Gas prices are up from about $1.30/litre to $1.75/litre across Canada this year. 

There is conflict in Iran. Markets are reacting to geopolitical uncertainty once again.

So what should investors actually do during times like this?

Should you move more conservative?

Or is reacting emotionally what hurts investors most?

In my latest video, podcast episode and blog post you’ll learn:

• If you go conservative, when do you buy back in?
• Does politics affect the markets much?
• When will a year not be an “uncertain time”?
• Does market timing work? What do studies say?
• What is the “Go Kart Strategy” of investing?
• The one way to time the market effectively.
• The good news and bad news of planning for retirement.
• What is the one thing most investors get wrong?
• Why you need to keep your foot on the gas to get the long-term market returns.
• What is Ed’s personal strategy?

If you go conservative, when do you buy back in?

• Going more conservative now based on news events is trying to time the market.
• If you sell because of some event, then you can only be ahead if you buy in at a lower point. What is your plan to buy in at a lower point – when things look worse?
•  Investors tend to sell when the trend is bad and buy back in when the trend is good, but that is usually when the market is at least 10-20% higher.
• You have to guess right twice – when you sell and when you buy back in.

Does politics affect the markets much?

• Numerous studies and long-term historical analyses from firms like Capital Group, T. Rowe Price, CFRA Research, and academic papers consistently show that politics has only minor and temporary effects on the stock market. Short-term volatility rises around elections due to uncertainty, but long-term returns are driven far more by economic fundamentals (corporate earnings, interest rates, growth) than by politics.

• Markets have delivered strong positive returns across every type of political environment.
• News is also increasingly unreliable. News media have found they get more viewers by telling one-sided stories and exaggerating to create fear than they do by having unbiased news.
• A Gallup poll released on October 2, 2025, found that only 28% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the mass media (newspapers, television, and radio) “to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.”
• Investing based on politics or news is not an effective way to invest.

When will a year not be an “uncertain time”?

• One of my pet peeves is the expression in many news stories – “We are in uncertain times.”
• When are times NOT uncertain?? Every year will always be an uncertain time!
• In 2026, we have gas prices and a war. Here are the issues from every past year this century:

Does market timing work? What do studies say?

• Studies across academia, investment firms (Vanguard, Morningstar, JPMorgan), and behavioral research (DALBAR) consistently show that market timing—trying to predict and act on short-term market moves—rarely works and typically reduces long-term returns compared to a simple buy-and-hold strategy.
• The core reasons are behavioral biases (buying high/selling low), the difficulty of being consistently right twice (on exit and re-entry), and transaction costs/taxes.
• You need unrealistically high accuracy: Nobel laureate William Sharpe’s landmark 1975 study (“Likely Gains from Market Timing”) found that a market timer must be correct ~74% of the time (right direction and on bull vs. bear periods) just to match the market after costs—far higher than random chance (50%).
• Individual investors “guess right” on market direction only about half the time (per DALBAR’s Guess Right Ratio), but the dollar impact of bad guesses far outweighs good ones.
• DALBAR’s Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (QAIB) reports (tracking actual investor cash flows since 1994): Average equity investors lag the S&P 500 by 1–5%+ per year over 10–30-year periods due to poor timing. Example: With rolling 20-year periods, investors earned ~5.5% annualized vs. S&P 500 ~9.9%.
• For example, March, 2009 was the bottom of the Great Financial Crisis after a decline of about 45%. That month also broke a record with $20-30 billion in net redemptions of stocks. Investors sold massively at the bottom – the worst possible time!
• Morningstar “Mind the Gap” studies (latest 2025): Over 10 years, the average dollar invested in U.S. funds or ETFs earned ~1.2%/year less than the funds themselves (e.g., 7% investor return vs. 8.2% total return). This “behavior gap” equals ~15% of the potential return lost to timing.
• Bottom line: Buy-and-hold investors usually outperform those that try to time the market – by a lot!
• The saying is true: “Time in the market beats timing the market.”

What is the “Go Kart Strategy” of investing?

• I recently went Go Karting on a family cruise. Lots of fun with nephews, nieces & their kids.
• How do you get the best lap time with Go Karts? Keep your foot on the gas at full speed the entire time. Works everywhere except the sharpest curves.
• What should you do before the sharp curves? I used to think I should slow down by coasting before the curve and then cut the corner as close as possible. However, it took a couple seconds to get back to full speed after the curve.
• Then I found a faster way. Keep my foot fully on the gas the entire time, but pump the brake just briefly before the curve so I slow down but the engine stays revved to the max. Take the curve wider to get around the curve without skidding. Then hit the speed boost as soon as I start coming out of the curve.
• The secret is to focus on maximizing speed coming out of the curve, not on slowing down before the curve. Keeping the engine revved high and hitting the speed burst can mean one second after the curve I’m going faster than before the curve.
• Investing is similar. Investors tend to focus on how much to slow down before or during an event, instead of focusing on how to maximize the growth coming out of it.
• I call investing this way the “Go Kart Strategy”. Keep your foot fully on the gas the entire time and focus on maximizing the growth coming out of any market downturn.

The one way to time the market effectively.

• Trying to guess a high point in market is very difficult because most years are up. Large gain years are mostly followed by another gain. Gains are very common. About 75% of years are up.
• The one reliable market timing method is that large declines in the broad markets have always recovered. Large losses are rare. There have been only 4 years in the last 90 that the S&P500 was down more than 20%. Large losses have been only 5% of the time.
• Our “Market Timing Rule of Thumb”: Whenever the market is down 20+%, look for creative ways to find more money to invest.
• This is the one method I have found to work reliably. Getting this one right alone can mean you outperform the markets.

The good news and bad news of planning for retirement

• From writing thousands of Financial Plans, we see the good news and the bad news.
• Bad news: It takes more money to retire comfortably than you think.
• Good news: You can get there more easily than you think.
• For example, if you want to retire on $100,000/year, let’s say the government pensions will give you $20,000, so you need $80,000/year from your investments.
• To estimate how much you need, the “4% Rule” is a good estimate. I found in my detailed study about it that the amount you can reliably withdraw from your investments and increase by inflation for 30+ years is:

o   Equity investments                  4%/year

o   Balanced investments              3.5%/year

o   Fixed income                            2.5%/year

• Withdrawing 4%/year to give you $80,000/year plus inflation means you need $2 million in investments to retire, if you are high in equities.
• With more conservative investments, you need more than $2 million.
• $2 million is probably more than you thought. That is not a lavish retirement, but you need to be a multi-millionaire to afford it!
• The good news is that you can get to $2 million by investing only $1,500/month for 30 years. That is $18,000/year, which is about your RRSP room if you earn $100,000/year.
• In other words, in most cases, just maximizing your RRSP and possibly TFSA for 30 years is often enough to retire with the lifestyle you want.
• That is probably easier than you thought.
• But you need to average the long-term return of the markets.

What is the one thing most investors get wrong?

• To have the future life you want, you need to get the rate of return in your Financial Plan as a long-term average. If that is based on an equity return, you need to be fully in equities on average through your life – not just most of the time.
• You need to keep your foot on the gas to get the long-term returns of the markets.
• Your Financial Plan is based on the long-term average return. If you are not fully invested for long-term growth all or nearly all the time, you are likely to fall short.
• The one thing most investors get wrong is that they want to get the full return of equities, so they buy index ETFs, but they buy several ETFs including some with lower expected returns, which means they don’t end up with the full return of equities. Or they are not confident in the long-term return of equities, so they add fixed income or gold or something defensive, which drags down their returns.
• For example, if you invest in equities for 30 years but switch to fixed income or gold every 5^th year because of some event, you are highly likely to get lower returns. Or you hold 20% fixed income or gold or other defensive investment all the time. Your long-term average return with either of these methods is expected to be about 7%/year, instead of 8%/year for the market conservatively.
• Your retirement portfolio and retirement income end up 17% lower for life because you were not fully in equities for growth the entire time.

What is Ed’s personal strategy?

• Personally, I use my Go Kart Strategy.
• I have been 100% invested for growth for all of the last 35 years. I have owned no fixed income or defensive investments at any time – and I am quite sure I never will.
• I am standing on the gas pedal all the time.
• Plus, whenever the market is down 20% or more, I look for a creative way to take advantage of it. Do my annual investment sooner, or find extra cash to invest, or increase my leverage.
• If I can get more money into the market after a decline, then my personal return will be higher than the return of the investments themselves. Easy way to outperform!

Ed

The post Don’t Let Today’s Headlines Wreck Your Retirement appeared first on Ed Rempel.

You’ve worked hard, built up a few million dollars, and now you’re seventy-five, retired, and staring at your portfolio wondering — do I really need to keep riding the stock market rollercoaster? 

Or is it finally time to play it safe?

That’s the multi-millionaire’s dilemma, and it’s a lot more common than you might think.

We have seen it many times. Far more money than you will spend during your life. 

Continue investing for growth or switch to conservative?

In my latest video, podcast episode and blog post you’ll learn:

• What is the “Multi-Millionaire’s Dilemma”?
• Why consider going conservative?
• Why consider continuing to invest for growth?
• What is the maximum that equities are likely to be down at the end of your life?
• What are the odds equities are down over periods of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years?
• How much growth are you likely giving up by switching from equities to GICs?
• Can the numbers make this clearer?
• What is your money for?
• Why Ed will be 100% equities his entire life.

