Many Canadians with $1 million or more saved for retirement still feel financially insecure.

I see this all the time.

People work hard, save consistently, invest for decades, and build substantial portfolios, yet still aren’t sure they can retire comfortably.

In many cases, the issue is not a lack of money. It’s a lack of clarity.

Most people have never defined what they actually want their retirement lifestyle to look like or created a proper financial plan that shows how their investments, taxes, income, and spending all work together over time.

A financial plan is really a life plan. Once you connect the numbers to the lifestyle you want, retirement often becomes much clearer and less stressful.

In my latest article for Money PIP, I’ll explain:

• Why many Canadians still feel uncertain about retirement, even with significant savings
• The real question you should ask instead of “Do I have enough to retire?”
• Why retirement lifestyle matters more than generic savings targets
• How inflation, taxes, CPP, OAS, and withdrawal strategies affect your long-term income
• Why many people are financially independent earlier than they realize
• How a comprehensive financial plan can help give you confidence in your future

CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE ARTICLE BY VARSHA:

Why Does Retirement Feel Uncertain – Even with a Large Portfolio?

Canadians have followed traditional retirement advice for years. Work hard. Save consistently. Invest wisely. Pay off debt. Many households have done exactly that. Yet a surprising number still feel uncertain about retiring comfortably. How can you have confidence you will have financial freedom?

Financial planner and blogger Ed Rempel says this disconnect shows up in conversations with clients who appear financially prepared on paper but feel uneasy about the future.

“A lot of people actually have more than enough to retire,” says Rempel. “But they still feel uncertain because they’ve never figured out what their retirement lifestyle looks like or created a proper financial plan that shows the numbers will work.”

In Canada, retirement anxiety is common. A BMO survey from February 2026 found Canadians now believe they need about $1.7 million to retire comfortably, up from $1.54 million in 2025. At the same time, about 36% of Canadians say they are unlikely to reach their retirement savings goal.

Concerns about inflation also change how Canadians view retirement. An earlier survey by the same bank found that nearly 63% of Canadians say rising living costs have increased their worries that retirement savings will not last long enough.

Despite these fears, Rempel says households that seek financial advice are actually in better shape than they realize. The problem is not always a lack of savings. Usually, the issue is uncertainty about what those savings are meant to support.

“People ask, ‘Do I have enough money to retire?’” says Rempel. “The real question should be ‘Enough for what?’”

A financial plan is really a life plan – what is the life you want and will be able to afford? It should let you look at different lifestyles and investing strategies until you find one that is both a reasonable retirement lifestyle and reasonable for you to achieve.

For example, you may find that you are investing too conservatively or in a way that costs too much in tax for your investments to provide for you after inflation. A financial plan should allow you to ask, “What would it take to afford extras we want, such as more travel.”

Retirement numbers can feel abstract without a defined lifestyle attached to them. Some retirees plan to travel frequently, maintain two homes, or spend heavily on hobbies and family experiences. Others want a quieter retirement with lower costs. Without knowing what retirement will look like day to day, many people struggle to determine whether their savings will truly support their future.

Research suggests that this uncertainty is common. Surveys from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board show that 59% of Canadians worry about outliving their savings. Simultaneously, people who work with a structured financial plan tend to report higher confidence about their long-term savings.

According to Rempel, a comprehensive financial plan is the only way to be confident that you will have enough for the lifestyle you want – and exactly what to do to achieve it.

It changes how people think about retirement by integrating investments, income, taxes, and desired spending into a single long-term plan.

“A strong investment portfolio is important, but confidence usually comes from seeing how everything works together over time,” he says.

Retirement discussions focus heavily on large savings targets. Headlines frequently suggest Canadians need more than $1 million to retire. Those figures can create anxiety, especially for people who feel they are falling short.

Yet these broad estimates rarely reflect the personal part of retirement spending. Someone who plans to travel extensively or support adult children financially may need far more than someone with modest lifestyle goals. Rempel says personalized planning reveals that a person’s actual retirement needs differ significantly from national averages.

“When clients see projections showing their income lasting for life, even after accounting for inflation, the uncertainty often disappears. They finally see how their savings translate into real income,” he explains.

Canada’s retirement system also adds more challenges. Government benefits such as the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security form a foundation for many retirees, but the timing of those benefits, tax considerations, and withdrawal strategies from registered accounts can impact long-term income and tax.

