Home > Authors & Books > Dessanomics – Book review and questions for Dessa Kaspardlov

Dessanomics – Book review and questions for Dessa Kaspardlov

May 29th, 2012

 

Earlier this year, a book arrived in my mailbox albeit a bit unexpectedly.  Months ago, Dessa Karpardlov, a financial advisor and author, was kind enough to seek me out and send me her first book entitled The Fireman and the Waitress.   This book is a story about Dessa’s clients, clients she feels are representative of many of her clients.  Her book takes you through their financial situation and the process Dessa takes them through to get a handle on debt, build wealth, and lower their tax burden.  This is Dessa’s trademark process called Dessanomics.  I didn’t know much about Dessa or Dessanomics when her book arrived in my mailbox weeks ago, but I do now.

This blogpost will cover a few takeaways from The Fireman and the Waitress and include a few Dessanomics keys listed in Dessa’s book.  My next blogpost will cover a few questions I had about Dessa’s book, all of them she answered during a recent phone call with My Own Advisor.

Dessanomics Principles in The Fireman and the Waitress

The book starts off describing Dessa’s clients, Mel and Molly.  Mel (a skilled tradesman and volunteer fireman) and Molly (a part-time waitress) are in their late-40s, married for about 25 years and have a couple of university-aged kids.  Mel and Molly have more than 15 years left on the mortgage, they have a personal line of credit, some credit card debt, some RRSPs and a few little understood life insurance policies.  Right from the start, it was good to read about Dessa’s focus on a few objectives for our fireman and our waitress:

  • Work to pay off the mortgage but focus on high-interest, consumer debt first; quickly.
  • Insure yourself.
  • Contribute more money to retirement accounts, focus on capital preservation where possible, and
  • Be more tax efficient.

Dessa wrote “If I had to name a single factor that prevents Canadians from realizing their retirement dreams, it would be the way we use debt.  Too many people just don’t know the difference between good debt and bad debt, and that simple misunderstanding keeps us much poorer than we need to be.” 

Another Dessanomics key is this:  When you incur debt to gain wealth (as in a mortgage) that’s a good thing.  “When you incur debt to gain wealth and get a tax refund, that’s a really good thing.  Borrowing to invest, commonly known as leveraging, is an example.”  “When you incur debt just because you want a really special bottle of wine for your anniversary dinner, or for any purpose other than building wealth, that’s a bad thing.” 

Later on in the book, Dessa discusses the downside of debt diversification.  “Diversified investments are great.  Diversified debts are expensive and inefficient.  An all-in-one home equity line of credit (HELOC) allows you to pay less interest and pay debts faster.”  The Dessanomics process suggests “most Canadian families would do a lot better if they managed their personal finances the same way a small business does.  A small business secures a line of credit at the bank, and only draws on it when necessary.”

Beyond debt management, Dessanomics is also about ensuring or rather, insuring your greatest asset:  you.  Dessa wrote:  “I believe that the biggest reason most Canadians are not looking to insurance as part of their personal finance package is because they believe they can’t afford yet another expense.”  She’s probably right, but in most cases, Dessa thinks you really can’t afford NOT to insure yourself.  Dessa recommends term policies and critical illness insurance, citing some scary facts:  “according to the Canadian Cancer Society, 39% of Canadian women and 45% of Canadian men will suffer from cancer during their lifetimes.”  Peace of mind, especially for those you love, is a precious thing.

The Dessanomics process is also about building wealth and tax efficiency.  On the topic of wealth creation, “in order to outpace inflation, you need to include equities in your retirement plan, but you don’t have to put your savings at risk.  With guarantees you can buy affordable insurance protection for your greatest asset – your future.”  This is why Dessa recommends segregated funds over mutual funds for many of her clients.  “Segregated funds are a mutual fund with an insurance wrapper around it” she writes.  “With seg funds, you pay a premium to transfer the market risk to the insurance company.”  Dessa believes these are good products for many clients, because these guaranteed products keep your emotions out of your investment decisions.  Regarding tax efficiency, Dessa recommends for a few of her clients, a leveraged portfolio.  She states “some of the best leverage candidates are those individuals who have pensions.  These people (because of pension adjustments) have little RRSP room annually, so they have few options to reduce their tax burden.  Leveraging gives them the perfect opportunity to gain superior wealth and reduce taxes, today and in the future.”  Because the interest on borrowed money to earn income from a business or property is tax-deductible, Dessa feels some clients can make better use of their cash flow and keep their income more tax-efficient.  She’s right.  Income from a business or property can include interest income, dividends, rents and royalties but it’s certainly not without risks.

This last risk, and a few other principles I felt strongly about, compelled me to jot down a few questions for Dessa.  Questions Dessa was kind enough to answer by the way, a few weeks ago, when she chatted with My Own Advisor.  But that’s another post.

