Now that IS crazy!

I'm in the market. I'm often told I am wrong to be in the market during retirement. Too much risk, they say. I've ignored the advice and done remarkably well. So, I thought what if I turn a spreadsheet loose on the problem.

Say I had invested $100,000 in the market. I divided the money among the top five Canadian banks. Why? Well, historically Canadian banks never cut their dividends and its dividends that I need. Then the market crashed leaving my portfolio valued at only $50,000.

This didn't happen immediately. It took a few months but when the dust settled I had only half my money left. Should I take my remaining retirement money and get out? Or should I leave it in?

Let's say it's going to take 10 years for my portfolio to recover. For simplicity sake we'll say my investment recovers five thousand a year for ten years. (I didn't really think this through as this meant that in the first year my investment would recover $5000 or ten percent of the remaining balance. In the last year, it would also recover $5000 but on a much smaller balance. Percentage wise my portfolio would be recovering more and more each year. Oh heck, let's accept that for the moment. After all, this is only a fast spreadsheet calculation.

So, leaving my $50,000 in the bank stock, it grows at a constant $5000 per year for ten years and pays a dividend of 9% or $4500 dollars at first paid as 1.5% quarterly. Why is the yield so high. Because the banks don't cut their dividends. The cash amount remains constant but the yield number grows as the value of the investment shrinks. And over the years, as the value of the portfolio approaches its original value, the dividend yield will be back to where it started: 4.5%.

In truth, it is hard to see a portfolio of five solid banks taking ten years to recover. Three years would be a long time. And it is hard to see the banks not raising their dividends once or twice over a ten year period.

Put your money into an annuity, lock it in, lock in the monthly payment and sit back and watch that payment shrink. It will have lost a goodly amount in ten years to encroaching inflation. Put the money in the market at the wrong time, watch it shrivel and then watch it spring back in the coming months or years. Your annual payments will increase with time and at the end of ten years you will be glad you kept you were in the market.

Is this crazy? Impossible. Not really. I retired in 2009, and against all the best advise of the business page journalists with whom I worked, I put all my money in the market. ALL my money. A lot of it I put in income trusts. I bought BTH.UN composed of the top one hundred income trusts in Canada. I enjoyed a ten percent dividend.

It was too good to be true. The government put an end to the income trust game. But BTH.UN held quality units and it was very well diversified. The dividends continued, the price climbed back to where I bought in and I exited with more than I had when I entered. I had only used four percent to live and the remainder I had reinvested.

I tried to tell my former journalist co-workers about BTH.UN. They were not interested. No story there.

It is now 2020. I've been retired for eleven full years. My pension is peanuts and I need my portfolio to live. I remove what the government demands from my RIF every year. This coming year I must remove 5.4%. I will and I won't. I cannot afford to deplete my capital that but I must -- sorta. I will move 5.4% of my holdings in-kind into my TFSA and my non-registered portfolio accounts. That money will not be taxed until next year. There's no tax in the year of withdrawal on the minimum withdrawal amount.

To live I remove the dividends that have accumulated, up to about four percent of my holdings. Presently, I am making more than five percent in dividends but my dividends may get cut in the coming months. (I can squeak by on a 3.75% yield.)

I retired eleven years ago with X amount of money. It was an amount far less than the financial advisors told me I should have. Buy annuities I was told. I put the money in the market. Today, after living on my savings for eleven years, and after the recent collapse, I have my original funds multiplied by 1.6.

I still read stuff that is wrong in the paper and I still try to tell the reporters there are other ways to look at the numbers. I am not just ignored but occasionally blocked (on Twitter). Now, that is crazy!

(This post has been re-edited to correct a whole slew of truly stupid math errors. I need an editor, badly. There were some editors at the newspaper who were, as they say, worth their weight in gold. Some of the folk working at your daily paper are absolutely brilliant.)