Financial Markets Meltdown

[Map Maker]

Good deals out right now.
TD divy is over 5%
TRP divy is over 7%
BCE divy is over 7% as well
All stocks p/e is 20 or under.

[Dean2]

Reporting on Bank earnings started today with BNS and BMO. Like every earnings reporting period I expect to see large drops in the Bank shares, especially any that report lower than expected earnings or excessively high loan loss provisions. BMO is going to get hit hard based on their announced results, BNS is not great but not terrible. I expect Royal to be good as always.

Added

BNN just posted this.

Bank earnings begin: There’s always a ton to unpack in the quarterly earnings of Canada’s big banks, but one metric that I like to pay attention to is the amount of loans the banks have on their books that they’re worried might go pear-shaped. Known as ‘provisions for credit losses’ or loan-loss provisions more commonly, they’re a metric the banks reveal every quarter that show how much money they’re setting aside to potentially write off loans that are in danger of going bad. The loans themselves often end up turning out fine, and the banks end up moving those funds to the other side of their accounting ledger later on. But by tracking the size of that loan pile and whether or not it’s getting bigger or smaller, we can learn a lot about which way the banks think things are headed. On that metric, the news out of Scotiabank this morning was noteworthy, as the lender revealed its loan-loss provisions rose to $962 million last quarter. That’s up by 51 per cent from last year’s level and even higher than the $922 million that analysts were expecting. It’s down from $1.2 billion the previous quarter, however, so is perhaps a sign that things are trending in a more positive direction. The decline on a quarterly basis is the first time we’ve seen that after six quarters in a row of increase.


One-time items pile up at BMO: The overall numbers were a little weaker at BMO, which also reported quarterly numbers premarket on Tuesday. BMO’s loan-loss provisions also rose sharply to $627 million, up from $446 last quarter and $217 million the year before. It was also more than the $514 million that analysts were expecting. On the whole, the bank earned $2.56 per share on an adjusted basis, less than the $3.02 that analysts were expecting. Profits were dragged down by a number of one-time items, including a $371 million tax expense related to new CRA rules, an after-tax $1.4 billion loss due to interest rate changes between the announcement of its recent Bank of West acquisition and the deal’s closing, and a $417 million “special assessment” charge from U.S. banking regulator the FDIC. The FDIC has been recalculating what it charges to insure deposits after the tumult at regional banks like Silicon Valley and others last year, and said last year it would be announcing special assessments for 114 different banks as a result.

[Dean2]

The perfect Argument for buying an ETF that mirrors the S&P 500 or DOW rather than trying to pick the winners and losers. For every Amazon that zoomed up, there were a few dozen that bit the dust completely.











3) Amazon in, Walgreens Out

Speaking of the Dow, there’s been a change in the index.

Amazon is in and Walgreens is out.

Apparently, it only took a 178,600% gain since its IPO for Amazon to get the attention of the Dow committee.

What is Amazon’s weighting in the Dow?

2.9%, making it the 17th largest holding. The Dow uses prices instead of market cap to determine its weights, making United Health the largest holding because it has the highest price per share. If market cap weights were used, Amazon would be the 3rd largest holding with a weight of 12.7%.

Interestingly, despite its unusual methodology, the Dow has been highly correlated to the cap-weighted S&P 500 over the years (.95 monthly correlation since Jan 1998). And perhaps more interestingly, the price weighting has not hurt performance, with the Dow ETF ($DIA) actually outperforming the S&P 500 ETF ($SPY) since its inception in January 1998).

[KGB]

All aboard of the FIX - Comfort Systems USA…THIS IS A LOCOMOTIVE! No, this is a nuclear locomotive!

[DiabeticKripple]

ZSP.TO has been great to me. smaller dividend but the growth is nice.

[fishtank]

It took Amazon a while before amazon was just mostly sideways and loosing money, when AWS started to make money that when the stock started to take off .
Microsoft was stuck in a rut during the ballmer years. Until he was replaced then it took off .

