Printable View
If this does not make you wonder........
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reported in September that the country's top millionaires made an additional $37 billion combined during the six first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and this trend has been observed all around the world
https://www.blogto.com/city/2021/01/toronto-richest-family-8-billion-throughout-pandemic/
Well... the saying, “ it’s an ill wind that blows no good “...applies here . Someone always profits by a tragic event...just look at Amazon profits !!!
To the best of my knowledge nobody is stopping you from starting your own company. Also remember many of these Billionaires use their money to start new companies.
You are also free to invest in these companies as well. Sure wish I had bought BIT Coin back when it was 3 bucks.
How much did the poor people make?
That is actually a good point. Money in the hands of 'private' citizens usually ends up being spent. The more money they have the more they may stimulate the economy. Basic Capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
A lot of the made $18K in CERB money.Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
Except, and there's decades of empirical data behind this.
More and more $$, is going into fewer and fewer hands. Erego, the widening wealth gap. Which is between the "haves" aka upper middle class....and the middle class and down. Or the 20% club.
See also Pierre Polieves recent video on who and what is to blame for inflation and who pays the price having to keep up with the Jones.
I sometimes marvel, how things can get mentioned or whatever, and how often people forget the hard facts above....or simply, all the platitudes and hand wringing about the middle class.
X2 you have to pay if you want to playQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
There is soooooooo much out there. Most say the same things, most have for years now.
Not long ago ( Jan 2020??) Stats Can reported that the average Canadian house hold saves a mere $850/year. At the same time the average family in the 20% club saves $44,000/year. A person also has to have savings to play................................
Now ask any accountant or financial advisor who gets reamed by RSPs.......Answer those in the 60-70% club
Theres also this which was from 2018.
https://www.thestar.com/business/201...-can-says.html
and on
and on
and on
With respect to the topic.
Yep, just more of the same. The typical family gets reamed.See the widening wealth gap and sooooooooooooooooo many concerns, topics, articles, ad naseum about them
I think a few days ago I was listening to 640am talk radio and they quoted that most of the 100 top CEO's in Canada had made more already than the average working stiff for the entire year to come $45,000.00. The average salary was quoted as being 10 million dollars.
That's true Gilroy and has been for many years.
CEOs get their salaries and profit marching orders from boards and shareholders.
Do you like your pension?
Do you like your "investments" ( though I know you have said many times you personally don't)
Basically, no-one has leg to stand on with that, if they like their pensions and nest eggs. No corporate greed, no stock growth over the last 50 years...See comments about Amazon...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cro...vera-1.5584098
Well I do like my pension and I hope you do to, my OMERS letter I got yesterday stated the 10billion is added into the Ontario economy every years and they support 105,000 Ontario jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
But that aside JBEN do you really believe that these CEO's are worth their salaries. Most mutual funds managers cannot beat the stock index, so they do not have crystal balls.
How about all the FA who lost millions for their clients during the 2009 meltdown, do we get a rebate?
How about CEO who run companies right into the ground. Just saying.
No I don't think they are "worth" that much Gilroy.
The point your missing though is that "society" is too blame. Greed and the Jonses and Pensions/RSPs and loving those better than inflation returns. One simply cannot complain about "corporate" greed.......and like their returns....You can't suck and blow at the same time.
FAs.
The days of FAs "picking stocks" ala Warren Buffet are 40 years in the rearview. FAs and IAs are far more what they call holistic. Financial advisors. Everything from budgets, to talking to people about what they want for their children ( education and budgeting for that), to retirement planning, to insurance needs, estate planning, tax planning, and even family law.
2008 was the result of a few things, that very few saw coming. Anyone that tells you they can time the markets, or win easily. All you need to do ask them. If your so good, why don't you own your private island in the tropics. And any FA worth their salt will also talk to people about various investment strategies and optimum portfolio theory as well as time lines and far more. Not the least of which is risk tolerance.
CEOs that blow things up. Well our CEO did time in jail. What did you do when you failed to put a killer away for life, did you give parents "refunds"... What do cops do that run afoul other than collect paychecks while on desk duty or leave.
