Can You Retire With $1.7M? Fees, Retirement Income, and Listener Questions

This week on the Canadian Money Roadmap, we're going to try something a little bit different.

My name is Sam Dirkson, I'm Evan Newfeld's co-host, and we are going to be heppering

Evan with a few topical financial-based questions and see what discussion comes from that.

So thanks for joining us this week on the Canadian Money Roadmap.

Okay, Sam, I am officially unprepared for this podcast, which is kind of the point where

I'm just going to see how this goes.

I put Sam on to a few places, he gets some topics for me and just thought, well, let's see

what happens.

Let's discuss a few relevant topics related to Canadian finance.

And yeah, hopefully it's a good lesson.

And maybe just a bit of a different format that we can try here that's just a bit more

fun, a bit more off the cuff and conversational.

Yeah, exactly.

And so I've just kind of been looking at some different forums.

Some of the questions are informed by news events as well as just some conversations we've

had recently with clients that we think are relevant for lots of Canadians at different

stages of their financial life.

I like that.

I haven't seen any of them, so we'll see if I like them or not.

All right, well, let's just dive right into the first question and we'll kind of see

how this goes.

But I thought, I know in your episode last week, Evan, you kind of touched on this topic

in some way.

But I thought we might just start with kind of the emerging conflict in the Middle East

and ask about how that is impacting financial life here in North America and in Canada specifically.

So the question I was going to ask.

When's it going to end?

Yeah.

We're lots of unknowables at this point, but so given the disruptions to the oil industry,

if you have any thoughts for investors, particularly those that are approaching retirement specifically

on things they should be thinking about amidst this ongoing conflict?

Yeah, I've got a few thoughts related to mostly just general concepts, maybe not specifically

with this version of conflict or specific to that because we've always seen market declines

or world events that pop up out of nowhere or sometimes not, it's like even well telegraphed

ones, have a pretty negative effect on markets.

And for people that are approaching retirement, big thing to keep in mind is probably your

risk tolerance and your risk profile.

For the last number of years, it's been pretty easy to think this investing stuff is pretty

easy because the markets have gone up broadly for about three straight years.

There was a blip back in April of last year, which didn't feel that great, but it was

around that liberation day, tariff extravaganza down south, that largely didn't materialize

or whatever the case may be, but the market's kind of shrugged it off and just kind of marched

upward steadily.

But this conflict seems to be entangling more than others, so it can feel different.

The problem is every time the market moves down or whatever, anytime there's a major

event that makes people nervous, it's different every time, right?

And so that's not going to change.

And so using these moments in time to really assess your true risk profile, I think is

really important because you can't really be honest with yourself and the market goes

straight up about how comfortable you are with market volatility because my former colleague

Stephen Gunther and I, we always joked about this comment we saw, I forget what period

of time it was, but it was probably coming out of COVID and the same kind of thing happened

for the rest of 2020 and all of 2021, the market just went straight up and we saw perhaps

it.

And now you've comment online from somebody that his suggestion was that I love risk

and like we're talking about like building a portfolio, it's like, oh, no, I love risk.

And it's like, no, you don't.

No one loves risk.

You love returns like that's what happens.

And we've talked about this before and how they're not always connected as a tidally as

the, you know, the turn of phrase would suggest.

But you know, so now that we've seen the latest news story that feels a little bit scary

and the markets have kind of come down a little bit, there's some fears of inflation and

whatnot.

It's like, this is normal, but it can still feel a little nasty.

So really being honest with yourself about what you're comfortable with as far as your

risk profile and, you know, how much you actually want to have exposed in the equity markets.

I think that's really important.

Again, it's not really specific to this point in time, but in general, this can be an opportunity

to do that, which doesn't really present itself unless the market is actually in a decline.

Right.

So that's a very practical standpoint.

If you did get to this moment and took that opportunity to reassess your risk profile,

is there anything actionable that can kind of be done at this moment?

Because I know this is a time where, you know, we might be on a bit of a downturn and

often kind of changing strategies at that time can be suboptimal, we'll say.

Yeah, it's really dependent on one's circumstances, like classic financial planner answer to

puns.

It's like, well, it really does because it depends on what you're in.

So if you were someone that was, you know, getting really aggressive and only owning a select

few individual stocks and a pile of cryptocurrency, for example, and it's like, oh, now I'm

down like 50% in the last three months or something crazy like that.

Really tough to give specific advice in that case here, but if you're someone that's

invested broadly already, like a reasonably diversified portfolio and we're only down

a couple of percent here.