Multi-Millionaire’s Dilemma

“Multi-Millionaire’s Dilemma”: You have far more money than you will ever need. You are walking down the street and find a $100 bill. Would you bother to pick it up?

You don’t need the money and it takes a little effort to pick it up. On the other hand, it’s easy to pick up and only takes a second. What would you do?

Similarly (but not as simple), if you are comfortable with equities and they are highly likely to grow, why not stay invested for growth?

This post is about people that have been investing in equities, are comfortable with it, and now have a portfolio far larger than they will need for the life they want – even if they live unexpectedly long. However, they are getting older and their life expectancy is 5 or 10 or 15 years.

What investment allocation makes sense?

Why consider going conservative?

You turn on the news, watch your account drop twenty percent in a few months, and suddenly the math feels different. Why have the emotional stress? At seventy-five, do you have time to wait for the market to come back?

Your portfolio is your security. I meet wealthy people that say, “I’m already rich. Why make more? I just have to avoid a mistake and losing it.”

That’s where conservative investing starts to look appealing. Just switch everything to GICs or bonds so you so you don’t lose money. You can avoid being down at the end of your life.

Why consider continuing to invest for growth?

The case for staying in stocks is pretty simple on paper. Over the long run, equities have crushed everything else. If you look at the last hundred years, stocks have returned about ten percent a year on average. Even if you’re seventy-five, you could easily live another fifteen or twenty years. Twenty years is long enough for compounding to still matter a lot.

Plus, if you have five million dollars, even a bad decade in the market isn’t going to wipe you out. You’re not living paycheck to paycheck — you’re living off a portfolio most people would kill for. Why give up that extra growth just because you’re older?

Your money is your freedom. More money is more options in life. You can enjoy it or give more to my family or give more to causes important to you.

Bonds mean you pay a lot more tax and they can lose money by getting killed by inflation. Keep investing tax-efficiently to make at least more than inflation – and hopefully a lot more.

Equities can support you living comfortably. You can get a reliable, tax-efficient cash flow from your equity investments with self-made dividends by just selling a bit every month. It’s a monthly deposit of the amount you choose to your bank account – just like a salary. Let your money keep growing to feel safer about your lifestyle.

You have been comfortable with equity investments for many years, so just keep the investments you have. The odds of your equity investments growing during your life are quite high and it can be a lot more money. The math of compounding is amazing.

Can the numbers make this clearer?

Those are the 2 main arguments. Many people make this decision based on their gut.

However, questions like this are clearer when you see the numbers.

• What is the worst-case scenario? What is the maximum that equities are likely to be down at the end of your life?
• What are the odds that equities are down from today at the end of your life?
• How much growth are you likely giving up by switching from equities to GICs or bonds?

Here are the numbers based on calendar year returns in the modern stock market (since 1935). They show:

• How much of a decline has the worst-case scenario been?
• What is that in dollars for every $1 million you have?
• What are the odds that equities are down at the end of your life?
• How much growth are you giving up by selling your equites to buy bonds or GICs? Equities should conservatively make 8%/year, and GICs or bonds about 3%/year. The table shows simple math excluding the compounding, assuming you spend or give away the money.

Here is a short version:

To understand this, let’s say you believe you have 10 years left to live. The worst 10-year return in the modern stock market was 1.4%/year. If this worst-case happens, you would be down 14%, or $143,000. Your $1 million portfolio would be down to $857,000. The worst-case is not really down a lot with the size of your portfolio.

In 10-year periods, the markets have been down only 3% of the time in the modern stock market, so it is quite unlikely you would be down and not recovered during the next 10 years. That is not a 3% chance of the worst-case scenario. It is a 3% chance of being down at all.

By being in GICs vs. equities for the next 10 years, the average return you could expect to lose would be about 5%/year (3% return of GICs or bonds vs. equity return conservatively 8%/year). Losing 5%/year is $50,000/year, or $500,000 in lost growth over 10 years. This does not include compounding. It assumes you spend the $50,000 or give it to your kids or charity every year. An extra $500,000 is a good number and gives you more freedom.

Looking at the numbers for 10 years or longer, the case for staying in equities is quite strong. You are likely to be $500,000 or more ahead with only a 3% chance of being down a little bit.

What about 5 years? If you are quite sure you have less than 5 years left to live, then a worst-case scenario could be being down 37% or $370,000 at the end of your life. The risk of being down at all based on history is about 12% – still low, but not irrelevant. The most likely scenario is that you would be missing out on $250,000 or more of growth.

The worst-case loss of $370,000 is larger, but it is very unlikely. The $250,000 growth is the average growth you are likely to lose. The markets have tripled in 5-year periods, so the maximum growth could be much higher, but it’s best to look at most likely outcomes.

Looking at the numbers for 5 years, the case for staying in equities is less strong, but still there. You are likely to be $250,000 or more ahead with only a 12% chance of being down a little bit plus a very low chance of being down quite a bit.

There is, of course, a risk that equities could lose more or make more than these figures. Nothing is guaranteed. But looking at expected returns based on history can make the decision much clearer.

The truth is that any option could be fine. It is up to you. Avoiding any loss could make sense. Staying in equities when you are comfortable with them and can make far more could also make sense.

It is always worthwhile to look at the numbers. Understand the risks, how likely they are, and how much growth you would lose. The numbers can make it a lot clearer for you.

What is your money for?

When we talk with people that have more money than they will ever spend, they are usually equity investors and have been for many years and are comfortable with equities. They usually have a bigger purpose for their life than just enjoying it.

It is wise to plan to have enough money to maintain your desired lifestyle, even if you live much longer than expected – and even if you have major unexpected expenses later in life. Have a comfortable margin of safety so you don’t have to worry about money.

What if you have much more than that? If you will never spend your money, then it goes to your estate or whoever you give it to. The money you won’t spend won’t be wasted. It’s smart to still be smart with that money.

We talked with people that invest conservatively to feel safe with their money. They expect to live 5 or 10 more years. All the money they won’t spend will go to their kids. Meanwhile, all their kids are investing in equities. When they pass away, their conservative investments will go to their kids who will mostly invest it in equities.

In other words, your extra money is probably really your children’s money and should be invested smartly to help them in the future. That probably means investing with a longer-term time horizon for long-term growth.

Why Ed will be 100% equities his entire life.

I will always invest 100% in equities for a few reasons:

1. I’m a huge believer in humanity, continuous growth and free enterprise, and I want to participate in it. The stock market is where we see human ingenuity and ambition, and new technologies that improve our lives. And the stock market has provided high, reliable growth over longer periods of time through history. It is the most reliable, high-growth asset class – which is why it is most effective for retirement planning.

For me, even if I knew for a fact I have only one year left, 73% of years are up, so staying invested in equities is still the best choice.

2. I fight aging every step of the way. I have so much to live for. I’m in the best longevity programs I can find and in better shape than 15 years ago. I believe that medical science will figure out how we can start living decades longer in 10 or 20 years.

I would not accept it if doctors told me I have an incurable disease with only a short life left. I would be searching for any options, including experimental treatments all over the world. I would fight it until the end – which means I could easily live longer than expected.

3. How many years you have left is uncertain. What happens if you live much longer than you think? You can believe you have only 5 years left and look at the numbers on the table to see what makes sense for you. But what makes you think you have only 5 years left? That is usually doctors telling you what happens on average – if you have an average lifestyle and don’t do anything unusual to help yourself. The average years left doctors tell you means half of people live longer. There are constantly new medical discoveries. You can look after your health and improve your odds.

4. My money is not just for me. I have family to leave it to and a charitable foundation that will get much of it. The longer I am in equities, the more money is likely to go to all these causes that are important to me.

I hope these numbers can help you make an informed decision in your life. But as for me, I will always be in equities.

Ed

The post Multi-Millionaire’s Dilemma: Stay in Stocks or Go Conservative After Retiring? appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Last week, I revealed my longevity journey, introduced some of the explosive developments, and why we may be able to start living significantly longer within the next 10–20 years.

Living with health and vitality past age 100 could become common.

What happens to your money if that happens?

If we live 20 more years, can we actually be retired for those 20 years?

How much more would we need to save—or how much longer would we need to work?

In my latest video and blog post, you’ll learn:

• Why would we want to live decades longer?
• Would it be good for society?
• How much more would you have to save to be retired 20 more years?
• How many more years would you need to work?
• How are these different depending on the allocation of your portfolio?
• What is likely to happen to CPP, OAS, company pensions and annuities?
• What is likely to happen to life insurance?

Why would we want to live decades longer?

Only 29% of people want to live to age 100, based on a 2025 PEW study. 

Why so few? 

What is your picture of people age 100? Feeble, sick and with dementia? That’s why only 1/3 want to live to 100.

However, if they would be healthy, 74% want to live to 120 or longer.

The important issue is not just how long we live. It is how long we are healthy.

Healthspan – not lifespan.

Would it be good for society?

First of all – it already happened. Average life expectancy from birth in 1900 was age 48, in 1950 it was 68, and today it is age 83. That is 20 more years between 1900-1950 and 15 more since then.

A big reason is that our quality of life is much better. We eat better with more protein, have vaccines for many major diseases, and have better medicine like antibiotics. 

But a lot of it is that a lot fewer deaths during childbirth average it down. 

For an average life expectancy of 80, one death in childbirth would require 4 people to live to age 100 to offset it.

Average life expectancy from birth is a flawed number, dragged down by deaths of children. 