Don't start, that's one you'll lose :)
Re Omers. That may be true, but don't forget, first it syphons money out of the pockets of people, most that dont have it so good. So while it may ultimately add back, first it takes. And OMERS like many others sit on boards.
I do not blame society as this is how the Capitalist system works, we all chip into out CPP and hope the managers can invest in the "system" create jobs and add value. Returns should be made without destroying the WORLD IN THE PROCESS.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
IF fA CANNOT GIVE SAGE ADVICE THEN I SUPPOSE THEY HAVE NOW BECOME OBSOLETE?
If I have a NO RISK tolerance for savings, should all us pensioners just tuck our savings under out mattresses?
Should we invest and create new jobs, why bother, we will probably get ripped off again.
So keep her in the bank, earn less than 1% and spend NOTHING.
I never heard of any CEO's doing any time in jail?
I never let any killer get away so this question is mute.
The reason why officer's get paid when they run afoul of the law is because if they beat the rap, they would get paid in any case and sue for any losses', potentially costing taxpayers more money.
If OMERS syphons money out of the pockets of the taxpayers so does the CPP, Teachers union, Unifor, Hospital Union, Caisse de dépôt, should we blow up all these plans and lose half the jobs in the country?
I think the question you should ask yourself as you are a FA is why your not sitting on your own island in the Sun.
You have had 40 years of free wheeling in the Capitalist system, probably not having to contribute to all the pension systems we had no choice to contribute to, should you not be ahead of the game?
After all we are just dummy public service workers and union members what do we know.
And yet you were pensioned off early weren't you? incompetant? Flat foot? No doubt you had a 100% charge and conviction rate....Curious why you don't feel you owe people refunds...I mean all I need to mention is your failure to do much about gang and gangs violence....And when cops run afoul who pays the law suit bills (as well as cushy salaries while on leave)....
FAs
/whoosh but I'm not surprised.
Big difference between your pension and CPP Gilroy.
The fact you even included that....lol "think before you speak".. You are aware I hope, that when people contribute to CPP, they eventually get a benefit providing they live to collect.
But on that topic give us 1 good reason, given all that's known, whether that's the concerns about the typical family being unable to save, their futures in LTCs ( maybe if fewer people had more savings and thus better health/life) far fewer would end up in deplorable conditions to begin with.......Didn't think that far did you...Why Gilroy is the need for lTC capacity growing exponentially...
And we can include the lack of PSWs or even their wages, with respect to "all thats known"
Why a highly paid cop, that grosses more than 2x the duo mean. Needs peons like PSWs that can't afford jack, let alone save for their own futures so they don't end in LTCs, padding their pension. Can't you afford to take care of yourself at that point?
"And yet you were pensioned off early weren't you? incompetant? Flat foot?"
(R) I became disabled as a result of cancer, moved on and opened a spot for a younger person.
No doubt you had a 100% charge and conviction rate....Curious why you don't feel you owe people refunds...I mean all I need to mention is your failure to do much about gang and gangs violence....And when cops run afoul who pays the law suit bills (as well as cushy salaries while on leave)....
(R) Very good conviction rate because I did my homework before making an arrest.
The taxpayer pays the salary for a member under suspension, thereby avoiding a law suit if they had suspended without pay.
FAs
/whoosh but I'm not surprised.
Big difference between your pension and CPP Gilroy.
(R) I am very aware as I collect both as I contributed to both.
The fact you even included that....lol "think before you speak".. You are aware I hope, that when people contribute to CPP, they eventually get a benefit providing they live to collect.
But on that topic give us 1 good reason, given all that's known, whether that's the concerns about the typical family being unable to save, their futures in LTCs ( maybe if fewer people had more savings and thus better health/life) far fewer would end up in deplorable conditions to begin with.......Didn't think that far did you...Why Gilroy is the need for lTC capacity growing exponentially...
