Topic: The money thread

[ArticSteve]

US is nowhere near the Gini coefficient levels that you can see in a lot of other countries.

Although the US population is highly weaponized and massively undereducated (the Trumpster's election being Exhibit 1) which skews the entire metric.

[johngenx]

US is nowhere near the Gini coefficient levels that you can see in a lot of other countries.

Although the US population is highly weaponized and massively undereducated (the Trumpster's election being Exhibit 1) which skews the entire metric.

True, but the US has a poor Gini compared to most other well developed nations.  And the Trump factor now can't be discounted - ugh.  A culture of hate.

[Barton]

^^^  wow, I posted that very link just a few posts ago.  WTF?  You stalking me again?

 

The map sucks, but the data is good.  Gini coefficient is the number one predictor of crime rates.  Seriously.  On a macro or micro level.  As part of my thesis during my M.A. I studied the relationship between poverty and crime, and the real deal isn't poverty - it's the disparity.  But, because it also works on a macro level, it means that world-wide, poor countries have a lot more crime thanks to the overall disparity.  It's actually a very interesting topic.  The oft-maligned Canadian Jordan Peterson has done some great work on determining causal relationships - his work is very robust.  His main issue is that he's a jackass in person and doesn't relate well on a human level, but his work is terrific.

The outcome is as we suspected, where a strong middle class and low disparity is the healthiest in terms of many outcomes, but the Jordan and some others have done really solid analysis proving it.

A lot of Middle Eastern countries have a low Gini coefficient.  Are you suggesting that they will have less crime?

[johngenx]

A lot of Middle Eastern countries have a low Gini coefficient.  Are you suggesting that they will have less crime?

Sometimes they do.  Nations where everyone is poor can have low crime, but that is evolving over time as we become more "global" which is why the analysis involves changing the scope to include nation:nation examination.

What is happening is that poor nations have come to realize that they're poor, and they're poor in a rich world.  This increases crime.

It's a fascinating field.  There is a lot of evidence that this is due to male frustration of lack of ability to succeed.  Most crime is committed by ~30yr old males.

[ArticSteve]

is that a question? 

[HeliDriver]

Lousy timing. My mortgage is up for renewal in December. 

Still, I should be okay. Current rate is I think 2.96%. Should still be able to do better than that on a 5-year fixed term.

[ArticSteve]

Lousy timing. My mortgage is up for renewal in December. 

Still, I should be okay. Current rate is I think 2.96%. Should still be able to do better than that on a 5-year fixed term.

Your 5 year fix term renewal is tied to the Canadian Government Bond Yield not the BOC overnight rate.  Don't believe you have any concerns. 

[HeliDriver]

^^ Bond yields are starting to go up, too. RBC just raised their fixed-term mortgage rates this week, and I assume others will follow.

Again, not really worried, just disappointed that I'll probably be renewing at near-record lows instead of record lows. As long as it's less than my current rate I'll be happy. 

[SearhardBurger]

Wife and I went in to see her financial advisor today.  She's been working with her since she was a student so we went in to talk about options on how we pool our assets together etc.  I'm always a little skeptical of financial advisors and their fees when you invest with them.  This lady seemed to not once really mention investing specifically with her though, which I thought was a good thing.  Learnt the difference between a beneficiary and a successor holder, which is also a good thing.  Made a note to change my beneficiary to my wife and not keep it the way it was (ex, ex girlfriend!  )

With one less car payment/insurance/fuel costs for at least a couple of months, and even after that, we will have a decent surplus per month.  We are pretty clear that we don't want to be house or car poor so that will give us a lot of flexibility.  The advisor showed me a couple of funds with fees of about 2.35% as options, but I'm more inclined to invest in dividend earning stocks in a TFSA such as Questrade myself, which she also said would be a good option.  I'm not sure I need someone else managing my money unless I have millions (which I don't).

[Hannibalsmith]

With one less car payment/insurance/fuel costs for at least a couple of months, and even after that, we will have a decent surplus per month.  We are pretty clear that we don't want to be house or car poor so that will give us a lot of flexibility.  The advisor showed me a couple of funds with fees of about 2.35% as options, but I'm more inclined to invest in dividend earning stocks in a TFSA such as Questrade myself, which she also said would be a good option.  I'm not sure I need someone else managing my money unless I have millions (which I don't).

2.35% is pretty high, however, it really depends on what she does for you (i.e. advanced financial planning). One big tip when comparing fees. There is what she gets paid and what you pay for the investments.

I suspect 2.35% is inclusive of her fee (likely 1.00% or so) and the rest goes to whatever product she uses (i.e. ETFs, mutual funds, etc.).

[SearhardBurger]

With one less car payment/insurance/fuel costs for at least a couple of months, and even after that, we will have a decent surplus per month.  We are pretty clear that we don't want to be house or car poor so that will give us a lot of flexibility.  The advisor showed me a couple of funds with fees of about 2.35% as options, but I'm more inclined to invest in dividend earning stocks in a TFSA such as Questrade myself, which she also said would be a good option.  I'm not sure I need someone else managing my money unless I have millions (which I don't).

2.35% is pretty high, however, it really depends on what she does for you (i.e. advanced financial planning). One big tip when comparing fees. There is what she gets paid and what you pay for the investments.

I suspect 2.35% is inclusive of her fee (likely 1.00% or so) and the rest goes to whatever product she uses (i.e. ETFs, mutual funds, etc.).