[Dean2]

As expected RBC announced good results for the past quarter. Loan Loss Provisions are up from the same quarter a year ago, which was expected, but still lower than some of the other Banks are reporting. National Bank reported this morning too and posted strong results as well.

TORONTO, Feb. 28, 2024 /CNW/ - Royal Bank of Canada11 (TSX: RY) (NYSE: RY) today reported net income of $3.6 billion for the quarter ended January 31, 2024, up $449 million or 14% from the prior year, which included the $1,050 million impact of the Canada Recovery Dividend (CRD) and other tax related adjustments. Diluted EPS was $2.50, up 12% over the same period. Adjusted net income7 and adjusted diluted EPS7 of $4.1 billion and $2.85 were down 5% and 6%, respectively, from the prior year.

Our consolidated results reflect an increase in total PCL of $281 million from a year ago, mainly reflecting higher provisions in Personal & Commercial Banking and Capital Markets, partially offset by lower provisions in Wealth Management. The PCL on loans ratio of 37 bps increased 12 bps from the prior year. The PCL on impaired loans ratio was 31 bps, up 14 bps from the prior year as provisions continue to trend upwards, reflecting the impact of higher interest rates and rising unemployment.

Results also reflected the impact of specified items relating to the planned acquisition of HSBC Bank Canada (HSBC Canada), including transaction and integration costs ($265 million before-tax and $218 million after-tax), and management of closing capital volatility ($286 million before-tax and $207 million after-tax). The cost of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) special assessment of $159 million before-tax ($115 million after-tax) also impacted results.

Pre-provision, pre-tax earnings of $5.2 billion were down $607 million or 11% from last year, mainly due to higher expenses, and lower revenue in Capital Markets, largely reflecting lower trading revenue compared to a strong prior year. These factors were partially offset by higher insurance investment results from favourable investment performance as we repositioned our portfolio for transition to IFRS 17. Results benefitted from higher net interest income driven by solid volume growth, as well as higher fee-based client assets reflecting market appreciation and net sales in Wealth Management.

Compared to last quarter, net income was down 9%, partly reflecting a higher effective tax rate, as results in the prior quarter included the favourable impact of the specified item relating to certain deferred tax adjustments, and higher PCL on impaired loans. Lower results in Corporate Support and Personal & Commercial Banking were partially offset by higher results in Wealth Management, Capital Markets and Insurance. Adjusted net income was up 8% over the same period. Pre-provision, pre-tax earnings were up 12% as higher revenue more than offset expense growth.

Our capital position remains robust, with a CET1 ratio of 14.9%, supporting solid volume growth and $1.9 billion in common share dividends.

"As our first quarter results show, RBC has the right strategy in place to grow today while also generating long-term value for shareholders. Underpinned by our balance sheet strength, prudent approach to risk management and diversified business model, we delivered solid, client-driven volume growth and a continued focus on expense control. As we look towards the completion of our planned HSBC Canada acquisition, we remain focused on being a trusted advisor to clients through the delivery of new and differentiated banking experiences."

– Dave McKay, President and Chief Executive Officer of Royal Bank of Canada

[Dean2]

TD and CIBC both posted today. TD posted good results, CIBC not bad, but not great. I expect to see TD up over the next couple of days. CIBC flat to down. BMO posted a couple of days ago and were the worst results of the Big six and has been punished hard. National has jumped to an all time high on their results published same day as BMO.

Laurentian Bank posted too, it is still the steaming pile of excrement it has always been. Far and away the worst run Bank in Canada.

[Map Maker]

Originally Posted by Dean2

TD and CIBC both posted today. TD posted good results, CIBC not bad, but not great. I expect to see TD up over the next couple of days. CIBC flat to down. BMO posted a couple of days ago and were the worst results of the Big six and has been punished hard. National has jumped to an all time high on their results published same day as BMO.