And we can include the lack of PSWs or even their wages, with respect to "all thats known"
(R) Aging population.
Why a highly paid cop, that grosses more than 2x the duo mean. Needs peons like PSWs that can't afford jack, let alone save for their own futures so they don't end in LTCs, padding their pension. Can't you afford to take care of yourself at that point?[/QUOTE]
(R) Right back at you why are PSW's so poorly paid. Also why do you think so poorly of Police officers?
P.S. Also try to answer the tough questions.
[COLOR=#000000]I think the question you should ask yourself as you are a FA is why your not sitting on your own island in the Sun.
[COLOR=#000000]You have had 40 years of free wheeling in the Capitalist system, probably not having to contribute to all the pension systems we had no choice to contribute to, should you not be ahead of the game?
[COLOR=#000000]After all we are just dummy public service workers and union members what do we know.
well Gilroy maybe if we paid the Police less and cut back existing pensions we could afford to pay PSW's more. We can't raise taxes anymore as people are taxed much to high. In fact taxes should be reduced. Would you be willing to take a 10% cut on pension to give for PSW's?
I have a better idea why not tax the crap out of the 1% that have their money hidden in offshore accounts and are the one'sQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
cutting the throat's of the middle class where nobody these day's gets a full time job.
This is good news - and all as a result of tyrannical actions of federal and provincial governments closing small businesses. Again - governments are always the problem, and in this case increased the profits of corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by impact
Classic Gilroy.
Anyone but “me”. Despite the fact, empirical data shows it’s the top 20%....
Despite the fact, data on PS salaries and benefits.....
Despite oh so much.....
And while I agree, the top 5% could pay more. How much more do you think they will accept before leaving for greener pastures. Have you not been reading the news the past 16 years? People and companies leaving...
again. One simple question.
If you grossed in salary, more than the mean duo!!!
Why should those that struggle to get by, struggle to save, struggle to pay Hydro, struggle to keep up with inflation ( primarily caused by the 20%)
pad your pension. Can’t you afford to take care of yourself when you’re grossing 2x and more what the tax base does?
and at the very least if everyone in PS siphoned less. Could we not then hire more? A lot more.
yes we could obviously. Especially those lower down the food chain like PSWs or EAs.....
“You” and your Unions made the bed. “Deal with it”...aka own it
The tax the 1% rhetoric is just BS spewed by people who don't want to look at the real problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
The liberals tried that after their 2015 election win and it resulted in a net loss in the amount of income tax collected.
Two problems with it:
- The 1% have enough tools at there disposal to avoid taxation.
- The 1% is too small of group - despite their wealth - to fund the entire country.
What the liberals are studying now is applying capital gains taxes to primary residence sales.
That is going to raise a lot of money, and it should also help cool off the housing market.
BINGO was his name ohQuote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
BINGO....Correct, now you get 1% of offshore hidden earnings. Please vote conservative/Liberal/NDP or Greens in the next election so we make this happen...lol Please donate here: WWW..any political partyQuote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
So your answer appears to be let the 1% keep all their money and let Corporations with offshore HQ's and bank accounts keep all there money, even although they are making it in our country with their employee's using our health system and then have the taxpayer's bank role everything else?Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Well chasing the rich away doesn't help much does it. Don't forget the rich also create new Jobs. Governments don't create Jobs. But Governments do chase companies away. Ontario Liberals chased away a lot of union jobs tens of thousands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Ontario Liberals chased away the companies who could not afford to pay janitors $65/hr due to the unions. The unions killed themselves in this province, the Liberals helped them along.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Those are your words not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I see you're really hung up on the 1% - it's an easy target because you can get 99% of the people behind you.
But as I said earlier - its BS spewed by people who don't want to look at the real problem.
... and you've clearly stated twice your one of those people.
Yeah he is really hung on the 1 percent lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
That 1 percent has personal jets they can do whatever they want to . Crush them to much they will head else where .
If they are the ones who created job's say good by to them
Some are just jealous of the wealth they know when you have more you can make more . You have less you will make less.