The median age when older people actually died was about 78 in 1900, 83 in 1950, and 90 today. So we are living more than 10 years longer already. 

We are also healthy longer. Anecdotally, 70-year-olds are like 60-year-olds in 1950. 

And 80-year-olds are like 70-year-olds in 1950.  80 is the new 70.

Living longer has contributed to better lives for us so far.

There has been debate about whether living longer healthy is good, but the effects should be mainly very positive for several reasons:

1/ More years at peak productivity. 

Most companies today suffer from a shortage of skilled, knowledgeable employees. 

Most people are most effective in their careers in their 50s and 60s and have extensive knowledge and experience when they retire. If they are still healthy and vibrant, then having people work longer is a big boost for productivity.

2/ Help to avoid underpopulation. 

Many people fear that we will have overpopulation, but that is not expected to happen. The world population is about 8 billion and expected to rise to about 9.5 billion by 2050, but then start declining rapidly because of falling birth rates. Most developed countries today have too few births to maintain their population. It is mostly the developing countries that still have high birth rates, but as they develop and get closer to the middle class, their birth rates are expected to be much lower. Economies work much better when the population slowly rises than when it falls. We will need people to be productive longer.

3/ Grandparents knowing their grandchildren and great grandchildren, and being able to mentor them. 

It is grandparents that often keep families together.

4/ I should add that it is important to be optimistic in life. Optimism is realism. And optimists live longer. 

In most of the important ways, the world is dramatically better than 100 years ago. Many people are pessimistic today because of a political belief or fear of a warmer world or running out of resources. However, look at how much our lives have improved the last 100 years! Human ingenuity continually makes our lives better.

Remember the famous quote by Thomas Macaulay: “On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”

How much more would you have to save to be retired 20 more years?

Let’s get into the details. A specific example shows the effect of living healthy longer.

Lonnie is 30 and plans to work till age 60 and then be retired to age 80, earning $100,000/year and wanting to keep the same income & lifestyle through retirement. Lonnie finds out about all the new methods to live healthy longer and now expects to retire at 60 and be retired to age 100 with the same lifestyle.

How big a portfolio will Lonnie need at age 60 to afford the desired retirement for 40 years vs 20 years? It depends on the investment portfolio allocation. Here are the needed portfolios. It comes down to needing to save 33% more for equity investors, 50% more for balanced investors and 80% more for fixed income investors.

How much more does Lonnie need to save per year from age 30-60 to support the extra 20 years of retirement? Here are the amounts Lonnie would have to save & invest per year. The percent additional savings is the same – 33% for equity investors, 50% for balanced investors, and 80% for fixed income investors.

Those numbers may look large, so let’s put them into perspective for someone earning $100,000/year.

For equity investors, saving $25,000/year is just maximizing their RRSP + TFSA room. $34,000/year could include FHSA contributions or investing a bit more than the tax refunds into a non-registered account. For equity investors, it is not easy, but doable.

For balanced or fixed income investors, it is not really possible. Earning $100,000/year, you bring home $75,000/year, or $80,000/year including your RRSP tax refund. To invest $65,000/year as a balanced investor or $129,000/year as a fixed income investor is impossible!

I have shown this in other videos. Balanced and fixed income investors need to expect a lower standard of living when they retire. Maintaining the same income as when they worked is probably impossible.

It would be awesome to be retired and healthy for 40 years or more – wouldn’t it! However, the more likely scenario is that people will save the same as they did each year, but will have to work longer. If you live 20 more years, how many of those years do you have to work and continue to save to pay for your retirement? Here are the portfolios needed at retirement and the extra years of work while continuing the same savings.

Equity investors can work & save 4 more years and enjoy retirement for the remaining 16 years. Nice! Balanced investors can work 7 more years and enjoy 13 years. Decent. Fixed income investors would have to work 11 more years and enjoy retirement for only 9 more years.

All this clearly shows the massive advantages of investing in equities for the long-term. It is worthwhile becoming comfortable with equities. They are volatile and fall a lot sometimes, but recover and have historically provided reliable high returns over long periods of time like 20-30 years. I have a bunch of posts showing the results from history.

What is likely to happen to CPP, OAS, company pensions and annuities?

Pensions will have a big problem if they get the same contributions but have to pay out pensions for 20 more years.

For CPP, if the official retirement age stays the same, it will have to raise contributions. Today, contributions are 12% of your income (6% from you and 6% by your employer). To pay for 20 more years, they would have to rise to about 16% of your income (8% each).

OAS has no retirement portfolio. It is just a redistribution system with younger people paying taxes that go to OAS pensions. It costs the Canadian government about $80 billion/year. If we were retired twice as long, that is an additional $80 billion/year. With the government already forecasting a deficit of $80 billion/year (government expenses more than all tax revenue), doubling it is not sustainable. All of the additional OAS would have to be borrowed every year.

OAS could reduce the payouts, but that is unlikely. OAS would have to increase the starting age to later than age 65. Actuaries have already been saying we need to increase it, since we are living a lot longer than when OAS was created in 1952. Stephen Harper had implemented the first step of the needed reform increasing the start age to 67 over time. However, Justin Trudeau reversed this progress and put it back to 65. The best estimate is that OAS should already start at close to age 70.

OAS is likely not sustainable. When it was created, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today, there are only 3 workers and that is expected to be only 2 workers per retiree in 2050. That is without us living decades longer. We have told thousands of young Canadians that OAS will likely not be there when they retire and nobody has ever questioned it. Keeping the cost level similar to today, the starting age for OAS likely needs to rise to about age 72.

Employer pensions are structured by actuaries and will be set up to be viable and profitable for the employer and pension firm. They will have to reduce the pension, increase the contributions, or set the pension start age later. All 3 or a combination are likely.

Today, very few companies in Canada can afford defined benefit pensions, other than the government. With a defined benefit pension, the employer is taking the risk of having to pay you as long as you live. The way the pricing is set by actuaries and auditors, makes them unaffordable. Most companies have already converted to defined contribution pensions, which are essentially group RRSPs with the employer matching, or partially matching, your contributions.

To be clear on the difference, a defined benefit pension means the pension benefit is defined by a formula, like government pensions. You don’t know how much money is in the pension. A defined contribution pension means the contribution is defined, like with a group RRSP. You see an investment account. The retirement income it will provide is not defined.

Note that for equity investors, defined contribution pensions are a good thing, as long as your employer maintains the same contribution. If you and your employer contribute the same, investing in a group RRSP or DC pension into equities should provide a higher retirement income for life than the defined benefit pension.

The news always seems to be bad for balanced and fixed income investors. A group RRSP would mean lower retirement income than a defined benefit pension, which is essentially invested in a balanced portfolio.

Annuities are thought of as being like lifelong GICs. They are really the same as a pension, except you own it, not your employer. Pricing is set by actuaries to be viable for the insurance company. The cost to buy them will have to be higher or the payouts will have to be reduced if the insurance company has to pay you for 20 more years.

What is likely to happen to life insurance?

Living decades longer is great news for insurance. Lifelong insurance policies, such as “term to 100”, universal life or whole life policies, will be able to reduce their premiums. They can pay you 20 years later. The premiums are also set by actuaries to be viable for the insurance company. Term insurance is likely unaffected.

What is your why?

What’s your why? You need a reason to live decades longer to make it. Is it to be productive longer, have decades more of a fun retirement, or seeing your great grandchildren grow up?

Personally, I’m very excited about being able to live healthy decades longer!

Ed

The post Living Healthy Past Age 100 – Will Your Retirement Plan Survive? appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Is it really possible to live with health & vitality past age 100? 

I am on a longevity journey to try to achieve it.

In my latest video and blog post, I will explain what I have learned & experienced so far and why I believe humans routinely being healthy past 100 is in our near future.

You will learn:

• How did Ed’s journey get started?
• How did Ann passing away ignite it?
• What is Ed’s journey since then?
• What is the core focus of the longevity program Ed joined?
• What can we do today to be healthy longer?
• Why is it likely humans will live significantly longer in the future?
• When are we expected to start living much longer?
• What is an exceptional introduction to longevity video by longevity leaders?

Next week’s post is about what happens to your money if you are healthy decades longer.

How did Ed’s journey get started?

• Tried to be fit for 25 years with my father-in-law continually telling us the importance of exercise and getting us a treadmill.
• Did my own workouts focused on “guy things” like arms and chest, but little results until I was referred to a personal trainer. Changed my focus to things that work, such as core workouts and a protein shake after weights. She said weight workouts cannot build muscle without protein.
• Referred to a cardiologist 20 years ago with a preventative longevity program focused on managing blood pressure and cholesterol.
• My major interest started with reading the book “Outlive” by Peter Attia, MD 2 years ago. It explained that today we have mostly “sick care”, treating diseases after they appear, but we need to move to Medicine 3.0 which is proactive prevention years ahead.
• Don’t become feeble! This was the best idea in the book for me. Older people lose muscle mass and tend to get feeble. Weak muscles and thin bones. Then they have one fall which often starts a rapid decline. When I was young, I thought “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up” ads were funny, but I learned they are a major problem. The solution is having lots of protein which prevents muscle loss. He recommends about 3x the Canada Food Guide for protein.
• His key was to focus on healthspan, not just lifespan. Healthspan is how long you are healthy and free from disability and disease.

How did Ann passing away ignite it?

