The price of security

Behind many savings plans lurk steep costs. Who can you trust?

by Chris Sorensen on Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:10am - 10 Comments

Michael Popovich, a dentist, suffered a massive heart attack at age 52. His doctor, not surprisingly, told him that going back to work was a bad idea. Faced with the sudden prospect of losing several of his prime income-earning years, Popovich sold his dental practice in Thamesville, Ont., and began searching for a way to fund his unexpectedly long retirement.

Like many Canadians, he was attracted to the reliable monthly income stream that came with investing in income trusts (unlike corporations, trusts pay out most of their profits to investors). But he was forced to rethink his investing strategy after Ottawa said in 2006 that it would begin taxing the popular investment vehicles in four years, citing concerns about a loss of tax revenue. The value of Popovich’s holdings plummeted overnight.

Now, three years and one market crash later, he is one of millions of Canadians trying to retool their retirement portfolios. While some financial advisers are no doubt telling clients it’s a good time to get back into the stock market, you can’t blame people for being a little gun-shy. But playing it safe in an era of historically low interest rates isn’t a magic bullet either. “There are very few good options out there,” Popovich says. “Interest rates aren’t going to come back for a long time so you can’t count on that. Corporate investments are iffy because you don’t know where you’re going to go with those things.”

Financial institutions have taken notice of the dilemma and have rushed to devise a host of so-called “safe” investment products peppered with buzzwords like “protection,” “guaranteed” and “security,” but that still promise equity-like returns. Not surprisingly, though, the risk reduction comes at a price—often a steep one.

It’s a confusing landscape littered with hidden fees and potential ticking time bombs—all at a time when a do-it-yourself investing strategy is becoming more important than ever. The days when Canadians could depend on a company pension for a comfortable retirement are rapidly slipping away. “The demographics of our country, in terms of our aging population, and the status of our pension plans means [Canadians] have to save and invest for themselves,” says Alexander Irwin, the director of the Canadian Retired & Income Investors’ Association. “But as many come to live on their savings, they will discover they don’t have enough to live on.”

That is, of course, unless they manage to invest wisely, something that these days is often easier said than done.

A recent industry poll suggests that nearly a third of Canadians planning for retirement are now investing more cautiously, up from just 20 per cent a year ago. The trend doesn’t surprise Tom Hamza, president of the Investor Education Fund, a non-profit group established nearly a decade ago by the Ontario Securities Commission. Hamza says there has been a noticeable increase in the number of people seeking information about guaranteed investment certificates, or GICs, on the group’s website.

With caution the new buzzword, financial institutions have stepped in with an increasingly wide array of products that promise investors exposure to market gains while guaranteeing they won’t lose their principal. The advertisements sound like the perfect blend of minimal risk and maximum return. But experts warn such products aren’t always what they are cracked up to be.

On the GIC front, the trend in recent years has been toward so-called market-linked GICs. CIBC’s Stock Market Advantage GIC is a typical example. For a minimum investment of $500, it offers the chance “to take advantage of the growth potential of investing in Canadian stock markets, but with full protection of your principal.” The trade-off is that investors aren’t exposed to the market’s full upside potential, but are instead offered a “participation rate” of 35 per cent for a three-year term. They only enjoy a portion of the market’s gains each year. That’s potentially better than a plain vanilla GIC if the markets do well, but if the markets stay flat or fall, as they did last year, investors risk earning no interest at all on their investments after parking their cash for 36 months. While some market-linked GICs do offer guaranteed minimum returns, the minimums are generally less than what a regular GIC would guarantee over the same period.

Bookmark and Share
  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    This is why a supplementary pension plan, administered by the CPP/QPP or new public pensions, is a great idea. Most people are baffled by all the choices available and end up making disastrous investment decisions.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/novagardener novagardener

      Our Manulife rep tried to convince us to get into the Income Plus program. We stopped investing with him several years ago as we saw our gains continually decreasing. He moved our investments into less risky ones with lower MER's but we still took a big hit last year but have recovered somewhat. Our rep knew we had more money to invest as we have no mortgage and absolutely no debt. I did some research on the Income Plus plan and sent him a few links, mainly forums and articles. Based on the research I said thanks but no thanks.