Like this hasn't been an ongoing thing and we're not in a big 20% decline or anything

like that, but if that were to be the case, you could kind of assess how it felt kind

of along the way of like, okay, when it was down 10, I felt pretty good, but now that

we're down 20, you know, things feel a little bit scary.

The challenge there in giving a recommendation is that I don't know whether you as the

listener have a decent understanding of what your portfolio can take as far as how much

you already have invested based on your goals and your timeline for that.

I think that's critical.

That's kind of the only thing that really matters.

And so like I have a couple of clients I'm thinking of in particular where they have more

than sufficient assets to meet their income needs.

They have some pensions coming and so, you know, there's all sorts of different things

that we've planned for and historically they've been a little bit nervous about the markets

and so I've told them I said we can be pretty much as conservative as you want.

If you wanted to be in GICs for the rest of your life, we would project you to have sufficient

assets.

And so in a case like that, if we're invested in such a way that's making them nervous

and they say, you know what, forget this.

For them, I would say, you know what, we've talked about this and now we've kind of got

to that point where you have realized, yeah, no, I'm not actually comfortable with this.

We can take some risk off the table because we know that even with lower expected returns

from here, their plan still works.

Whereas in a case where someone, you know, has a market decline and then they decide to

get less risky, well now that person might actually need all of the upside that comes

with a more equity heavy portfolio and you just made the wrong decision at the wrong time

in such a way that you don't have the opportunity to come back from that kind of decision.

So for some people, the bed has been made already.

And for others, you have an opportunity to make a change, but without a specific plan

and stress test on your actual situation, it's really tough to give that advice, which

is why I don't give advice on this podcast.

We talk about just general concepts, I guess.

And then when we do planning work for people, we really model out that person's individual

circumstance to give a better answer.

Right.

So good reminder, just it's so much of this planning work and investment strategy is

personalized to people's individual situation.

So it's important to kind of have that plan in place and have an evidence-based strategy

that we're implementing that is in line with one's risk profiles and goals and all those

kind of things.

Right.

Like the investment strategies that we're using are not, you know, ones that have blown

up in the wind here where it's like, oh, now this might be a good thing to consider

right now.

Or like, oh, we should definitely get out of this.

The philosophy that we have is kind of an all-weather approach.

But the amount of risk that you take within that all-weather approach can still be variable.

But anyways, I digress there.

Right.

Well, maybe a good time to move on to a second question, which I think has some connections

to that first question, that discussion there.

But this was a good one that came up from Reddit, actually.

But I thought it was interesting.

And we've talked about this subject on previous podcasts as well, so we can kind of expand

on it.

But the question was, should I rethink my portfolio investments that charge me a 1.9%

fee, and it's at a Canadian bank?

Oh, should you rethink them in terms of, did they give any clues to what the alternatives

were that they were employing?

I think the implication was that rethinking as far as trying to find a different product

or a different place to invest through.

Very interesting.

And so, yeah, online Reddit in particular is full of DIY investors.

And so it would make sense that many of the responses there.

Again, I haven't seen this.

I haven't seen the comments or anything like that.

I suspect all of them are saying, you're getting ripped off.

This is the biggest ripoff in the world.

There's no way that you should be doing this.

And in some cases, that might be true.

In other cases, it might not be.

So just looking at the fees, just in a vacuum, completely in and of itself, that fee 1.9%

based on the most recent data that we have, depending on what type of portfolio it is,

I assume.

I know kind of what it is given that it's at the bank and what fee it is.

I bet you I even know exactly what fund it is.

I'm not going to say that.

It might be one of the largest mutual funds in the country by chance at a big blue bank.

But it is right in line with the 50th percentile of fees right down the middle.

So that means half of the available options in that category are going to be cheaper

and half of them are going to be more expensive.

So is it an absolute ripoff in terms of the pure fees alone?

No, it's close to it, I guess.

But there's plenty of other options that are meaningfully cheaper.

If this person has the time-talented temperament to actually be a DIY investor, I don't know

because they're asking very basic questions to the general internet and managing your own

money, I think, is a pretty big responsibility.

At the same time, lots of people can do it, especially in the accumulation phase.

It's not as complicated, perhaps, if you're just contributing a few under-bucks on a regular

basis.

There's not a whole lot of moving pieces at this stage.

But the main thing is, what are you getting for the fees?

So if you're paying 1.9%, there's going to be an advisor fee that's baked in there.

Are you getting advice?

Or is it just someone that's just initiating transaction on your behalf?

