Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

A reader recently asked me the following based on reading a few pages on my site:

Mark, does it make sense to have 100% of your portfolio in stocks? If so, at what age would you personally dial-back to own more cash or GICs or bonds? Thanks for your answer.

Great question. Love it. Let’s unpack that for us. 

References:

My Dividends page.

My ETFs page.

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Maybe as a younger investor, you should. 

Let me explain. 

Members of Gen Z, which now includes the youngest adults able to invest (born in the late-1990s and early-2000s), represent a cohort that could be investing in the stock market for another 60 more years. 

According to a chart I found on Ben Carlson’s site about stuff that might happen in 2023, over 60+ investing years in the S&P 500 (as an example) historical indexing performance would suggest you’d have a better chance of earning 20% returns or more in any given year than suffering an indexing loss. Pretty wild. 

S&P 500 - 100 stocks

Source: A Wealth of Common Sense. 

Shown another way as of early 2023:

S&P 500 Returns Updated

Source: https://www.slickcharts.com

This implies younger investors, in my opinion, should at least consider going all-in on equities to take advantage of long-term stock market return power when they are younger given:

  1. As you age, your human capital diminishes – your portfolio (beyond your home?) can become your greatest asset.
  2. Younger investors can also benefit from asset accumulation from periodic price corrections – adding more assets in a bear market; allowing assets to further compound at lower prices when corrections or crashes occur (i.e., buying stocks on sale).

Consider in this post on my site:

How long do stock market corrections last?

In the U.S.:

  • a market correction occurs at least once every 2 years, of 10% or more
  • a bear market at least every 7 years, where market value is down 20% or more
  • a major market crash at least every decade.  

And in Canada for additional context:

The C.D. Howe Institute’s Business Cycle Council has created a classification system for recessions, grouping them together by category.

According to the council:

“Category 1 recessions have only a short, mild drop in GDP and no decline in quarterly employment. At the other extreme, Category 5 recessions involve extremely rapid contractions of the economy over an extended period of time.”

Monthly PeakMonthly TroughCategory 1 to 5
October 2008May 20094
March 1990April 19924
June 1981October 19824
January 1980June 19801
December 1974March 19752
March 1960March 19613
March 1957January 19583
July 1953July 19544
April 1951December 19513
August 1947March 19482
November 1937June 19385
April 1929February 19335

Source: C.D. Howe Institute Business Cycle Council.

Canada has experienced five recessions since 1970.

Our domestic recessions usually last between three to nine months.

“This means you should at least prepare for three to nine months of very bad economic results and markets to weather, at any time.” – My Own Advisor. 

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Maybe as an established investor, you should not.

Let me explain. 

My thinking is that as you age, you should at least consider easing up on 100% stocks in your portfolio for the same reasons younger investors should go all-in on equities. Time.

Or lack thereof, less time to recover. 

“Established investors may want to consider shifting from asset accumulation towards income generation and asset preservation.” – My Own Advisor. 

This way, assets so carefully accumulated over the preceeding years need not be sold off at inappropriate times such as a stock market corrections, crashes or prolonged bear markets.

Recall in the last two (2) lost decades, it could literally take a decade until equity markets come into demand-favour again. 

Older investors will recall the 1970s was no picnic, starved for market growth.

The second “lost decade” started around the early 2000s. The hype over technology start-ups in the early 2000s led to overvaluations and the burst of the dot-com bubble, wiping out some $5 trillion U.S. in technology-firm market value between March and October of 2002.

Amazon, a stock darling today, was one of the few companies that survived this crisis. Their stock had plunged some 90% across 2000-2002.

To sum up, the 1999-2009 U.S. investing period was marked by the collapse of the late dot-com bubble, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as two recessions, the deepest being the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis. During that period, the S&P 500 gained nothing as part of annualized returns and here in Canada we didn’t do any better.

While any future “lost decade” would be rare, history can rhyme.

As such, I am ensuring I/we have diversification beyond U.S. indexes to provide additional possibilities for income and growth beyond the tech- and cap-weighted S&P 500 of today. 

Lost Decades of Investing

Source: https://www.syfe.com/magazine/are-we-heading-into-another-lost-decade-of-investing/

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks summary

DIY investors, readers and passionate investors know from my site that there is no universal answer for every investor, so it’s important to think through both the upsides and downsides when it comes to your investing plan. 

Odds are, if investing history is any guide, that over a period of 5, 10 or more years, stocks should perform better bonds.