The world wasn't meant to the same ,some are blessed with wealth but hey that's how it is.
Money doesn't make happiness can't be jealous of the 1 percent when the other 99 percent makes up the majority lol.
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
I personally think it's the union's are responsible for taking away the middle class. Not just them alone but they definitely help with inflation while the rest stays the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
Taxing corporations - while it seems to be a victimless tax - doesn't help much.
You are actually taxing the investors in the corporations. Taxing investment? Does that look like a way to create new jobs?
When you tax a corporation you reduce the return to the investor - who may be a rich 1% person, but more than likely it is a pension fund (OMERS, OTPPB, CPPIB, or one of many others) or individuals like myself who does not have a government pension and relies entirely on my investments for my retirement.
What's lost on the "tax the corporations" crowd is that while corporations are legal entities - they don't really own their assets. They are owned by shareholders. Anything you do to tax corporations is actually a tax on the shareholders.
Going forwards there are a couple of ways to distribute the tax burden.
- increasing income tax rates
- introducing a wealth tax (a tax on the value of your home, your investments, and most significantly, pensions)
Neither of these is likely to go a forwards because they would adversely affect too many voters.
Here are ontario tax brackets. Why are people making under 44,700 being taxed at all? Take a look at those numbers. If a guy making 88k is being taxed 9.15 on his last dollar (marginal tax rate they call it), shouldn't a guy making 140k be taxed more than 11.16 (marginal tax rate)?
5.05% on the first $44,740 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $44,742, +
11.16% on the next $60,518, +
12.16% on the next $70,000, +
13.16 % on the amount over $220,000
I've missed you Werner.
Regardless of the topic, there are always those on the extremes, those in the middle. There are those who get fixated on one aspect ( like the 1%) or tax Corporations, or it's all the fault of taxation. When few topics are ever simple or straightforward. Few seem to be capable of trying to look at all aspects....
With respect to income taxes.
Remember what the medians are. 50% of the population does not gross $45,000. 50% of households do not gross $87,000.
And keep in mind, how taxes like gas or carbon or HST are blind to incomes. So a person that grosses say $50,000 and has maybe $15,000 in disposable income. Spends $4,000 on fuel. $2,000 of which is tax.
$2,000 of $50,000 = ??%
$2,000 of $100,000 = ??%
how many people gross 50,000. Almost half the population or 10 million.
How many people gross $100,000. About 10% so call it 2 million.
10,000,000,00 x $2,000
2,000,000 x $2,000
Sorry....... but no different than those who are fixated, on the evils of unions. A company is in it for the shareholders, no one else. A union is in it for their members, no one else. If one is selfish, so is the other.
A union is in it for the union. They only do enough for the members to maintain their leadership. About the same as politicians and the believe that hey might be "in it for the electorate". Ha Ha Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
That was part of , but the Unions usually look at basing the salary demands on the cost of living of the workers. And Ontario is very expensive. But your right, like Nestle's in Winchester was closed largely because of the cost of labour demands made by the unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
The a bigger part was Hydro rates, under the Liberal Government they soared...that drove many businesses away.
Correct W.R. Everyone wants to keep their job. I do not understand why people get so upset,, when a union does what it is supposed to do for it's members. That's why we put them there. They are not there to please anyone, but their members. If they do not get better, conditions, pay, pensions, for the members they will be replaced. Just like a CEO who is expected to increase shareholders profits, continually, or they will be replaced. To blame the ills of our economy, just on unions is nonsense. Just ask those very poor folks, in the 'right to work' states how that worked out. The right to be a peon, and make minimum wage ...forever...... Think 'Norma Rea'...
Although the union is a big part of the problem, the province is also responsible, not just with the hydro, but also with other things:
- increasing the minimum wage - while I think people deserve to be paid a living wage, the province needs to decide which is worse - low paying jobs or no jobs?
