Fast forward 2 years later and I noticed I was being charged $50/registered fund annually. I was not being charged these fees previously and never would've moved the assets to him if he had told me there would be annual fees. (I don't even know why there would be fees for registered but not non-registered accounts - it doesn't sound that hard to submit forms to CRA yearly)

I emailed him I was shocked at this discovery. He wrote back that he was willing to cover the fees. WHen I messaged back to say thanks for the offer, but wanted to clarify if he was going to reimburse me for the fees I'd already been charged. I said that part was more important than going forward, because that part I didn't get to give informed consent, and that I have never used any service that charged flat annual fees. And (giving him an out), I said I respected if he wanted the revoke his offer and charge me going forward, but that I would be transferring to a non-fee vehicle.

He then passionately defended that his level of service is higher than those other places. (Although we actually have never discussed my registered holdings in all these years, just my non registered). ANd he basically revoked his offer and wished me well!

Was the onus on him to disclose there would be fees before I transferred the funds? I know it's easy for others to say I should've discovered it sooner - but if he was just going to offer to cover the fees going forward, is it really so different?

Can anyone give me more background on this dynamic (gently please -- I have many burdens I'm carrying right now, which he knows about, and I'm very rattled at his attacking tone -- going so far as to say he is on vacation right now and I wouldn't be getting that kind of service from the other places...although I had no way to know he was on vacation, and would've been fine with him dealing with it when he returned ).

I also take this opportunity to thank all the members who responded to my post and to keep the discussion going. I read each and everyone of them. It was a kind of education to me, for a person who can't make head or tail on investing, other than GIC.

The T-series, all in one retirement focused ETFS, CDN dividends and corporate bonds should be your largest holdings since they're probably the safest.

Global X HXH for Canadian dividends converted to capital gains (you have to manually sell each month though) or VDY/TQCD if you prefer CDN dividends paid monthly.

BMO T series ETFS: ZBAL.T (60% stocks/40% bonds), ZGRO.T (80/20) or ZEQT.T (100/0) for ~70% tax deferred monthly income. (5-6% yield) They're basically just selling for you but in such a fashion that it doesn't generate taxable capital gains for about 20 years. Risk of capital erosion though during prolonged bear markets but you can reinvest all or some of the distributions to avoid that risk.

ZWGLD if you want covered call spread income from gold for commodity income diversification. (5-6% yield). Gold is volatile though.

MREL is the best etf for real estate income. (~6-7% yield with a lot of capital gains and ROC (return of capital which is tax deferred). Real estate has interest rate risk though.

Purpose's CROC for tax efficient corporate class credit income (converts interest to capital gains) (5-6% yield). Risk around interest rates and corporations ability to re-pay debt.

Purpose's IGB for Global Corporate Bond interest converted to capital gains. (5% yield). Interest rate risk (rates and net asset values move in opposite directions - but bond yields are all historical highs so risk is minimal).

PSY by Purpose is a structured yield or autocallable ETF which pays about an annualized 6% each month. This income strategy uses structured notes to generate income and protect investors against downside (up to a certain point).

ZPW etf uses puts options premiums to generate about 9% in annualized income paid monthly. Has a good historical track record, capped upside though. Should be smaller holding.

Hamilton's WHYP writes covered calls on bonds and equities (no leverage) and pays about 10% annualized every month. Capped upside, no downside protection but does hold bonds. Should be smaller holding.

CLSA for 15% yield paid monthly but using leverage in split fund structure. Leverage adds risk so should only hold 2-5%. Should be CDN dividends and Capital gains/ROC.

HONE or EASY for high yield, globally diversified leveraged covered call, tax efficient options income (~20%-27% annualized) income paid monthly or twice per month. Very high risk - should only hold 2-5% of total portfolio.

Picton's PFAA for liquid alternative ETF source of income but only 2.78% yield. Should have a lower correlation to equity markets.

DXR which is generate up to 4.5% income paid monthly through a single ETF, multi asset/strategy investment. Or GSIF which is an alterative fixed income etf that pays 6%. Not sure how tax efficient these ETFs are though.

