonds to be held to maturity, GICs for cash flow , dividends stocks for regular distributions.
> 
> Most people understand that all these approaches work if they are well-managed. No one approach fits all!


All true kcown and yet we have all these people saying now as they did with the 2008 recession, 'my savings are bieng wiped out. My income is no longer enough to live on. I'm going to have to take a job as a Walmart greeter.'

So while what you say is true IF followed, in the real world people are not doing so. In many cases, it may be that it is not their asset allocation that is the problem it is that they are dependent on too high a percentage of their anticipated income, just to live on. They have very little if any cushion in their income.


----------



## jimbob.seeker (Sep 12, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> That's one way of looking at it LTA.
> 
> I agree that the stock market is a gamble, ........ is that one must get into "equities". Or gold. Or _something_. Don't just sit there dammit, is what we have been told.


... well put!



Mukhang pera said:


> . Even my government pensions might not be so secure. If government moves to hand out money hand over fist (as would appear to be the current tack), how long can governments maintain payments to pensioners?


Per Dogger1953 (our resident CPP expert)...
"For whatever it's worth, in my opinion CPP will never be reduced and while OAS may have some changes in the future, I don't see that in the near future and certainly not as a result of this pandemic. "
(See Discussion Starter #685.)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

For those interested, I just made my first new direct investment in a while. An opportunity created as a direct result of the pandemic. 

I just bought some wine that was put up for sale by a prominent NYC restaurant that I presume needed some cash right now. Firesale price. It will sit in a NYC wine warehouse(minimal cost) until things get back to the 'new normal', whatever and whenever that might be. Even if it has to sit for say 2 years before I sell and even if I have to sell at the pre-Covid19 market price, I should be able to get a 40% return on the purchase price. I consider that a decent return for a 2 year investment. 

I've dabbled in wine now and then and have an acquaintance who makes his living doing it 'full time' although I doubt he has ever worked 40 hours in a week in his life. Direct investments like this one or antiques, jewellery, art, postage stamps, etc. etc. are not something though that just anyone can jump into. They each require a degree of knowledge of the specific market. BUT that can be learned if someone wants to do so. Usually it appeals to someone who has a specific interest in that market. I like drinking wine.









Investing in Fine Wine Is More Lucrative Than Ever


Once an exotic market, parking your assets inside expensive bottles can yield tremendous profits.




www.bloomberg.com





As for the effect of the virus, read here. Talking Trade – Amid global Covid-19 uncertainty fine wine offers stability - Liv-ex

Wine does NOT follow the stock market trend and consistently outperforms the market.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

So not new news but I thought I would add it to this thread. I'm surprised no one already has.

So all us seniors who qualify for OAS are going to get a $3-500 handout from the federal government. Supposedly, this is to cover extra expenses we have incurred as a result of the virus. I know some seniors have incurred some extra expenses but I wonder what percentage of us have. We certainly haven't incurred any that I can think of.

I think this handout is more of a political move than anything else. A response to those who think along the lines of, 'hey, everybody is getting a handout but me' and their potential resentment come election time. So throw them a bone.

My wife and I don't need the money and as I mentioned in another thread are thinking about some way to 'pay it forward' to people who perhaps do need it and have done something like essential work that should be rewarded given the increased risk they have been taking.

We initially thought of finding a way to buy lunch for all the employees and volunteers at our local Foodland. All the delivery and pick-up orders are being done by volunteers, not paid staff. These volunteers have been doing this for years for seniors who for whatever reason were not able to do their own shopping. Now they have simply extended that to any seniors who are self-isolating. The staff of course are all working under increased risk and so we thought to reward both groups with a lunch.

The problem I'm having is trying to figure out HOW to do it. You can't get them all together as a group obviously for a sit down lunch like say a barbecue lunch in the parking lot. I thought of having their bakery and deli section put together some kind of 'box lunches' but that doesn't sound very exciting. I also thought of finding out the number of people involved and having the store owner hand out a Timmy's card to each. But I really don't like 'gift cards', they are for when you can't think of a personal gift to give someone or don't care enough to try and think of one to give them.

