Choosing The Right Investment Advisor - Book Giveaway

In late April of this year, I read an article by Eric Lam in the National Post titled “Picking advisor best not left to chance”. Despite being sleep deprived at that point in time, I quickly noticed the article was based on the book  Choosing The Right Investment Advisor by Carol Santamaura, and that the proceeds of the book were being donated to the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

So why did I sit up and take notice? Well firstly, I have known Carol since she started as an investment advisor and we have had mutual clients for years. Secondly, as I have blogged on the topic of philanthropy, or the lack of it, a couple times, I appreciated the fact that Carol was donating the proceeds of her book to charity. Finally, the topic of Carole's book is of great interest to me. My profession provides me a unique vantage point from which to view the performance of many investment advisors and I can certainly tell you that many people have definitely not chosen the right investment advisor.

Recently I had lunch with Carol to catch-up and talk about her book. The book is an easy read and provides Canadians with a methodical manner in which to choose the right investment advisor for them.

During lunch I asked Carol if she would provide me with some comments on why she wrote the book and some of the key aspects of the book. Carol was kind enough to not only provide that information below, but she also provided me with five free copies of the book.

If you would like a free copy of Carol's book, please email your name to Lynda@cunninghamca.com and I will draw 5 names and send the winners a copy of the book.

Choosing The Right Investment Manager- Comments by Carol Santamaura

 

The goal of my book is to educate the public and simplify the process of choosing the right Financial Advisor. Further, by donating all of the profits to Cancer Research at Princess Margaret Hospital, it also allows me to support a cause close to all of us.

Since I started managing clients’ assets in the early 1990s, I have been fascinated by how people select their financial or investment advisors. This a very important decision; after all, much of one’s financial future is in the hands of this person. Yet, it always astonishes me how little research investors actually undertake before they sign up! Some say, “I met him/her at a party” or “he/she coaches my son’s soccer team.” One person even boasted that their advisor had been a professional athlete.

When I ask prospective clients and high–net worth investors how they selected their current advisors, I expect their answers to be based on the level of due diligence that a responsibility of this magnitude requires: quantitative criteria such as credentials, ethics, or returns. But typically that is not the case.

My research into why people don’t do more research into finding the right advisor has led to the following conclusions:

1) The financial services industry is complicated. 

The financial services industry has witnessed explosive growth over the last several years. Much of the difficulty in selecting an advisor lies in the increasingly complex and confusing nature of the industry. These days, it seems that everyone is a financial consultant of some sort, as the term is now broadly defined (e.g., investment advisor, investment executive, financial planner). There is also a substantial overlap in the products and services that can be provided by companies and individual advisors. Yet another challenge facing the average investor is that he/she may not fully understand what he/she needs or what advisors can provide.

2) The industry itself has done little to inform the public about this complexity. Therefore, investors are very often ill equipped and lack the knowledge and tools necessary to make the right decision.

My book unravels the complexity and provides information about selecting an investment advisor. It covers various topics ranging from what products and services the investor needs, to how to apply selection criteria for an ideal advisor. It also discusses strategies to ensure a long-term successful partnership.

Three informative sections guide readers through the complexities of the investment industry. Section one deals with the kind of investor one is and what sort of advice one requires. Awareness of certain characteristics in one’s own behaviour as it relates to investing clarifies the decision to work with an advisor and helps to identify what kind of products and services are suitable. For example, a conservative investor may want a portfolio made up primarily of fixed-term investments with little volatility. A risk-taker who is willing to take on greater volatility may prefer a portfolio of growth stocks. An ‘in-betweener’ would benefit from, that’s right, a middle path.  

Section two offers practical guidelines and useful tips for finding, evaluating, and working successfully with an advisor.

Section three examines the Canadian investment industry as it stands today, from companies and the services they provide, to individual advisors, their qualifications, and the products they are licensed to sell.

My hope is that people will be better off after having read my book for the following reasons:

1)   they will have greater confidence their advisor acts with integrity

2)   they will be able to sleep at night

3)   they will be comfortable in knowing they made the right choice.

So, whether one is looking for an advisor for the first time, or evaluating one’s current situation, this book provides a perspective on how to take an informed approach to choosing and working with the right advisor.