      I'm thinking we might buy some bank preferred shares as the banks seem to be the only ones making big bucks, thanks partly to we taxpayers now assuming all the risk (via CMHC) on those mortgage loans the banks so freely offerred to clients who are in over their head in debt.

      http://americacanada.blogspot.com/2009/07/cmhc-an…

  • Roslyn

    I trust that everyone is aware that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is a former employee of Goldman Sachs. He was the one who insisted that Income Trusts have got to go. What is the connection between Goldman Sachs and Income Trusts. Do they feel that it is bad for business? The little guy is always the sucker!

  • Rob H

    Income trusts were a way for people who owned shared to avoid double taxation, once at the corporate level, then again (less a dividend tax credit) at the personal level. The fact is corporate profits are taxed twice, and the government seems to think this is ok.

    • YSP

      To a degree. They do avoid double taxation, but usually result in a single tax rate that's higher than the double-taxation of dividends.

      Dividends are property income, which tends to be taxed higher than income from work in Canada. It really depends on the situation. Someone who owns a small corporation with modest profits (ie, under half a million dollars) and pays himself dividends will probably pay less tax than someone getting a similar salary, while a professional with a high salary getting dividends from shares in Telus will probably pay more tax.

    • YSP

      cont'd

      I've done tax returns for a few hundred people with income trust investments, and I wouldn't classify them as a "reliable monthly income stream". "Good chance to lose your investment", perhaps. The first general rule of income trusts was that they were a legal loophole which would someday be closed.

      Income trusts were very complicated creations. In my opinion, the only way to really to understand them is to have spent several years doing business tax returns and financial statements. Very few financial advisors have this kind of background, and gave out a lot of bad advice on income trusts. (And most other investment matters, IMHO).

      • Bert

        So it is allright for BC Provoncial Employees Pension Fund to own these and not be subject to the 32 % tax. Harpers own Pension Plan owns these, The Arabs and South Koreans are picking these up at Rock bottom prices. You must be Flaherty because there is no proof of tax leakage !!!!!!! So it's allright for Pension Plans to own these but not retail investors. Where is you head, I know…….

    • YSP

      cont'd

      The sudden drop in value of Mr. Popovich's income trusts after Mr. Flaherty's decision to tax them was 100% the result of public scaremongering (and absolute refusal to inform themselves) by the MSM and zero percent from actual financial implications of the decision. The new tax only applied to income trusts that were created AFTER the new law came into effect, so none of Mr. Popovich's investments were effected.

      As an aside, corporate profits are only taxed when they are not invested in future growth, and only double-taxed when paid out as dividends to individuals or non-Canadian companies. Most perception of corporate double-taxation comes out of American media. There is very little of it in Canada.

      • Dr Mike Popovich

        YSP

        Good to hear from you , however , you need to get your facts straight.

        Mr Flaherty`s trust tax decision did have a direct effect on my portfolio & any others who owned them & who held on to them as an investment from that point forward.

        There was a radical price drop immediately after the announcement which was scare driven no doubt—the subsequent drop in unit price post-scare was due to the factoring in of the 31.5% tax to start in 2011 on trust distribution payouts to the owners.

        You ideas on double taxation are out in left field as any dividends within tax sheltered accounts are double taxed , once at source & once again as straight interest income when the sheltered account is collapsed—that is what made income trusts so attractive to the small senior investor as it half-ways eliminated this unfair personal rip-off by the gov`t.

        YSP , if you have any more concerns , please feel free to contact me.

        Dr Mike Popovich
        Rodney Ont

  • http://www.lookyoungatlanta.com botox Atlanta

    Great article Chris. Thanks for the heads up.

From Macleans