- hidden payroll taxes
- requirements for training certifications
The big plywood plant in Pembroke (Commonwealth) is shut down permanently now because of a strike over wages. Not only were the manufacturing jobs lost but also a bunch of forestry jobs upstream that provided timber to the mill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
That's what happened to Hershey's and Stanley in Smiths Fall and Black and Decker in Brockville. All settled strikes, then packed up and moved south. I understand it's the same with 3M in Brockville but I also heard it was the Hydro rates as a big part of moving production.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Some of these big Unions seem to be out of touch since FreeTrade.
No Mike, this goes way back, before the 15 years of Liberal spending. The automotive union was well on their way to pushing out manufacturing in Ontario, the hydro rates were a problem recently but that was only the last nail of many in the coffins. The unions were not working towards equivalent salaries or living wages, the money that employees were getting simply based on the amount of time they were there was insane. I am talking about the plants in Oshawa mainly, I have many family members who worked in and around the plants there, they all saw the writing on the wall and moved to non-unionized places that were more diverse so that they could build up a skill set that would be required once the assembly plants closed down.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Unfortunately some of the folks on here would like to take us back to the Winnipeg riots of the old days and strike breakers and Pinkertons gunning down protesters. Working people going cap in hand and paying into the company store.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
There is also some truth especially today that Union's are only for union's. My son is in 416 Union and they are hopeless, lazy,
do not answer the phone's and basically do nothing for the member's. So he is frustrated at both the Union's and some of his fellow workers with 30 years on who feel they do not need to work very hard and complaint and play the union card when they try to discipline them.
There has to be a middle ground between the old ways where the boss always had the upper hand, because basically we are now back at that spot with part time employment for many, no benefits and no pensions.
The auto industry is a different problem that what we are seeing today. That failure was 100% union driven. In QC, but similar to Ontario, the union at St Therese played hardball with GM which had just retooled the plant to produce F-bodies (firebirds and camaros) which GM desperately needed. GM caved and the GM manager who had to sign off on the agreement said in a press conference following that that the St. Therese plant will never be retooled again. At the end of the F-Body run, the plant was closed and demolished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
It is corporate greed that lets companies shutdown.... But like many on here, need that cooperate greed to expand my portfolio, so I too am part of the problem.
Not corporate greed. Shareholder greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
Shareholders are what determines a co-operations action via the board of directors.
Up until recently, shareholder direction has always been to maximise growth and/or profit.
We are seeing a change that companies are being directed to be more climate friendly, socially responsible, hiring with diversity targets etc, and less concerned with the financial aspects of their business. Not sure how much this will catch on though as it makes for a poorer financial investment.
Yup it is how communists operate vilify the rich - just like they did in Venezuela.
Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
You've actually hit it on the head ...Corporate greed is what encourages investing by Companies. They want to make money. Taxing the 1% to the hilt will only make them move their money elsewhere. Even the Village idiot knows that.
The problem is, instead of giving them tax breaks to keep their money and invest in companies that will make them money and stimulate our Economy, the dumb chit want to use taxpayers money to invest in companies that will NEVER make money (Wind Energy a good example)
He is so fixated on closing down Canada's energy sector and try to meet the Paris accord target that he will drive away private investments....because no one can make money under his Green Plan initiatives once the Government subsidies stop.
Obviously that was a comment directed at me.
Do I have it in for public service Unions? Yep.
1) Way too much political clout and interfence. When was the last time 20,000 or 50,000 "bankers" marched on QP and had all politicans quaking in their boots, afraid for their survival? Like never? When was the last time cheirf political officers raised all kinds of red flags about Bay street....never?
2) Despite their protestations, they don't care one iota what they do to other people. See history, see the state of Ontario's fiscal position. See LTCs....For all their crocodile tears today, where were they between 2000 and 2020. Not making noise about seniors sleeping in their shyte,...nope, too busy lining their own pockets.
3) The cost of public service, debt and deficits, the cost to just ordinary people that don't have it so good having to pay for it all.
4) The cost to the public, in terms of nowhere near enough PSWs, or Family Doctors, or people like Gilroy and I going to the US for cancer treatment....Or not enough COs...Gee I thought saving the environment was all the rage........