• If you know me, you know that the love of my life, Ann, passed away unexpectedly a year ago. This was the most profound event of my life. I have a video of our life together on this site for her Celebration of Life.
• The big trigger for me was my next book on longevity, “Longevity Guidebook” by Dr. Peter Diamandis. The full book title is: “Longevity Guidebook: How to Slow, Stop, and Reverse Aging – and NOT Die from Something Stupid”. He defined “die from something stupid” as more than just skydiving & motorcycles. It was dying from something that we have the technology today to test for.
• Most people diagnosed with cancer are in stage 4 or advanced stage 3 where they are hard to treat. However, we can already test for most cancers very early and most can be cured if you detect them early enough, such as stage 1.
• Heart disease (heart attack & stroke) is the largest killer of Canadians and is mainly caused by the soft plaque (not hard plaque) that builds up in your arteries & veins. This we can also test for and treat much more effectively many years before.
• These tests for early diagnosis of cancer and heart disease are not routinely done until you actually have symptoms, which is usually when the disease has already progressed.
• Ann was diagnosed with an unknown cancer at stage 4. Then the doctors missed when it led to sepsis. (Apparently, sepsis is misdiagnosed 30% of the time in Canada.) I realized when I read the book that her death may have been from “something stupid”. Tests that are not commonly done but are known in medicine today could probably have diagnosed her cancer much earlier when it may have been successfully treated.
• After Ann passed, I worried about whether I might also have a serious undiagnosed disease. It was this realization from reading this book that that early testing can save my life that ignited my longevity journey.

What is Ed’s journey since then?

• I signed up for “Fountain Life”, which is the most advanced longevity medical program I have found. It is owned by Dr. Peter Diamandis. It started with a full day of testing, including a full body MRI that takes an hour. Half of that time is on my head, which gave me a bit of claustrophobia. Then several CT scans, many vials of blood drawn, mapped my entire genome and many other tests. One productive day that provided 150 GB of data about me. Then their AI studies my data with thousands of others searching for advanced insights.
• They also have a team of 4 that works with me all year to help me follow all their targeted recommendations for me until next year’s tests.
• A major change is their focus on sleep and the importance of it. They gave me a sleep mask so I can sleep in total darkness and a “Whoop” wearable to track my physiological processes, especially my sleep. It gives me a sleep rating every morning.
• They also recommended 14 targeted supplements. I have always been skeptical of supplements and whether they worked, but now I have targeted ones based on the results of all the testing one me and recommended by doctors.
• I find I am much more energetic than I was, which could be from sleep or supplements – or from vacationing more!
• The program is expensive, but the price is already dramatically lower than when it started. As more and more people get into it, the volume should keep bringing the cost down so that it hopefully it can eventually become routine medical care for most people.
• The program is a huge relief for me! I have no cancer of any type detectable in my body. Low risk of heart disease from soft plaque. It is unlikely I will get any major disease any time soon. I am getting quality medical recommendations to do many things to be healthy longer.
• I believe this is early in my journey. I am very excited about what I will continue to learn and experience!

Fountain Life: Core Focus – AI-Guided Diagnostics & Early Detection

Here are the main tests that are part of their “annual upload” of 150 GB of data about me:

• Comprehensive, multi-modal screening to detect diseases (cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative issues, metabolic conditions) decades before symptoms, often at stage 0 or 1.
• Full-body and brain MRI scans.
• Advanced coronary CT angiography (CCTA/Cleerly AI for plaque detection and heart risk assessment).
• Executive blood panels (100+ biomarkers, including inflammation, hormones, metabolic markers).
• Genetic screening, epigenetic/biological age testing, gut microbiome analysis.
• Other assessments: DEXA (bone density/body composition), retinal scans, hormone optimization, and dermatology screening.
• Powered by their award-winning Zori AI Medical Expert, which analyzes massive data (150+ GB per member from 15+ billion data points) for personalized insights and questions.
• Claim high success rates (e.g., 96–99.8% early detection for life-threatening issues, reversal of early signs in 50%+ of members for certain conditions).
• This is the “annual upload” of 150 GB of data about you for AI to analyze.
• These tests detect/prevent “stupid stuff” (preventable deaths) and guide personalization.

What can we do today to be healthy longer?

• Do what you can to avoid the “4 horsemen of chronic disease” – heart disease, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, other dementias), and metabolic dysfunction such as diabetes type 2. 
• Core lifestyle habits are still the key: sleep, exercise, diet & mindset. Focus on all 4.
• Supplements and meds targeted based on your test results.
• Advanced screening & testing to detect diseases early.
• Have a “longevity mindset”:

o Optimists live longer than pessimists (even if they are wrong).

o People with something to live for live longer than those that don’t.

• Most important: Don’t die from something stupid!

Why is it likely humans will live significantly longer in the future?

The longevity movement has ignited because of AI which has led to a massive tsunami of billions of dollars in research. The movement has existed for decades, but now is advancing exponentially faster. I am constantly amazed hearing about all the new technologies being researched.

There are a few key technologies and new knowledge leading this. A fascinating example is when Peter Diamandis wondered why some sharks and whales live centuries and we don’t. 

I have the same genome today as when I was 20. Why do I look different? He realized it is “either a hardware problem or a software problem”. It’s not the genes themselves. 

As we age, different genes are turned off and on by the “epigenome”. Your genes are not your destiny. Your genes are the piano. The epigenome is the piano player. He thinks we will be able to change which genes are off & on.

The major technologies are a bit technical (from his work).

Diamandis attributes this shift to converging exponential technologies, particularly AI’s role in simulating biology and accelerating discoveries. He views aging as a “disease” that can be “hacked” through precision medicine, regenerative approaches, and data-driven interventions. Core enablers he highlights include:

• Epigenetic Reprogramming and Cellular Resetting: Using Yamanaka factors (Nobel-winning discovery) to “reprogram” cells’ epigenetic clocks, reversing age-related damage without causing cancer. Diamandis predicts human trials starting in 2026, citing work by researchers like David Sinclair (Harvard), whom he collaborates with. This could restore youthful function to tissues, organs, and even the whole body.
• Stem Cell Therapies and Regenerative Medicine: Placental or induced pluripotent stem cells to repair injuries and rejuvenate systems. He shares personal anecdotes (e.g., from his book Life Force) and points to clinics like those in Panama for early applications, with broader commercialization by the 2030s. This includes “young blood” experiments (e.g., plasma exchange to remove aging factors) and companies like Elevian (GDF11 trials).
• Gene Editing and CRISPR: Tools like CRISPR-Cas9 for precise genetic fixes, such as editing PCSK9 to slash cholesterol or curing diseases like sickle cell. Diamandis sees this scaling to anti-aging “vaccines” via mRNA platforms (post-COVID tech), targeting multiple hallmarks of aging simultaneously.
• AI and Computational Biology: AI will make biology “computable,” simulating human processes to design drugs in days (e.g., via companies like Insilico Medicine). Diamandis predicts AI doubling lifespans by predicting and preventing diseases, with “Health as a Service” platforms analyzing genomes, microbiomes, and biomarkers for personalized interventions.
• Organ Regeneration and Replacement: 3D bioprinting, xenotransplants (e.g., pig organs), and brain-machine interfaces to replace failing parts. He envisions nanobots eradicating diseases by the 2020s–2030s, drawing from Ray Kurzweil’s predictions.
• Advanced Diagnostics and Prevention: Full-body AI scans (e.g., via Fountain Life, his co-founded company) for early detection of cancers or plaques, combined with supplements like NMN/rapamycin for NAD+ boosting and mTOR inhibition.

Diamandis ties this to a “longevity mindset”: Believing in these possibilities motivates better choices now, while initiatives like his Age Reversal XPRIZE (This is cool! A prize of $101 million to anyone that invents a technology that reverses aging.) and books (Life Force, Longevity Guidebook) aim to democratize access. He warns that societal implications—like purpose in extended life—must be addressed, but overall, he sees this as humanity’s greatest opportunity for abundance.

When are we expected to start living much longer?

• Today, for every year we live, medical science increases our average life expectancy by ¼ of a year. So we are only getting ¾ of a year closer to death each year.
• Longevity Escape Velocity (LEV) is when medical science increases our average life expectancy by a year each year. Then we could start living dramatically longer. 100 could be the new 60.
• Diamandis predicts that humans will start experiencing dramatically extended lifespans in the coming decade, with LEV arriving around 2030–2035. 
• By the end of 2030: Diamandis often aligns with Ray Kurzweil’s forecast. He has been accurate in 86% of his past forecasts. He says that those in good health with access to emerging therapies could reach LEV by 2030, marking a tipping point where medical interventions prevent age-related decline.
• Broader range (2030–2040s): He cites experts like George Church (Harvard geneticist) for a decade-or-two horizon from the mid-2020s.
• Diamandis stresses that this isn’t distant sci-fi; he points to ongoing clinical trials and commercial therapies emerging as early as 2026, advising people to avoid “dying from something stupid” in the interim by adopting healthy habits today.

What is an exceptional introduction to longevity video by longevity leaders?

