Cá độ bóng đá hợp pháp_đánh liêng_tỷ lệ cá cược bóng đá https://www.google.com/https:/c02 Book and Weblog - Authored by Garth Turner Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:00:27 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 M&V https://www.google.com/https:/c02/2018/09/24/mv/ https:/c02/2018/09/24/mv/#comments Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:58:16 +0000 /c02/?p=14485

Despite the efforts of modern politicians to fuzzify genders and blur sexes, men and women are different. For one thing, the females last longer. That might have something to do with 55-year-old guys playing hard hockey after doing nothing but watching it for half a decade, operating heavy equipment in flip-flops or learning how to wire a 220-volt outlet on YouTube.

Men roll the dice, too. It*s why the dudes can*t help buying penny mining stocks, putting their entire life savings into Tesla shares or loading up with four pre-con condos they can*t possibly afford to close on. It*s about winning. Scoring. Dominance. The Smartest-Guy-in-the-Room syndrome. Lots of men simply can*t see the difference between investing and gambling. They want instant gratification, big returns, fat cap gains 每 even when it means bloated risk and heavy borrowing.

But for women (to keep on wildly generalizing), risk is the enemy, to be avoided, shunned, diminished and escaped from at all costs. It*s why, if you frequent female-dominated websites like those of Gail Alphabet, the No. 1 goal is simple and dominant: pay off debt. The focus isn’t on multiplying money, but escaping obligations 每 that*s the path to financial independence and freedom.

After that, as this blog can attest, the big life goal of females seems to be securing a home. So real estate 每 rather than being wealthy 每 is the prize. And once you get some, paying down the mortgage (no matter how cheap the interest rate may be) is the driving reason to be employed. Real estate equals security, a nest for a family, a shelter from external forces and, lately, all the financial plan anybody needs.

I can*t count the times Mars and Venus have sat across the desk. One economic unit, forever and inextricably intertwined, romantically and emotionally embraced, mutually-dependent yet with secretly competing agendas about how to achieve common goals. Sometimes the result is conflict, but usually one partner yields a little more. Too often it*s the woman.

Lately catering to women and girls is the Big New Thing in the financial business. There are efforts to recruit women advisors, special programs for women entrepreneurs, unique courses, lectures, seminars and even products for women. At the heart of it is a belief women come at money in a disadvantaged way, because they earn less and are expected to rear kids, keep homes, tend aging parents and put up with dodgy husbands. The wage gap may be related to leaving the workforce more often for family reasons, but over time it can be crippling. So women need to work harder at investing to close that gap.

And therein may lie a problem.

By focusing on risk, not reward, and real estate rather than retirement, the advice a lot of women are getting is bunk. It leads them to embrace GICs and those awful HISAs instead of equities and ETFs. They strive to retire home loans with sub-3% rates with money that could earn twice that amount if conservatively invested. They chose to collect interest, and pay tax at their marginal rate on every dollar, rather than halve the tax bill by collecting dividends or capital gains. For too many, investing means ※not losing money§ instead of making it.

Okay, but wait. Women live longer. They earn less. So they require more.

My mother outlived my father by eight years. Dorothy*s mom survived Vic by over a decade. Without a doubt the most challenging years for them both, financially, came when alone. Granted, they were from a Leave-it-to-Beaver generation when being a stay-at-home mom was the norm and Guys Knew Everything, but their final years attested to a lack of planning. Both had real estate to sell. Both found that was not enough. When you*re old, you need cash flow.

These days it*s fashionable to blame men for society*s ills. Much of it*s deserved. We can be dorks. As mentioned, many guys have horrible investing and money management skills, not to mention leaving the seat up and buying stupid cars. But both genders have serious money handicaps to overcome. The seeds of failure are planted deep. Embracing reckless risk or fleeing from any of it are both lousy strategies.

The greatest threat, after all, is not losing money in a failed investment. It*s running out.

Mars and Venus have much to teach each other.

https:/c02/2018/09/24/mv/feed/ 48
May not end well https://www.google.com/https:/c02/2018/09/23/may-not-end-well/ https:/c02/2018/09/23/may-not-end-well/#comments Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:25:56 +0000 /c02/?p=14479

As debt-pickled, financially illiterate Canadians get set to spend an estimated $1 billion on weed in the first few months it*s legal, the odds rise that things will not end well. First, this is money that should be chucked away for future needs or retire fat loans, not inhaled. Second, given what*s coming, it*s no time to further addle your brain.

