101–110 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Perhaps I would have simply had someone different represent Canadians. Is this too much to ask? This was in reference to Carney. I dont think Carney represents the people very well. It is not a sovereign wealth fund. The name is intended to clash with a real sovereign wealth fund like say Norway has. Basically you need wealth and Canada has the inverse of wealth it has deficits. The fund was created (of course) by…
>So now you see why Carney's career path matters. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more I can link you to many facets that you might find interesting. Nah I don't. So far I'm batting 11/12 for going down the rabbit hole with anti Carney Canadians before i find out they were in support of the trucker convoy. Benefit of the doubt is gone if you don't open up with actual thought out critique.
I'm your huckleberry.
A sovereign wealth fund makes sense if fund with profits from exploiting our natural resources. That is how Norway did it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Norway has north of 2 trillion in that fund for about 5M people... Like, well done. Impressive financial planning at that scale
Yep. Long term greedy nation taught by the best at Goldman Sachs. Thank you guys!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Long term greedy nation taught by the best at Goldman Sachs. Thank you guys!
Yeah, why doesn't Norway spend the oil money on soccer teams and golden airplanes like a respectable and proper oil nation, instead of squandering it on reprobate socialist pension funds? Those lefse-eaters will just waste it on EV's and sensible woolen sweaters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Going full index is a great strategy for an individual person aged 20-50, but not a strategy for a pension fund which needs to continuously pay out. It's OK for a person in their 70s that has a few million in the bank. This person (CPPIB) has 780 billion and has a sustainability rating for 75 years.
$780 billion divided by 6 million current recipients is a little over $100,000, which is hardly comparable to your wealth retiree example.
While your metric is common to compare pensions, it's not relevant for debunking ability to survive a recession.
6 million x $100k is 600 billion.
Whereas the annual benefits paid is ONLY 1/10th that at 60 billion/year.
Turn off 80 billion/year in contributions and the investment income (50-60 billion/year) can sustain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, why doesn't Norway spend the oil money on soccer teams and golden airplanes like a respectable and proper oil nation, instead of squandering it on reprobate socialist pension funds? Those lefse-eaters will just waste it on EV's and sensible woolen sweaters.
Don't worry you're not missing out. The country is infatuated with the idea of destroying the entrepreneurial and business running class which creates tax income and jobs. And also the middle class is being eviscerated by inflation and insane levels of government costs and taxes.[0] 0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKn1FrthKwU
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$780 billion divided by 6 million current recipients is a little over $100,000, which is hardly comparable to your wealth retiree example.
Did you realize that CPP's support isn't full income replacement? It's only 10-20k/year per person. While your metric is common to compare pensions, it's not relevant for debunking ability to survive a recession. 6 million x $100k is 600 billion. Whereas the annual benefits paid is ONLY 1/10th that at 60 billion/year. Turn off 80 billion/year in contributions and the investment income (50-60 billion/year) can sustain…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry you're not missing out. The country is infatuated with the idea of destroying the entrepreneurial and business running class which creates tax income and jobs. And also the middle class is being eviscerated by inflation and insane levels of government costs and taxes.[0] 0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKn1FrthKwU
It's so bad, they're ranked 7th happiest country in the world...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you realize that CPP's support isn't full income replacement? It's only 10-20k/year per person. While your metric is common to compare pensions, it's not relevant for debunking ability to survive a recession. 6 million x $100k is 600 billion. Whereas the annual benefits paid is ONLY 1/10th that at 60 billion/year. Turn off 80 billion/year in contributions and the investment income (50-60 billion/year) can sustain…
During the Great Depression, the stock market stayed below 50% of its peak value for about 20 years. Imagine that the $600 billion turns into $300 billion overnight. It will only last 5-10 years without inflows, but the GDP has also dropped by 40% and inflows have plummeted.
It's still going back to the same assumptions that you're not only timing a depression but also
(a) don't have pre-funding (i.e., millions for an individual at the start of the depression),
(b) don't have CPPIB guardrails and auto-adjustment mechanisms,
(c) and it's not a partial income replacement scheme.
> It will only last 5-10 years without inflows
Without inflows? That's not realistic because people would still be contributing. In fact, CPPIB has triannual resets of contributions and in a recession, they'd up the contribution rate. In a recent actuarial audit, they found that if real returns dropped to 2.5%, then they'd only need to boost contributions from 9% to 11% to keep their 75-year sustainability target.
The advice that you need to taper off your investment portfolio risk as you get older doesn't really apply to people that have a nest egg. I know a lot of people that aren't necessarily living frugally and are told by their financial advisors that they might as well upgrade their cars, travel more, etc. They can cover their costs and don't have net worth > ~$3 million.