If you're looking for high growth and not income but want lower risk: 40% XEQT/FEQT/CAGE/ZEQT/VEQT (100% equities), 30% PFMN (market neutral - always gives a positive but lower return every year), 30% PFLS (long short to reduce volatility but still give high returns). That will give you a 10% annualized long term return but with 50% of the volatility of just holding XEQT.

We have had a bull market since the lows of 2022. It may continue for days....or years but in hindsight had we not stayed invested the last 3+ years despite valuation increases, we would still be sitting on our hands. We will only know in hindsight, perhaps next quarter, or next year.

I will always be fully invested because the market WILL be higher at some point in the future (that is the nature of capital markets, earnings and GDP growth et al) but I have no way of knowing how, when or where, nor the road to that future. Neither does anyone else.

AltaRed said

I agree those are meaningless numbers. At a minimum, they need to be associated with index P/E multiples (valuations). I can't imagine zgic actually made that comment.

The point at which the S&P is 8000 may have a P/E ratio of 15 while the S&P at 5000 years ago may have had a P/E multiple of 18 (a higher valuation).

It is hard to believe some here don't understand markets are about earnings, and more specifically expectations of forward earnings. Market valuation is the present value of those expected future earnings streams.  

@AltaRed: I was just trying to emphasize that valuations matter as
mordko said: "And that’s precisely why using valuations to decide when to enter or exit the market is a form of market timing, even if you don’t call it that"

S&P 8000 is just a number I used to mention about today's valuation of the US market (based on forward PE) and it is overvalued for someone to put a lot of money at this level, more so a new investor. Just AI theme is driving the valuation,

The whole market is a valuation game.

Nor do we know whether any proposed equity ETF should be income oriented, conservative blue chip dividend oriented, or something more growth and volatility oriented. The OP would need to come back and provide some clarification.

mordko said

These are meaningless numbers.  

I agree those are meaningless numbers. At a minimum, they need to be associated with index P/E multiples (valuations). I can't imagine zgic actually made that comment.

The point at which the S&P is 8000 may have a P/E ratio of 15 while the S&P at 5000 years ago may have had a P/E multiple of 18 (a higher valuation).

It is hard to believe some here don't understand markets are about earnings, and more specifically expectations of forward earnings. Market valuation is the present value of those expected future earnings streams.

zgic said

Overall it is kinda same topic. At age 70 how much money would you put in at S&P 8000 or at 6000 or 5000 would vary a lot.  

These are meaningless numbers.

mordko said

You are now moving on to the subject of active investing. There is nothing wrong with trying to identify undervalued individual stocks. Whether you can consistently do so better than the market is another question.  

Overall it is kinda same topic. At age 70 how much money would you put in at S&P 8000 or at 6000 or 5000 would vary a lot.

zgic said
Valuations absolutely matter.
I thought Microsoft was mispriced at 300 and got in, but at 500 might not be mispriced that much.  

You are now moving on to the subject of active investing. There is nothing wrong with trying to identify undervalued individual stocks. Whether you can consistently do so better than the market is another question.

savemoresaveoften said

Since valuation to you is also market timing, which you claim is faulty and the wrong approach, then how do you determine entry points ? If you don’t care about entry points, then you are effectively believing in market always go higher for you to even invest. And if you do care about entry points, I like to hear what it is, and has nothing to do some kind of timing.  

My entry point is simple: I invest when I have money available to invest, consistent with my asset allocation (currently 70/30). My lump sum goes in ASAP to max time in the market.

I don’t need to believe that markets always go higher. That’s an obvious logical fallacy. Obviously they don’t. I only need to believe that I can’t predict tomorrow’s pricing and that equities have positive expected returns over the long term. Otherwise I wouldn’t be investing in equities at all.

Buffett is not a good example for a retail investor because he has a host of analysts to do the research and get inside management teams to make investments in specific companies. Retail investors overall do better with passive index investing (the whole market). SPIVA reports annually (and semi-annually) consistently report that active management after fees under perform the market as a whole.... or they should simply buy Berkshire stock to be part of Buffett's success.