Maybe that's all you want.

Maybe for you, that fee is worth paying.

I don't know.

Probably doubt it.

But for that advisory fee, I would hope that you're actually getting some sort of

planning work that's tailored to your circumstance.

The challenge that I have is that I have never seen a client or prospective client that

has significant money at the bank branch suggest that they have a great investing experience

that's getting really personalized advice with someone that knows them and their family.

This is not going to happen.

It's like a revolving door position at the bank.

It's really tough.

You've got massive sales targets that they're heavily incentivized to hit.

And so the experience there for the end investor is like, you feel more like a customer than

a client who's paying for really good advice.

So in and of itself, is the 1.9% fee worth agonizing over?

Now, like, can you find cheaper options?

Yeah, for sure.

The main thing is out of the fees that you are paying, are you getting reasonable value

for it?

And can you find an alternative that meets those needs better?

Some cases, some people are better off paying for a one-off plan as far as setting up the

systems for you to do the investing, especially again, if you have those three T's of being

a DIY investor, time, talent, and temperament to do it well.

For other people, they want to delegate the investing side of it and they have large

enough portfolios to hire somebody to do it for them.

So again, just finding out what's actually important to you and what's worth paying for

to you.

And if that could take a variety of different shapes anywhere between full DIY, to using

a robot advisor, to finding a cheaper advisor that has better credentials, all sorts of things,

shopping around is okay.

Finding all of those options on Reddit is probably not going to be super viable, though.

Right.

And it's an attention thing because we've talked about this on previous podcasts as well.

But it's good to be concerned about fees, but there's also a way where it goes maybe

too far where you're kind of agonizing over a point one of a percent.

So there's a balance to be struck there.

For sure.

And there are people smarter than me in the industry that have great podcasts out there.

Shout out to Ben Felix at the Rational Reminder.

He made a suggestion, which I would agree with, that the fee conversation, while it's super

important, especially here in Canada where our fees are really high, the pendulum is swung

probably a little too far to the point where it's a bit of a, I'm missing the turn of

phrase here.

But it's the only thing that people really look at when they have no other expertise in

the area.

And so from my perspective, having a low cost fund that meets the objectives is great.

Having the absolute cheapest by like a fraction of a percent doesn't matter.

All of that little difference can be made up in any number of small decisions or poor

timings on your behalf or anything like that.

What you want to do is be directionally right.

I think this is a John Meadard Keynes line that I use all the time.

It's like you'd rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong.

It's like you don't need to have a very expensive product, have a good investment outcome,

but you also don't need to have the absolute cheapest because there's also competition.

There's a free market between these investment companies.

And someone's going to lower their fees and you don't want to be bouncing around between

the thing to thing just because someone moves the fee by 0.01% or something like that.

So yeah, fair point there where you don't need to agonize over little bits, but being

prudent is just fine.

Right.

So if you have a clear strategy that a fund that is relatively inexpensive, that is implementing,

then you're vaguely moving in the right direction, I suppose.

Yeah.

It may be not even that vaguely.

Maybe I'm just being a little too facetious there.

If you have something that's globally diversified and in the lowest quartile of fees, I think

you're probably in good shape, like the bottom fifth percentile for like a global equity

portfolio in Canada.

As of last year was 0.39% again, that doesn't include the advisor fee with that's just

like the product itself.

If you're in that range, like in that ballpark, a 0.4% good enough, move on with your life.

Can you find cheaper than that?

Absolutely.

And they're pretty easy to find.

I'm not going to make any specific recommendations.

But yeah, that's if you're within that ballpark, move on and focus on other things.

Right.

So then moving from the fee conversation into retirement planning standpoint, I know

this was an article that BMO released this week in a few different podcasts have already

talked about it, but I thought it'd be useful to talk about here as well.

It's really interesting.

So this article from BMO basically just outlined new stats for 2025 about how much

Canadians believe they need to have saved before retirement.

And this is awesome.

Yeah, this is broken down by provinces and things like that.

But overall, Canadians believe they need to have saved 1.7 million on average.

That's for retirement.

And that is a large increase even from the previous year when the survey was done.

It's interesting.

I wonder if there's like if they could have done similar surveys over periods of time

and made correlations between like global events and then the subsequent feelings of

how much they need because a lot of people just feel negative in general.

It's like, I'm never going to retire at any $2 million, you know, whether that's relevant

or not.

So yeah, just looking for commentary or what do you think?

Yeah, I guess the question is kind of, you know, how much from your perspective is something

actually neat?