Laurentian Bank posted too, it is still the steaming pile of excrement it has always been. Far and away the worst run Bank in Canada.

Added to my TD stockpile. 5% dividend and prospect of capital gain. Better than a GIC.
IMO.

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by Map Maker

Added to my TD stockpile. 5% dividend and prospect of capital gain. Better than a GIC.
IMO.

Agree, when you consider the difference in tax treatment: that 5% dividend is about the same as 9% interest if you hold both in taxable accounts. That and you don't pay capital gains tax till you actually sell and the tax is on only 50% of the gain. With the prospect of rate drops even a year out, Banks, Utilities and Pipelines will be back in favour due to the dividends. TRP is over 7.2% and sustainable, and Telus 6.4%, BCE 7.9% etc are way up there on yield too.

At my age, I don't need the pot to grow fast (if I was 30 again I would have a different investment mix), but the steady monthly income is really nice to have. Since these companies increase their dividends 3 or 4% every year, which is more than most pensions, even Defined Benefit with COLA (Cost of Living Adjustments) clauses, it also helps to keep up with inflation. (At 7% your money doubles every 11 years, but at 3% inflation your spending power is cut in half every 22 years as well, and when inflation on what most people spend most of their money on actually buy, groceries, mortgage or rent, car expense, insurance, property tax, payroll deductions etc is running 12 to 18% like it has the last few years, your buying power gets cut in half in 4 to 6 years.)

[Dean2]

This may be well known but it also may be helpful to some.

How to Use the Rule of 72

The Rule of 72 could apply to anything that grows at a compounded rate, such as population, macroeconomic numbers, charges, or loans. If the gross domestic product (GDP) grows at 4% annually, the economy will be expected to double in 72 / 4% = 18 years.

With regards to the fee that eats into investment gains, the Rule of 72 can be used to demonstrate the long-term effects of these costs. A mutual fund that charges 3% in annual expense fees will reduce the investment principal to half in around 24 years. A borrower who pays 12% interest on their credit card (or any other form of loan that is charging compound interest) will double the amount they owe in six years.

The rule can also be used to find the amount of time it takes for money's value to halve due to inflation. If inflation is 6%, then a given purchasing power of the money will be worth half in around 12 years (72 / 6 = 12). If inflation decreases from 6% to 4%, an investment will be expected to lose half its value in 18 years, instead of 12 years.

Additionally, the Rule of 72 can be applied across all kinds of durations provided the rate of return is compounded annually. If the interest per quarter is 4% (but interest is only compounded annually), then it will take (72 / 4) = 18 quarters or 4.5 years to double the principal. If the population of a nation increases at the rate of 1% per month, it will double in 72 months, or six years.

Who Came Up With the Rule of 72?

The Rule of 72 dates back to 1494 when Luca Pacioli referenced the rule in his comprehensive mathematics book called Summa de Arithmetica.2 Pacioli makes no derivation or explanation of why the rule may work, so some suspect the rule pre-dates Pacioli's novel.3
How Do You Calculate the Rule of 72?

Here's how the Rule of 72 works. You take the number 72 and divide it by the investment's projected annual return. The result is the number of years, approximately, it'll take for your money to double.

For example, if an investment scheme promises an 8% annual compounded rate of return, it will take approximately nine years (72 / 8 = 9) to double the invested money. Note that a compound annual return of 8% is plugged into this equation as 8, and not 0.08, giving a result of nine years (and not 900).

If it takes nine years to double a $1,000 investment, then the investment will grow to $2,000 in year 9, $4,000 in year 18, $8,000 in year 27, and so on.
How Accurate Is the Rule of 72?

The Rule of 72 formula provides a reasonably accurate, but approximate, timeline—reflecting the fact that it's a simplification of a more complex logarithmic equation. To get the exact doubling time, you'd need to do the entire calculation.