For this reason, I/we will continue to have a strong bias to stocks in our portfolio over bonds and some cash.

Instead of worrying about stock market corrections, how long any stock market correction might last, I’m more inclinded to worry about some things within my control and influence:

  1. My sustained savings rate for investing.
  2. The ability to remain with my hybrid investing plan of stocks and low-cost ETFs.
  3. Keeping some cash to pounce when equity opportunity strikes, and
  4. Avoiding fearmongering market news.

“I see the stock market, as a tool, for average people/average investors to be long-term business owners.” – Larry Bates, Beat the Bank.

While a 100% equity investment portfolio could make sense for younger investors, decades away from retirement, keeping 100% of your portfolio in stocks as you enter retirement or remain in retirement could introduce unecessary risk. 

“The individual investor should act consistently as an investor and not as a speculator.” — Ben Graham.

You are an investor, not someone who can predict the future.

Base your investing decisions on real facts and analysis.

As we have remembered today, stocks unto themselves can be unreliable over a 10-year investing timeline.

As we work towards semi-retirement, we intend to increase our cash wedge while owning a mix of dividend stocks that should provide rising income and low-cost ETFs that should deliver growth. 

How much cash should you keep?

I’ll keep you posted if we change our minds/approach and I hope you do the same.

Thanks for reading.

Mark

My name is Mark Seed - the founder, editor and owner of My Own Advisor. As my own DIY financial advisor, I'm looking to start semi-retirement soon, sooner than most. Find out how, what I did, and what you can learn to tailor your own financial independence path. Join the newsletter read by thousands each day, always FREE.

42 Responses to "Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?"

  1. I very much enjoyed reading all the comments about how everyone is managing their investments from either recent or not so recent retirees. 😊 I’m also looking to do something very similar by holding equities for as long as possible, got about 5 more years left before I have to start drawing down.

    It’s incredible to hear how you can hold such a small number of stocks and still be able to produce income far exceeds expenses. I wonder how long that took as I have only been a DIY since 2018. Nowhere near $71K dividend income, I can only dream. I don’t hold any ETFs, bonds or GICs, 100% CAD and US equities only but thinking most likely have to sell all the US stocks later as they are in my RRSP. The goal is to empty the RRSP as early as possible. Have a modest DB pension though.

    Looking forward to see more articles like this and learn from those who’s been there, done that.

    Reply
    1. Thanks Sharon, nice to hear from you.

      I know many DIY investors that are earning $20k or $30k or $40k or more from their portfolio – thanks to a blended approach of using stocks + ETFs that pay out dividends and distributions.

      Yes, likely need to sell some USD stocks as you age to fund your expenses. Just the way it goes and I will need to do the same!
      Mark

      Reply
  2. “Maybe as a younger investor, you should.” Maybe as a seasoned investor you should also.
    I understand that everyone needs to invest to their comfort level and needs. But where does the discomfort come from? It is from reading and listening to too many pundits in the media. You need to be diversified all over the world, you need bonds, you need a lot of cash, you need to be in every sector of the economy, you need to have ETFs because it will help you sleep better. They are all selling the same thing. It is important that you have a plan and do your own thinking.
    We have the best regulated financial sector here in Canada. Our banks give you all the diversification you need, they are in every sector of our economy, and some abroad. They have reliably paid dividends for well over a hundred years. Along with our Telcos and Utility companies you can have one of the safest portfolios.
    We have been retired now for over 5 years and have been for over 20 years and still are 100 equities. With rising dividends things are still getting better. Even with the turmoil in the markets now, we feel no need to follow conventional advise. But it isn’t for everyone.

    Reply
    1. I look forward to your thoughts in my next post: Weekend Reading 🙂

      I happen to agree: advisors, pundits, experts are “all selling”. They wouldn’t have a job if they didn’t.

      I love to read about 100% equity investors (beyond a bit of cash of course in savings or chequing accounts). The fact that some readers/subscribers here “live off dividends” from their portfolio is absolutely inspiring. To your point, it isn’t for everyone but owning some individual stocks, a collection of them, can be a great path to wealth.

      Thanks again for your comment,
      Mark

      Reply
    1. Ha. Pretty nice, right? I own CNR, CP, ATD and a few others in that chart for the same reasons. Growth matters.
      Kudos for the share.
      Do CSU on it’s own, I wish I owned that….geez.
      Mark

      Reply
  3. Between my pension (I’m 64 with a mid-sized, indexed pension), my wife’s pension (she’s 63 with a small but indexed pension), CPP and OAS (when we decide to take these) our retirement baseline is pretty much met. We also have about 18 months of living expenses in HISA. As long as our portfolio is throwing off about $30K/year in dividends we are happy to stay about 95%+ in equities. As time goes we might start considering moving some $$ into a GIC ladder.