• In March, I attended the Lake Nona Impact Forum, which brings together 800 of the brightest minds in the health, wellness, and medical innovation ecosystem. Many of the people I met were CEOs of innovative companies. I met the CEO of a 3D printing company that already prints personalized bones (including skulls, knees, hips), is in stage 2 of FDA approval for printing lungs, and now working on kidneys.
• Many of these CEOs were motivated by losing a spouse, child or close family member to a disease, and then became passionate heroes to cure it, so other people won’t have to suffer their grief. 
• If you have any interest in this area, I highly recommend this video. It is an exceptional introduction to longevity by people at the forefront:

Peter Diamandis & Tony Robbins on strategies that promote longevity now & in the near future

Next step:

• Book I’m reading now – “Life Force”:
• Start your own longevity journey.
• Don’t die from something stupid.
• Remember: “A healthy person has a thousand wishes, a sick person has only one.”
• What’s your why? You need a reason to live decades longer to make it.
• Can you be healthy past age 100?

Next week’s video: What happens to your money if you are healthy decades longer?

Ed

The post How to Live with Health & Vitality Past Age 100 appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Taxes are far more complex today than they were 10 years ago — and 2026 adds another layer.

There were not many headline changes this year, but several could meaningfully affect your retirement plan, home buying strategy, and long-term tax planning. Complexity is becoming the real story.

In this post and video, you’ll learn:

• What’s new & relevant for you in tax for 2026?
• How will the changes affect your life?
• How will the changes affect your retirement plan?
• What is Ed’s advice on the FHSA vs Home Buyers’ Plan?
• What is the latest on ITF accounts & joint name principal residences?
• What is Ed’s view on these changes? Why were they done?

Small tax reduction

• We always like tax reductions, even small ones.
• No change in tax rates, except .5% reduction from 15% to 14.5% tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. It is a reduction of 1% to 14% effective July 1, so half the savings are in 2025. The average tax rate for the lowest tax bracket is 14.5% for income below $57,000. Saves a maximum of about $200/year for people earning $57,000 or more.
• Reduces refundable tax credits by the same .5% amount. If you get large tax credits, they could theoretically fully offset the lower tax rate.
• Top-up tax credit – Makes sure you don’t pay more from the lower tax credit rate than you save from the lower tax rate. There are a lot of larger tax credits, so this could happen if your tax credits are more than your income after deductions.  The tax credits include medical expenses, CPP & EI contributions, tuition, student loan interest, donations, dividend tax credit, disability & caregiver credits, pension credit, HST credit, and First-Time Home Buyers’ credit.

Home Buyers Plan increase

• Home Buyers Plan (HBP) increased to $60,000 with first repayment 5th year after withdrawal (not 2nd).
• This means a couple can save up to $200,000 in accounts where they get a tax deduction for contributions, including $60,000 each they can borrow from their RRSP and $40,000 each they can contribute to their First Home Savings Account (FHSA).
• My advice here is that essentially everyone should use the FHSA and get a tax-free withdrawal, but try not to use the Home Buyers’ Plan if you can get your 20% down without it, since you are borrowing from your RRSP at the rate of return that your investments in your RRSP make. If you are an equity-focused growth investor, like most of our clients, that rate of return is likely much higher than your mortgage rate.
• This is welcome given how very hard it is for young people to buy their first home today with how much house prices have risen. I feel for young people and any first-time home buyers today who need both a large down payment and to qualify for a large mortgage. House price surged for a few reasons, but mainly it was driven by a classic imbalance: demand outpacing supply. Demand for homes from a larger population mainly because of higher immigration was 3-5 times higher than supply, since municipalities resistant to change continued to be restrictive with building permits.
• The HBP increase is welcome, but does show how slow governments are. It should have been done a few years ago, since the large price increases generally happened from 2019-2022. House prices actually came down significantly in 2025 and are expected to decline further in 2026.

“Bare Trust Debacle” relief

• New rules on “bare trusts” in 2023 would have required onerous additional tax reporting for many people, except that every year since then the government announced the rules won’t be enforced this year (but remained for next year).
• The new rules affected parents saving for their kids in “in trust for” (ITF) accounts and family joint ownership of real estate, such as parents adding their name to kid’s mortgage to help qualify for a home or adult kids going on title for aged parents’ home for estate planning purposes.
• It was called a “debacle” because the first draft would have applied to millions of Canadians most of which were unaware, and the announcement of the extra filing not being required this year was made on the deadline day for 2023 and late in the years since then. We didn’t know during much of any year what would end up being enforced.
• We finally have some relief! Bare Trust onerous reporting is NOT required for 2025 but is still required for 2026 (just like prior years), but the areas we were worried about for our clients will be essentially exempt. For “In trust accounts (ITFs)” with parents saving for children, they are effectively exempt if the value of each account is less than 250,000 for the full year. The wording is a bit unclear, but it appears to be for each parent & child. For example, a family with 2 kids could have 4 separate ITF accounts and up to $250,000 exempt for each account, if the father & mother each have an ITF account for each kid.
• Family joint ownership involving related people with principal residences are exempt, which includes parents on a child’s mortgage to help them qualify for a mortgage and children on title of aging parent’s home for estate planning purposes.
• These rules are proposed, but not passed yet.
• We are part way through 2026 and don’t know for sure the 2026 rules yet or how they might be applied, but it appears the bare trust rules should essentially not apply for our clients.

New 2nd Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

• New 2nd Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). This means your tax returns are calculated 3 times – once the normal way and once for each of the 2 AMT rules. You pay the highest of the 3. The new rules mostly affect large capital gains and large donations.
• You may get this tax back over up to 7 years if the high capital gain or donation is a one-time event. 
• We are not fans because it can make tax significantly more complex. Taxes are far more complex than 10 years ago and seem to get continuously more complex. Major tax reform has been needed for decades and has not been done since the 1960s. In many cases, the government may not even collect more tax, since the taxpayer might get it back in future years.
• Who is affected by this 2nd AMT?
• Large capital gains are usually on real estate, such as when a cottage or rental property bought many years ago is sold. They can also be on large stock options for top employees or stock market gains. Stock market gains tend to be larger, but investors rarely hold specific investments for decades and they can easily sell a bit each year to spread out the gains.
• Large donations are generally older wealthy people supporting charities, often using some advanced, commonly-used tax planning methods. The AMT change does not allow claiming tax credits for flow-through shares commonly used for large donations. See Ed’s video “How to Donate 10 Times More with the Donation Flow-Through Strategy”. This is expected to reduce large donations for many charities.

3 Technical Rules

• Removed luxury tax on boats and airplanes, but not on cars >$100,000. Luxury boats & airplanes bought by Canadians were mostly made here, so this affected those manufacturing industries a lot. It still applies to luxury cars.
• Eliminated Federal Underused Housing Tax (UHT). The 1% annual tax on the value of vacant or underused residential properties owned by non-resident, non-Canadians was eliminated effective for the 2025 calendar year. It was deemed inefficient and too costly to administer. They passed the federal foreign buyer ban, so the tax was essentially redundant.
• Family Trust 21-year rule – Can’t transfer family trust to a corporation owned by another trust. This is a technical issue for complex tax situations that would apply to few people.

New Canada Disability Benefit (CDB)

• Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) — A new benefit for working-age Canadians (18-64) eligible for the Disability Tax Credit, providing up to $2,400/year (max $200/month), income-tested.
• People who already have the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) can apply separately for this new income benefit with a maximum $200/month tax-free. Effective July 1, 2025 for single people with a net income less than $23,000 and married people with a family net income less than $32,500. The benefit is reduced by 20% of your net income, except employment income where you can earn up to $10,000 before having your benefit reduced.

CRA Service

• Service for calls to CRA continues to be slow. They hired more employees and now answer about 70% of calls. However, there has been no attempt to simplify tax rules that have become significantly more complex the last few years.
• Training of new employees has been inadequate. For general individual tax questions (e.g., non-personalized advice on rules, deductions, or filing): Agents provided accurate answers only 17% of the time. This means information was incorrect or incomplete in 83% of cases tested!
• CRA now generally takes 4-8 months to respond to reassessments, which is far too long. If your tax return is filed in April and you get a reassessment in May and respond in June, it might be the next year before CRA responds. You could be into a new year and still not have your tax refund for the last year!
• Bottom line: If you have tax questions, ask your accountant or tax specialist. Don’t ask CRA.

Expected changes that did NOT happen

• RRIF minimum withdrawals were not reduced. This would have helped retirees plan to have their RRIFs last longer. This will be needed as life expectancy rises with new medicine and AI. It looks like life expectancy may rise dramatically in the next 5-10 years with AI expected to find cures for most major diseases and possibly even figure out why our cells age at all. The government had promised they would reduce the RRIF minimum withdrawals.
• Capital gains inclusion rate increase from 50% to 67% – Cancelled. This is a relief! This would have been a highly negative tax increase for our clients and the economy. There was a lot of buzz from wealthy people planning to look into complex tax planning or leaving Canada. The rule was considered unfair because large capital gains tend to be on real estate where the growth is mainly inflation.
• Canada Entrepreneurs’ Incentive – Cancelled. This was related to the capital gains inclusion rate increase, so it was cancelled when the inclusion rate increase was cancelled. It was intended to reduce the cost of the higher capital gains tax on specific types of entrepreneurs selling an on-going business.

Ed

The post 2026 Tax Changes – How They Affect Your Life & Your Retirement Plan appeared first on Ed Rempel.

I recently presented at the Canadian Financial Summit on a topic that questions one of the foundations of conventional investment advice.

Should investors really reduce their stock exposure as they age?

The presentation was based on a newly published academic study titled:

“Beyond the Status Quo: A Critical Assessment of Lifecycle Investment Advice.”