The precise formula for calculating the exact doubling time for an investment earning a compounded interest rate of r% per period is:

To find out exactly how long it would take to double an investment that returns 8% annually, you would use the following equation:

T = ln(2) / ln (1 + (8 / 100)) = 9.006 years

As you can see, this result is very close to the approximate value obtained by (72 / 8) = 9 years.



What Is the Difference Between the Rule of 72 and the Rule of 73?

The rule of 72 primarily works with interest rates or rates of return that fall in the range of 6% and 10%. When dealing with rates outside this range, the rule can be adjusted by adding or subtracting 1 from 72 for every 3 points the interest rate diverges from the 8% threshold. For example, the rate of 11% annual compounding interest is 3 percentage points higher than 8%.

Hence, adding 1 (for the 3 points higher than 8%) to 72 leads to using the rule of 73 for higher precision. For a 14% rate of return, it would be the rule of 74 (adding 2 for 6 percentage points higher), and for a 5% rate of return, it will mean reducing 1 (for 3 percentage points lower) to lead to the rule of 71.

For example, say you have a very attractive investment offering a 22% rate of return. The basic rule of 72 says the initial investment will double in 3.27 years. However, since (22 – 8) is 14, and (14 ÷ 3) is 4.67 ≈ 5, the adjusted rule should use 72 + 5 = 77 for the numerator. This gives a value of 3.5 years, indicating that you'll have to wait an additional quarter to double your money compared to the result of 3.27 years obtained from the basic rule of 72. The period given by the logarithmic equation is 3.49, so the result obtained from the adjusted rule is more accurate.

For daily or continuous compounding, using 69.3 in the numerator gives a more accurate result. Some people adjust this to 69 or 70 for the sake of easy calculations.

[mac1983]

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bu...163000694.html

[Map Maker]

Everyone making money?
Long wait for a bull market and everything is green.

[DiabeticKripple]

I am only up 0.5% in my TFSA in the past 12 months, excluding dividends.

RRSP’s are doing killer though

[roper1]

Originally Posted by Map Maker

Everyone making money?
Long wait for a bull market and everything is green.

Hitting it out of the park for sure.......hope she runs awhile yet

[KGB]

Damn Nvidia! This thing is like a run away train! Should’ve bought it at $700 when I was thinking it run it’s course…
Also, take a look at the FIX -Comfort systems USA on nasdaq… IMPRESSIVE RUN!

[Dean2]

Interest rates are staying higher for longer, and inflation is not coming down to the target range anywhere near as fast as predicted. Quelle supreeze! However, it is having the effect that many of the large dividend players are flat to even down as people look for better growth in non-interest sensitive areas. The advantage fo rthose holding the dividend payers is that the steady 5-8% income stream means you are getting paid to wait.

The Communications sector, dominated by BCE, Telus and Rogers is a true Oligopoly, but shares of all of them are down over the last 12 months and BCE shares are down a lot, from 69 to 46 currently. BCE is throwing off a 8.5% dividend but the street is not happy with management and the board. Until BCE can demonstrate a strategic direction, address their debt load, and execute against a well articulated plan, its share price will languish.

Likewise, utilities like CU, CPX, ALA, Fortis etc are trading down to sideways for the same interest rate reasons. AQN still has not recovered from the debacle that the Kentucky Coal powered plant deal created. Good thing that fell through but it is taking AQN a long time to recover.

TRP and PPL are actually doing quite well. Despite being interest sensitive, the fact their pipes are full and prices are rising has done well by them. ENB seems to be starting to settle some of its regulatory challenges but we shall see if they continue to be more calm in their dealings or go back to their combative ways, which is why I sold them off and have not bought them back.

REITs in the office space continue to do really poorly, particularly the U.S. All REITS have been hit by higher interest rates, even the industrial and Apartment/residential ones. Even Chartwell, which focuses on retirement homes, has taken a big drop. It has been a good sector to be out of for the past 24 months.