And unlike some I have no problems acknowledging that corporate greed/shareholder greed is also part of the problem. Or that Wall street too has it shares of shysters.
See the difference?
It actually goes back to the 70's and Free Trade. I was in Kitchener then and watched a City touted as shining star of an Industrial based economy, decimated by companies that closed up and moved to Mexico for cheaper labour. The Canadian labour rates were already too high to make up the difference the Ontario Government gave companies to built here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Werner.
on shareholder greed.
I started on Bay St in the mid 80s. Back then Mutual Funds were new, and few people knew what they were, let alone understood them. By the 90s I was in derivatives and things like the Nikkei Put Warrant. By the early 90s I was in the grand daddy of structured products, like swaps and more.
Point being, Mutual Funds were an early way for more people to invest in the markets. Pools of money most could only dream of. But allowed people to invest in "fractional shares". By the late 80s mutual funds were booming.
Growth in the SP 500 since the 60s.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...iew&ajaxhist=0
JBEN
As you know I am a member of OMERS I had no choice in that matter 40 years ago when I joined my job and honestly I paid zero attention to my pension for most all of my years. It was not until I got sick and knew I would need to go on pension I PAID ANY ATTENTION.
But the point I am making is I am aware that OMERS is in "the market" pushing for profits to fund my pension, but what would you have me do about it.
Do I give up my pension and give the taxpayer back the money that they contributed towards my wages for the past 40 years.
Does OMERS dissolve and give the 100 billion back to the people in the same hand putting 105,000 people out of work?
I know Gilroy.
In the past ( as in years ago), I would suggest ( supposition because I wasnt around) when pension plans were devised. I believe CPP started in the 1950s. I don't believe people back then foresaw the problems of today. Nor even that life expectancy post retirement would increase from 12 years (when CPP which itself is a DBP was introduced) to 25 years (today). let alone other aspects. What can I say, money managers and people that create various financial products are human, they screw up.
As for "pushing" for profits. Well to that I would say things along the lines of who pretends to care about the working class?
The hawks on Bay Street? Or the Unions that have caused so much damage.......
OK W you are relying entirely on your investments to fund your retirement, I am already retired and could join you in funding your retirement by say investing in a mutual fund you are also in.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
But guess what I am to afraid of the market to even think of investing.
So are thousands of Canadians who have money sitting in saving accounts and 1% GIC,s'
The money is there because they were burned by the 2009 collapse and they can NO LONGER AFFORD TO LOSE ANYMORE.
What would be your advice to all the pensioners frozen out of fear to keep money in savings accounts only.
right thread :)
Interesting fact on fear and greed.
People react 4x stronger to losses than they do gains. In simple terms. A person finds $100 on the street. Hey cool.
A person loses $100 out of their wallet. They are right pissed off and day ruined.
So yep, when people complain about corporate greed. It’s really themselves, shareholders. And people hate, hate not getting those returns or god forbid, an off year and dividends being reduced/cancelled.
Look at market based GICs. They are essentially mutual funds but your principal is guaranteed. You get market return less a management fee, but your gain is capped - maybe at 15% over 3 years or something like that. It varies. The bank is gambling that over the long term the market will recover and they will make enough on the difference between the cap and the actual return to cover any losses. They've been around for 15-20 years. Much better than 1% interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
BTW - I'm not in in mutual funds - they worked in the 1980's when financial information was very restricted. Now everyone has the same financial information for all companies. No secrets. "Active Management" is just a manager placing bets on winners and losers. I think the last numbers I saw was that in any given year after management fees are deducted, only 7% of accounts beat the index for their holdings. I don't pick individual stocks either. All ETFs (exchange traded funds) or stock based GICs. ETFs are stock based funds with the associated risks.
Re: 2008 - the only people that lost money in 2008 were those that irrational pulled their cash out of a down market. That's as irrational as buying into an up market - like it is now. I wouldn't be buying stock based investments now without a principal guarantee.