But, wait. This post is not about cannabis, since the last time the subject was (b)roached we were overrun by potheads. It felt like one of those creepy scenes from The Walking Dead. They just kept coming. Who knew a blog about economics, finances and canines would attract so many tokers? Scarier still, is a pro-ganja attitude now so pervasive in society (thanks to T2) that casual and recreational drug use is mainstream 每 and so reflected in the audience of a pathetic, boring blog penned by a spent paleo? Yikes.

Anyway, here*s why this is happening at a bad time.

It appears NAFTA is dead since Ottawa can*t agree to a deal in which the dairy trade is gutted just before the election in Quebec. That*s where the cows live. If Trudeau throws the farmers under the tractor, he has a big electoral problem. Of course if we don*t sign on with Trump, then he*s made it clear auto tariffs are coming. Good bye to jobs in Oshawa, Windsor, Woodstock, Barrie and Bramalea. (Did you notice Ontario preem Doug Ford spend a day last week at the plowing match? Yes, he*s already running for PM.)

However you cut it, no trade deal with the States 每 even for a year or two 每 is awful news for the economy. While it would be absurd not to pen one, the gang in Ottawa has been unable to do so after months of negotiations. It sure increases the odds of a recession here, which brings us to the asset class almost everybody owns.

Residential real estate in most markets is under attack by family debt levels, higher taxes (especially in silly BC), tighter lending regs, economic uncertainty and rising interest rates. Given the fact more of our GDP is hooked to housing than ever before, the inexorable plop in sales and prices could have a big impact on confidence, and spending. In turn, two-thirds of our entire economy depends on that consumer spending, so the implications are clear.

Now, Trump. He has spent his entire presidency so far throwing gas on the American economy. The deep corporate tax cut has plumped corporate bottom lines, fueled equity stock prices and triggered waves of buybacks and M&A activity. The unemployment rate is so low economists call it full employment. We haven*t see this kind of number for half a century. Inflation has jumped to the highest level in 22 years. The White House is building protectionist walls around the States designed to create even more jobs and profits, albeit in an environment of rising wages and prices. And the rolling back of regulations, especially costly environmental ones, has richly rewarded corporate America.

Meanwhile the tax cuts have blown a yuge hole in federal finances, so Trump is on track to preside over a $1-trillion annual deficit 每 never before seen during a period of economic expansion. This has started to drive the bond market nuts. Yields are rising as the world*s biggest economy piles on the debt while the president pours on the fuel.

So what? So interest rates are going to go up. Maybe a lot.

The Fed*s benchmark rate will increase on Wednesday for the eighth time in a year and a half. The current odds of another increase on December 19th are more than 70%. There are two more anticipated in the first six months of next year, bring the number of hikes to 11. If Trumpenomics is still in evidence then, and Republicans do well in the November mid-term elections, the US central bank will continue to tighten.

Our guys have a 92% track record of following the Fed. Rates have increased here steadily, and three more jumps are expected by next summer. But that could be a best-case scenario. As mortgage expert, Ratespy owner and financial columnist Rob McLister puts it: ※If these things did come to pass, inflation and deficit-averse investors would conceivably dump U.S. Treasuries en masse, particularly foreign investors. With that intensity of selling pressure, North American interest rates (which move inversely to bond prices) could blast off like a SpaceX rocket.§

In fact, look at what*s already happening in the bond market. Here*s the yield on five-year Government of Canada bonds, which closely influence fixed mortgage rates.

This is a big deal. Adds McLister: ※Given that, and the fact that there*s a 95% correlation between U.S. and Canadian 5-year bond yields, there is at least a chance that Canada*s 5-year yield could exceed 4% for the first time in over a decade. That could result in:

* discounted 5-year fixed rates near 5.50%, a whopping two points higher than today
* the stress-test rate near an unthinkable 7.34%.§

A 2% jump in mortgages is something few people have contemplated or prepared for. Not only would it make renewing a home loan a painful experience and seriously cut into family cash flow, but housing in general could go catatonic. After all, the reason prices soared was cheap money (not Chinese dudes). A whole generation of people is about to learn that real estate is negatively correlated to interest rates.