Airlines and cruise lines are also greatly challenged. Even with a partial return of demand, costs are through the roof and many of the laid off staff want no part of returning to those industries. Both sectors are still having problems with staffing and training of new people completely green to their businesses. I have often said, I own no airlines, never have, because they are the worst run businesses in the world and are very heavily leveraged. All are packing a TON of debt. Cruise lines are right behind them in poor management, and are even more heavily leveraged.

On the bright side, RY, National and TD have been doing decent share price wise and growing their dividend. BNS, CIBC, and BMO are a little more challenged on the Share Price side but still increasing their dividend every year.

[Map Maker]

Not much has changed from your previous recommendations

I spent some time re-organizing my portfolio. Some real good blue chip companies paying over 5%. Most of which are above.
Sold a lot of non-payers and picked up dividend etfs as well.
Such as eit.un and Div and xiu.
I’m averaging 3.9% dividend overall right now. Sit back and relax untii feel the need to re-org.

[Drewski Canuck]

Oil Sector is finally waking up after a very strong run in 2020 - 2023.

Any pundit you look at on future prospects will tell you quite sternly that the price of oil will / might / won't go up or down because of increasing / decreasing oil supply coupled with recession in the big consumers of China and India but then again the supply of oil really is shrinking and China is performing better than expected and forecasts strong demand...

Anyways, gas at the pump is up, US drilling is in decline and production is declining, and the Republicans know the way to winning this fall is with an angry Public who are paying ever increasing prices at the Pump.

The Democrats of course cannot turn to the US Strategic Reserve because they "forgot" to fill it up the last time they emptied it out to try and get re elected and keep the driving public happy.

So the P / E ratio of all the oils who pay Dividends is closer to the normal 10 : 1 that investors want, and the Majors keep selling oil. As for Nvidea and a bunch of other Tech Stocks, even they acknowledge that a P/E of 77:1 is not justification for the current stock price.

In the Tech Boom of the late 1990's Tech Companies would have their CEO announce that they are losing money and do not forecast making money and there is no justification for the current stock valuation. Next day the Stock would go up.

Drewski

[fishtank]

BCE is paying out cover 8% on dividends, don’t know if they can keep paying out at this rate , they have a debt load of $36.2 billion .

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by fishtank

BCE is paying out cover 8% on dividends, don’t know if they can keep paying out at this rate , they have a debt load of $36.2 billion .

There are a lot of levers they can pull to maintain the dividend. Expense cuts, sales of non-core assets, reduced capital expenditures, increaded debt, cancelltion od the drip program and many more. They can even materially reduce the rate they have been increasing the dividend payot which they just did again a couple of months ago. For one of the big three to eliminate or even cut the dividend would be self inflicted suicide. The board and management would be removed en mass. Their shares would be shunned by all buyers.

[Dean2]

A little historical perspective and a good article on home ownership.
This is American data but Canada would be similar.


What is the Historical Rate of Return on Housing?

Posted January 18, 2024 by Ben Carlson

A reader asks:

Ben, I love reading your work. Stocks, bonds, and cash are the categories to compare but it hit me as a “boomer” retired, what about home ownership as a comparison? Stay warm!

This question was in response to my recent piece on the historical returns for stocks, bonds and cash:

There are typically a fair number of requests for other asset classes whenever I post this kind of data.

As luck would have it, my favorite resource for historical asset class returns recently added housing (and gold) to the mix. These are the annual returns from 1928-2023 for stocks, bonds, cash, housing and gold along with the annual inflation number:

Stocks +9.8%
Bonds +4.6%
Cash +3.3%
Real Estate +4.2%
Gold +4.9%
Inflation +3.0%

Now here they are broken down even further by decade:




The 2020s have been an aberration for housing returns. Housing prices are already up nearly 50% in total just four years into the 2020s. That’s already better than the total returns for the entire decades of the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.1

The historical returns for stocks have crushed real estate returns while bonds and gold have done slightly better than owning a home.

