Podcast - August 1, 2023
Colin & Josh assault one another’s deeply held beliefs in this week’s episode of Barenaked Money. You might be surprised what is and isn’t…true.
Speaker 1:
You’re about to get lucky with the Barenaked Money Podcast, the show that gives you the naked truth about personal finance, with your hosts, Josh Sheluk, Portfolio Manager with WLWP, Wealth Planners iA Private Wealth, and Colin White, Portfolio Manager with Verecan Capital Management Inc.
Colin White:
Welcome to the next episode of Barenaked Money, along with Josh here. I’m leading this off because I don’t think I’m going to get to too much talking, because Josh has prepared a podcast to assault all of my firmly-held beliefs and to convince me that I’m wrong. I’ve always personally said I keep really, really firm opinions right until somebody changes them. I think Josh is going to take a run at changing some of those opinions. Now, I’m not sure how fulsome his effort is going to be because he doesn’t seem to be confident, but he is kind of eager to get inside of some things. I don’t even know what they are, so I’m as excited as everybody else to hear how this podcast goes.
Josh Sheluk:
Well, I’m always confident. I’m always confident when I put together a well-thought-out argument, but we’re coming at this from an approach that we often will take, where not only will we challenge the conventional wisdom, but we’ll challenge our, I guess we could call it, you said firmly-held beliefs. It’s never that firm, because to your point, we’re always trying to change our minds for whatever reason. But things that we’re fairly convinced of, I guess we could call it.
Colin White:
Yeah. Well, I mean, but again, at the end of the day, when you reach a conclusion, you have to kind of, again, say, walk in the direction. And I’d say that that’s the important part. We will come to a conclusion and say, “Okay, yeah, this is our conclusion, so this is the direction we’re going to go.” That’s a level of confidence. And maybe firmly-held beliefs doesn’t mean it can’t be changed.
Josh Sheluk:
Fair.
Colin White:
It just means that it’s the direction that we’re willing to walk in until somebody proves us wrong.
Josh Sheluk:
Yeah. I’m attacking this because I think just as a whole, society, the workplace, the financial industry especially, we’re too stuck on our currently-held beliefs. I was listening to a sports podcast yesterday, and the guy was talking about Shohei Ohtani, who’s turning in one of the most miraculous seasons of all time in baseball. He was talking about how when Ohtani first came to the MLB, his first impression was this guy can’t hit. Two weeks later, he changed his mind and said, “I was wrong,” which is incredibly rare for somebody to come to a conclusion, take in more information in such a short amount of time, and then change their opinion, especially publicly. So anyway, I got a few things to challenge you on, Colin, and I think you’ll like them.
Colin White:
I can’t wait. And for those who’ve accused us of being scripted, this so unscripted. Editing may make this sound better, but this is the real deal, Josh.
Josh Sheluk:
Okay.
Colin White:
Let’s see if I can respond.
Josh Sheluk:
So my first challenge to you is that real estate in Canada is undervalued, significantly undervalued, actually. Reasons why. Well, immigration. Maybe you’ve heard, we’re adding about a half a million people a year in Canada to immigration. Half a million people that are coming in, that are educated with money, that want to live in cities, that want to buy houses, and they have the means to do so. Half a million people a year added to our population is going to drive up demand. Like I said, these people want to go to cities. Cities are where we have sort of our highest-valued real estate today. That could easily, easily push those high values even higher just through that increase in demand.
But not only do we have an increase in demand, we still have a constrained supply. As much as we could say we’re going to keep building and building and building more and more buildings, more and more residences, we’ve already been on a pace that’s elevated over the last decade. Construction has already been very strong. And you can say, “Well, what about places outside of the cities?” Well, where are people going to go when they move outside of the cities? We’re seeing that right now. You’re seeing that on the East Coast. People are moving from larger cities to smaller cities, and that’s driving up prices in those smaller cities. I would say over the next 10 years, we’re going to see a significant increase in the value of Canadian real estate, and that means it’s significantly undervalued today.