This was a Fidelity Insights Class fund and a Fidelity Global Intrinsic Value Class.  I've never invested in anything through a financial advisor before so was going into this blind.  My only mutual fund investments are through the RRSP offered by my employer.

[Hannibalsmith]

With one less car payment/insurance/fuel costs for at least a couple of months, and even after that, we will have a decent surplus per month.  We are pretty clear that we don't want to be house or car poor so that will give us a lot of flexibility.  The advisor showed me a couple of funds with fees of about 2.35% as options, but I'm more inclined to invest in dividend earning stocks in a TFSA such as Questrade myself, which she also said would be a good option.  I'm not sure I need someone else managing my money unless I have millions (which I don't).

2.35% is pretty high, however, it really depends on what she does for you (i.e. advanced financial planning). One big tip when comparing fees. There is what she gets paid and what you pay for the investments.

I suspect 2.35% is inclusive of her fee (likely 1.00% or so) and the rest goes to whatever product she uses (i.e. ETFs, mutual funds, etc.).

This was a Fidelity Insights Class fund and a Fidelity Global Intrinsic Value Class.  I've never invested in anything through a financial advisor before so was going into this blind.  My only mutual fund investments are through the RRSP offered by my employer.

Ok. I won't speak to the fund, you can do your own research , but yes, she gets paid 1% for her advice. You'll need to decide if that's worth it for you.

[SearhardBurger]

With one less car payment/insurance/fuel costs for at least a couple of months, and even after that, we will have a decent surplus per month.  We are pretty clear that we don't want to be house or car poor so that will give us a lot of flexibility.  The advisor showed me a couple of funds with fees of about 2.35% as options, but I'm more inclined to invest in dividend earning stocks in a TFSA such as Questrade myself, which she also said would be a good option.  I'm not sure I need someone else managing my money unless I have millions (which I don't).

2.35% is pretty high, however, it really depends on what she does for you (i.e. advanced financial planning). One big tip when comparing fees. There is what she gets paid and what you pay for the investments.

I suspect 2.35% is inclusive of her fee (likely 1.00% or so) and the rest goes to whatever product she uses (i.e. ETFs, mutual funds, etc.).

This was a Fidelity Insights Class fund and a Fidelity Global Intrinsic Value Class.  I've never invested in anything through a financial advisor before so was going into this blind.  My only mutual fund investments are through the RRSP offered by my employer.

Ok. I won't speak to the fund, you can do your own research , but yes, she gets paid 1% for her advice. You'll need to decide if that's worth it for you.

Yup, the fund research part is done  I was hoping for input on the fees side of things.  Thanks!

In the last two years since I met my wife, and now finally moving in together full-time and being in the same city, it is remarkable how much more expensive it is to live as a single person.

[SaskSpecV]

it is remarkable how much more expensive it is to live as a single person.

Unquestionably.  Consider how many expenses are essentially split in half when living with another person, whether married/common-law/roommate
rent/mortgage, property taxes / condo fees
utilities (power/gas/water) - might use a little more with a 2nd person, but nothing close to double
cable/netflix
car payment/insurance (if you can get by with one vehicle)

Even food expenses are likely to be a little lower - less likely to throw out spoiled food, can buy in bulk, etc.

Now whether giving up complete independence by living with someone else is worth it - probably depends who you're living with! 

[evil_twin]

it is remarkable how much more expensive it is to live as a single person.

Unquestionably.  Consider how many expenses are essentially split in half when living with another person, whether married/common-law/roommate
rent/mortgage, property taxes / condo fees
utilities (power/gas/water) - might use a little more with a 2nd person, but nothing close to double
cable/netflix
car payment/insurance (if you can get by with one vehicle)

Even food expenses are likely to be a little lower - less likely to throw out spoiled food, can buy in bulk, etc.

Now whether giving up complete independence by living with someone else is worth it - probably depends who you're living with! 

All true... BUT living with your mate also greatly increases the chances of children, and then you can throw your math out the window.   Sweet jesus is our household burn rate waaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than what I spent as a bachelor.

[tpl]

But if you keep your PJs zipped up a couple can get to a very low burn rate...once \the adjustment form 2X single to 1X couple is all stabilized.   Most of the expensive stuff doesn't need to be rebought for years.    Unless you are one of these spendy people that cannot resist new shiny things every year!

[HeliDriver]

Lousy timing. My mortgage is up for renewal in December. 

Still, I should be okay. Current rate is I think 2.96%. Should still be able to do better than that on a 5-year fixed term.

Dammit, I've been fooled by all those low rates online that only apply to new mortgages. Just talked to two mortgage brokers and it seems the best I can do on a 5-yr fixed renewal is 3.09%, and that would mean the hassle of switching to a different lender. Costs are covered, but I don't feel like dealing with the paperwork and employment/income verification stuff.

Best my current lender will do is 3.19%, or 3.07% on a 4-year. Think I'll just go with the 4-yr.

[HeliDriver]

^^ I don't really feel like going variable. Seems more likely that rates will keep going up rather than down, and the discount for going variable right now doesn't seem worth it to me. If variable was a solid 1% cheaper (which it was a while ago), I'd be tempted, but paying the extra 0.5% or so for the guarantee of a fixed rate seems reasonable.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I miss the good old days of 13-15 % rates

[dougjp]

The only things that aren't going up are savings and GIC rates.