I know this is again probably getting into the personalized conversation.

But what do you think of that number and kind of what factors might adjust that number

higher or lower for people?

Yeah.

So the main thing, this would be fun to do like as a separate case study where we can

actually like crunch some real numbers.

I don't have my planning software open or I'm holding my calculator, but I'm refusing

to do math here on the podcast.

But you know, 1.7 million to me suggests that's a really high figure to spend.

A couple of reasons for that is that here in Canada, again, compared or in contrast to

our US counterparts, we have a really well-established government benefit system and national

pension and the CPP and old age security, just different from the US where they're social

security program, which is funded out of tax revenues, whereas our CPP is a separately

managed pension that's unrelated to tax revenues and government spending.

And it is very well run and it's an indexed pension.

So that means that it goes up with inflation.

And so it's actually, you know, pretty significant to incorporate that along with a spouse.

If you have a spouse, a single person in Canada just digressing slightly here kind of gets

hosed for in a variety of ways.

There are no benefits of being single.

The benefits of tax income splitting with pensions and retirement and money coming out of riffs,

that's massive.

And massive savings plus the opportunity to have two guaranteed inflation did sources

of income through CPP and then OAS as well, yeah, massive advantage.

But those two programs of CPP and old age security.

So right now, if you're getting the max for, if you're a 65 year old from OAS, you're

getting but like 725 bucks, I believe, that might go up pretty soon with the inflation

adjustment.

I think it's right around 1500, maybe a little bit less than that, but the average person

gets about half of that because they take it too soon, that's separate conversation.

Let's call half of it 750, 750 and 750, whatever.

The average person is getting about 1500 bucks a month.

If they have a spouse that's getting about the same thing, that's three grand a month plus

inflation.

Okay.

That's like $36,000 a year in guaranteed income that goes up one to one with the CPI.

The average household income in Canada, I think is right around 70,000, maybe it's a

little bit more than that as a household.

It's not too far off, but anyways, with those programs, especially if you're getting

more than half of the maximum for CPP, you're halfway there already.

And to make up that difference every year does not take 1.7 million dollars.

Again, talking about the average person here, if you have a really high income and a high

lifestyle, 1.7 million might not even be a fraction of what you need.

If you're a high-spender, maybe you're a business owner that didn't contribute to CPP,

because you took David N. Zett of a company, things like that, there's all sorts of factors

that go into it.

But when this is a survey of, I think it's the general public, this wasn't like people

with pensions or multi-millionaires only, there's something ridiculous like that.

If this is a survey of the general population, we are so far overestimating how much is

actually required to have a pretty comfortable retirement, again, relative to your working

year's lifestyle, which is what most people do anyways.

I don't talk to a lot of people that say like, you know, they have a comfortable lifestyle

while they're working, and then all of a sudden start spending three times as much throughout

the retirement.

They might travel once or twice more, but it's like, we're in our house, we don't really

want to move again or anything like, and then when they're at home, they often have hobbies,

but lots of hobbies are pretty affordable, like it's playing pickleball is a big one,

pretty cheap, pretty cheap to do, you know, exercise activities like that.

It's like, it's travel is the most expensive one.

Yeah, I don't know, 1.7 seems as a standard estimate way too high.

Yeah, and so one interesting part from the provincial data is the highest expectations

what they needed in retirement came from BC, which was, you know, over two million,

I think in the 2.2 range.

So I'm wondering how housing plays into these expectations because certainly the places

with the highest housing costs, especially in the big centers, were skewed higher for

these.

So almost adjusting for maybe not being mortgage free into that 65 age range or those

kind of things.

I'm not sure, but at least I'll throw that out there to you and what you think.

Yeah, housing in particular is pretty significant.

So fun little cost of living calculator here comparing a couple of places.

We're in Saskatoon.

We can mess around with this a little bit for some other cities, but, but if we're looking

at Vancouver relative to Saskatoon, I don't know, we're not a massive center here,

but no, what's our population like 350,000 now?

Yeah, so we're not tiny little city international airport.

You can get to Minneapolis from here, no problem.

Direct flights to Cancun ask me how I know that.

Very excited.

But looking at housing compared to from Vancouver to Saskatoon, the cost according to this

calculator from a fun website called Wawa, Wawa, Wawaw, they've got some fun calculators

about all sorts of things and mortgages and whatnot.

But the cost of living, if we're looking at a two bedroom apartment, which is kind of

fine because here in Saskatoon, the prevalence of apartments is quite minimal.