Carol would like to  dedicate this blog in memoriam of Jill Max, former head of RBC - DS Private Client Bond Desk. 


Carol A. Santamaura is a Vice President and Portfolio Manager at RBC Dominion Securities in Toronto. Carol can be reached by email at www.carolsantamaura.com

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Are you Selfish with your Money and Advice?

I think it is commonly accepted that most people do not like to discuss money matters. In fact, I have posted on several taboo money topics ranging from discussing the family will to intergenerational issues surrounding money. I find the fact that people are not willing to discuss money quite ludicrous in some cases and potentially harmful in certain other situations.

But, should this disinclination to discuss money extend to investment or cost saving opportunities where you may be able to financially assist family, friends and acquaintances? Are there situations in which you do not have to reveal personal financial details, such that one can disengage from the money taboo?

So, where am I going with this? Let me ask you the following questions:

1.  If you are a stock picker and have a new favourite stock, would you inform your family, friends and acquaintances about this stock?
2. What if you found a great cottage to rent this summer at a great price, but you can only use it two weeks of the summer, would you inform your family or friends of its availability?
3. What if someone came to you with a private investment which you thought was the next Facebook, would you offer this opportunity to your family, friends, acquaintances or clients?
4. What if you found a great real estate property you felt could be fixed-up cheaply and flipped quickly, but you would be stretched to purchase it yourself. Would you offer a piece of this property to your family or friends?
5. Finally, what if you have a client or contact who is a distributor for Armani suits for men and Christian Louboutin shoes for women and they offer you a standard 50% discount and allow you to bring a guest, would you bring a guest?

Personally, I would answer yes to all the above and not think much about doing such. To me, if I can make money and also help someone make money or save money, I am happy to share the wealth, so to speak. In fact, I have done all the above in some shape or form. This does not make me a good person, I have several other faults; but I am just not selfish where I can share the spoils of a good investment or opportunity. 

However, some people are not as forthcoming. The question is why?

I see a couple of potential reasons.

The first and most justifiable reason is; that although many people are willing to take a personal financial risk on a stock pick or investment opportunity, they do not want to be held responsible if others lose their money. I think this is a very valid concern. The only counter argument I have for this concern is; if you know your family and friends well, you probably know to which people you can say, "Here is the opportunity and here is the risk. You are a big boy or big girl, make your own decision, but I am partaking in this investment and if you follow suit, you do so with the same risk I have assumed".

I would suggest for the people in the subset above, most would probably inform family or friends about the cottage rental opportunity and Armani suits/ Christian Louboutin shoe sale, because in these cases, there is no risk of financial loss and blame, as you are just helping others save money.

This leads me to an alternative reason for not “sharing” investment opportunities or cost saving opportunities. Many months back I wrote a blog post called “How we look at money”. The post centered on a study by Dr. Brad Klontz a financial psychologist.

The study which deals with money through a concept of “money scripts” says money causes certain people to be “concerned with the association between self-worth and net-worth. These scripts can lock individuals into the competitive stance of acquiring more than those around them. Individuals who believe that money is status see a clear distinction between socio-economic classes.”

I would suggest it is this subset of people that do not involve or inform others of these investments and cost saving opportunities. Their actions are a result of their competitiveness in acquiring more than those around them, such that they feel more powerful with the exclusivity of being involved in these opportunities while excluding their family and friends.

These people feel that if their investments work out, they will have more money than their family,  friends and acquaintances and reinforce their financial superiority. In the case of the cottage they would not let others know about the deal they received, yet they would invite guests to the cottage to show it off. The same would go for the suits or shoes; they would rather show up in the Armani suit or Christian Louboutin shoes to reinforce their perceived power and status and would not want others to present the same image.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, I find the psychology of money intriguing. Think how you and the people you know would respond to the above five situations and whether these situations would provide a view into your/their financial psyches.

P.S.-- Just so none of my family and friends think they were the inspiration for this blog post, it is based on as Gotye says, "Someone That I Used to Know" (My Own Advisor, how is that for a current music reference?).

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Are your Collectibles, Individual Pieces or an Unbreakable Set?