    Reply
    1. We are in a very similar situation with one good indexed pension and 100% dividend stocks. This reply chain has got me thinking about future changes to our portfolio. As we age it may get more difficult to maintain the stock portfolio. I’m not sure i will be as lucky as Henry Mae to be able to stay mentally sharp into my 80s. My concern with GIC ladders is that as interest rates drop (soon i hope) gic rates will again drop into the low percentages (< 2%). I think i would be more inclined to shift to dividend ETFs to simplify, even though i don't like paying fees, and owning both good and bad stocks.

      Reply
      1. I think you have some runway on interest rates. I would think slightly higher rates (i.e., at least 4%) are here for some time. I could be wrong of course.

        Nothing wrong with low-cost dividend ETFs but easy to build a DIY stock portfolio replicating or better than dividend ETFs in Canada.
        The U.S. is much more challenging IMO.
        Mark

        Reply
    2. Awesome, David. Sounds like you’re doing so many things right. Portfolio throws of meaningful income; 18-months’ worth of cash to spend as needed in addition to spending needs covered by pension + CPP + OAS (when you take the latter).

      I love reading this stuff.
      Mark

      Reply
  4. I also completely agree with Don. I’ve been retired for 11 years and retired at 55. 98% of our portfolio is in equities, most of my holdings I’ve owned for years and we transfer in kind each year from our RRSPs to our margin account.

    Reply
    1. Thanks Denis. I know of many retirees that have a large % of equities in their portfolio, some beyond cash very close to 100%.
      Smart of course to transfer slowly out of RRSPs/RRIFs over time to smooth out taxation.
      Mark

      Reply
  5. Howard makes a good point. For those who earn a portion of their retirement income by way of an indexed pension, that really needs to be viewed as fixed-interest income and built into the decision about asset allocation. Remember, too, that CPP and OAS fall into the category of indexed-pension income.
    With that in mind, I would also suggest that there’s merit in determining one’s asset allocation on the basis of income (preferably weighted in favour of after-tax income) rather than capital value. I think that may produce a more beneficial result (unless you’re in the group where the estate’s value is more important to you than its contribution to your retirement income).

    Reply
  6. If you retire at 65 then you are likely looking at 25 plus years in retirement. For me that means a high level of stocks in my portfolio, likely 90% or more. That being said I have always looked at good dividend paying stocks (BCE RBC etc) as more of a bond with growth upside. Lately with GIC rates over 5% I have done a 3 year ladder in my wife’s RRSP account. At the end of the day we all have to do what makes us comfortable and being able to sleep well at night. I also believe heavily in the buy and hold process and if you buy good quality stocks then you can keep them for a long time and not do much other than watch the dividends flow in and the stocks go up.

    Reply
    1. Great mantra: “At the end of the day we all have to do what makes us comfortable and being able to sleep well at night.”

      I too, believe in the longevity of many Canadian stocks. If most of our banks, telcos and energy companies suffer, we have bigger issues in Canada…. I hope that never happens.

      Don, are you adding anything new to the portfolio? Have you considered a producer like CNQ?
      Have you considered some lower-yielding but higher growth stocks like WCN?

      Of note, I own most of the same companies you do. Most DIY stock investors likely do in Canada as well…
      Mark

      Reply
      1. We at this time still own lower yielding high growth stock such as WCN, ATD, CNR, DOL and they have done incredibly well for us. Heck, CNR is a 7 Bagger at this point. But at this stage of our investment journey, we have accumulated enough that we can now move from an accumulation phase and into an income investing phase and live off the income (plus CPP, OAS and two semi-indexed workplace pensions) comfortably. So my thinking is we no longer need to hold those stocks. In fact it doesn’t make sense to hold them any longer.

        CNR for example, based on our cost (or amount invested) it is paying us 14% in dividends. Sounds great but based on the current value of the stock it is paying a bit more than 2%. Why not sell it and purchase T, EMA or some other high quality blue chip dividend growth stock that is paying out 6% or so in dividends and nearly triple our income? Heck, if I can get our total income exceeding our annual needs, we can start gifting our kids $ right away at a time when it is most valuable to them.