So, you can prepare, or not. Be the ant or the grasshopper. Fill your TFSA or your lungs.

https:/c02/2018/09/23/may-not-end-well/feed/ 182
Tremendously wet https://www.google.com/https:/c02/2018/09/22/tremendously-wet/ https:/c02/2018/09/22/tremendously-wet/#comments Sat, 22 Sep 2018 20:04:23 +0000 /c02/?p=14474
DOUG?By Guest Blogger Doug Rowat

Hurricane Florence barreled into the Carolinas last week causing widespread damage and significant flooding. As the category 4 hurricane approached, Donald Trump helpfully alerted the locals to the hurricane*s dangers by noting that it would be ※tremendously wet§. Trump doesn*t always have a firm grasp of the obvious (you shouldn*t stare directly at the sun during an eclipse, for example) but, of course, in this instance, he was correct, with the &wetness* causing some US$20每25 billion in damages.

We*re now, in fact, entering the heart of Atlantic hurricane season, which runs each year from June to November with peak season occurring right about now. And each decade the hurricanes get more plentiful and more damaging. For example, according to the North Atlantic hurricane database, or HURDAT, in the 1920s, there was only an average of 4.2 hurricanes per year. In the 2000每09 decade, by comparison, the average shot up to 7.4 per year. And virtually all of the most damaging hurricanes have occurred since 2000 (see table below).

Wrath! Every hurricane season results in ominous images in the financial press

Source: Bloomberg

Now the increase in hurricane severity and frequency is a result of global warming. But before the climate-change deniers clog the comments section, keep in mind that I don*t particularly care why they*re occurring more frequently or increasing in strength〞my only concern is their possible effect on equity markets. Based on the prevalence of hurricane coverage in the financial press at this time each year (like the example above) you would think that hurricanes have enormous market impact. It*s now become an annual tradition to have a steady stream of terrifying satellite images and hurricane-tracker graphics come across the Bloomberg feed. In the end, Florence didn*t quite live up to the hype, despite the best efforts of this weather reporter:


In a few decades perhaps, more numerous and more massive hurricanes will actually influence equity markets, but for now, and historically, they matter little. Below I examine the 15 most damaging hurricanes in history and the performance of US equities three months and 1 year after. While challenging and often devastating for the areas struck, for the US stock market, hurricanes amount to sound and fury signifying nothing.

While hurricanes always make the financial news, they don*t actually impact markets

Source: Bloomberg, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Turner Investments. Total return shown. Damages not adjusted for inflation.

The reason, of course, is that as damaging as hurricanes are locally, in the context of the overall US economy, they*re a drop in the bucket. Last year*s Hurricane Harvey, for example, the costliest hurricane in US history with an estimated US$125 billion in damages, still only amounted to about 0.6% of the US$19 trillion total US economy. So, while it may suck to be invested in, say, the insurance sector after a bad hurricane season, the market quickly recognizes that the impact on the overall economy is minimal and, ironically, the hurricanes may even provide economic stimulus as the rebuilding process begins (new houses, infrastructure, cars, etc.). So, equity markets quickly brush off hurricane season focusing instead on bigger issues such as overall corporate profitability, which does, in fact, meaningfully affect market direction.

Hurricanes make for great lead stories on the nightly news, but with the exception of short-term commodity traders and isolated sub-sectors, they〞no matter how ※tremendously wet§ and powerful〞don*t affect the market.

Scary, eye-of-the-hurricane satellite images can be quite misleading.

Doug Rowat, FCSI? is Portfolio Manager with Turner Investments and Senior Vice President, Private Client Group, Raymond James Ltd.


https:/c02/2018/09/22/tremendously-wet/feed/ 94
Lights out https://www.google.com/https:/c02/2018/09/21/lights-out/ https:/c02/2018/09/21/lights-out/#comments Fri, 21 Sep 2018 20:06:56 +0000 /c02/?p=14472 bóng đá trực tuyến

The noose tightens. Days ago we told you about the mess higher mortgage rates are making of things. Families pay more to service mortgages than ever, and after a few years during which loan-to-debt ratios dropped, we fell off the wagon. Once again we’re snorfling up borrowed money, making history, setting the scene for a momma of a reset down the road.

So here*s TD. It just raised its one-year mortgage rate by a stunning thirty basis points. Yeah, that may not sound like a lot. But it is. At 3.34% it*s now breathing down the neck of the best 5-year mortgage rates, so one more option for borrowers is effectively gone. More importantly, it tells you the trend. Up.

Short-term loan rates are swelling along with the yield on short bonds. They, in turn, are growing because the Bank of Canada will be jacking its benchmark rate in a month 每 by a quarter point. The current odds of that happening are north of 80%, and it*s not out of the question we could see a jump in December, as well (especially if Trump lets us back into a trade agreement).