In March 2011, I wrote a blog post on the taxation of personal use property. In that post, I noted that upon the disposition of personal use property (“PUP”) there are no capital gains if the proceeds are less than $1,000. (See the above link for how PUP is taxed and the various subsets of PUP).

Financial blogger Michael James put forth an insightful question about the blog post when he asked “Suppose that a coin collection is worth more than $1000, but each coin is worth less than $1000. Can the coins be sold off one at a time (or in groups of total value less than $1000) to avoid capital gains entirely?

My answer was as follows: “Michael, great question. You have hit on a bit of a grey area. Where an individual item would normally be disposed of as part of a set such as a coin, stamp or baseball card set, the whole set is considered to be a single item of PUP. The disposition of a single item of a set may result in a capital gain even where the proceeds of disposition do not exceed $1,000 because the $1,000 floor adjusted cost base ("ACB") would have to be prorated among the items that make up the set. The term set is not defined, leaving this a bit of a “grey area”, i.e.: is a single coin, stamp or card part of a set? You can answer yes or no in many cases.”

Former Interpretation Bulletin 332R which is not binding, but represents CRA’s past thoughts, says in paragraph 14 that the term "set" is not defined in the Act and therefore carries its ordinary meaning in the context in which it is used. "The Department considers that a set for these purposes is a number of properties belonging together and relating to each other. For example, in the case of the hobby of stamp collecting, the Department considers that a set is a number of stamps which were produced and issued by one country simultaneously or over a short period of time. The fact that the value of a number of properties, if sold together, exceeds the aggregate of their values, if sold individually, may indicate the existence of a set. However, this is not in itself a decisive factor."

So why am I bringing up this topic again? Because last year the Tax Court of Canada addressed the issue of what constitutes a set in an unusual and slightly amusing case, on whether an insect collection constituted a set. Yes, you read that correctly, an insect collection.

Danielle Plamondon donated a collection of insects worth $25,419 to Laval University. The CRA then re-assessed the taxpayer for a capital gain of $24,419 being the fair market value of the collection less the $1,000 floor on PUP.  Although the judge considered the issue of personal enjoyment of the PUP, the key to the case was whether the 2,158 insects constituted a set. The judge ruled that each insect was a distinct property and did not form an unbreakable set. Thus, the $1,000 floor ACB applied to each insect and there was no capital gain.

It should be noted that in the link above, there is a discussion about the words "set" and "collection" and that according to a tax commentary service, they are clearly not synonymous and, accordingly, a collection of paintings or of stamps would not normally constitute a set of paintings or of stamps.

So, if you have a hockey card set, it would appear most sets are linked. But what if you own a 1966 set with Bobby Orr's rookie card? That card is essentially the set, is that card a distinct property? What if you are a collector of duck decoys, are the decoys linked or separate and distinct properties? What about figurine and plate collections? If you collect stamps, based on the CRA comments noted in IT-332 and the case above, it would appear there would be circumstances in which a stamp collection would appear to be considered a breakable set. Clear as mud in many cases.

The Plamodon case has not necessarily clarified what PUP will be considered distinct property as opposed to an unbreakable set. However, if you are a collector, this unusual case may prompt you to consider how linked the items are in your sets and do they form an unbreakable set?

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

25 Years- My Wife Deserves a Medal

Today is my 25th wedding anniversary. In this day and age, 25 years of marriage is considered quite an accomplishment. I think that both my wife and I never expected anything other than to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary together; a philosophy that has enabled us to accept and overcome the various challenges along the way. 

People (mostly guys it seems); always joke about being married to the same person for so long. However, as an accountant I have observed not only the financial mess left behind by a broken marriage, but the emotional debris. You have to consider yourself very lucky to find a kindred spirit to share your life with.

We all try to figure out what type of person is the right fit for us as a “life partner” prior to getting married, but who the heck really knows if your interests and personalities will truly stay aligned after 25 years. In my case, other than my wife’s less than enthusiastic love of golf and my desire to avoid superfluous social outings which she finds enjoyable, we are very much aligned.