A good plan lets retirees model these factors over decades, rather than relying on rough estimates. That process can reveal how different choices affect financial security later in life. It can give you confidence in your future.

Rempel says many clients initially approach retirement planning with significant hesitation. Some believe they must continue working for several more years. Others fear that unexpected expenses or a market downturn could derail their plans.

Yet the results of a thorough analysis often surprise them.

“Once we map out their lifestyle and run the projections, a lot of people find they are already financially independent,” says Rempel. “The money was there all along. They just needed a plan that showed them exactly what to do and how it would last.”

The post Money PIP article: Why Does Retirement Feel Uncertain – Even with a Large Portfolio? appeared first on Ed Rempel.

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.

Should you delay retirement… or are you closer than you think?

I was asked by the National Post to review the finances of a 62-year-old deciding whether to defer Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security to 70, and whether to keep working longer.

Some of the answers go directly against what most people assume.

In this article, you’ll learn:

• How she can retire with only $700K+ and her pension
• Why she should defer Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security because of her portfolio, and when the answer would be different
• Why she does not need cash for an emergency fund and can use a credit line instead
• Why she should not use investments to pay off her mortgage
• Why she should renew her mortgage as soon as she can
• Why an annuity can make her retirement less secure
• The difference between the yield of an annuity and the rate of return
• How she can provide reliable cash flow with minimal tax using self-made dividends

CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE ARTICLE BY MARY TERESA BITTI:

Should Caroline, 62, defer CPP and OAS until age 70, or even delay retirement entirely?

Financial Plan

Caroline wants to retire in 3 years at age 65 with an income of about $88,000/year before tax. This should give her the same after tax cash flow as she is making now with a salary of $102,000, since she won’t have to pay into her company pension, CPP or EI after she retires.

Good news! To do this, she needs a portfolio of $735,000. She is projected to have $737,000. She should have exactly enough so that she should be able to retire when she wants with the lifestyle she wants.

It is generally advisable to have 10-20% extra to give her a margin of safety, and she has no margin of safety. However, she should be okay to maintain her lifestyle for life.

This assumes that her RRSP and TFSA are 100% equities, but her advisor LIRA is more conservative in a balanced portfolio with a lower return. Her current mortgage payments should pay off her mortgage in 21 years.

Caroline needs this type of planning. She has enough to retire with the lifestyle she wants, but does not know it. She is still wondering whether to delay retirement. A financial plan is the only way to be able to retire confident that you will always have enough for the lifestyle you want.

Questions

She is prepared to take on a part-time job after she retires, but would prefer not to have to work at all. She’s just not sure that will be possible. “Should I delay retirement?” she asked, before stating “I’d retire next year if I could.”

She should be able to retire without having to work and not have to delay her retirement.

She plans to supplement her employer pension by drawing down her registered investments and start taking CPP and OAS at age 70. “At that point, there won’t be as much in my Registered Savings Plan, which should help minimize tax. Is this a good strategy?”

In Caroline’s case, deferring CPP & OAS to age 70 is a good strategy, but it won’t save her tax. Deferring to age 70 gives her an implied return of 6.8%/year, which is likely a bit higher than her investment returns, since quite a bit is in the more conservative balanced portfolio. If all her investments were 100% equities, then she would have a 10% margin of safety in her retirement goal and she could then start CPP & OAS at age 65, since her higher return investments should provide more than the pensions.

Her RRSP & LIRA and CPP & OAS are all taxable, so the deferring will not change her taxable income. Her opportunity to save tax is if she takes some of her income every year from her TFSA and less from her RRSP. She should keep some TFSA in case of emergencies, so she should not take too much of her TFSA.

For an emergency source of funds, she should apply for a credit line secured on her home and an unsecured credit line now while she is working. She can keep these through retirement to use for cash emergencies. This can allow her to use more of her TFSA for cash flow and perhaps keep only $25-50,000 in it.

She has about $14,000 in remaining RRSP contribution room and $16,000 in TFSA contribution room. “Should I continue to fund my RSPs? My TFSA? Or should I pay down my mortgage more?” asked Caroline, who would also like to know how soon she should start looking to renew her mortgage, which matures next year. She is concerned interest rates may start to rise because of the war in the Middle East and all of the geopolitical uncertainty.