        That’s my line of thought on what t do with the CNR, ATD and WCN type stocks at this stage in our investment journey.

        Reply
        1. Nice – very similar. Works for me too, re: owning WCN, ATD, CNR, and CP as major examples. Same with EQB I guess too.

          Love reading this: “…live off the income (plus CPP, OAS and two semi-indexed workplace pensions) comfortably.”

          Personally, in the name of diversification, I would keep/will keep CNR, CP, etc. for the coming years even with BCE, T and others yielding 6%. Just in case…

          Maybe as I get older I will change my mind when CPP and OAS kick-in too. 🙂
          Mark

          Reply
      2. Both my wife and I have CNQ in our TFSA. We bought in 2 years ago or so and have been steadily adding to the position. Have looked at WCN but can’t seem to find a good entry point for us. I think when buying stocks once I have that entry point it is easier to buy more later on. It’s getting that first buy in that seems hard to me, actually pulling the trigger so to speak on the first one. I have added some CSU (constellation software) for growth and its been doing well. From my research its a really well run company with a great management team that has a process that works and they keep doing it. Also a big fan of Buffett and have added some index ETF’s to our RRSP’s. Maybe I am getting lazier in my older age as I find EFT’s provide diversification, are cheap (at least the ones I buy are) and easy. I have been doing a little selling of individual positions in my RRSP (on US$ side) and buying index and dividend EFT’s.

        Reply
        1. CSU is one I don’t own but should have bought. My goodness, what a success story. Maybe it’s not too late 🙂

          Ya, been a “hybrid investor” = mix of stocks + low-cost ETFs for well over 10 years now and love it – I feel I get the best of both worlds.

          I do anticipate I will get increasingly lazy myself as I age, and buy more indexed ETFs for parts of the portfolio. We’ll see. I love the income my portfolio is close to generating but total returns matter.

          Thanks for your comment,
          Mark

          Reply
        2. Lloyd (63, retired at 55) · Edit

          “getting lazier in my older age”

          +1. And maybe a bit of seeing the same thing differently. In my 40s and 50s I used to climb a 25 foot ladder to clean the gutters with nary a thought. Now? Scares the bejeezus out of me. Ladder is the same, the height is the same, the chore is the same. It’s *my* attitude that’s changed. I find I sleep better not worrying about it and hiring that chore out. Once I accepted that I have changed, I look at many things differently. And who knows, it might change again in five years.

          Reply
          1. Very fair point. Our reference does change with time for sure. I would hope so.
            What seemed interesting to many of us, 5 or 10 years ago, maybe not so much now.
            I consider that growth and life.
            Mark

            Reply
  7. I couldn’t agree more with Paul. We are 100% stocks, large cap Canadian dividend payers. It helps that my wife has a good indexed pension which acts as our fixed income side. We have no need to sell a single stock, the dividend income is more than we need and will only go up over time. I forcast at least 10% increase per year. The government loves us dividend income investors.

    Reply
    1. Excellent work, Howard. You’re another fine example of a DIY stock investor who is meeting his needs through this approach and leveraging an indexed pension as a BIG bond. Kudos.

      Reply
    1. Most welcome Alan. It was a fun post to put together. I’m saving up for ~ 1-years’ worth of expenses in cash over the coming year. What about you (given Canadian recessions can last a few consecutive economic quarters)?

      Reply
  8. Lloyd (63, retired at 55) · Edit

    A topic that has no *correct* answer.

    We were 100% equity up until a few years before I retired (age 50ish). At that point I began to put new RRSP contributions into GICs. In 2017 I took a large amount out of equities in the RRSPs and moved it into GIC ladders. We also built up a substantial emergency fund using 1 year (quarterly redeemable) GICs.

    In March 2020, early into the pandemic, I did a massive equity sell-off in my RRSP (just prior to RRIF conversion) and re-purchase over a few months but ended up with another large chunk of cash that I just couldn’t decide what to do with so went with another GIC ladder. And just recently did a large sell-off in the wife’s RRSP and built another GIC ladder. So currently we’re sitting at a 61% equity/39% GIC ladders position. I will be looking at opportunity to further liquidate some further equity positions if the price is right and % rates stay favourable.

    Wife’s RRSP equities are still DRIPping and GIC ladders compounding. My RRIF and LIF distributions more than cover the withdrawals (so far). My remaining RRSP is all laddered GICs compounding. My TFSA is DRIPping with new contributions in GICs. Wife’s TFSA is all equity but not DRIPing (re-invested in TD E-Series).