My wife tells me I have only breached one unstated condition of our marriage, that being I have gone from being timely, to slightly late (I tell her that is because I was tired of being timely and often waiting for others). I consider that breach an equalizer to the fact I thought she had a great wardrobe when we got married; when in fact, she had often borrowed her nice clothes from her mother and we had a large unexpected clothing expenditure soon after being married.

So my advice after 25 years, not that you asked? Ensure that from day one you make time for you and your spouse. The second week after our son was born, my in-laws came over and said to my wife and I, “go out for dinner, we will look after your son”. Their message – always make time for you and your spouse, or life and/or your children will consume you both.

To my lovely wife (actually, too good looking for me as I have been told by others), I love you and look forward to achieving our bucket list of items together over the next 25 years.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

IRS Sets Forth Amnesty Procedures for U.S. Citizens Living in Canada

Over the last year or so, I have written blog posts on the requirements of U.S. citizens to file both Canadian and U.S. income tax returns and the outrageous penalties that could be assessed for not filing Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") information forms. In addition, I posted on the possibility of a true amnesty for Americans living in Canada after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty jumped into the dual tax filing fray.

Well, that amnesty may now be close at hand. On Tuesday, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman announced a plan to help U.S. citizens residing overseas, including dual citizens, catch up with tax filing obligations and provide assistance for people with foreign retirement plan issues. As he said in the press release "Today we are announcing a series of common-sense steps to help U.S. citizens abroad get current with their tax obligations and resolve pension issues,".

While some of the details are still forthcoming, the IRS set forth a new procedure in which taxpayers who are considered a "low compliance risk" will be required to file three years of income tax returns and six years of Foreign Information Returns. All submissions will be reviewed and for those low risk taxpayers, the review will be expedited and the IRS will not assess penalties or pursue follow-up actions, although any tax owing must be paid.

Higher compliance risk returns are not eligible for the procedure and will be subject to a more thorough review and possible full examination. In these cases, tax, interest and penalties may be imposed.

The press release says this about compliance risk determination:

“The IRS will determine the level of compliance risk presented by the submission based on certain information provided on the returns filed, and based on certain additional information that will be required as part of the submission. Low risk will be predicated on simple returns with little or no U.S. tax due. Absent high risk factors, if the submitted returns and application show less than $1,500 in tax due in each of the years, they will be treated as low risk. In general, the risk level will rise as the income and assets of the taxpayer rise, if there are indications of sophisticated tax planning or avoidance, or if there is material economic activity in the United States. Additional risk factors include any additional history of noncompliance with United States tax law and the amount and type of United States source income. Additional information regarding the specific factors the IRS will use to assess the level of compliance risk, and how information regarding those factors should be presented in the submission, will be released prior to the effective date of the new procedure.”

The above procedure will also provide for retroactive relief for failure to timely elect income deferral on certain retirement and savings plans (Canadians who have RRSP’s are required to elect to defer the yearly RRSP earnings) where deferral is permitted by relevant treaty will be available through this process. The proper deferral elections with respect to such arrangements must be made with the submission.

Although the concept of “compliance risk” seems to leave the IRS with significant discretion, the new procedure should allow the majority of U.S. citizens living in Canada to comply with U.S. income tax regulations without a significant financial cost. For those with a high compliance risk, the press release does not appear to provide much relief or if it does, you are rolling the dice with the IRS and are at their mercy.

Finally, there is no discussion about whether Canadians who complied with the earlier amnesty programs and paid interest and penalties, can apply to have those funds refunded.

Bloggers Note: As I have no knowledge of how this amnesty will work other than what the IRS press release and procedure states, I will not answer any questions in relation to this blog.

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Are Accountants Really Boring?

The joke goes like this. "When does a person decide to become an accountant?" Drum roll please. The answer…"When they realize that they do not have the charisma to become an undertaker." Or how about this one? Question: "What does an accountant use for birth control?" Answer: "Their personality."

With a reputation like that, Flo Rida will not be penning any rap songs called Wild One’s featuring accountants. So are we accountants that boring or do we take an unfair rap?

Unfortunately, in general, I think the rap is probably warranted, although perception may be reality. How would us CA’s be viewed if there had been a TV show called LA Accountant, instead of LA Law? Did you know John Grisham got his undergraduate degree in accounting? What if his books had been about accounting firms instead of law firms? Accountants would then be looked upon as cool dudes/dudettes with a conservative bent.