The prime rate soon will be just a few man-bun hairs less than 4%. By this time next year it’ll be at least 4.5% and possible a quarter point higher. We have not seen this level for well over a decade, and it effectively eliminates the ※emergency rates§ thing in place since 2009.

This is a big deal for the kids buying real estate (or wanting to) for the first time. Gone are the 2% and 3% locked-in, half-decade-long mortgages that have been around since they discovered acne and urges. Combined with the B20 stress test, it means they have to qualify at 5.34%, or two per cent higher than what their bank is offering 每 whichever is greater.

Soon that Bank of Canada benchmark mortgage rate will be 5.6%. Next year it will pass 6%. Haven*t seen that for a decade, either. Frankly,? I don*t know why anyone would be buying now, knowing what*s coming.

$??   $?  ? $

Despite that, Barry’s thinking about it since he*s moving to a new jobs as a hated civil servant in that puffed-up place called Ottawa.

※I’ve been reading your blog for ten years now, and you saved me from the mistakes of rent-to-own schemes and listening to the buy-now-or-buy-never crowd. I have recommended your blog to several others, who generally don’t want to hear that their real estate purchases may have set them back financially, and argue that since they’re going to stay in their houses forever, it doesn’t matter (which you have repeatedly refuted. of course).§

Okay, MSU over. What*s the issue?

※I don’t often hear you comment on the Ottawa market. I will be moving there for work by November (in time for the horrible winter) and when I looked recently at condos and other properties for rent or for sale, I was staggered by how much more expensive Ottawa had become since the last time I looked about two years ago – this includes outlying areas such as Barrhaven and Orleans.

※My situation – 51, single, defined benefit pension plan, maxed out invested TFSA (stands at about $70,000 right now) and about $100,000 in savings (which I know I should invest). I got a late start to investing and savings due to some health issues, which have passed. My annual income is now a little over $100,000. I have never owned a property. The banks’/other institutions’ ‘buy or rent’ calculators seem to indicate I should buy, but then again, they are in the business of selling mortgages.? I would appreciate your insights on the Ottawa market and what would be best to do.§

That*s easy. Ottawa is a more stable market than most, thanks to all that government money sloshing around. There are almost 150,000 Trudeau employees in the National Capital region, thanks to a 12% hiring binge, and that*s enough to keep real estate less volatile that in, say, Vancouver where most people are private sector and/or nuts.

So the average Ottawa house costs about $433,000 and the typical condo is $276,000. Sales this year are close to identical with those recorded in 2017, and prices haven*t moved one centimeter when inflation*s factored in despite an 18% drop in active listings. So, this place lags the rest of urbanized Ontario in price increases, and will prove to be more resilient when conditions deteriorate.

The answer to your question: buy if it lowers your housing costs because there is no real reason to expect capital gains. Therefore real estate is shelter, not an investment. Given your pitiful level of savings and investments ($170,000 at age 51 is not cool), it means buying would hollow out your liquid assets, saddling you with mortgage payments, and put you on the hook for condo fees, property taxes, higher insurance and utility charges. Can you rent for less than that (including the lost investment potential of your down payment)?

Of course you can. Have you learned nothing from this pathetic blog? Besides, you*re single. Not even a spouse to nibble away at your resolve. And given the fact you haven*t lived in Ottawa before, plus the job is untested and may not work out, why would you throw all of your limited resources into a property? Move there. See if you like being in a? place where it snows every night, where major roads are shut down routinely so elected poohbahs can rush by in black Yukons, and everyone feels superior to Toronto.

Meanwhile, Barry, get serious about investing. When Doug Ford becomes PM your pension might be as secure as Toronto council.

About the picture...

※I love the blog, I share it with all of my moister friends and boomer parents regularly. Sufficient suckup?§

Yes, that passes. Continue.

※My girlfriend is a student and has a decent amount of OSAP, probably more than she needs, today she asked me if she should invest it. Curious what your thoughts are on that? I’ve been a long time blog reader and can’t recall you writing anything on the topic before.?Thanks, Shea. PS: In hopes of you replying I attached a photo of my dog Stanley having a snooze, he likes to be tucked in.§

OSAP money is loan money and she*s got to start paying it back after a six-month holiday. The average loan rate currently is 3.5-4%, and it*s non-deductible. So, Shea, the answer is no. Your GF would have to assured of a pre-tax return of 7% consistently in order for this to make sense, and in the short-term, that*s not a given. So why doesn*t she just pay the loan back instead of keeping funds she doesn*t need?