Caroline brings home about $5,500/month now which is about the same as she is spending, so she probably is not able to save much. She is in a slightly higher tax bracket now while working than she will be in during retirement, so she should maximize her RRSP room first, even if she has to withdraw from her TFSA to do it.

Her mortgage rate is lower than her investment returns over time, so she should only make the minimum mortgage payments and not do any prepayments.

Generally, banks allow you to renew up to 3 months early if you renew with the same bank. Today’s rates are lower than her 5.45% mortgage, so she should renew as soon as the bank allows.

She should not worry about the geopolitical issues in the Middle East, since they are likely to be short term and should be resolved long before her mortgage comes due. She would pay a penalty to renew now instead of next year, so she can wait until next year and renew when she can to avoid the mortgage prepayment penalty.

Caroline also wonders if she should consider putting her investments into an annuity before she retires. She likes the idea of receiving a regular income stream. If not an annuity, she’d like to know the best way to generate dividend income. 

Annuities are invested more conservatively and have an estimated rate of return inside the annuity of about 4%, which is much lower than her investments. They may quote a yield about 6.7% today, but the yield is the cash flow she would get including her principal amount. The yield is not the rate of return. She would have to work part time for a few years if she decides to invest in an annuity.

Annuities would make her retirement less secure because the income is too low to provide for the life she wants.

The best way to get dividend “income” is with “self-made dividends”, which means just selling a bit of her investments every month for her lifestyle. This gives her a mix of capital gains and the return of her capital, which is taxed lower than actual dividends. Actual dividends are fully taxable immediately, unless she invests only in Canada where returns are generally quite a bit lower than global or US equities.

“Self-made dividends” are better than actual dividends in every way. She would pay less tax, be able to decide the exact cash flow and timing she would get, and she could invest globally for the best risk/return, instead of having to invest entirely within Canada.

Caroline actually needs cash flow, not income. Income is taxable cash flow. She needs a reliable source of cash flow with ideally very little tax.

Ed

The post National Post article: Should Caroline, 62, defer CPP and OAS until age 70, or even delay retirement entirely? 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.

Most Canadian families with kids who have disabilities are missing out on the RDSP.

It’s one of the most generous programs we have — but a lot of people who qualify for it either don’t know about it or don’t use it properly.

In my latest article with Business News This Week, I break down:

• How $1,500 can get you $3,500 in grants (that’s $5,000 total)
• Why some families can get up to $1,000/year — even without contributing
• The key age rules (these matter more than you think)
• Why RDSPs are usually best invested for long-term growth
• The big withdrawal mistake that can cost you grants
• How RDSPs fit with TFSAs and RESPs

If you qualify, this can make a big difference over time.

CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL FEATURE HERE:

How RDSPs Can Help Canadian Families

Families in Canada who have kids with disabilities don’t know about the financial tools that are available to them. One powerful tool is the Registered Disability Savings Plan, or RDSP. An RDSP is a savings account that provides long-term security for people eligible for the Disability Tax Credit. While the concept might seem complicated at first, knowing the basics can help families take full advantage of its benefits. 

Ed Rempel, a financial planner and blogger in Toronto, says too many families miss out. “A lot of people qualify for the Disability Tax Credit but don’t use RDSPs,” he explains. “An RDSP is a generous savings vehicle that helps parents give their children something extra for the future.” He notes that even small contributions can accumulate over decades thanks to the government’s support and long-term investment growth. 

With an RDSP, funds should stay in the account until the beneficiary turns 60. This way, contributions and investment growth can accumulate for decades. The Canadian government adds to these savings with generous grants and bonds. If your family income is less than $114,750, you can contribute just $1,500 and get a Canada Disability Savings Grant of $3,500. That is more than double your contribution! The maximum lifetime grant is $70,000, which you can get with 20 years of contributions of $1,500.

If your income is over $114,750, then you only contribute $1,000 and get a grant of $1,000. Meanwhile, the Canada Disability Savings Bond offers up to $1,000 just for having your RDSP open, even if you can’t contribute, which can be very helpful for low-income households.

To open an RDSP, the beneficiary must be under 50, have a Social Insurance Number, and qualify for the Disability Tax Credit. Contributions can be made by parents, grandparents, or others, and can continue until the beneficiary turns 49. While there’s no yearly contribution limit, the lifetime contribution cap is $200,000.