Colin White:
Wow, you are so wrong. Josh, this is too easy. You have equated number of people with demand. People does not create demand. You said more people is going to drive up demand for Canadian housing, is what you said.
Josh Sheluk:
Sure.
Colin White:
If those people don’t have two nickels to rub together, they’re not increasing the-
Josh Sheluk:
You did not listen.
Colin White:
I cannot when I’m speaking.
Josh Sheluk:
They do have two nickels to rub together.
Colin White:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold-
Josh Sheluk:
These immigrants are coming to Canada with significant amounts of money in their pocket. If you look at immigration policy, immigration policy highly favors educated and people with money, wealthy people as immigrants. So these people are not coming to Canada penniless, they’re coming with significant sums of money.
Colin White:
Hey, I sat here quietly and let you make your case, and I wrote down my response. You can do the same because you’re missing my point. Yes, they may come with an nest egg, but at the end of the day, the economy, the GDP of Canada has got to grow to allow those people to be gainfully employed, to truly add more demand in the space. Because you’re making the argument that demand for housing is largely based on population growth, but I think if we go back, when liquidity has been added to the marketplace in Canada, that’s increased the demand for housing as well. There’s a financial aspect to this, too, and it can’t be ignored.
Yes, these people are going to come across the border with a really nice down payment. I absolutely give you that. But unless they can afford to fund the lifestyle that goes with it and they have meaningful jobs, that’s going to be based on economic growth. So I think you set up a strong man to be knocked down. I don’t think that you nailed this one. Yeah, it’s part of the equation because you can’t go your economy with no people. So the people are going to show up first, and then that’s going to potentially allow economy to grow. And we’ll set aside productivity for a second because Canada has got some of the shittiest productivity in the history of productivity, but we’ll set that aside. But unless these people can get gainfully employed, I don’t see this as a straight line, more people equals high end prices for housing. I don’t buy it.
Josh Sheluk:
Well, I’m glad you brought up the GDP growth thing because you’re right, the economy needs to grow. And you allude. You argued against yourself, because what are your components of GDP growth?
Colin White:
It doesn’t matter where it comes from, but I mean, these people have to do something. I mean, we’ve hired 500 or 600 really smart people here on the East Coast to build boats. All right, so there you go. I’ve given 500 or 600 people meaningful jobs. They’ve got meaningful incomes. It’s the government spending, but government spending does debate GDP. So, I got the first 500 or 600 locked down. I don’t know where the other 4,000 or 499,500 jobs are going to come from. I mean, I don’t know where all that’s going to [inaudible].
Josh Sheluk:
GDP growth is made up of really three things: Productivity, as you mentioned, which you can do without more people; second one is what you’d call capital deepening, so more stuff for people to do the work with; the third, and perhaps the easiest to tackle, is more people.
Colin White:
No.
Josh Sheluk:
So, you-
Colin White:
There’s three things in your equation. You’re drawing a conclusion off one of those things.
Josh Sheluk:
But the other things are productivity, okay, you can say that we’re going to have negative productivity growth, but I just don’t believe that. Productivity growth might be slow, but it’s still going to be positive. And the third-
Colin White:
Just do me a solid and stop saying negative growth. Just stop using that phrase.
Josh Sheluk:
Contracting productivity.
Colin White:
Yeah, exactly. Decreased productivity.
Josh Sheluk:
It’s a finance thing, Colin. Get with it. The point is, the easiest way to drive GDP growth is through more people, in my view.
Colin White:
As a percent, I absolutely give you that.
Josh Sheluk:
Okay.
Colin White:
That is a precursor. And it’s Canada’s strength, so that’s one of the things that Canada does really, really well for a whole bunch of reasons.
Josh Sheluk:
Yes.
Colin White:
I mean, you can’t walk here, so we have a border that allows much better control over integration.