The study examined long-term data from 39 developed countries and reached a conclusion that challenges traditional thinking.

An all-equity portfolio with 33 percent domestic stocks and 67 percent international stocks outperformed traditional stock and bond strategies. It built more wealth, supported higher retirement income and reduced the probability of running out of money.

This directly challenges two common beliefs:

Investors should diversify between stocks and bonds.

Investors should reduce stock exposure as they get older.

At the Summit, I explained:

• Why this study is considered high quality
• Why bonds may not provide the long-term protection many assume
• Why international diversification may be more effective than bond allocation
• What this means for Canadian versus US investors
• Whether a 100 percent equity strategy is truly safe

If you would like the full detailed breakdown of the study, including supporting research and charts, you can read my original post here:

New Study Supports 100% Equity Investing for Life

If you are interested in the reader comments and objections, you can read:

New Study Supports 100% Equity Investing for Life – The Debate

This topic continues to generate strong reactions.

Unconventional wisdom often feels uncomfortable. But long-term investing decisions should be based on evidence, not habit.

What do you think?

Is maintaining a high equity allocation throughout life, including retirement, a strategy you would consider?

Ed

The post 100% Equities Through Retirement? What the Research Shows (Canadian Financial Summit 2025) appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Today’s episode is a bit different from the usual format.

I want to take some time to speak directly to you — to say thank you, to reflect on what you’ve been listening to most, and to ask for your input on what would be most helpful going forward.

Recently, Unconventional Wisdom was listed near the top of several Canadian financial podcast rankings, including #4 of the Best 10 Canada Podcasts (all categories), #3 of the Best 10 Canada Financial Planning Podcasts in 2026 and #2 of the Best 10 Tax Podcasts in Canada in 2026 by Million Podcasts. Our podcast also just surpassed 100,000 unique downloads.

I mention that briefly, not as a personal achievement, but because I know how overwhelming it can be to decide what’s worth your time. 

Podcast listeners are perfect for me because they tend to like in-depth insights on valuable topics while commuting, working out or walking. Independent recognition can be a helpful signal that a show is focused on quality and substance rather than hype.

What matters much more to me, though, is why people listen, and what your listening behaviour tells me about what you actually find valuable.

When I look at what people have watched, shared, and consistently returned to over time on this channel, some very clear themes emerge.

One of the strongest is retirement timing and government benefits: questions around CPP, OAS, GIS, and whether to start early or delay. These are high-stakes, largely irreversible decisions, and it’s clear many people are worried about getting them wrong.

Another major theme is retirement risk, especially where common explanations don’t fully reflect reality. 

Topics like sequence of returns risk, Monte Carlo simulations, and popular retirement myths consistently attract attention. That tells me people want to understand risk clearly, not just be reassured.

There’s also strong engagement around evidence-based investing, particularly where it challenges conventional wisdom. 

Discussions around equity exposure, outperforming, dividend investing, and long-held assumptions resonate because people want to know what actually provides the most reliable long-term, tax-efficient growth when you look at the data.

A fourth theme is tax and leverage strategies.

Things like the Smith Manoeuvre, mortgage deductibility, RRSP Meltdown, Rempel Maximum, and cash dam strategies, new accounts like the FHSA, and regulatory changes. These aren’t beginner questions. They reflect people trying to structure their finances more intelligently over time.

And finally, there’s consistent interest in big-picture questions.

Questions about financial independence, how much is enough, how people become wealthy, and what really creates long-term financial security and freedom, not just short-term optimism.

Taken together, this tells me something important.

People listening here aren’t looking for predictions or shortcuts. They’re looking for clarity around complex, high-stakes, real life decisions, grounded in evidence rather than fear or sales.

That’s exactly what I try to focus on.

Which brings me to the most important part of this episode.

I’d like to hear from you.

If there’s a financial decision that feels unclear or stressful right now, let me know.

If there’s a topic you wish more advisors would explain plainly without pressure, product bias, or oversimplification, I’d like to hear that too.

You can comment where you’re listening, reply to my newsletter, YouTube channel, or reach out through my website.

This channel works best when it reflects what people are actually dealing with, not just what sounds good in theory.

Thank you for listening, for sharing the show, and for asking thoughtful questions.

I appreciate it more than you may realize.

Ed

The post What Canadians Are Really Asking About Money Right Now appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Ever wondered how you can get the money out of your RRSP with a minimum of tax?

RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategies can allow you to withdraw from your RRSP or RRIF with little or no tax.

However, there are some tricky complications, several options, and these strategies are not for everyone.

In my latest video for the Canadian Financial Summit you’ll learn:

• How does the RRSP/RRIF meltdown strategy help you withdraw from your RRSP with minimum tax?
• What does the traditional RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategy look like?
• Why should it be called the RRIF Meltdown Strategy, not the RRSP Meltdown Strategy?
• Why are self-made dividends the secret to an effective RRIF Meltdown Strategy?
• What are the 4 tricky complications?
• Why does the traditional RRIF Meltdown not melt your RRIF down?
• What is the problem with starting it before you retire?
• What is the problem with starting it when you retire?
• What are the 3 main RRIF Meltdown Strategies?
• What are the 4 issues for implementing the RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategy effectively?
• What are the 6 steps to implementing the RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategy effectively?

How does the RRSP/RRIF meltdown strategy help you withdraw from your RRSP with minimum tax?

• Withdraw from RRSP or RRIF with minimal tax by borrowing to invest to get an offsetting tax deduction. The investment loan interest offsets tax from RRSP withdrawal.
• Withdraw from leveraged non-registered investments for your desired cash flow. You choose the exact amount you want that is sustainable long-term.
• Minimize tax by focusing on deferred capital gains (not income). Deferred capital gains are the lowest taxed type of investment income. Self-made dividends are the key to minimum tax by selling a bit of your non-registered investments every month to provide the cash flow you need.

What does the traditional RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategy look like?

Why should this strategy be called the RRIF Meltdown Strategy, not the RRSP Meltdown Strategy?

• It is usually best to convert all or part of your RRSP to a RRIF before starting this strategy. The amount in your RRIF is melted down.
• RRSPs do not generally allow automatic monthly withdrawals and there are fees for a “partial deregistration” for every RRSP withdrawal.
• RRIF withdrawals are generally automatic monthly withdrawals with no fees.

Why are self-made dividends the secret to an effective RRIF Meltdown Strategy?

• The secret to an effective RRIF Meltdown Strategy is that tax on the cash flow from your non-registered investments should be much lower than tax on RRIF withdrawals.
• Invest for growth to be confident the long-term return after tax is higher than the loan interest.
• Minimize tax by focusing on deferred capital gains (not income) – the lowest taxed type of investment income.
• Self-made dividends are the key to minimum tax by selling a bit of your non-registered investments every month to provide the cash flow you need. Only 50% of the gain portion of the amount you sell is taxable. This is essentially nothing initially. Usually, tax is only 5-10% even after quite a few years.
• Many people think that the investments must pay dividends for the interest to be tax deductible, but they don’t. Interest is deductible if your investments are theoretically capable of paying income. Almost all stock market investments are generally acceptable. I studied “Smith Manoeuvre with Dividends” strategy and found that you generally need to earn a long-term return about 1%/year higher if you get dividends (or income from options strategies) to have the same long-term after tax return as self-made dividends.
• You choose the exact withdrawal you want for your desired retirement lifestyle.
• Self-made dividends are better than ordinary dividends in every way.

What are the 4 tricky complications?

There are 4 tricky complications.

1.  Withholding tax.

• To have your RRIF withdrawal pay your investment loan interest, try to avoid withholding tax.
• You can choose no withholding tax on the minimum RRIF withdrawal.
• Any RRIF withdrawal above the minimum will have withholding tax based on the annual withdrawal. It is 10% if the annual withdrawal is under $5,000, 20% if it is between $5,000 to $15,000, and 30% if it is above $15,000.
• Withholding tax means you should pay part of your investment loan interest from your cash flow, but you get that amount back as tax savings on your tax return.

2.  Rising minimum RRIF.

• The minimum required RRIF withdrawal rises every year based on a formula.
• To have your interest deduction offset your RRIF withdrawal, you would have to increase your investment loan every year.
• Here is the minimum RRIF at various ages:

• Your options with a rising minimum RRIF:

o   Be happy with the interest deduction offsetting the RRIF withdrawal from year 1, but not the increasing RRIF withdrawals.

o   Get a larger investment loan every 5 or 10 years with interest that would offset the increased RRIF withdrawal, so that the strategy offsets the tax on your RRIF withdrawal for quite a few years.

o   If your investment loan is a secured credit line on your home, you could increase it every year.

o   My advice: Don’t worry about a perfect offset. The interest deduction could offset more or less than the RRIF withdrawal. You save tax anyway.

3. Investment loan might slowly become non-deductible – Smith/Snyder Calculation.

• When you take self-made dividends (or any withdrawals) from your non-registered investments, the investment loan can slowly become non-deductible.
• Interest is deductible based on the “current use” of the borrowed money. For example, if you borrow to invest, but then cash in the investments and spend it, the loan interest is no longer deductible.
• Withdrawing from your investments for your lifestyle can reduce the interest deduction, however it remains deductible if the withdrawal is either taxable or used to pay the investment loan interest.
• To keep your investment loan fully tax-deductible, withdraw only the amount of your interest or less from your non-registered investments. Note it is the RRIF withdrawal that is paying the interest, but keeping the non-registered withdrawal for your cash flow less than the interest keeps your investment loan fully tax deductible.
• With self-made dividends, you can withdraw the exact amount you want for your lifestyle. This is normally more than the investment loan interest. This means you would need to do the “Smith/Snyder Calculation” to calculate how much of the interest is still tax-deductible. It is somewhat complex. Essentially, it tracks the amount of your investment loan that is deductible by reducing it by withdrawals that are not taxed as capital gains or dividends, or used to pay the investment loan interest.