Because the account is meant to grow for decades, the investment strategy is a big consideration. A lot of financial planners, including Rempel, recommend investing primarily in equities. “Since RDSPs are long-term by design, holding equities fits my philosophy. It lets the money grow more over time, giving beneficiaries a stronger financial foundation.” The goal is to let the money benefit from the power of compound growth, which can increase the total amount available when the funds are eventually accessed.

RDSPs are designed to be a retirement income for disabled people. There are significant penalties if you withdraw within 10 years of your last contribution, so if you contribute until age 49, you should not start withdrawing until age 60.

Families should also understand the rules around withdrawals. Contributions can be withdrawn at any time, but government grants and bonds are subject to a 10-year repayment rule. If funds are withdrawn early, grants and bonds received in the past 10 years might have to be repaid up to 3 times the withdrawal amount. The RDSP is supposed to be a long-term savings account, not a short-term fund, so families must plan accordingly. 

Maximizing the benefits of an RDSP extends beyond opening an account. Families should try to start as early as possible and contribute regularly. The government’s matching grants and bonds can grow a lot over time. Even moderate contributions, when combined with the grants and bonds and invested effectively, can grow into a significant amount by the time the beneficiary reaches 50 or above.

Coordination with other financial planning is also essential. Because RDSP funds typically cannot be used until later in life, the account complements shorter-term savings tools like TFSAs or RESPs rather than replacing them. Planning contributions around other financial goals helps families meet immediate needs while building long-term security.

Professional guidance can help individuals understand the technical rules of RDSPs. Financial planners can advise on contribution timing, investment strategies, and withdrawal planning. “Even though the rules can seem complex, the benefits are worth it. Families who set up and contribute to an RDSP are giving their children a financial advantage they would not otherwise have,” Rempel concludes.

For families with kids who qualify, the RDSP provides long-term security and opportunity. By starting early, contributing consistently, and investing wisely, families can create a powerful financial resource that supports their loved ones for decades. In the long run, this kind of planning can offer peace of mind, knowing that children with disabilities will have access to resources that help them live with independence and dignity.

Ed

The post Business News This Week article: Ed Rempel From Toronto Explains How RDSPs Can Help Canadian Families appeared first on Ed Rempel.

If you’re reading this because you feel uncertain about money, work, or what you’re supposed to have figured out by now, let’s start here:

That feeling is normal—far more normal than most people admit.

Early adulthood comes with a lot of quiet pressure. Pressure to know what you’re doing, to move quickly, to make the “right” decisions before it’s too late. What often gets missed is that very little is actually explained clearly at this stage, and almost nothing comes with context.

That’s why this corner exists.

What This Space Is Meant to Be

The Youth Corner is a place to slow things down—not to avoid responsibility, but to approach it more thoughtfully.

Here, the goal isn’t to rush you toward action. It’s to help you understand how decisions work over time, so that when you do act, it feels deliberate rather than reactive.

This includes conversations about money, careers, and life direction—but always with an emphasis on clarity, patience, and long‑term thinking.

You don’t need a five‑year plan to benefit from that. You just need the willingness to think.

Who This Is For

This space is for people who are early in the process of figuring things out.

That might mean you’re earning money for the first time. Or questioning your career direction. Or comparing yourself to others and wondering if you missed a step. It might simply mean you want reliable explanations without hype or judgment.

You don’t need to feel confident to belong here. Confidence tends to follow understanding, not the other way around.

What You Won’t Find Here

You won’t find hustle culture, shortcuts, or promises of fast outcomes.

Those approaches usually create urgency without clarity—and urgency is rarely helpful early on. Good decisions, especially around money, tend to improve when pressure is removed and context is added.

You also won’t find judgment. Most people learn through a mix of trial, error, and hindsight. That’s not a flaw—it’s how experience works.

A Thought on Expertise

One important thing to be clear about: this space is educational, not a replacement for professional advice.

Some decisions—particularly financial ones—are better made with the help of qualified experts. A good financial planner or advisor doesn’t rush you or overwhelm you. They listen, explain trade‑offs, and help you apply good thinking to your specific situation.

Learning how money works helps you ask better questions.
Working with an expert helps you apply those answers responsibly.

The two are meant to complement each other.

