45 responses

  1. Clemmie
    April 29, 2014

    This site was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally something which helped me. Appreciate it!

    Reply

  2. Brittney
    May 2, 2014

    whoah this blog is excellent i like reading your articles. Keep up the good work!

    Reply

  3. Maddison
    May 15, 2014

    Hi there, great job. I will personally recommend to my friends.
    I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this web site.

    Reply

  4. Anonymous Red
    May 21, 2014

    Received by email, to share anonymously:

    “I was watching a news presentation the other night and they were talking about a couple with medical problems. The woman was 92 and bedridden and her husband at 88 was looking after her. The interesting part was that she had been a vice president of a large company during her career and he had done well in business as well. However, they indicated that they did not have the means of additional help on weekends and the husband was worn down. How is it that people who have done exceedingly well in life can be in this position?

    “So what does it mean for people like (us) in our middle-income bracket with only government medical assisstance as well as the younger generation that are having a very hard time of it? I begin to wonder what is happening when the majority of people work hard all of their lifes and end up in these types of situations. Recent news indicates that 86 people in Canada own or control 92% of the wealth. Maybe I am wrong but I think we are heading back to the have and have-not centuries when a few controlled everything? What do you think?”

    Reply

  5. Brian Weatherdon
    May 21, 2014

    Dear “Red”,
    Your reflections are indeed very important. I wish more people would take notice of these things. Yes 86 households control or own nearly 90% of Canadian wealth — and the situation is increasingly similar in the US, UK, and other developed nations. Sad, and some will say an “evil” situation. Yet we must deal with reality as it is.

    So my focus on Life Income Mandates and the whole discussion on Guaranteed Income for Life, aim to preserve personal wellbeing & household income for today & future needs. Live life today. Preserve resources also that sustain income through future “horizons”. In a total-planning perspective, this is my vital and passionate goal.

    Reply

  6. Andrewpl
    July 12, 2014

    Nice blog )

    Reply

  7. Amber
    November 29, 2014

    Thanks – magnificent.

    Reply

  8. Brian Weatherdon
    January 27, 2016

    In his article, “Worried? Think like a Pension Fund” Guy Dixon offers this:
    “Investors should concern themselves less with market turbulence and instead focus on an asset mix that will fulfill their future income needs.” This indeed is our prime focus with “Life Income Mandates” … Dixon’s full article is at: https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20160127/SRRRSPRETIREOUTLOOK

    Reply

  9. Brian Weatherdon
    January 27, 2016

    Speaking of DIVIDEND INCOME John Heinzl asked who predicted a stock market jump (or loss) last week and the point is that no one can do that. There’s < 1% chance of usefully predicting when stock markets will rise or fall by 10%, and quite often one finds perfectly good investments losing value for a period of months. But look at the DIVIDENDS which may even keep RISING regardless of anything happening in stock markets. If our dividends tend to rise year-over-year we generally find this accelerates our investment values too. It's worth taking some time to discuss how this works, and how we can combine global Real Estate, Infrastructure, Dividends, and Fixed-Income, to assure RISING INCOME over the years ahead.

    Reply

  10. BW
    March 10, 2016

    Lynn Biscott, author and financial planner, in her retiring words as a contributor to FORUM magazine (March 2016) offers further insight on what is a responsible withdrawal rate for retirement income. “While researchers have differed on the rate to be used, many seem to have settled on the formula of four per cent of the initial value of the portfolio, with future withdrawals adjusted for inflation.” But Lynn identifies a flaw, that “while the formula may ensure that clients don’t outlive their money, a significant number of them will die with far more in their portfolio than they started with.” My take on this is that we can consider a withdrawal nearer 6% if life-income mandates will secure that rate along with indexing for inflation. Ultimately the question we each want to answer is: “is this money for spending, or for bequest” …and our planning moves forward from the results of that question.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop