Connect with us


Manulife zeroes in on Canada's rich because it looks to acquire a more impressive slice of skyrocketing wealth industry




Manulife Financial Corp. offers to over double assets in their wealth unit and hire five new portfolio managers the way it targets the growing business of Canada’s rich.

Canada is about 10 years behind the U.S. in offering financial services into the wealthy under one umbrella — from investment management to tax planning — as well as sector is ripe for growth and consolidation, said Glen Brown, head of Manulife Private Wealth.

“A few years ago, you\’d begin to see the typical person addressing 4.7 different advisers. It’s now under three,” Brown, 49, said within a interview at Bloomberg’s office in Toronto. “So we’re securing money off their firms from clients which in fact have maybe a few managers and get consolidated things along with us.”

Manulife Asset Management has about US$364 billion under management. It doesn’t digest assets included in the wealth unit but Brown said the 45-person team currently suits about 400 households which has an average portfolio of about $3 million (US$2.3 million). Managers deal with not more than 125 households.

Manulife started its wealth business in Toronto about six in years past and after this has offices in Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary. Clients will need to have $1 million in liquid assets and they are referred by independent advisers. The firm charges 1.45 per-cent over the first $2 million as well as the fee crashes from that point.

Cashing Out

Canada ranked eighth worldwide for the number of individuals with at the very least US$1 million to get 2019, holding a combined great deal of US$1.2 trillion, according to Capgemini SE. Solid economic growth, a genuine estate boom and vibrant tech and marijuana industries are fuelling newfound riches. Aging company owners and seniors are looking to spend, Brown said.

It’s a small business coveted by financial services providers that bulked up in the space as they diversify from a slowing property market. Toronto-Dominion Bank wanted to buy Greystone Capital Management in July, adding a platform with alternative assets and money attractive to the rich. Bank of Nova Scotia spent $3.54 billion this past year on MD Financial Management, which caters to doctors along with their families, and Montreal-based money manager Jarislowsky Fraser.

Brown, who has greater than 19 years experience dealing with high net worth clients, including at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Toronto-Dominion Bank, said BMO Private Banking, the device of Bank of Montreal, is one of Canada’s biggest players in the sector, he said.

Outside Canada

Returns for Manulife Private Wealth clients vary based on the client’s goals, be it purchasing a retirement home in Florida or creating a philanthropy fund with regards to grandchildren, but expectations tend to be much like a pension fund, Brown said.

“What we’re seeking to do is acquire a creative addition by making use of active managers and paying that premium for active managers so your 4.7 percent return expectation becomes a 6.3 % actual return,” such as, Brown said.

A typical portfolio is currently about 60 % equities and 40 per cent fixed income about 70 percent with the equity held outside Canada, whose 5.5 percent annual return rolling around in its benchmark stock index has lagged the U.S. by most in the past a few years. Their U.S. equity manager holds about 37 stocks, focusing on blue chips which are more conservative than the broader index.

“We’re not planning to consider the outlandish risks a burglar can take if they’re currency trading themselves PC,” he stated.

Investors’ expectations have to be reset as the world economy slows, he cautioned.

“We’re going to carry on and see volatility,” he explained. “That’s become more standard than we want to see. It’s self perpetuating, so every headline which will come by helping cover their something just is constantly on the feed within the cycle with that.”


Investing in this step when filing your taxes will assist you to avoid a gross negligence penalty through the CRA





This week, the Canada Revenue Agency held a media briefing to herald the beginning of the 2019 tax filing season. But unless you’re sure that you’ve already received your tax slips for 2018, you might hold on tight a lttle bit before filing your return.

While waiting for those remaining slips to reach you, make an effort this weekend to receive organized, ensuring there is a necessary receipts to back every one of your deductions and credits. Failure to offer proper receipts towards the CRA couldn\’t only resulted in a denied deduction, but they can also produce a gross negligence penalty, just as one Ontario taxpayer recently realized.

The case, decided a week ago, involved the little one care deduction and illustrates the power of getting appropriate receipts to back your claim. The taxpayer has five children, only her youngest two children lived with her from 2003 to 2007, the tax years under review.

The taxpayer testified they only needed child care on her youngest son, who was simply 36 months old at the start of 2003. Due to this fact, the taxpayer hired two caregivers take care of her youngest son: from 2003 through 2005, she hired a detailed friend of a single her older sons to babysit and, in 2006 and 2007, she hired her nephew, who lived nearby.

