Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Boom, Bust and Consolidation November 9, 2018
    The five largest bitumen-extractive corporations in Canada control 79.3 per cent of Canada’s productive capacity of bitumen. The Big Five—Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Husky Energy—collectively control 90 per cent of existing bitumen upgrading capacity and are positioned to dominate Canada’s future oil sands development. In a sense they […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • A new Director for CCPA's BC Office: Message from Mary Childs, Board Chair October 24, 2018
    The CCPA-BC Board of Directors is delighted to share the news that Shannon Daub will be the next BC Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Last spring, Seth Klein announced that, after 22 years, he would be stepping down as founding Director of the CCPA-BC at the end of 2018. The CCPA-BC’s board […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Who Owns Canada’s Fossil-Fuel Sector? October 15, 2018
    The major investors in Canada’s fossil-fuel sector have high stakes in maintaining business as usual rather than addressing the industry’s serious climate issues, says a new Corporate Mapping Project study.  And as alarms ring over our continued dependence on natural gas, coal and oil, these investors have both an interest in the continued growth of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Pharmacare consensus principles released today September 24, 2018
    A diverse coalition representing health care providers, non-profit organizations, workers, seniors, patients and academics has come together to issue a statement of consensus principles for the establishment of National Pharmacare in Canada. Our coalition believes that National Pharmacare should be a seamless extension of the existing universal health care system in Canada, which covers medically […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice September 19, 2018
    The CCPA is pleased to announce the creation of the Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice.This Fellowship is created to honour the legacy of senior researcher Kate McInturff who passed away in July 2018. Kate was a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research and achieved national acclaim for researching, writing, and producing CCPA’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Investors Gouged by High Fees

Good coverage in the Globe for the CLC’s calculations on the huge negative impact of high management fees on investment returns from RRSPs and the like, as opposed to the low cost CPP.

Does anybody out there find the investment fund industry response (we are providing good advice) convincing? If so, you will just love PRPPs!

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from rcp
Time: December 6, 2011, 12:49 pm

And of course, you can avoid high fees by investing in low-cost ETF’s. That’s the obvious solution. Vanguard launched six Canadian ETF’s today and every one of them has a management fee of under 0.5%.

Comment from Andrew Jackson
Time: December 6, 2011, 4:08 pm

As I understand it a lot of ETFs are pretty risky since the seller does not always hold what are supposed to be the underlying assets. But good luck with them.

Comment from Andrew Jackson
Time: December 6, 2011, 4:13 pm

And you usually incur brokerage fees buying and selling ETFs

Comment from rcp
Time: December 6, 2011, 7:04 pm

Andrew, you have to read the prospectus: some ETF’s are risky and some are not. Almost all iShares, Claymore, and Vanguard ETF’s hold the actual underlying assets – the synthetic ETF’s that you might be thinking of are bigger in Europe than in Canada or the US.

A $9.99 brokerage fee (if that, some brokerages now offer free ETF trading) on say a $2000 investment amortized over five years is 0.1%.

The “high management fee” talking point is getting old. Nobody has to pay high management fees. It’s pretty simple, and the CLC does itself no favours by mindlessly repeating it. I feel sorry for people in high management fee mutual funds, but their obvious solution is to switch to low-cost ETF’s.

Comment from Eric Pineault
Time: December 6, 2011, 7:14 pm

On a strictly personal note, to avoid the paradoxes of self-contradiction, our savings are in held in the form of public debt sold here in Québec by the public provider “Épargne placement Québec” equivalent to canada savings bonds, difference being that their product line is much more complete, resembles what mutual fund managers and banks offer, and no fee’s. (they even have a stock index bond offer, tied to an index of 30 Québec based companies.) Anyhow, this personal solution keeps me out of mutual funds. But what I realized is that Épargne placement Québec does’t offer RESP’s, there is no public option for this type of savings plan, and a friend of mine who has a handicapped daughter informed me that the same goes for Registered Disability Savings Plan. Now both these regimes imply some level of public contribution to the savings plan, which in another way of looking at things given a 2% annual management fee is a direct 2% times X million $ to mutual funds and banks. Somebody should calculate this.

Comment from rcp
Time: December 6, 2011, 8:06 pm

Eric, you don’t have to pay 2% per year. It’s really that simple. If you’re paying more than 0.5% per year, think about switching.

Comment from Purple Library Guy
Time: December 6, 2011, 11:58 pm

Not sure it matters what people have to pay. That kind of financial instrument functions as what the Dilbert guy calls a “confusopoly”, much like cell phone plans.

Comment from rcp
Time: December 7, 2011, 1:18 am

PLG, I don’t agree. Read this and see if you find it confusing:

(http://www.thestar.com/article/1097969–roseman-vanguard-comes-to-canada-to-cut-costs)

It’s not a cell phone plan. Lower MER on a broad index is unambiguously better than high MER on the same index.

Comment from Paul Tulloch
Time: December 7, 2011, 11:24 am

Being on this subject I thought an article one of my FB freinds (Trish) posted today by George Monbiot – it kind dovetails into this subject. He cites a study that shows

“traders and fund managers across Wall Street receive their massive remuneration for doing no better than would a chimpanzee flipping a coin.”

Bottomline- I don’t know too many fund managers that are not well-off. At least starting at the middle of that food chain and on up. Whether it be fees, or other compensatory measures, investors get gouged for the services provided.

My favourite line in the piece is this little but massive tidbit- “If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.”

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/07/the-self-attribution-fallacy/

Write a comment





Related articles