So does this mean housing is a lousy investment?

Not necessarily.

The Case-Shiller Index does a good job of tracking housing prices on a national basis but that doesn’t mean it’s a good proxy for returns on housing.

Calculating returns on stocks, bonds, cash, and gold is fairly straightforward. You have the beginning price, the ending price and any cash flows that were earned along the way.

None of these historical returns include fees or taxes but fees are so low these days with the advent of ETFs and index funds that frictions aren’t a huge deal anymore.

Housing is the most unique of all financial assets in a number of ways.

First of all, there is the leverage component. Sure, some people pay cash for their home but most people borrow money to make the biggest purchase of their life.

Let’s say you put 20% down on a $450,000 house. Then it subsequently rises 25% in price so your house is now worth $562,500.

Gross of all costs what’s your return?

Is it 25%? Or is it actually 125%?

The price went up $112,500 but your initial investment was only $90,000. That’s a return of 125% on your initial investment.

So maybe housing is an even better investment than most people think?

It depends.

Over the life of your loan you have to pay interest expenses, insurance, property taxes, maintenance and upkeep. Plus, many homeowners refinance their loans which costs money. People renovate (also expensive).

Bid-ask spreads for ETFs are infinitesimally small. That’s not the case in the housing market where frictions are enormous. When you buy a home there are moving costs, closing costs, inspections, title insurance and other fees the banks seemingly make up. Selling your house requires many of these same fees along with realtor costs.

Confused yet?

And even if you kept track of all these expenses in a spreadsheet to tally up your true cost of home ownership, there is the fact that you have to live somewhere. If you weren’t paying your mortgage you would be paying rent somewhere, which has an inflation component to it.

Does anyone really know how much more they’re spending (or maybe saving) by owning versus renting?

Add it all up and I don’t think there is a single person in America who can confidently state what the return is on their home. That’s why I don’t think there is a legitimate way to gauge the true historical return for housing like there is for the other asset classes.

The numbers from Robert Shiller are probably right directionally from a price perspective, but that says nothing of the actual return most homeowners receive.

Now, if you’re buying and selling rental properties, it’s much easier to account for the ROI from a cost perspective in terms of the asset’s worth, how much you’re bringing in every month in rent, and how much you’re shelling out in costs.

But most people don’t fully grasp what the return is on their home.

For some people, it’s probably much better than they think depending on timing and location. For others, it’s likely worse than they think.

And that’s OK!

We shouldn’t be comparing the roof over your head to an S&P 500 index fund. Vanguard doesn’t provide you shelter when you buy an index fund. It’s impossible to compute the psychic income you get from owning a home in the neighborhood and school district you desire.

If I had to guess the actual returns on housing in America are probably closer to the stock market than the bond market because of the leverage involved. Housing prices mostly go up and rarely fall. Even a small steady return when you’re only putting 20% or less down can make for a wonderful return over the long haul.

But housing is far too circumstantial to put a number on it without making a ton of assumptions.

I like to think of my house as more of a home than a financial asset but it does provide a nice hedge against inflation and the ability to borrow against it if need be.

For most people, it’s a form of forced savings, which is even more important than the actual return.

Either way, I don’t think it makes sense to compare your house to stocks, bonds, gold, crypto, or any other asset class.

Housing is the most emotional asset you can own.

[tranq78]

Originally Posted by Dean2

There are a lot of levers they can pull to maintain the dividend. Expense cuts, sales of non-core assets, reduced capital expenditures, increaded debt, cancelltion od the drip program and many more. They can even materially reduce the rate they have been increasing the dividend payot which they just did again a couple of months ago. For one of the big three to eliminate or even cut the dividend would be self inflicted suicide. The board and management would be removed en mass. Their shares would be shunned by all buyers.

Ah, Ma Bell. The telco everyone loves to hate. They sold Nortel at the high. They bought Bell Atlantic when capex was falling and cashflows rising. They then bought Manitoba Tel when capex was falling and cashflow rising.