Looking Ahead

Over time, the Youth Corner will explore topics like money basics, non‑linear careers, decision‑making under uncertainty, and long‑term thinking in a short‑term world.

Nothing here assumes you have everything figured out. Most people don’t—and that doesn’t prevent them from building stable, meaningful lives.

One Last Thing

If there’s a single idea worth taking from this first post, it’s this:

You’re not behind.
You’re early in a long process that gets clearer with understanding, not speed.

Taking the time to think before you feel “ready” is not hesitation. It’s how thoughtful decisions are usually made.

Welcome to the Youth Corner.
Take your time here.

A Note from the Author

Hi—I’m Sabiha.

If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you’re trying to make sense of money, work, or what your future is supposed to look like. And if that feels confusing or heavier than you expected, I want you to know something right away:

That’s normal.

Most people don’t feel confident early on—not because they lack ability, but because no one really sits down and explains how these pieces fit together. We’re often expected to make big decisions long before we’re given context, perspective, or space to ask questions.

I didn’t create the Youth Corner to tell you what to do or to rush you toward “adult” milestones. I created it to give you a calmer place to learn how money works, how decisions compound over time, and when it makes sense to ask for help.

You don’t need to have everything figured out to start building a strong foundation. You don’t need to move fast. What matters far more is understanding why certain choices matter—and which ones can safely wait.

This space is here to help you think clearly, ask better questions, and feel more confident about the direction you’re taking, even when the path isn’t obvious yet. And when it comes time to make bigger decisions, I’ll always encourage you to work with qualified professionals who can guide you thoughtfully and responsibly.

You’re not behind. You’re early in a long process.

Take your time.
I’m glad you’re here.

— Sabiha

The post A calm guide who takes you seriously—and remembers what it felt like not to know yet. appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Planning for your own future is one thing. Planning for a child who may never be able to manage their own finances is something else entirely.

That’s the situation one Ontario couple is facing.

They’ve done what most people would consider “all the right things” — a will, savings, insurance, and government benefits, but they’re still unsure if their plan will fully support their son over the long term.

When a child relies on programs like ODSP, even good planning decisions can have unintended consequences if they’re not structured properly.

In this case, I review their strategy and highlight what’s working, what needs adjustment, and where they may be leaving money or flexibility on the table.

In this article, you’ll learn:

• Why a common assumption about Henson Trusts is often misunderstood
• What happens to government benefits as other income sources begin
• The impact of conservative investing on long-term income
• Potential gaps in this couple’s current plan
• A key timing decision that could significantly impact taxes later on

If you’re planning for a family member with a disability, the structure of your plan matters just as much as the amount you save.

CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE ARTICLE BY MARY TERESA BITTI:

How can an Ontario couple ensure their disabled son is taken care of after they die?

Financial Plan

Anthony & Chelsea are already doing a lot of things right to help provide for their son for life, including maximizing the RDSP contributions, applying for all the government programs, the life insurance policy, naming him as the survivor on Chelsea’s pension, the Henson Trust, and the estate planning they have done to split their estate between their 2 children.

Son is 28 years old. He will have several sources of income that will vary through his life.

From now until he is 60, his income is ODSP of about $17,000/year and income from his parents.

At age 60, he can start withdrawing from his RDSP. If they continue to maximize it by contributing $1,500/year and getting the grant of $3,500/year, plus they earn about 4%/year with GIC investments, they should have about $400,000. With only fixed income investments, they should withdraw only about 2.5%/year rising by inflation, which is about $10,000/year income. Considering it is 30 years from now, that is roughly the equivalent of $4,000/year today. This may seem surprisingly low with all the saving, but GIC interest is barely above inflation.

When Chelsea and Anthony both pass away in 30+ years (assuming average health and the second one to die), their son will get 60% of Chelsea’s pension and lose ODSP, but that should be an increase in income for him.

He should also get their life insurance of about $700,000 which should go into his Henson Trust. If it is invested in GICs averaging 4%/year again, that is an additional $17,500/year. Considering it is likely 30 years from now, that should buy what about $7,000/year buys now.

The son turning 60 and the parents passing away leaving the pension and insurance may all happen about 30 years from now.