    Recent GIC rates at 5+% made it easier to move more out of equities.

    Reply
    1. How true, personal finance is personal…

      As we enter part-time work, hopefully, we’ll still have 1-years’ worth of expenses in cash, but no bonds, no GICs here.

      Curious, what made you decide on the GIC ladder? Seems smart, if not working at all, but curious?

      “So currently we’re sitting at a 61% equity/39% GIC ladders position. I will be looking at opportunity to further liquidate some further equity positions if the price is right and % rates stay favourable.”

      Very interesting and appealing now given GICs and cash ETFs are yielding close to 5% or a bit higher. Hard to argue. 🙂
      Mark

      Reply
      1. Lloyd (63, retired at 55) · Edit

        Laddering GICs just seemed like the easiest to do and the wife understands them. Briefly considered bonds but I was too lazy to go looking for them and the wife’s eyes glazed over when I talked about them, so path of least resistance kind of thing.

        We’re now down to nine individual equity positions and a few ETFs. Three of the ETFs (XEI, XDIV and XIU) now make up around 35% of the total investment/savings portfolio. We’re fine with the fees.

        Reply
        1. Very smart. I haven’t installed our GIC ladder but I won’t rule it out in the coming decades. Likely start with maybe two (2) rungs?
          x1 1-year GIC + 2-year GIC.
          Keep some cash handy beyond that.
          We’ll see. 🙂

          XEI is a nice blend of income and growth for Canada. Been a favourite of mine for that for many years. On my ETFs page.
          Any reason you keep that an the others? A bit of overlap?
          XIU is still my fav. for Canadian ETFs. The top-60 seems to continue to deliver…over time.

          Mark

          Reply
          1. Lloyd (63, retired at 55) · Edit

            I actually became aware of XEI through MOA. 🙂

            Ya, probably too much overlap. When I decided to move more out of some individual stocks I looked around for an ETF that had those stocks in the top ten. XEI did, but XDIV had them in a larger percentage so I went with it. Not a lot of “analysis” (read none) went into the decision though. I wanted a monthly payout for the RRIF and LIF to match the monthly withdrawals. Both XEI and XDIV fit the parameters and with my tendency to wemble, I went with both.

            I hold XIU in my non-reg as I wasn’t really looking for distributions.

            Reply
            1. XEI is very good, don’t get me wrong, but if you look at the top-20 the stocks are similar to XIU, albeit different ETFs with different focus.

              Not a lot of analysis needed for owning XEI or XIU – just own and collect your income and let it grow over time too. Likely to get 6% or so from each ETF over the coming decades.

              Smart on XIU for taxable since while you get distributions those should be almost 100% eligible for the Canadian Dividend Tax Credit.
              Mark

              Reply
              1. Lloyd (63, retired at 55) · Edit

                Yup, XEI and XIU have fairly similar holdings but XEI has a yield of around 5% (XDIV as well) which easily covers the current RRIF Factor, for now and for the next few years (hopefully). So XEI/XDIV in RRIF/LIF made sense to me so I didn’t have to sell anything to make the minimum withdrawal (15th monthly). Will probably do the same for the wife’s RRIF (equities) in 3-4 years time.

                In the process of donating-in-kind some of the shares from the non-reg. The plan is over the next five years to have liquidated most of those and not have to pay the capital gains.

                Reply
                1. Very generous while being tax-smart.

                  re: “In the process of donating-in-kind some of the shares from the non-reg. The plan is over the next five years to have liquidated most of those and not have to pay the capital gains.”

                  Mark

                  Reply
  9. Mr. Dividend Salary · Edit

    I completely agree with Don.
    If you own the cornerstone of the Canadian economy (and Canadian life) and that income far exceeds your living expenses, how much risk are you actually taking?
    If the list Don mentioned above goes away, money may be the least of our worries in Canada.
    Another benefit is eligible Canadian dividends are taxed preferentially. A married couple with no other income can earn roughly $120K in dividends ($10K/month) pretty much tax-free.
    Of course, someone can also make it work with broad-based Canadian ETFs like $XIC or by owning a high dividend-yielding ETF like $VDY.
    Don’s method incurs no fees.
    Most professional advisors don’t recommend Don’s approach but most of the happy, retired Canadians I meet take a similar approach.
    Just my 2c.