2006 and 2007 tax years

In 2006 and 2007, the taxpayer claimed day care expenses of $4,000 and $1,067, respectively, for amounts she claimed she paid to her nephew. The CRA asked for proof she actually paid the amounts under consideration. Indeed, the duty to find a receipt for child care expenses is required beneath the , which states the taxpayer have to be able to substantiate the total paid “by filing while using the (CRA) one or more receipts because both versions was issued by the payee and possesses, the spot that the payee is surely an individual, that individual’s Social Insurance Number.” This latter requirement is within spot to ensure that the day care negligence provider includes the quantity received in his or her income.

The instructions to , state that for anybody who is filing online, “keep your documents if perhaps we ask to observe them at a later stage. When you are filing a paper return, attach your completed Form T778, such as the send other documents. Keep your complete documents in the event we ask to check out them later on.”

In 2009, in the event the CRA audited the taxpayer, she joined both caregivers and asked them for receipts for what she had paid them from the relevant years so she could provide them to the CRA. Copies of 5 handwritten receipts were demonstrated to a legal court.

The receipts with the notations “January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006” and “January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007” were “undated and unsigned and were admitted to obtain been prepared in 2009.” Consequently, the judge questioned the veracity of the receipts, concluding they “will not assist (the taxpayer) in establishing her childcare expenses in 2006 and 2007.”

Now, a lessening of proper receipts isn’t necessarily fatal to a taxpayer’s capacity to claim the children\’s nursery expenses; however, absent appropriate receipts, legal court must examine other evidence to substantiate whether an individual has, indeed, incurred a specific nursery expense.

In this case, the taxpayer didn\’t have any cheques, bank withdrawal slips nor any records whatsoever to substantiate the amounts she says it will have paid the caregivers, testifying that “she didn\’t keep records” nor did her caregivers keep records. As opposed to paying a per hour wage or weekly amount, “she paid him cash as she went, paying him more when she had more and less when she had less.… When and the amount she paid depended on the amount of money she had when.”

The judge discovered it surprising that, despite a lessening of records, “somehow (the caregivers) could remember by the end of each year what amount she paid them and gives her an invoice and then she was satisfied … the fact that receipt was correct.”

Added the judge, “Based, regardless of how good one’s memory is, it is far from credible that a person who paid (or was paid) varying amounts, at irregular intervals during 12 months could, at the end of that 12-month period, without records, remember the amount was paid.”

Another suspicious circumstance concerned the $1,067 of kid care expenses claimed in 2007, which has been comparable to the maximum amount allowed according to 2/3 in the taxpayer’s earned income. When the judge observed, “this amount matches just the amount within the receipt for 2007 purportedly fond of her during 2009 by (her nephew) after he recalculated what he had been paid in 2007. This may seem to me an excessive amount a coincidence.”

The judge denied the little one care expenses for 2006 and 2007.

2003, 2004 and 2005 tax years

The CRA also reassessed the 2003, 2004 and 2005 tax years in which the taxpayer claimed child care expenses of $4,800, $4,000 and $5,245, respectively. Normally, these tax years will be considered “statute-barred,” since the CRA is often prohibited from reassessing a taxpayer more than four years following the original reassessment unless it usually is shown the taxpayer “designed a misrepresentation in filing her returns … for these years that is certainly thanks to neglect, carelessness or wilful default.”

The judge concluded the taxpayer “wouldn\’t pay the amounts for childcare she claimed she paid in 2003, 2004 and 2005 understanding that she therefore created a misrepresentation in the tax statements.”

Gross negligence penalties

Finally, the CRA assessed the taxpayer with gross negligence penalties, that is applied certainly where an taxpayer “knowingly … creates … an incorrect statement … in a tax return.”

The judge upheld the penalties, choosing the amounts claimed for day care expense “were false…. (H)er explanations based on how she knew the amounts were correct, failed to ring true.”

While the judge acknowledged the taxpayer needed childcare for my child son so she can also work, the judge simply had not been convinced “that (the caregivers) provided nearly as much childcare as she claims they did, or which she paid them anything nearby the amounts she claimed she did.”

Continue Reading


Canadians using homes as ATMs in the swooning housing market put overall economy at risk: DBRS





Canadians are ramping up borrowing against attributes whilst the property market slumps, exposing the country’s overall economy to vulnerabilities, rating company DBRS said.

Home equity credit, or Helocs, reached an archive $243 billion by Oct. 31, or 11.3 percent of total household credit, the very best share since mid-2019, analysts including Robert Colangelo said in a report Thursday. Borrowing to purchase sets from home renovations to car purchases has exploded faster than residential mortgages since 2019, and undrawn commitments along at the large Canadian banks stood at $120 billion.