In today’s dollars, his income 30 years from now should increase by the equivalent of $4,000/year from the RDSP and $7,000/year from the life insurance, both in today’s dollars, plus the extra proceeds from the pension which could be $20-40,000/year, plus OAS of $9,000/year. This is a total of about $40,000-60,000/year, or $3,500-$5,000/month.

“Are we doing all the right things? Is a Henson Trust the way to go, given only up to $10,000 a year can be withdrawn?”

Yes, a Henson Trust (an absolute discretionary trust) remains one of the best tools in Ontario for families in this situation. It allows you to leave an unlimited inheritance without it counting as an asset for ODSP eligibility, which means the trust’s full value (even if millions) won’t disqualify him from ODSP or other supports. This is because the trustees have complete discretion over distributions; your son has no legal right to demand funds, so the assets aren’t “his” under ODSP rules.

The $10,000 limit is a common misconception. It’s not a hard cap on total withdrawals but rather the annual exemption for non-disability-related expenses (e.g., gifts, entertainment, or general living costs). Unlimited distributions are allowed for approved disability-related items or services without affecting ODSP, such as personal support workers, medical equipment, therapy, transportation, modifications to a retirement residence, or even rent if tied to accessibility needs. Trustees can pay these directly to providers to avoid counting as income.

In their case, the Henson Trust would be for the half of their estate their son would get plus the life insurance policy. A reliable long-term withdrawal from a $700,000 life insurance policy invested in GICs is about $17,500/year rising by inflation. That is not a lot more than the $10,000 limit on non-disability expenses, so the $10,000 limit may not be a problem.

A Henson Trust requires annual work. Trustees must file annual reports to ODSP documenting transactions. Poor management could lead to overpayments or clawbacks. Also, after 21 years, undistributed income must be paid out annually, but this is manageable with good planning and tax-efficient investments.

Anthony and Chelsea also appreciate that when their child starts receiving Chelsea’s pension, ODSP payments will be completely clawed back. Is there a way to ensure he can access the money that is being saved for his future and maintain government assistance? 

Chelsea’s pension will likely eliminate the ODSP income, since it is income and will trigger the dollar-for-dollar clawback. However, the pension only starts once both Chelsea and Anthony are gone, which is likely 30+ years from now if they are average health. Their son should get ODSP until then.

They might be able to qualify for partial ODSP in some cases, such as if living costs are high, but under current rules, the rest of the ODSP will be lost.

OAS should start for their son when he is 65, which is likely about the time he may get the pension. OAS would likely already clawback more than half of the ODSP.

Essentially this means that their son should get the ODSP income or the pension, whichever is higher, for life.

While their son, who is 28, will continue to live with his parents until they die, Anthony and Chelsea anticipate he will likely move to a retirement residence, and want to make sure he can afford to live comfortably.

Retirement homes that accommodate major disabilities are expensive, so they should plan to make sure there will be enough money. Today in Ontario, they can cost $5,000-$8,000/month or more, especially if additional services are necessary.

The ODSP pays $1,408/month (almost $17,000/year) for a single person. There is a shelter allowance up to about $600/month, but usually this does not apply for retirement homes.

In today’s dollars, his income 30 years from now should increase by the equivalent of $4,000/year from the RDSP and $7,000/year from the life insurance, both in today’s dollars, plus the extra proceeds from the pension which could be $20-40,000/year, plus OAS of $9,000/year. This is a total of about $40,000-60,000/year, or $3,500-$5,000/month.

All this leaves him very tight to pay for a retirement home of $5,000-$8,000/month. He should be able to get a basic retirement home for $3,500-$5,000/month.

RDSPs are ideal for long-term investing and is designed for it. You contribute to age 49 and do not start withdrawing anything until age 60. Therefore, investing for more growth could be a very good fit. Investing in a balanced or growth portfolio would require advice for them, since it would be a significant change from GICs, but it should be able to increase their son’s income to $5,000-$6,500/month, which should be enough for a decent retirement home. If a principal guarantee is important to them, they could invest in balanced or growth investments with segregated funds.

Their son’s income would be higher both because of a larger portfolio and being able to reliably withdraw more, which is why they should be able to increase their son’s income for life by $1,500/month in today’s dollars rising by inflation. If they invest the RDSP in a balanced portfolio, it should grow to about $800,000 instead of just $400,000 in 30 years. An equity portfolio should give them about $1.2 million. They should also be able to reliably withdraw 4%/year from both the RDSP and the insurance proceeds, instead of just 2.5%/year.

