Richard Oldfield was an investment manager for three decades, and he evaluated and appointed investment managers for a decade.  His book, Simple but not Easy: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Art of Investing , was first published in 2007, and his second edition, that I review here, came out in 2021.  The quality of the writing makes it a pleasure to read, but it comes from a time when “investing” meant stock picking, and few doubted that active investing based on star managers was the best approach.  For those who still think this way, this book offers many useful lessons, but others might see it all as advice on traveling by horse-drawn carriage. The 2007 edition of the book is left intact with a new preface and a lengthy new afterword added for the second edition.  The new afterword provides interesting commentary on the modern investment landscape, but I still can only recommend this book to those dedicated to trying to beat the market. Many themes in this book migh...

When it comes to stocks, index investing offers many advantages over other investment approaches.  However, these advantages don’t always carry over to other asset classes.  No investment style should be treated like a religion, indexing included.  It pays to think through the reasons for using a given approach to investing. Stocks Low-cost broadly-diversified index investing in stocks offers a number of advantages over other investment approaches: Lower costs, including MERs, trading costs within funds, and capital gains taxes Less work for the investor Better diversification leading to lower volatility losses Choosing actively-managed mutual funds or ETFs definitely has much higher costs.  For investors who just pick some actively-managed funds and stick with them, the amount of work required can be low, but more often the investor stays on the lookout for better funds, which can be a lot of work for questionable benefit.  Many actively-managed funds offer dec...

Authors Tony Martin and Eric Tyson have updated their book, The Canadian’s Guide to Investing , but it certainly does not seem very up-to-date.  Despite a few references to ETFs and some updated examples, most of the text seems decades old and no longer very relevant.  There are some good parts, but there are better choices for investment books. The book makes reference to many things that used to be true.  Extensive discussion about “funds” is almost exclusively about mutual funds with little about ETFs.  Buying stocks is “costly unless you buy reasonable chunks (100 shares or so) of each stock.”  You can “call the fund company’s toll-free number” and invest by “mailing in a cheque.”  “A great deal of emphasis is placed on who manages a specific fund” – this is mostly a thing of the past.  “Invest in a handful of funds (five to ten).”  There is discussion of real estate “declines in the late 2000s.” There are repeated references to MERs of 0.5% t...

Recent Rational Reminder podcasts ( 319 and 321 ) have had a debate about tax rates on RRSP contributions and withdrawals.  Most people agree that when you contribute, you’re lowering your taxes at your marginal tax rate.  The debate concerns withdrawals.  Some say that RRSP withdrawals come at your “average, or effective tax rates, not your marginal tax rate.”  Here, I address this question. With Canada’s progressive tax system, the first part of your income isn’t taxed at all (or is taxed negatively when you consider income-tested government benefits), then the next part of your income is lightly taxed, and marginal tax rates increase from there as your income rises. A question that comes up in my own portfolio accumulation and decumulation planning is what order to stack income each year.  Is it CPP and OAS that are taxed lightly and RRSP withdrawals taxed more, or should I stack the income in some other order?  What about other income from non-register...

Suppose a casino offered the following bet.  You roll six fair dice.  If anything but all sixes shows up, you get $20.  But if all sixes show up, you lose a million dollars.  There are a number of practical problems with this game.  The casino would demand a million dollar deposit in advance, and the odds are way too sensitive to imperfections in the dice and to player skill at not throwing sixes.  But this is a thought experiment designed to shed light on real world financial events. Initially, few people would play this game, because losing a million dollars is too scary.  But if you watched someone playing, even all day, you’d likely never see a loss.  You’d just see the player collecting $20 every 10 seconds or so building up to many thousands of dollars.  The fear of missing out (FOMO) would set in for some and tempt them to play. Over the long haul, the casino expects to pay out $933,120 for every million dollars it wins.  So playi...