So, anyone got any bright ideas of what we could do to reward these people? I always try to practice 'showing' thanks and not just saying thanks. I think showing your thanks is a whole lot more meaningful than just saying thanks.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

@Longtimeago It is difficult try and be 'personal' for people you don't know especially right now. Food is usually always a good thing, but a get together of any sort is challenging. 

I would like to offer an alternative suggestion of Girl Guide cookies as thank you gift. I will fully disclose that I am leader for my kids units and am actively involved with the organization. Millions of boxes of cookies were in transit for sale right when COVID hit. Girl Guides Canada stopped all activities including cookie sales. Many leaders and volunteers had to receive their cookies and they are currently sitting in people homes because we cannot sell them retail wise or do our normal door to door campaigns. I personally know of leaders that have thousands of boxes of cookies in there homes waiting. There have been some very kind stores that have been selling cookies on our behalf (Canadian Tire, Sobeys, London Drugs). Due to safety, many of these cookies were the ones that were in transit (so no touching by anyone). That still leaves units that had already received their cookies, and cannot sell them. There are tens of thousand of girls that use these programs not including the thousands of volunteer leaders. The amount of good they do in the community is staggering and what they learn in these programs are amazing. Right now, there are units that are not sure how they are going to run in the fall, they have thousands of dollars inventory, and cookies is the main source of funds for the units. 

Most people are quite found of Girl Guides and their cookies. There have been many requests in my area for cookies to be dropped off (by a responsible leader) to different organizations as thank yous. So far the response has been very positive from any of the receivers. It's a win-win-win for everyone. The receivers get a nice treat, the givers get to know they are helping the community, giving something that helps locals, and it supports the girls in the community. Depending on the leaders, I know I have had special requests if I can get one of my girls to write a little card or thank you. 

That's my pitch on girl guide cookies. I am sure I could help you locate a unit wherever in Canada you are. For $600, you could buy a 120 boxes (10 cases) and give each person a few, and keep some for yourself.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

I think that is a perfect example of virtue signalling LTA. Be more humble, take the money and use it for what it was intended. Senior stuff!


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Plugging Along said:


> @Longtimeago It is difficult try and be 'personal' for people you don't know especially right now. Food is usually always a good thing, but a get together of any sort is challenging.
> 
> I would like to offer an alternative suggestion of Girl Guide cookies as thank you gift. I will fully disclose that I am leader for my kids units and am actively involved with the organization. Millions of boxes of cookies were in transit for sale right when COVID hit. Girl Guides Canada stopped all activities including cookie sales. Many leaders and volunteers had to receive their cookies and they are currently sitting in people homes because we cannot sell them retail wise or do our normal door to door campaigns. I personally know of leaders that have thousands of boxes of cookies in there homes waiting. There have been some very kind stores that have been selling cookies on our behalf (Canadian Tire, Sobeys, London Drugs). Due to safety, many of these cookies were the ones that were in transit (so no touching by anyone). That still leaves units that had already received their cookies, and cannot sell them. There are tens of thousand of girls that use these programs not including the thousands of volunteer leaders. The amount of good they do in the community is staggering and what they learn in these programs are amazing. Right now, there are units that are not sure how they are going to run in the fall, they have thousands of dollars inventory, and cookies is the main source of funds for the units.
> 
> ...


No offense intended Plugging Along but I personally do not like GG Cookies and never have. While I will buy a box if a GG shows up at my door (none ever has in our present home), I just throw them in the garbage unopened.

I also don't see it as an answer in that I estimate there are probably around 35-40 potential recipients over which I am looking at distributing around $600+ The 6 from the government handout and maybe a bit more from my pocket if a particularly good idea was going to cost us a bit more than that. So that's at least $15 per person. I can't imagine them all being thankful for 3 boxes each of GG cookies.

So while I appreciate your 'pitch', I'm afraid my answer is, 'no sale'.

I should also add that I do see it as being a bit more personal in that being a small town and a small Foodland, we do 'know' most of the staff simply through repeated contact with them. Not on a first name basis but as recognizable to each other even to the point of saying hello, etc. when we pass on the street.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Zipper said:


> I think that is a perfect example of virtue signalling LTA. Be more humble, take the money and use it for what it was intended. Senior stuff!