But yes, Stanley rocks.

https:/c02/2018/09/21/lights-out/feed/ 95
The big bail https://www.google.com/https:/c02/2018/09/20/the-big-bail/ https:/c02/2018/09/20/the-big-bail/#comments Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:32:11 +0000 /c02/?p=14470

Do you figure RBC could fail? It*s the country*s fattest bank 每 a financial behemoth with fingers stuck everywhere. Savings. Loans. Investments. Insurance. Mortgages. Capital markets. Global finance.

This mother has 1,200 branches, 80,000 employees and more than sixteen million clients. And it rakes in the cash. Net profits of about $1 billion a month. No wonder its stock has risen about 60% in the past three years.

But wait. What if a 2008 happened again? What if the housing market collapsed and zombie moisters defaulted en masse on their loft mortgages, going to live under bridges or at mom*s? What if equity markets globally crumbled because of a trade war, protectionism, populism defeating globalism and an unprecedented mountain of debt collapsing on consumers and economies? Plus the orange guy.

Could a bank like the Royal fail? If we all got scared and swarmed to take our money out, could it survive? After all, it may have assets of $1.2 trillion, but the bulk of those are in the form of deposits from ordinary schmucks and businesses. They can be gone in days, or hours. Could it withstand a storm?

Some people say it*s impossible, and point to the fact Ottawa had to buy out entire bank mortgage portfolios a decade ago as evidence of bank fragility.It*s also a common belief that a bank-in-trouble means serious grief for anyone with money there. ※The funds on deposit are no longer the property of the depositor,§ says an &investment* company flogging gold bullion. ※Instead the depositor becomes an unsecured creditor or lender to the bank. Banks pay you interest, but their real purpose is to use your funds to earn a spread. They put your funds at risk in the global markets through lending, syndication and trading.§

All this becomes more relevant in a few days when the first ※bail-in bonds§ go on sale to investors, issued by (of course) the Royal Bank.

What*s a bail-in?

The opposite of a bail-out. Unlike what Washington did after the 2008 meltdown on Wall Street – shoveling boatloads of taxpayer money into banks to keep them alive and save the financial system 每 a bail-in means a failing bank would be rescued by its own investors. Bailing-in got a bad rap after depositors in Cyprus-based banks were forced to hand over their cash when those institutions wobbled. So all the financial loonies and charlatans among us (there are many) say the bail-in legislation first proposed by Harper then passed by Trudeau would end up stealing your cash, wiping out your bank preferred shares, or trashing your ETF owning bank debt.

Of course, this is crap.

True, Ottawa has designated six banks as Too Big To Fail. They’re called &systemically important,* which means if one of them chokes, we*re all pooched. It*s also true that federal regulators (CDIC, the deposit insurance agency, and OSFI, the bank cop) now have the authority to actually take control of a bank if they see fit, for as long as five years. And in doing so, yes, they can order that certain securities and assets be turned into bank shares, raising cash to help rescue (maybe) the institution.

But clearly this does not involve your GIC, savings account, RBC mutual funds, chequing account, corporate bond, bank preferred shares, term deposit or any ETF holding these or bank stock itself. Ain*t gonna happen, no matter what some wild-eyed YouTube moron from Calgary tells you.

The powers Ottawa has assumed are incredibly broad. Effective this coming Sunday, the government has the legislated authority to take over any of the Big Six, kick out the board of directors, sell off assets or divisions, actually seize control of all the shares, rendering them worthless, or dilute them by converting assets into stock. Wow.

But here*s a key point that CDIC makes: ※The bail-in power will not be retroactive. This means that only instruments that are issued, or amended to increase their principal value or extend their term to maturity, on or after September 23, 2018 will be eligible for bail-in conversion. The bail-in power will not apply to existing instruments#§

Therefore this statement, by the gold-humpers, is complete fiction: ※Those at risk of a bail-in in the event of a failure are subordinated debt holders, bondholders, preferred shareholders and any accounts in excess of $100,000 not covered by CDIC insurance. Their bonds, preferred shares, deposits etc. would be converted to capital to re-capitalize the banks.§

And this brings us back to RBC, now first out of the gate with its shiny new Bail-In Bonds. It*s part of the global effort to ensure another 2008 doesn*t happen or, if it does, to try and save the system and not hollow out taxpayers. These bail-in securities will, by definition, be riskier than regular garden-variety bank debt because they can be converted into (worthless) equity in an emergency. So for that reason they will offer a premium return 每 yet to be spelled out.

Would I buy them?

In a heartbeat. No bank will fail.

https:/c02/2018/09/20/the-big-bail/feed/ 140