    Reply
    1. Ya, I like XIU for the Canadian ETF space, but VDY, XIC, XEI and a few others are very good too.
      The thing I worry about some ETFs is the high % of financials. See VDY. What’s worked in the past might not work in the future.
      That said, if banks, telcos, pipelines/energy and some of our industrials go very south (CNR, CP, WCN) then our economy has much, much bigger issues. I hope that never happens of course.
      Mark

      Reply
  10. Portfolio allocation is always an interesting topic and each to his own. Being in the dividend income/growth camp, I will say that a 100% TSX equity portfolio does work and my wife & I are living proof.

    As I’ve mentioned, I’m 70 years old and have been fully retired for just over 10 years. We are always 100% invested in TSX listed dividend stocks with no fixed income/GICs at all. We only keep a really small amount of extra cash. Our portfolio generates around 3x the income we need. We split the excess amongst adding to our grandkids non-registered account, gifting to our two kids, and adding to our existing holdings each time we have $5k extra with no attempt at market timing.

    We only hold 12 main stocks and 1 mid-sized. I put together a table with the yield for 11 of the 12 mains (leaving out TRP with its questionable upcoming split). As you can see, the average yield is 5.93%. If a person had a portfolio worth $1.2M and spread it evenly amongst the 11, their annual dividend income would be $71.2k. I would think this would be enough for an average couple to live off.

    That would mean never having to worry about what the market is doing and all the other stuff like market recovery time, sequence of events, etc.

    Here’s the table:

    Ticker Yield%
    BCE 6.76
    BMO 5.15
    BNS 6.75
    CPX 5.95
    EMA 5.44
    ENB 7.52
    KEY 6.02
    PPL 6.41
    RY 4.43
    T 6.15
    TD 4.68
    Avg 5.93

    Ciao
    Don

    Reply
    1. I’m a recent retiree and in the last 6 months I’ve started re-organizing my portfolio from a capital growth (with about 25% fixed income for stability in the rough times) to an income growth portfolio similar to Don’s for the same reasons he mentions. I no longer hold bonds and am almost 95% equities.

      The dividend income it generates along with other sources of income is enough to fund our retirement to our liking and then some. Being blue chip dividend growing stocks that typically raise their dividends by more than the rate of inflation each year, and only relying on the dividends for income, I feel my portfolio is pretty low risk. It has the added benefit of being quite low maintenance too. I really like not having to concern myself with share price anymore and when to sell. In fact, I relish the periodic decline in share price…it is a buying opportunity for even higher dividend returns.

      Reply
      1. Beyond Don, interestingly, there are a number of DIY stock investors that have emailed or commented over the years, who prefer a dozen or so individual stocks in Canada vs. indexing in Canada. They control the portfolio that way and save on money management fees, and, arguably, get the same returns as the index. They also like the low maintenance to your point. Basically, buy, hold, buy some more when stuff goes on sale and collect/spend dividends as they please. Hard to argue with an approach that works for you and meets your spending objectives.

        In fact, some investors I know, in their 60s and early 70s now, haven’t even touched the capital. They might have a significant estate to manage/navigate because of that. Good problems to have…

        Mark

        Reply
        1. That is exactly where I plan on being in a year or two…once I sell off my capital growth stocks. We are a good chunk of the way there just in the last few months. But cap gains collected has reached near the top end of our current tax brackets for this yr. Might be able to do a little more in Dec With tax losses…we’ll see.

          The Plan in our later years for managing our estate/capital is to periodically gift some of it at a time when it more helpful to our kids.

          Reply
          1. Ya, I only have a few stocks now in my taxable whereby there are in a loss position. Not great but a good problem to have I guess since capital gains are efficient. All good. Just part of the problem with taxable investing vs. RRSP/RRIF, TFSA, etc.

            I have no doubt based on what you wrote that if you have more income > expenses from your portfolio that gifting is in your future. Awesome.
            Mark

            Reply
    2. Love this comment Don, and was hoping you’d reply to share your insights and experiences with others.

      The fact that this portfolio meets your needs is outstanding.

      “If a person had a portfolio worth $1.2M and spread it evenly amongst the 11, their annual dividend income would be $71.2k. I would think this would be enough for an average couple to live off.”

      Yup, indeed. Add on CPP and OAS and that’s one helluva retirement income stream to enjoy. I hope to be there someday with folks like yourself – albeit I hold a few more Canadian stocks (CP, CNR, WCN, ATD) and a few U.S. stocks at this time as well only slowly selling those off (BLK, JNJ, PG, NEE).

      Appreciate your comment.
      Mark

      Reply

Post Comment