Well I had to look up 'virtual signalling' Zipper as that was a new term for me. I can see how you might see it as that but showing thanks rather than just saying thanks is something that my parents taught me and that I have tried to teach to my children from an early age. I have been in the habit of showing my thanks since I was a youngster. It's not something I am writing about on social media just to 'show others I am a good person'.








virtue signalling


an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by…




dictionary.cambridge.org





Nowadays, I think people are lucky if they even get a thank you card for a wedding present but that is not how I was brought up. For example when my dentist did an emergency repair for me without an appointment in advance and in her lunch hour, I felt I should not just pay my bill but also show her I appreciated her and so I had flowers delivered the next day. When my wife was in for a regular check up a few weeks later, the staff were all saying to her how surprised they were by the flowers arriving and how much the dentist appreciated being SHOWN she was appreciated.

I really do believe there is a huge difference between just saying thank you and showing your thanks.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> No offense intended Plugging Along but I personally do not like GG Cookies and never have. While I will buy a box if a GG shows up at my door (none ever has in our present home), I just throw them in the garbage unopened.
> 
> I also don't see it as an answer in that I estimate there are probably around 35-40 potential recipients over which I am looking at distributing around $600+ The 6 from the government handout and maybe a bit more from my pocket if a particularly good idea was going to cost us a bit more than that. So that's at least $15 per person. I can't imagine them all being thankful for 3 boxes each of GG cookies.
> 
> ...


No offense at all. To be honest, my kids and I don't love the sandwiches cookies but eat them (they just aren't our favorite). On a side note, if you are in situation where you want to support the girls but don't want the cookies, you can just give them the donation. You can specify how you want your cookies donated, eat them (the girls love this), give them to someone else/food back, do what you want. etc. This way the cookies don't go to waste, and the units really appreciate it.

Another suggesting - Could you come up with little ‘gift bags’ for them? This will it will be a little more challenging. I think of this as an equivalent to the thank yous my give for Xmas and year end coaches, leaders, bus drivers, nursing home staff, all those that support and provide extra for the year for my family and mother. We target about $15-20 but the items are usually worth about $25-30 we do about 30-40 packages at school end, and about 100 people at Xmas.

Past packages have included items of the following:

‘bulk gourmet’ items that I am able to separate out. Examples I have included, boxes of teas, coffees, jams, locally made items gourmet baked goods, local honeys
Reusable coffee/tea cups, reusable straws, etc I usually theme all of my gift bags
Homemade baked goods (we are know to make some gourmet items so that always gets included)
Girl guide cookies or a small gift card
Items that we buy as a part of local fundraisers (usually chocolates)
I won't lie, it takes us a lot of work to do this but that is how we have kept things more 'personal' for people we may not know that well. 

Our end of school year plan we have planned out (even with isolation, on-line activities): It's self care while at home includes:
- Assortment of teas, coffee, a reusable plastic cup, with a homemade crochets cup holder (my daughter's isolation activity), gourmet snacks (short bread, biscotti, little packages of candy, etc), homemade hot chocolate/coffee spoons,

Once we determine and our source items, it's really quick to put them together. You can simplify to want you want, but we try to make ours more personal. Gift cards are always appreciated and fast.

Another thought that popped in my head. If you want to stay with the lunch idea but a little more special than the grocery deli/bakery idea. You could contact a local restaurant and have them do a curbside pick up for the volunteers. Have a few options, see create a voucher for the volunteers to pick up over a couple of days. It' a little more personal than a gift card, volunteers can choose to go together if that's how that want it, helps a local business, much easier to put together than the gift bags.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

It's going to take some thought to find something that will appeal to all I guess. When I think of your 'gift bag'' idea, it sounds good if I say it fast enough but then I think of gift baskets I have received and they always seem to contain as many items I don't like as they do items I do like.

Given our current heat wave (real feel 37C here today), the idea of good quality wicking(not cotton) t-shirts popped into my head. Maybe I could think of something witty to have printed on them to do with being Covid Heroes. But then I would need to know how many of each size to buy. 

'I fight Covid-19 daily for you'.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Maybe you could stock up on a supply of Depends with your senior's bonus and pass them on to the less fortunate.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Zipper said:


> Maybe you could stock up on a supply of Depends with your senior's bonus and pass them on to the less fortunate.


Maybe you could learn to make an intelligent comment. Or maybe not.


----------