Well as a member of OMERS I guess I am a share holder but had no choice in the matter and I have no choice in where they invest.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I have already been advised that they lost money last year even although they are pretty conservative in investing.
Now I will not lose any of my pension by I will lose on my voluntary contributions but either way I do not get a say on how or where they invest.
I accept that the actuaries are human and made calculations 30 years ago that no longer apply because of added lfe expectancy, what is the solution for that.... reduce the pension........ put people out of work......then I might qualify for GIS?
Pretty hard to lose money in the stock market last year.... Unless you dumped everything on March 22. But I would doubt OMERS did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I'd guess OMERS owns a lot of commercial real estate, and I think that took a bad hit.
Thanks for the input W so even after a mutual fund fee is paid you are still ok with market based GIC's.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
I did a segregated fund years ago for 10 years, it was supposed to double, it did not but at least I did not lose. Is this the same type of product.
All good points. Rational discourse. I am in the same boat as Gil. Thanks for for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Yeh they already told me that they will have negative return's, you got to remember they own places like Square One, part of 407, The Port of Melbourne,...all dependent on the economy rolling along.
I know back in 2009 they lost a full 25% of their worth at 15billion dollar haircut from the 60 billion.
Just had a look at scotia banks stock based GICs. The returns on them now are horrible. Capped at 4.5% over 3 years. (1.5%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
TD has one that's 18.88% over 3 years (maximum)Earn up to 18.88% with a 3-year TD Canadian Banking & Utilities GIC*
W I had a quick look on the net not to sure what to believe, maybe JBEN can comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
https://forums.redflagdeals.com/td-c...s-gic-2171292/
Looks like 2 complaints there a) people thinking it is 18.88 per year, not over the 3 year term - and I had clearly stated it was over 3 years, and b) people putting no value on the guaranteed principal. If you don't care about the guaranteed principal, then it's not a good investment. But we were talking about people being afraid, unable to lose an more... So the first thing you need to do before asking for investment advice is ask your self, are you willing to accept risk to your principal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Not sure about others but Scotia banks don't have fees. None in, none out, no management.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
10-4....Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Not sure what your wondering Gilroy. Werner has a lot of knowledge. What we might call sophisticated and has answered a lot. The truth is, these very many years later many people still don't understand MFs, or what a MER is ( Management Expense Ratio). Long after MFs gained popularity ETFS came along. ETFs are a lot like MFs but without the MERs. Something I would point people towards who had decent understanding of things, because it's saving them the MER.
There are soooooooooo many things out there these days. Many of them, the kinds of things "genius's" dream up, structure (sort of our/my business from the 90s on) . There's index and equity linked notes, Some which basically or essentially guarantee floors so losses are "capped", but they have ceilings as well, capping the upside. For the consumer you typically get interest and a wee bit of market exposure/participation. Lol, god I could spend hours. Many things get sold to the public, which use derivatives and structured products on the back end to mitigate risk.
Google "when genius fails". It's a true story from the 90s, few ever heard of.
I will also tell you, I was with Deutsche bank when Bre-x happened and the RCMP came a calling.
Bankers Trust when they had a couple blow ups with Gibson greeting cards and again on the Peso.<< Again all structured products.
Then Maple securities and Wolfgang..
With respect to Werners last post, and last line.
Most people don't understand risk, or the definition of risk. Risk is not the risk/chance your investment will lose money. Risk is the volatility in price movements. At it's simplest banks are deemed "low risk", and attractive for their dividend yields. Low risk means their share price doesn't move much. Maybe up a hair or one day, down a hair the next. High risk, are things where the price is volatile. Big swings daily or intra day. Conversely, much as people think short sellers are evil incarnate, they add liquidity ( stability) to the markets.
With respect to the "gic" you linked. At a superficial glance its and equity linked note. Something that can pay you some interest with some exposure to utility companies. They can protect or guarantee against downside risk, but will cap the upside as well.
Here you go Gilroy. This should give you nightmares at night :). And, largely factual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_G...t%20%28LTCM%29.