4. Large investment loan is required to make it most effective.

• You need a large investment loan to make this strategy effective.
• To offset the RRIF withdrawal, you generally need a loan about the same size as your RRIF.
• To “melt down” your RRIF, the loan may have to be quite a bit larger than your RRIF.
• A large investment loan must be suitable for you based on your risk tolerance. It is advisable to commit to a minimum of 20 years for the RRIF Meltdown Strategy for you to have a high chance of success with this strategy. This is because the stock market is generally reliable over long periods of time.
• You have to qualify for a large investment loan. Ideally, this could be from a secured credit line against your home, since that is the lowest interest rate. If you get an investment loan, make sure it is a No Margin Call Loan. A margin call any time in the next few decades can wipe out all the benefits of this strategy, so make sure there is no margin call risk.

Those are the 4 tricky complications.

Why does the traditional RRIF Meltdown NOT melt your RRIF down?

• The minimum RRIF withdrawal is lower than the long-term returns of the stock market until you are well into your 80s.
• With the Traditional RRIF Meltdown Strategy, you usually withdraw the minimum RRIF. If your RRIF investments are mostly or all equity investments (in the stock market), your RRIF should continue to grow over time.
• If your investments are balanced (stock & bonds) or much more conservative, then you likely do not have the risk tolerance for a large investment loan.

What is the problem with starting it before you retire?

• The RRSP meltdown strategy is generally not worth doing if you are contributing to your RRSP at the same time.
• Withdrawing from your RRSP while you are still contributing does not make sense. The withdrawal partly offsets the contribution & you lose the RRSP contribution room. For example, if you are contributing $20,000 to your RRSP while withdrawing $10,000 for the RRSP Melt Down Strategy, you would be better off contributing $10,000 to your RRSP and using $10,000 from your cash flow to pay the investment loan interest. This is the same cash flow and the same tax deduction, while keeping more of your RRSP contribution room.
• If borrowing to invest is a suitable strategy for you, it is best to start it long before you retire. For example, you could start the Smith Manoeuvre decades before you retire. Capitalize the interest or pay it from your cash flow. Continue to make your RRSP contributions as normal based on your Financial Plan. Don’t withdraw from your RRSP or start your RRIF Meltdown while you are contributing.

What is the problem with starting it when you retire?

• Taking a large investment loan when you retire may not be suitable for you. This is especially true if you have never borrowed to invest before that.
• For this strategy to benefit you, the investments need a long-term after tax return higher than the interest after tax. This generally means stock market investments which go up & down, and sometimes have large declines. This strategy only makes sense for you if you will stay invested when your investments fall.
• It is advisable to commit to a minimum of 20 years if you do the RRIF Melt Down Strategy. This gives you a high chance of success, because the stock market has been reliable over long time periods over 20+ years in history.

What are the 3 main RRIF Meltdown Strategies?

Traditional, Tax-Efficient & Effective RRIF Meltdown Strategies.

1. Traditional RRIF Meltdown Strategy

Interest deduction offsets the starting RRIF withdrawal for year 1.

RRIF rises more slowly, but is not melted down.

This is like the simple example I previously showed.

2. Tax-Efficient RRIF Meltdown Strategy

Interest deduction offsets the rising RRIF withdrawal over the years.

Set your RRIF withdrawal based on the minimum RRIF 5 or 10 years from now, or the average minimum RRIF over your retirement. This means 5%-7%/year RRIF withdrawal.

Your investment loan would need to be larger.

3. Effective RRSP RRIF Meltdown Strategy

Investment loan large enough to melt down your RRSP/RRIF.

Set your RRIF withdrawal high enough to melt down your RRIF during your retirement. This means a withdrawal rate roughly 15%/year.

Your investment loan would need to be much larger.

What are the 4 issues for implementing the RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategy effectively?

• The RRIF Meltdown Strategy needs to make sense for you. It is best done as part of a full Retirement Income Plan and as a continuation of leverage strategies started earlier.
• There are more factors in deciding on the optimal RRIF withdrawal than just making this strategy work. The same is true with whether or how much you should borrow to invest.
• If borrowing to invest is a suitable strategy for you, you should start it long before you retire.
• The most effective method is to start a version of the RRIF Meltdown Strategy when you retire after doing Smith Manoeuvre or leveraging years before retirement.
• The Smith Manoeuvre capitalizes the interest, or you pay it as long as you are working.
• When you retire, keep your investment loan and use your RRIF to pay the interest.

What are the 6 steps to implementing the RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategy effectively?

Ed

The post RRSP/RRIF Meltdown Strategies Explained (Canadian Financial Summit 2025) appeared first on Ed Rempel.

In a recent video for the Canadian Financial Summit I talk about who the poor and wealthy are and how they got there.

Today, we’re diving deeper into one crucial aspect: how the wealthy became wealthy? 

Can their strategies work for you?

Over the years, I’ve seen the full financial picture of thousands of Canadians and read countless studies on wealth building. 

While my clients are generally higher-income, growth-focused individuals who work with a financial plan, I’ve also spoken to countless others—through my blog, in-person, and within my network of wealthy individuals. 

These insights have given me a clear understanding of who achieves financial success and the steps they took to get there.

You will learn:

• How much do you need to be “wealthy”?
• What types of people have high net worth?
• What is a “productive growth asset”?
• How much do you need to save to become wealthy?
• Do you have to borrow to invest to become wealthy?
• What does the Lifecycle Investing study tell us about growing wealth?
• How can you become wealthy?

How much do you need to be “wealthy”?

• “Wealthy” is having investments that will provide comfortably more than your desired lifestyle if you choose not to work. It is financial independence, plus a very large cushion.
• 20% more than your financial independence goal is the margin of safety. Let’s say “wealthy” is 50-100+% ahead of your goal. Enough that you don’t have to worry about money.
• For most people, this is $2.5 to $5 million in investments (excluding your home). Many are higher or lower.

What types of people have high net worth?

• Wealthy are mostly older people that saved & invested effectively through their life.
• Very few inherited it. 13% of Forbes 400 richest. Most inheritances are received in your 60s or 70s, which is likely too late to grow it enough to be wealthy. Most parents want to enjoy their life and not leave a huge inheritance, so most inheritances are not huge.
• Almost nobody won it in the lottery. (Odds are against you.)
• Almost all millionaires and billionaires made it all themselves.
• Wealthy people grow it through investments or a business.
• High income is helpful, but not essential. “It’s not what you make. It’s what you keep.”
• High income comes from learning a valuable skill. Some (not nearly all) university degrees teach you a valuable skill, such as STEM fields (like IT or engineering) or sales or the trades. Or skill as an entrepreneur.
• Wealth builds with age. The wealthy are mostly older people, say 50+, who saved & invested over the years.

Great news! You can do this! Just save a good amount & invest for growth for the long-term.

What is a “productive growth asset”?

To become wealthy, your investments should be productive growth assets – Good return that is reliable long-term, significantly more than inflation, in assets you can use for your lifestyle in the future.

The top 20% of people (not top 1%) in net worth mostly have it in their house for many people. Your house is not a productive asset, unless you will use it for your retirement income in some way:

1.      Sell it & downsize to much lower cost home or rent a home.

2.      Borrow against it to invest. E.g. Smith Manoeuvre.

3.      Borrow against it to spend.

·        To become wealthy, build your net worth of productive growth assets – excluding your home.

·        The wealthy are growth investors: Stock market (equity) investors, business owners or investors in leveraged real estate (with a large mortgage). Real estate with a large mortgage can be a good investment, but paid off rental properties are usually low return & high tax.

·        Equities (stock market or businesses) are the highest growth asset class. Equity investors & business owners both invest in businesses.·        The chart shows wealth over 40 years in stocks vs. fixed income (bonds) vs. real estate. Growth of $52,800 (average house in Toronto) in 1974 is just over $1 million now in real estate, $825,000 in fixed income, but almost $14 million in global stocks:

·        The stock market has been reliable in history over long periods of time. It is an investment in businesses that tend to grow their profits over time. Note the worst 25-year calendar gain in the modern stock market (since 1930) has been 8%/year.

How much do you need to save to become wealthy?

To become wealthy:

·        Save & invest for growth for the long-term.

·        Save a healthy amount & get a decent return on your investments.

·        For long periods, like 30 years, include inflation. You need purchasing power to afford your lifestyle.

·        How much do you need to invest? $1,000/month could get you to $1.5-2 million in 30 years – probably not wealthy. The cost of living doubles every 30 years or less, so $2 million in 30 years is like $1 million today. If you retire and withdraw 4%/year based on the 4% Rule, that is only $40,000/year, which is not wealthy!

• $2,500/month could get you to $3-5 million after 30 years – which could be “wealthy”. The cost of living doubles every 30 years or less, so $5 million in 30 years is like $2.5 million today. If you retire and withdraw 4%/year based on the 4% Rule, that is $100,000/year. Having enough to support $100,000/year for life without working might be considered “wealthy”.