Off topic here. Remember TC Energy? TransCanada Pipelines said in an annual report they would never cut their dividend. Then they cut their dividend massively right away. I know, a topic derail. I'm still annoyed at the company though.

Originally Posted by Dean2

A little historical perspective and a good article on home ownership.

I like to think of my house as more of a home than a financial asset but it does provide a nice hedge against inflation and the ability to borrow against it if need be.

For most people, it’s a form of forced savings, which is even more important than the actual return.

Either way, I don’t think it makes sense to compare your house to stocks, bonds, gold, crypto, or any other asset class.

Housing is the most emotional asset you can own.

I like it! Something for everyone! First he says a home is a financial asset and then he says it's forced savings and then he says you can't compare it to other financial assets, which by default then makes a house not a financial asset.

I've always treated home ownership as a lifestyle decision and not a financial decision. And yes housing is very emotional because people mush the lifestyle factors in.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Canadians probably have no equity for retirement except for their home, and people are living longer. So home ownership will have to be considered a financial asset by them. If they want to live in the same neighborhood sadly the cost of living post-house sale is going up as rapidly as house price appreciation. YMMV.

[Trochu]

I personally don't consider a residence/home an investment, unless you aren't living in it. Changing investments don't typically mean you're moving or homeless.

[HVA7mm]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I personally don't consider a residence/home an investment, unless you aren't living in it. Changing investments don't typically mean you're moving or homeless.

I agree, my residence is merely a place to live until we want to move somewhere else. When that time comes, the market will dictate what it is worth and whether or not it was a good investment. As it sits, if we were to sell today it would have proven to be a very good investment. But again, totally dependent on the market we would plan on moving to.

[fishtank]

So gold been up about 10% in the last month. With the fed still in track for 3 cut for this year. Good chance of it passed 2500usd a oz ?

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by fishtank

So gold been up about 10% in the last month. With the fed still in track for 3 cut for this year. Good chance of it passed 2500usd a oz ?

Maybe. If it does I'll look to sell some Maple leafs, that will be better then double what I paid.

[fishtank]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Maybe. If it does I'll look to sell some Maple leafs, that will be better then double what I paid.

Lol mines as well not bad for a 10 year in the safe .

[Drewski Canuck]

Would someone please tell the World that Oil Companies are a bad investment? Oil broke $86 USD today, Oil Co's have made record profits, the European Sovereign Funds have black listed the the Fossil Energy Companies because Electric Cars and Solar Panels clearly are the answer, SO please don't invest in an Oil Co today!!!

Who really needs that kind of growth in their Portfolio. Justin and Friends will take care of you from Cradle to Grave and even feed your kids lunch at School, (something you will not be able to do at home once Justin and Friends are done with you),

SO PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!

(or, maybe buy some stock in an Oil Co for your kids. Everyone else seems to be doing so!)

Drewski

[Dean2]

Another good short bit from Charlie B.

https://bilello.blog/2024/the-week-in-charts-4-1-24

The Power of Dollar-Cost Averaging
If you were the world’s worst market timer and bought the S&P 500 at the peak in March 2000 and held until today, you would be up 438%. That’s a 7.3% annualized return.



But most people don’t invest in a lump sum and instead add money over time. If you were in this group and added money to the S&P 500 each year, your annualized return since March 2000 moves up to 10.7%. That’s the power of dollar-cost averaging in a declining market (see video discussion here).



Drewski - Got to agree. As you all know I am not a fan of Oil and Gas for long term buy and hold, but given current cash flow, high dividends, special payouts and the low cost of the shares, pretty hard not to be holding some oil and gas, at least for the next while.

The other sector that has been beat down a lot is Telecom. Telus, and BCE are way off their previous prices, high dividend, which even if they were cut would still be pretty good. Guy doesn't want to jump with both feet because they still seem to be headed down, but legging in a little every month or two is what I have been doing.