Is it nature, or nurture? I think probably a combination of both. Many accountants by nature are cautious and conservative. Years of training to refine these character traits amplify the situation in non-professional environments. It would probably help if our dress style did not include pens hanging from our dress shirts, pencils behind our ears, or if we occasionally loosened our ties both literally and figuratively. I always had this underlying desire at a cocktail party full of accountants to run about the room and loosen all their ties.

Personally, although I have pride in my profession and my job, I know the boring stereotype precedes me and I try not to advertise the fact that I am a CA upon initially meeting people. You can only have so many people at parties walk away after you tell them you are an accountant before you get a complex.

Classic Bean Counter

Unlike many accountants, I don’t advertise my profession with a vanity licence plate with the initials MG CA. Although I am considering getting one saying “The BBC” [The Blunt Bean Counter]), but I am concerned everyone will just think I am just a British public television expatriate.

When I am outed as an accountant, I always say I am a tax accountant or the managing partner to make my job sound sexier. Although my naturally boring nature often gives me away, many of my other characteristics are non-accountant like and I enjoy surprising people when they find out this blunt, sometimes arrogant, sometimes confrontational and very occasionally humorous person is an accountant. My happiest social outings are not when a good looking girl stares at me, but when someone says, “Wow, I would never have thought you to be an accountant”.

So, are any of my kind not boring? I did a search of famous accountants and came up with this list. For those of you old enough to remember the Bob Newhart Show, Bob Newhart the namesake and star was a former accountant. Now I am not sure Bob helps our cause. He was funny, but in a boring deadpan style, certainly was not stylish and definitely was no Chris Rock. 

To my surprise I found a musician who started life as an accountant. You figure any musician would break the stereotype as they lead crazy drug induced lifestyles. I found out Kenny G, a great saxophone player, is our exception. However, although Kenny is a great musician, I typically hear his music in my  dentist's office and as far as I know, he did not have a Playboy Playmate as a girlfriend like so many rock stars. 

I was about to give up when a beacon of light shone and led me to Paul Beeston. Finally, an accountant with attitude! Beeston, who was a CA with Coopers and Lybrand, became the President and CEO of the Toronto Blue Jays and later the President and COO of Major League Baseball. Paul  is a cigar chomping, fun loving, non-sock wearing CA. Yes, there is one out there (Unfortunately I could not find a picture I could legally download of Paul).

There you have it, proof that there is an accountant out there who does not fit the stereotype. Anyways, if you ever meet me, I will be easy to spot. I am the outgoing accountant who will be looking down at your shoes instead of staring down at my own shoes. J

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.

Should Your Corporation’s Shareholder be a Family Trust instead of a Holding Company?

I am often asked by clients incorporating a new company, whether they should hold the shares of the new corporation directly or whether they should utilize a holding company or a family trust.

The exact same question often arises a second time, years later, when a business has been successful and the shares of the corporation have been held by the client and/or their spouse directly and the client is now contemplating whether it makes sense to introduce a holding company or family trust into their corporate ownership structure, for creditor proofing and/or estate planning purposes.

I have discussed utilizing a holding company and introducing a family trust as a shareholder of a private corporation in prior blogs. Today I will discuss these alternative structures in context of a newly incorporated business and a mature business.

When a person decides to start a new business and incorporates (see my blog on whether to start a business as a proprietorship or corporation ) there is often a level of uncertainty as to whether the new venture will be successful and cost control is often paramount. Thus, most people opt to keep their corporate structure simple (which really means, they do not want to spend money on lawyers and accountants to set-up holding companies and trusts) which is very understandable.

However, if you have the resources upon incorporation, you may wish to consider having a family trust own the shares of the private corporation rather than directly owning the shares or using a holding company from the outset. The two reasons you may wish to consider this corporate structure are as follows: (1) you can have a holding company as a beneficiary of a family trust which can provide all the benefits of a direct holding company; and (2) a family trust provides the ultimate in tax planning flexibility.