What do you think of the Dessanomics process overall:  get a handle on debt, build wealth, and lower your tax burden?

What do you think of the few Dessanomics keys I listed above?

OK, now play prophet – can you think of a few questions I asked Dessa?

Send me your comments.

Thanks for reading and sharing this article.
Categories: Authors & Books Tags:
  1. June 2nd, 2012 at 11:31 | #1

    Devin is right that markets seldom have 10 year periods of negative returns. In Canada there was one period ending in 1973 when this occurred. However, it is Manulife got into a lot of trouble recently (recession just past) because they did not hedge their segregated funds’ insurance. It was one of the reasons it took such a beating.

    I think that if having this 10 year segregated fund guarantee helps an investor sleep at night it is worth it. For me personally, it would be an added charge I do not need.

    I think that people also should look at debt in terms of good debt and bad debt and know what the difference is. Too few people do this.

    I also think that leveraging, if handled properly can work well.

    • June 2nd, 2012 at 11:47 | #2

      Excellent comments Susan. For me, I struggle with leverage. I don’t use it, probably because I have a big mortgage. I also struggle with segregated funds. My Q&A with Dessa will address this.

      Good point about equity markets over 10 years not having a positive return, with few exceptions. I have to wonder in this climate though, from 2010-2020, if history is not ready to repeat. Hence, I prefer to own a blend of equity ETFs and dividend-paying stocks and avoid paying high seg. fund fees in the process.

      Dessa’s comment about good debt and bad debt was great – she’s on the money there and I enjoyed that part of her book.

  2. Think Dividends
    June 1st, 2012 at 10:12 | #3

    Segregated funds are great products for Dessa to earn fat commissions from her clients. Encouraging them to borrow to buy these funds means even more money in Dessa’s pocket!

    • June 2nd, 2012 at 11:52 | #4

      Ha, this is what I was thinking, although I wasn’t that blunt in my Q&A. Seg. funds are hugely expensive for the client…I don’t understand why this is a good thing and why advisors would ever recommend this product for the majority of their clients. Stay tuned to my Q&A post, it’s coming up next week.

      Thanks for the blog support, glad you stopped by. How is the investing going? FCR was a nice buy for me a few months ago. :)

  3. May 30th, 2012 at 23:44 | #5

    As a young guy, I can’t wait to gain a little more capital in order to use leverage comfortable. I hope to have a functional Smith Manoeuvre going by the age of 26, and have the original mortgage on my house paid off by 35 (keeping the large HELOC for the tax deduction ofcourse!).

    • June 2nd, 2012 at 11:53 | #6

      Leveraging, really? Do tell, why go that way? Because borrowing costs are so low now? Because the mortgage will be paid off so quickly?

  4. Barb
    May 30th, 2012 at 18:06 | #7

    A Home Equity Line of Credit can be a great thing, and I do have one which I used to finance a rental property.

    However, I think the bank is charging way too high a fee to set it up. I just came from the bank and the guy was trying to get me to increase mine, even though I don’t need or want an increase. The fee is now up to $440 to set it up, or in my case, just to increase the amount! TD Bank. Anyone find other banks with much lower fees for this? I am still pissed at them for raising the interest rate to Prime plus 1%, so I don’t want to increase my exposure with them.

    • June 2nd, 2012 at 14:58 | #8

      Like Teacher Man wants to try, sounds like leveraging is working for you.

      Prime + 1% for HELOC is pretty much the going rate right now…no? How much longer are you going to have your rental? We had one for a couple of years. It was a good thing, until we got tenants from hell. Long since sold unit and invested in REITs instead :)

      Thanks for your comment Barb.

  5. Devin
    May 30th, 2012 at 09:44 | #9

    I never had a chance to comment on your posts on Rob Carrick’s book which I thought was an extremely good and simple book so I will comment here instead. I think that she is correct that too many people neglect properly insuring themselves, very worryingly including disability insurance as well. Also, I am in full agreement in regards to debt.

    Where I generally would disagree is with the use on segregated funds which over the long-term have added costs that I do not think are justified. If you look at periods of 10 years or more markets almost never have negative returns so if we are investing long-term (and we should be) I think that we are paying for protection that we don’t need.

    I was intrigued, however, by her comments on leverage. I agree that leverage can be beneficial, although personally it is out of my risk tolerance. That said, I think a leveraged segregated fund is an interesting idea as if the fund is insured to the amount invested hen there is no risk of a decrease in value leading to a margin call. The only question is if expected returns would be higher than borrowing costs, but otherwise this seems like a remarkably low-risk use of leverage. I am wondering others thoughts on this or if you asked her more about this issue. Thanks.

Comments are closed.