We have no shortage of land out here, so we have a bit of a sprawl problem more than

anything.

And so this would be more of like a, I don't know, looking at like a three bedroom standalone

house, probably more than anything, but just in general, like at that level, housing

is about 31% cheaper between Vancouver and Saskatoon.

That's nuts.

That is a pretty significant difference.

You'd see similar numbers going from between Vancouver Toronto on the high end.

But you know, if we're going from Vancouver, even compared to Calgary, which is in the

ballpark of our neck of the woods here, but it's still 13% higher in Vancouver relative

to Calgary.

Calgary is growing like mad and their real estate prices are going up like crazy too.

It's, yeah, housing makes it really tough to have extra cash on hand to do the investing

part.

And so yeah, I can completely understand that the higher pricing of housing in major

centers makes it feel like you need that much more to have invested, to meet those needs.

And that might be entirely true, but for those who are fortunate enough to be owners and

have a paid off place going into retirement, that can make all the difference.

And so maybe in that case, that 1.7 million number might be a bit higher than the average

person might need to retire again with the caveat that everyone's situation is a little

bit different.

Yeah.

And you know, it's kind of fun walking through these conversations with people that are

even like 10 years away from retirement and they might still be paying the mortgage.

And the fun part of the conversation is saying, hey, just so you know, that mortgage,

like you're on pace to have that done, right?

And so that doesn't need to be part of your calculations anymore, you know, like the

property taxes and everything like that still needs to be there.

But you know, once that debt is paid off, it's a lot easier to come up with a retirement

paycheck because you don't have someone knocking at the door for the first three to

five thousand dollars every month to make that payment.

So you have in those higher cost of living cities, if you can go into retirement with

a paid off house, that can be a really critical factor for minimizing how much you actually

need to have invested to be able to live on, right?

Interesting food for thought at the very least and the kind of an interesting study put

out by BMO there to kind of at least reflect upon how much we actually, and then that's

getting into this conversation while planning again, right?

If we want to get a precise image of this, having a detailed retirement plan can really

help clarify what those numbers actually look like.

Okay.

Well, I just had one final quick question I thought we'd get through because we're running

relatively long already.

I'm rambling.

I'm rambling.

It's off the cuff.

I'm rambling.

That's the last one.

I thought this was like a nice question to end on, but there's a question I came across

to, you know, what's a financial decision that felt wrong in the short term, but helped

you or felt good in the long term?

This could be like maybe something personally you've implemented, but even just something

that, you know, you've heard anecdotally from how people have reacted to maybe advice

you've given or something like that.

Oh, man.

I can probably think of a few.

So here's one, and I'm still kind of annoyed with it slightly, but it was probably a good

idea.

In this case, it was necessary.

So I'm self-employed and more in a more complicated way.

Most of my compensation comes through dividends through corporation that I own.

So it's like, you know, a few different layers, long story short, mortgage lenders eat

that because it's like, it seems like there's a lot of risk involved in a few more variables

to consider and whatnot.

So it's tougher to get a mortgage in that case.

And so when we're applying for our most recent mortgage, I guess that was in 2022, we had

a vehicle loan because we were able to get our Honda CRV.

No, not our Bugatti.

It was a very prudent vehicle here with a Honda CRV.

Bugatti, not great on the Saskatchewan, which are our, you know, potholes forget it.

You only make that mistake once.

Anyways, we bought the CRV and because we already owned a Honda, they're like, oh,

give you a loyalty deal on financing.

We got it for zero percent, not even 0.9 or anything like that.

Free money.

Like it's not free.

You have to pay it back, but like there's no interest component.

And so we had a small amount of interest, or pardon me, a small payment on there, but

just again, due to the complicating factors of our financing, just that little bit of

a payment every month, the lender was just like, I don't know, like it probably aren't

going to give you as much for your mortgage.

And I said, I have the cash on hand to offset it right now, like to pay off the loan.

It's like, what's the difference?

Like there's no interest component from their case.

They're saying it's a payment.

It's a guaranteed outflow that limits your cash.

Well, it's like, okay, I kind of get it.

Anyways, long story short, I paid off the zero percent loan so I could get more on

a 4.8% loan on the mortgage.

But anyway, there's a few little wrinkles that felt a little bit silly at the time, but

we were able to get into a house that was a much better fit for us.

Yeah, it was kind of an annoying situation where we had to really increase our interest

cost overall, but anyways, necessary evil in that case to get into the house.

Anyway, that was one that came to mind off the top of my head.

Right.

