Why are newspapers such questionable sources of financial advice?

I worked for decades in the news businesses. I worked at two newspapers and one television station. During that time I learned that newspaper folk, if they are reporters they like to be called journalists, often get caught up in the stories of the day. For that reason, I like the term reporter rather than journalist.

There are two big stories in the news today: corona virus or COVID-19 and the ongoing oil pricing and pumping war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. The financial crisis story is a result of the first two stories.

Reporters deliver quickly gathered stories surrounding the events of the day; ideally, journalists keep us informed with factual, in-depth stories set in the proper context. And still we readers often come away with the wrong immediate impression of a story? Why? Answer: headlines. Headline writers strive for punch and brevity. I've often heard reporters complain about the headline used to draw attention to their stories. Unfortunately, headlines set the tone for the story and do it before we've read even one word. That can be a problem.

For instance, today I read an article by Post Media's Financial Post that carried the headline 'Disasterous': Seniors face double threat from pandemic as retirement portfolios walloped by markets in turmoil. The dek, the summary appearing below the headline, went on to claim negative returns at a time of withdrawals mean retirees risk running out of money. Petty frightening stuff.

To illustrate the problem the article told the story of a 75-year-old (couple) with a $500,000 portfolio. They planned to  live on this money for ten years at a withdrawal rate of $50,000 per year. A 20 per cent drop in capital would reduce their annual income by $10,000 to only $40,000.

If you think about this story, it doesn't add up. Not a all. This is a financially astute couple. They have managed to accumulate $500,000 outside a RRIF. This means they can make withdrawals free of withholding tax. And they do not have to deal with withdrawal limits as they would if the funds were in an RLIF.

How do we know our fictional couple does not have a RIF. Simple. The story goes on to say that there are also implications for those with RRIFs.

So, let me flesh out the story of our fictional couple. They must have been invested in equities or they would not have lost 20 per cent of their money. More than likely, they were aware of the promise and the threat inherent in investing in stocks.

As investors, and clearly successful ones, they understood how money grows when invested. A mixed ultimate-growth portfolio of pure equities and no bonds, 70% Canadian and 30% U.S. stocks, a common mix, grew at an average rate of about 9% over the past ten years. They might have hoped to see that growth continue. If this was their thinking, their dream may have been optimistic but it was not unreasonable.

Link to calculator.

See the graph on the left. It is amazing. It shows the results of making an annual withdrawal of $50,000 from a $500,000 portfolio which is growing at an average rate of nine per cent. It takes 26 years to be bled dry.

Our couple had their $500,000 portfolio pared down to $400,000 by the bear market and then they removed $50,000 to live. They were left with only $350,000.

It is amazing but with only $350,000, our couple could still withdraw $50,000 annually and have it last 14 years. All that's necessary is that the growth rate remain at nine per cent.

A bear market loss of 20 per cent removes an investor's rose-coloured glasses. Our fictional couple would be concerned. They might even panic and look for a solid investment with a dividend yield not threatened by a dividend cut. One investment that answers our couple's needs is CIBC. Its yield recently hit just more than 8.3% when the stock fell to a low of almost $70, down from a high of nearly $116 in the last year.

Canadian banks are known for not cutting their dividends, even in tough times. The dividends won't be increased, possibly for a number of years, but they also be cut. Buying CIBC would not be unreasonable. A $350,000 portfolio of CIBC stock with a dividend yield of eight per cent might very well last 10 years. They could have bought 4997 shares of CIBC paying  an annual dividend of $5.84 for a total annual dividend income in the first year of $29,182.48. They will have to deplete their equity holdings by only $20,817.52 in the spring of 2021.

Of course, our couple would be keeping their fingers crossed that they managed to buy in at the ultimate low. Only time will tell if they did. But the CIBC stock has already climbed back to $84.46. And their portfolio of $350,000 is now valued at more than $420,000. Remember, their annual dividend income is now in the neighbourhood of $29,180 annually. They only need to redeem $20,820 in equities in the coming year. With a dividend of 8.34% calculated on the cost of their shares when purchased, I believe their portfolio will last the full ten years. (I confess, I'm surprised.)

Somethings to keep in mind: the average Canadian bear market lasts only 10 months, and that is using the Royal Banks figures based on a bear market kicking in when a 15% decrease in value from the market high occurs. The longest bear market lasted 23 months according to the RBC and the shortest only three months. The bank also says that historically after a bear market, a significant bull bear market follows.

It appears our couple is safe and may well realize a better outcome than most would imagine possible while we are still in the depths of a serious market correction.

I'm retired and I'm in the market. I have to be. I could not live on the interest being paid outside the market.

I could see the virus storm on the horizon. Everyone knew Saudi Arabia and Russia were about to get into a financial fracas. I got out of the market and went to cash.

I put half my portfolio back in the market when a full correction based on my holdings had occurred. I put the second half of my portfolio back in the market when it had fallen deeply into bear market territory. Now, I am sitting back to weather the storm. My income from my investments has actually increased by about 65 per cent. I'm ready to batten down the hatches and weather any dividend cuts that come my way. You see, I live on my dividends. I do not part with equity easily.

And how has my approach worked out for me? Well, check the chart of my one portfolio. I have to have a number of portfolios. One cannot mix RIFs, LIFs, TFSAs and non-registered accounts. My portfolio is the purple line with dots and the nice up-tick at its end.

And did I mention that I bought some CIBC when the price crashed?