To make sure they are preserving as much of their capital as possible for both their children when they inherit the estate, the couple would also like advice on the most tax-effective strategy to withdraw money from their RRSPs, which are fully invested in Guaranteed Investment Certificates. Their plan is to reinvest what they withdraw into unregistered GICs and take the tax hit knowing they are in a low tax bracket, as opposed to waiting until our deaths and our sons having to pay estate taxes at a substantially higher tax rate. Is this the right approach?

Possibly, but it is too soon. Their remaining RRSPs or RRIFs when they both pass away will be fully taxed. The amount over $258,000 is taxed at 54% (more than half!) Today, their marginal tax bracket on their first $58,000 of taxable income each ($108,000 total) is only taxed at 19%. That’s a lot less if you compare paying tax on $10,000 of income of $1,900 today vs $5,400 in 30 years.

However, they would have to pay $1,900 in tax now. If it stayed in their RRSP for 30 years and grew at 4%/year, it should grow to $6,200. That means paying $1,900 now and removing it from their investments costs them more than paying $5,400 in 30 years!

In addition, the GIC interest on the non-registered GICs they would buy would also be taxable every year.

Their best strategy would be to start at about age 75-80. At that time, they should each withdraw as much as they can while staying in the lowest tax bracket by keeping both of their taxable incomes below $58,000/year.

Ed

The post National Post article: How can an Ontario couple ensure their disabled son is taken care of after they die? appeared first on Ed Rempel.

Have you ever stopped and really asked yourself:

“What does money mean to me?”

As financial advisors/ planners, we spend so much time talking about returns, projections, and strategies that we sometimes forget the most important element in a financial plan — the client’s relationship with money.

Over the years, I’ve learned that before we talk about investments or retirement, we need to talk about meaning. Because money isn’t just numbers — it’s emotions, values, fears, hopes, and identity.

What Money Means to Me

Personally, money represents comfort and care — the ability to make life smoother not only for my immediate family but for my extended family too. It means being able to provide, support, and uplift. And if it means working harder or longer for that, I’m prepared to do it.

But that’s my meaning — and each person has their own.

What Money Represents to Different People

For some, money is:

• Power“I can do what I want. I’m in control. I’m strong.”
• Happiness: “If I have enough money, I can solve every problem.”
• Security: “My family and I are safe if our finances are safe.”
• Freedom: “Financial independence will give me the life I want.”
• Love: “Money makes relationships easier. People will value me more.”
• Respect: “I worked hard and earned this — I deserve recognition.”

None of these meanings are right or wrong. But they are important — because they drive decisions.

Why Understanding Money Values Matters

When we know what money truly represents for you:

• Your financial goals become clearer
• Your priorities fall into place
• Your behaviours make more sense
• And your plan becomes realistic rather than idealistic

Sometimes people chase goals that don’t align with their values at all. That’s when stress, guilt, or impulsive decisions happen.

So before planning, investing, or budgeting, it’s worth asking: Is the way I think about money actually practical? Does it support my life decisions — or sabotage them?

Money Is a Tool — Not the Goal

This is the most important part. Money is simply a tool — one that helps you create:

• Financial independence
• A comfortable lifestyle
• A buffer against uncertainty
• Opportunities for your family

But it’s not something we can control perfectly. And it won’t last forever unless we manage it wisely. Note that I say manage money — not “being debt-free,” “cash-rich,” or “asset-rich.”

Because proper management is what actually helps you reach your goals.

Three Principles I Live By and ask our clients to do so.

1. Make your money work for you.

Invest it wisely.

Don’t fear calculated risk.

Historically, staying invested through market ups and downs has always paid off.

2. Be your own advisor — but don’t go it alone.

Use experts who understand your values.

A good financial planner is like a money doctor:

they diagnose, treat, and guide with care.

3. Don’t let money ruin your life.

Don’t stress.

Don’t obsess.

Don’t compare.

Focus on your goals, your plan, and your journey.

And of course — Keep smiling.

Final Thought

Understanding your money values is the foundation of a strong financial plan. Once you know what money truly means to you, the rest becomes clearer: Your goals. Your decisions. Your path.

Money or wealth is not the destination. It’s just the vehicle.

The post What Does Money Mean to You? 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.