If it's that direction, you're going.

I think it's an example of one that it's clearly still, you know, you find a bit annoying.

It stings.

Yeah, it still stings.

It's not an optimal financial decision, but one of these decisions that enabled you to

kind of get into the home you wanted.

So you're getting into that area of, you know, it's not optimal, but it's getting you

to the place where you want it to be.

So sometimes those decisions are prudent to do trade-offs.

Yeah.

Everything is trade-offs.

Yeah.

Trying to figure some other ones that the situation was that we felt dumb at the time,

felt good in hindsight.

Is that right?

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah.

Here's another one that was really situational to a client.

I'll try to be as vague as I can so I don't give away any details about the individuals

necessarily.

But long story short, they have a decent amount of savings happening through work, through

RSPs.

Income was at the point where doing more into RSPs didn't make sense, but they have a

little bit extra cash flow to put into TFSAs.

So based on the plan that we put together, TFSA was kind of the optimal path for their

savings.

And so that's what we were doing with their accounts that I'm managing for them.

But they got to a very interesting situation where they had another child and he was able

to take some time off work, like an extended period of time off work.

And just do the age gap between their kids, they really wanted to make use of that time

to go on a trip, like an extended trip overseas, actually.

They had some money set aside, but they're going to be a few thousand dollars short.

They didn't really want to take any money out of their investments because they didn't

want to get behind there.

And so we did something that was definitely suboptimal, but not that far off.

But we did in their case, because he had RSP room, we took some money from their TFSA

and made a significant RSP contribution.

And in that case, it created enough of a refund that they could use the cash flow from

that refund to cover off the cost of their trip this coming year.

So they could still do it.

And so this was the idea of living fully that I have associated with our brand here at

Cedar Point, live fully and retire confidently.

In their case, the projections weren't meaningfully different between those two outcomes.

And we're using the money that they had already saved and set aside, and we kind of just

increased their tax refund in a way that, yeah, they'll probably end up in a, you know,

paying more tax overall, you know, just based on this, that and the other thing, it wasn't

that far off.

And so we could kind of go right pocket to left pocket a little bit, and they're over

the moon.

And this is going to be one of those things that changes their life.

And so we'd like, okay, is there fractions of tax optimization that we're missing out

on?

Yes.

Is there the biggest trip of their life that we'd be missing on missing out on?

Otherwise, also, yes, I thought, yeah, this is a trade off, but it wasn't even that

much of a trade off.

And so anyways, in their case, it really made a lot of sense just to do that.

And anyways, there's a lot of things that was like, yeah, should we do that?

When push comes to shove, I think it was a unique opportunity to help them do something

really fun.

And it's getting to that point of, what are we saving for, right?

And if you have a chance to kind of strike while the iron's hot, the timing's right to

take these things.

If those can be facilitated, while still generally staying on course, a lot of value to that

as well, certainly.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

I have one.

It's not a regret at all about finance, but it was just like a very funny experience

I had.

And it was when I was buying an engagement ring for my wife.

We were living in Montreal all the time.

And I had left my car in Saskatoon because we didn't need a car out there.

And I just ended up trading essentially my full vehicle for the price of the ring.

And I just remember looking at this, me like, this is the greatest decision I'll ever

make.

But it seems bizarre that I'm going from like a one, whatever, like a half ton sedan to

like this little ring, but it's paid off.

And that's been a very great in the long run.

There we go.

Yes, that's right.

And yeah, I'm sure you haven't regretted that decision once.

Not for one second.

That's awesome.

She may.

That's great.

Cool.

Well, hopefully that was time we'll spend here.

It was kind of fun to do something off the cuff.

If you're interested in this, shoot us a line and let us know if this was valuable for

you or just even interesting.

But yeah, thanks so much for listening and hopefully we'll catch you on another one.

Sam, many closing thoughts.

Now let's everything.

We'll just say, thanks for joining us once again on the Canadian Money Road map.

And we will see you next week.

The contents of this podcast do not constitute an offer or solicitation for residents in

the United States or any other jurisdiction where Evan Newfeld, Cedar Point Wealth or

Sterling Mutuals is not registered or permitted to conduct business.

Mutual funds are provided through Sterling Mutuals Inc.

Commission's trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with

mutual fund investments.

Please read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Mutual funds are not guaranteed.

Their values fluctuate frequently and past performance may not be repeated.

Financial planning services are provided by Evan Newfeld through Cedar Point Wealth

and are not the business of or monitored by Sterling Mutuals Inc.