“The flexibility of Helocs could increase economic climate vulnerabilities,” the analysts said. “In the case of a correction, borrowers could find themselves that has a debt load that exceeds the need for their property, and that is referred to as negative equity.”

In addition, Heloc borrowing can also cause it to be more challenging for lenders to name emerging credit problems, because borrowers will use Helocs to control increases within their debt loads by consolidating high-interest loans in to a secured history of credit that charges a lower apr, as per the report.

Toronto-Dominion Bank gets the largest experience with Helocs at approximately 39 percent, with Royal Bank of Canada at 18 % additionally, the other large banks averaging 11 per-cent, good report.

Sales of recent homes in Toronto sunk into the lowest in almost 2 full decades in 2018 as well as the flow of unsold condos accumulated, in line with the Building Industry and Land Development Association report released Feb. 1. In Vancouver, homes sales fell almost 40 per-cent in January within the same month 2009.

Continue Reading


Fridge in real estate market suggests mortgage rules have overshot their mark





The get cold within the Canadian housing markets continues. The modern housing business stats show that housing sales and costs in January were lower than those recorded the year before.

A retrospective take a look at the housing markets raises significant concerns. The outcome of stringent mortgage regulations seems to be a lot more than was first expected.

In January 2018, housing sales declined after stricter mortgage regulations, with a stress test, were enacted. The January 2019 numbers are the initial item of evidence suggesting that property market slowdown is deeper rooted than only a direct and immediate reply to policy interventions.

The sustained slowdown in housing markets presents not less than two alternatives to the government. The initial alternative is always to take care of the status quo and loosen up. Your second alternative is usually to rethink the plan interventions earned in the past and pay attention to when there is any new evidence that warrants a general change in policy.

The decline in housing sales in January 2018 was expected. Lots of new regulations made to tighten  mortgage lending became effective to the first day of January during the past year. Sales in December 2019 were over usual as households rushed to seal deals to avoid being be more responsive to stricter mortgage regulations monthly later.

When January 2018 sales were 14.5 % below the month before, there was no surprise, along with the decline was attributed to the newest stress test. Similarly, year-over-year sales were down 2.4 per-cent from January 2019.

The January 2019 sales figures are certainly more disturbing. As compared to the year before, sales a few weeks ago were down by four %. In actual fact, the Canadian Housing Association (CREA) said that sales in January 2019 are already the weakest since 2019.

In accessory for sales, housing prices in addition softened. The normal house price across Canada was $455,000, 5.5 % lower than duration during the past year.

The January 2019 statistics deliver the first possiblity to compare the annual change in housing sector dynamics after the stress test arrived to effect. The decline in last month far above the content observed recently is suggestive of the fact that the finance industry is not merely reacting to new regulations, although the markets have embraced a far more systematic response that is certainly seen as an fewer transactions reduce prices.

The weakness in housing markets may also affect mortgage lending, a profitable business The top Five banks keep dominate in Canada. The continued slowdown in housing sales could have influenced banks’ mortgage portfolios — the 1st signs of a very effect could soon be visible if your banks release their updated earnings report within the future.

The last couple of weeks have witnessed diverse voices both questioning and supporting the efficacy in the exacting mortgage regulations. Some feel that stress exams are working fine. Phil Soper, CEO of Royal Lepage, thinks that this stress exams are needed “for your long term health within the economy.”

Others assume that the worry tests have adversely impacted homebuyers whorrrre either can not buy in the least or are required to consume less adequate shelter space compared to what they would\’ve afforded without stress tests.

After reviewing the sustained decline in housing sales, Dave Wilkes, President and CEO within the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), believes the stress test “has overshot its target.”

BILD has advanced two proposals for your feds to contemplate. First, to think about decreasing the stress test threshold pots borrowers to qualify at 200 basis points on top of the contracted rate. Because the mortgage rates are already revised upwards considering that the stress test was implemented, there may be merit in reviewing the brink.

Housing trade groups are usually advocating to reintroduce the 30-year amortization for CMHC insured mortgages, which had been available until July 2012.

First-time homebuyers may very well benefit more from these changes. The cabability to stretch the amortization period to 30 years lowers the monthly repayment and allows many to take part in homebuying who will well be required to rent at any given time when rental vacancy minute rates are at historic lows in large urban housing markets.

Critics on the 30-year mortgage discuss its two obvious shortcomings. First, borrowers finish up paying more in interest. Second, longer amortization periods play a role in house price inflation.

Good public policy should be responsive and rooted in evidence. Recent property market data suggests that the impact of tighter mortgage regulations has become longer lasting when compared with most housing experts expected. A software program correction is usually a prudent solution.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2019