There are several benefits to having a family trust as a shareholder of your private company (I am assuming your corporation is an active company, not an investment company, for which the above is problematic). If the company is eventually sold, a family trust potentially provides for the multiplication of the $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption on a sale of qualifying small business corporation shares. That is, it may be possible to allocate the capital gain upon the sale to yourself, your spouse, your children or any other beneficiaries of the trust, resulting in the multiplication of the exemption and creating substantial income tax savings. For example: where there are four individual beneficiaries of a family trust, the family unit may be able to save as much as $700,000 in income tax if a corporation  is sold for $3,000,000 or more. In addition, where your children are 18 years of age or over, the family trust can receive dividends from the family business and allocate some or all of the dividends to the children. The dividends must be reported in the tax return of the child, but in many cases, the dividends are subject to little or no tax (if a child has no other income, you can allocate almost $40,000 in dividends income tax-free).

Finally, where you have surplus earnings in a corporation and you wish to creditor proof those earnings, but do not want to allocate those funds to your spouse or your children, you may be able to allocate those funds tax-free to the holding company if it is a beneficiary of the trust. This provides for an income tax deferral of the personal taxes until the holding company pays a dividend to its shareholders.

So you may be asking “Mark, why would I ever not choose a family trust? Some of the reasons are as follows:

1. The initial accounting and legal costs may be as high as $7,000 - $10,000.

2. You may not have children or, if you do have children, they are young and you cannot allocate them dividends without the dividends being subject to the “Kiddie Tax” (a punitive income tax applied when minors receive dividends of private companies directly or through a trust).

3. You are not comfortable with allocating to your children any capital gains from a sale of the business and/or any dividends since legally that money would belong to them.

4. If the business fails, it may be problematic to claim an Allowable Business Investment Loss (a loss that can be deducted against any source of income) that would otherwise be available if the shares of the company were held directly by an individual.
5. There are some income tax traps beyond the scope of this blog post when a holding company is a beneficiary.

As discussed in the opening paragraph, once a business is established and has become successful, clients often again raise the issue of whether they should introduce a holding company or a family trust into the corporate ownership structure. At this stage, a holding company can easily be introduced as a shareholder. The mechanics are beyond the scope of this blog but the transaction can take place on a tax-free basis. However, the holding company essentially only serves one purpose, that being creditor proofing. A holding company is also often problematic, as the level of cash the holding company holds can put it offside of the rules for claiming the $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption if the business is sold in the future. Thus, you may wish to consider utilizing a family trust, unless you do not have children or do not anticipate being able to sell the corporation.

If one waits until the business is successful to introduce a family trust, as opposed to introducing one as an original shareholder when the business is first incorporated, the value of the business as at the date of the reorganization must first be attributed to the original owner(s) utilizing special shares (typically referred to as an estate freeze). This means the beneficiaries of the trust only benefit from the future growth of the corporation (ie: if the corporation is worth $2,000,000, the parent(s) are issued shares worth $2,000,000 and the children will only benefit on any increase in value beyond the $2,000,000). The costs of introducing a family trust with a holding company beneficiary as part of an estate freeze could be as high as $15,000 -$20,000 as a business valuation is often required.

The above discussion is very complex. The key takeaway should be that having a holding company as a direct shareholder of an operating company, may not always be the most tax efficient decision. A family trust with a holding company beneficiary may be the more appropriate choice depending upon the circumstances.

In any event, believe it or not, the above discussion has been simplified and you should not even consider undertaking such planning without consulting a professional advisor to understand the issues related to your specific fact situation to ensure the planning makes sense and that you are not breaching any of the hidden income tax traps.

Top Canadian Investing Blogs

If you are still reading at this point (yes, I know, I break every rule about having a maximum of 400 words per blog), Jeremy Biberdorf of www.modestmoney.com has been kind enough to nominate my blog in his poll for the top Canadian Investing Blogs (not sure my blog fits that category, but I appreciate the consideration anyways). If you have a minute, please visit this link and vote for me. My goal is to escape last place :).

The blogs posted on The Blunt Bean Counter provide information of a general nature. These posts should not be considered specific advice; as each reader's personal financial situation is unique and fact specific. Please contact a professional advisor prior to implementing or acting upon any of the information contained in one of the blogs.