• $2,500/month ($30,000/year) is the RRSP limit for people with a higher income.·       

• Higher income people can get a tax refund of 40-50% on RRSP contributions, so the after-tax contribution is only $15-18,000/year. Most higher income people should be able to do this, or more.

Do you have to borrow to invest to become wealthy?

·        No. Saving & investing for growth over the long term can make you wealthy.

·        However, borrowing to invest helps a lot for wealthy building.

·        The highest net worth people usually did significant borrowing to invest. Nearly all very wealthy people borrowed to invest in investments or their business. For example, the Smith Manoeuvre or investment loans (e.g., 3:1 investment loans) for investors, a business with a large loan, or real estate with a huge mortgage.

·        Borrowing to invest makes it far easier to become wealthy.

·        Let’s look at an example of wealth for people that leveraged vs. no leverage:

o Invest $2,500/month for 30 years at 10%/year growth: Investments $5,791,000.

o Borrow $1 million to invest for 30 years at 10%/year growth with a 5% loan and a 40% tax rate. Pay $2,500/month interest after tax: Investments $16,449,000 (after paying off loan).o Investments are almost 3 times as much with the same annual cash flow.

What does the Lifecycle Investing study tell us about growing wealth?

• “Lifecycle Investing” is a study by 2 Yale professors about saving for retirement the same way you buy your home. Borrow as much as possible when you are young and pay it off by your mid-50s and move to your target asset allocation by retirement.
• The study showed that 100% of the time this created more wealth than the normal bit-by-bit savings most people do.
• It works because you start with a large investment portfolio when you are young, so you grow more wealth.·       
• It gives you more reliable long-term growth because it reduces “last decade risk”. If you invest for 40 years from age 25-65 and your investment returns are low in the last decade from age 55-65, then your 40-year return is low, because nearly all your investments are held in the last decade. Your rate of return the first decade from age 25-35 is almost irrelevant, because you have hardly any investments then.
• Conclusion: When you are young, having a large investment portfolio is what matters much more than your rate of return. To build wealth, try to get as much money invested as possible when you are young and it can grow for 40 years – even if you have to borrow it.·       
• Note: This is not for everyone. Only for growth-focused people that want to focus on being wealthy and who will stay invested for the long term through the bear markets.

How can you become wealthy?

·        The wealthy are mostly older people that saved & invested effectively through their life.

·        Great news! You can do this! Just save a good amount & invest for growth for the long-term.

·        Here are 4 steps to become wealthy:

1.   Get a Financial Plan, so you know what “wealthy” means for you. Possibly $2.5-5 million.

• Know how much you need to save & the rate of return you need to make. Possibly $2,500+/month with a return of 8%+/year.
• Your Financial Plan is the GPS for your life. It keeps you focused on the long-term. It helps you avoid short-term mistakes.

2.   Wealth builds with age. Invest as much as possible when you are young (even if you borrow it). Save & invest early. Benefit from 40 years of compounding.

3.   Invest in equities (stock market investments), a business, or real estate with a large mortgage.

4.   Borrowing to invest (leverage) into equities is the most effective growth strategy if done by the right people in the right way over the long term. The Lifecycle Investing study is an example of how this can work over decades. It provided a more comfortable retirement and higher wealth 100% of the time in the study.

Ed

The post How Did the Wealthy Get Wealthy — and Can I Copy Them? (Canadian Financial Summit 2025) appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Imagine checking your investments after a brutal market crash like during Covid with the March 16-20, 2020: -18% week. Your balance is down 32%, and panic sets in. 

But what if I told you the biggest rebounds, like the +12% surge the very next week almost always follow? 

This isn’t luck; it’s a pattern that makes stocks more predictable (and rewarding) than the ‘random walk’ myth suggests.

For the average investor saving for retirement, understanding this could mean thousands more in your pocket annually—without switching to boring bonds. Just change your outlook and use a simple method to beat the market.

In my latest blog post, video, and podcast episode you will learn:

• What is the “Random Walk Theory”?
• Why is the stock market not a “random walk”?
• How can you use this to your advantage?
• An easy way to beat the market.

What is the “Random Walk Theory”?

The Random Walk Theory is a financial theory that states stock prices move based on a random walk, meaning changes in prices are random, unpredictable, and independent of past movements.

It is like flipping a coin where today’s market price movement is unrelated to yesterday’s or tomorrow’s. Increases and decreases in value in any time period are purely random.

It is closely related to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) that states that stock prices fully reflect all available information at any given time, so the current price of every stock is the true value.

The key Idea of the 2 theories is that future price movements cannot be reliably predicted using historical data, patterns, or analysis because new information arrives randomly and is quickly incorporated into prices. This implies it’s impossible to consistently outperform the market through stock picking, timing, or technical/fundamental analysis—any success is due to luck, not skill.

If it was true, then:

• No investor or fund manager would outperform the index except by luck.
• Fundamental analysis would not work. It is analyzing a company’s financial statements, management, industry conditions, economic factors, and intrinsic value (e.g., earnings, revenue, assets) to determine if a stock is undervalued or overvalued.
• Technical analysis would not work. It is studying past market data, primarily price charts, volume, patterns, and indicators (e.g., moving averages), assuming that historical trends and investor psychology repeat.
• Market timing and stock picking would be futile.
• The current price of every stock is the true value even during market crashes and bubbles.

Why is the stock market not a “random walk”?

The “random walk theory” states that stock market results are purely random. They are like a coin flip and unaffected by any other results before or after. It’s like a drunk stumbling down the street.

For example, if you have a coin that just flipped heads 10 times in a row, the next flip is still a 50/50 chance of either heads or tails.

However, the stock market is not like that. With the stock market, big crashes are usually followed immediately by explosive rebounds. The largest losses and largest gains are usually right after each other.

Here are the biggest gains & losses for a day, week, month, year and decade:

This means that the stock market is significantly more reliable than the random walk theory claims.

The stock market is also very irrational much of the time. Investors:

• Follow trends without logic (“herding”).
• Are often overconfident.
• Overreact to news.
• Become fixated on a specific past price such as their cost (“anchoring”).
• Have “loss aversion” that leads to holding losers too long and selling winners too soon.
• Drive the market into irrational crashes and bubbles.

All these irrational behaviours don’t fit with the efficient market theory that claims today’s stock price is the true value.

In his historic book “Stocks for the Long Run”, Prof. Jeremy Siegel proved that the Random Walk theory is not accurate for the stock market.

He showed the actual standard deviation (stat for unpredictability) of stocks, bonds & cash in real life and compared them to the random walk theory.

In this chart from his book, the dashed lines are the random walk. Note that stock market risk (unpredictability) declines much faster than random walk claims the longer you are invested. The actual standard deviation after 30 years is barely over half the random walk.

In contrast, the risk of bonds and cash declines much more slowly than the random walk the longer you are invested. For cash, the 30-year risk is more than double what the random walk predicts.

The reasons for this is that stock market big gains tend to be right after big losses.

However, bad periods of bonds and cash tend to be followed by more bad periods because they usually result from high inflation – which tends to stick around for a while when it appears.

How can you use this to your advantage?

Here are the largest calendar losses of the S&P500. Note they all have a large gain either just before or after. It’s not random.

We can use this to assume that any large loss is highly likely to be followed by a large gain. In other words, a large loss, say over 20%, has reliably been a great time to invest.

Note that assuming large gains will be followed by a large loss does not work. This is because large gains are very common. Large gains are often followed by another large gain. Since 1926, 37% of all years were gains of more than 20%, but only 6% of years were losses of more than 20%.

In short, large losses are rare and almost always followed by large gains. Large gains happen a lot, so you can’t use them to predict the next year.

An easy way to beat the market.

The market is not random and we know large losses are highly likely to be followed by a large gain.

Here is an easy way to beat the market. Stay fully invested all the time to get a return very similar to the market. Then any time there is a decline of more than 20%, use it as a buying opportunity.

If you are fully invested, how can you buy more? Get creative. There are many ways, such as:

• Contribute 2 years of contributions in one year.
• Invest from a small credit line and use your annual or monthly contributions to pay it off.
• Start a plan of borrowing to invest.

There are many ways to invest more if you are creative. The important point is to recognize that it is a good buying opportunity.

Note it is not worth delaying investments to wait for a large loss since they are relatively rare. Only 6% of years have a loss over 20%, which means they average every 17 years. It is often not that long between them, but usually too long to wait with an investment.

This is a simple rule of thumb we have been using for years to get higher returns. Any time there is a decline of more than 20%, use it as a buying opportunity.

For example, on February 10, 2009, I published a post on this blog “How to Take Advantage of the Market After the Crash of 2008”. The market had just fallen 40% the prior 6 months. Investors dumped their stocks in huge numbers with $35-40 billion in net redemptions from the stock market that month. However, with our simple rule of thumb, this was obviously a huge buying opportunity. The market ended the year up 26% even though the first 2 months were down.

Similarly, in the Covid crash of March, 2020, the market fell 34% in a month. Obvious buying opportunity – right? It then essentially recovered in only the next 2 months.

The “random walk theory” is a myth. If it was true, we would not have a simple rule like this to reliably beat the market.

Ed

The post Random Walk Theory Debunked: The Best Market Gains Follow the Worst Crashes – And One Easy Rule to Beat the Market appeared first on Ed Rempel.