Get new posts by email:
  

Double-Up GIC – the Catch

The point of my Double-Up GIC was to illustrate the tricky rules used in market-linked GICs by taking these rules to the extreme. The advertising of market-linked GICs makes it seem like you have a guarantee to get your money back if stocks fall and can get the market return if stocks rise. This isn’t the case. Market-linked GICs have rules that significantly reduce the return you get if the stock market goes up.

The catch with my Double-Up GIC is that each of the 560 linked stocks must go up during all 60 months for you to get your full 100% return. Any excess return for a stock in a month above 0.00206% is wasted, but any drop in a stock counts fully. Across all the stocks there are a total of 560*60=33,600 monthly returns. If all the negative returns compound to a 50% loss, then these losses will completely cancel all the capped positive returns. So, if one-eighth of the stocks show a loss of 1% or more in the first month, you’re already guaranteed to get only your principal back and no added interest after the 5 years. So much for the dream of a double up.

It would take quite a conspiracy to cause the markets to go up so consistently that this GIC pays any interest at all. If I had no empathy and sold such a GIC to some suckers, I would invest enough of their deposits in a 5-year stripped bond to cover the return of principal and invest the rest in two ETFs that cover the TSX 60 and S&P 500. This way I couldn’t lose on having to pay back the principal, and if stocks happen to perform so magnificently (perhaps due to runaway inflation) that I owe some interest after 5 years, my stock investment would most likely cover the interest I owe.

Of course, the tricks the big banks use to limit interest payments aren’t this punishing, but you have to read through the fine print and do some math to see why market-linked GICs won’t give you much of the returns from stocks.

<< Previous Post Next Post >>

Comments

  1. AnonymousFebruary 20, 2014 at 8:05 AM

    Outstanding!

    ReplyDelete
  2. geneFebruary 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM

    I'm just happy you use your creativity and intellect for good instead of evil. Some people aren't so scrupulous.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Financial Lessons from Poker

Common advice about controlling spending is to track all your purchases and add them up each week or month. I believe that this is effective, but have been fuzzy on why it seems to work so well. Why can’t people just spend less without the constant reminder of how well they are doing? I got some insight on this question from, of all places, poker. For poker players there is a certain thrill to dragging in a pot of chips. The thrill is there whether it is a $1 pot or a $10 pot. The $10 pot gives a bigger thrill, but not 10 times bigger. Similarly, losing a $10 pot feels worse than losing a $1 pot, but not 10 times worse. This leads to some players playing in such a way that they maximize happiness by taking in many small pots, but losing some big ones. As long as they don’t count their dwindling chips, they can actually be happy playing this way. Counting your chips is a lot like adding up your spending at the end of the month to see what happened. You may feel good about ...
Read more

Even Dimensional Fund Advisors Struggles with Inflation Statistics

Inflation is a risk we have to face in financial planning, particularly in retirement.  We need to measure inflation risk correctly to be able to make reasonable financial plans.  The best guide we have to the future takes into account past inflation statistics.  But the field of statistics is full of subtleties, and even Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) can make mistakes. DFA creates good funds, and their advisors tend to do good work for their clients.  I’d prefer to find errors in the work of a less investor-friendly investment firm, but they provided a clear example to learn from.  They misapplied a statistical rule, and as a result, they misinterpreted the history of inflation over the past century. I discussed this issue with Larry Swedroe in posts on X.  I respect Larry and have followed his work as he tirelessly explains evidence based investing to the masses. A Simple Example To explain the problem, let’s first begin with a simpler example.  So...
Read more

A Misunderstanding About Taking CPP Early to Invest

Recently, Braden Warwick at PWL Capital created an excellent CPP calculator that we can all use.  One of the numbers this calculator reports is the IRR (Internal Rate of Return) you’ll get between your CPP contributions and the CPP pension you’ll collect.  Some financial advisors (but not Braden) decide it makes sense for their clients to take CPP as early as possible (age 60), and invest the proceeds.  Their reasoning is that they believe they can earn a higher return.  Here I explain why this logic compares the wrong returns. The return you’ll get on your CPP contributions depends on the contributions you and your employer have made and the benefits you’ll get.  These amounts depend on many factors about your life as well as some assumptions about the future.  Typically, the return people get on CPP is between inflation+2% and inflation+4%.  (However, it can go higher if you took time off work with a disability or to raise your children.  It al...
Read more

Archive

Show more