Josh Sheluk:
Sure.
Colin White:
We have a geographic advantage that doesn’t exist many places in the world. And we also have a culture that accepts it.
Josh Sheluk:
We’ve got a bit off-topic here, but I think half a million people a year immigrating is going to naturally add to GDP growth. And when you combine GDP growth plus more people, plus more money, plus not enough supply, that tells me that the prices is going to appreciate.
Colin White:
That is absolute when we see the pressures at play, but again, it’s got to be affordable. People have going to earn enough money to buy these places. The houses get more expensive.
Josh Sheluk:
Yeah, I know.
Colin White:
And if there’s not enough money, then things sit there. It’s a closed loop.
Josh Sheluk:
So you admit houses are going to get more expensive?
Colin White:
If more money shows up, yes. Absent money, you got a bunch more poor people.
Josh Sheluk:
I can’t believe you didn’t refute it with something about debt, or price-to-income ratios, or anything like that. So I’m a little bit disappointed in your pushback, Colin, but I think you’ll have better luck with number two maybe.
Colin White:
Disappointed in my response. Oh, kid. All right, fine. Keep going. What’s your next one?
Josh Sheluk:
Crypto-related securities are going to be the security type of the next decades. And hear me out, hear me out. I’m not just talking about Bitcoin. I’m not just talking about cryptocurrencies. More broadly, I’m talking about blockchain-transacted securities. Novel security types have come into the market and excelled before. Very recently, actually. Look at exchange-traded funds. Exchange-traded funds really didn’t exist. They did, but not in any mainstream way 20 years ago. And now, they are proliferating like crazy and taking up a huge share of the market when you’re looking at investment products.
The blockchain transaction securities, that type of transaction, that decentralized ledger, that has some benefits. That reduction in intermediation cost is real, can reduce costs overall. We’ve seen something similar. When you think of other peer-to-peer-type transactions with things like Uber, Airbnb, Turo, these things are becoming the norm. They’re becoming the mainstay of our day-to-day life. Again, I’m not talking about cryptocurrency specifically, but just call it a crypto-like security. That could be the next thing for the next 10 years.
Colin White:
Call it the next thing. Does that make it bigger than LeBron? I mean, no. You’re kind of putting it on a little bit of a pedestal. Is it going to continue to evolve? Yes, but its fundamental, its philosophical weakness, decentralization. Everybody wants it, nobody likes it, because that’s where you see some of the more major frauds, and there’s less oversight. And there’s votes to be gotten by having oversights in place.
There’s a whole argument against centralization. We have centralization on many things, beginning with a perceived need to protect the overall system and to keep the system functioning. Most of the countries of the world are democracies, so most of the countries of the world have votes that are on saving or protecting society. The counterculture wars, which I think is largely where you’re going with this decentralization thing, seeks to avoid or mitigate some of these things, and on its face, for a very good reason, these frictions in the system that are put there by the system. And frictions. Absent malice, frictions get in the way. But the problem is, as soon as you take out those frictions, then all the bad actors show up.
I still think there’s a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of decentralized processing. I don’t think it negates it entirely, but I do think it severely limits what’s going to be acceptable in modern society for how things work. I think what’s going to happen is we tend to bump into these things. It’s going to get put into the market as it already has. We’re already seeing a lot of pushback in the Bitcoin space. There’s frauds that have happened, and losses that have happened, and there’s changes coming. I think that that’s how this is going to evolve. We’re going to continue to see new applications during this process. We’re going to continue to bump into its limitations and scale it back something that’s sustainable. But I think it’s the fundamental philosophical problem with the construct that people are putting forward for this that needs to be [inaudible].
Josh Sheluk:
So here’s where I’ll meet you in the middle. I wouldn’t argue that this is going to be a zero-regulation type of decentralization. I think there’s a way to have a decentralized ledger and the transaction occur in a decentralized way with oversight with regulation. Now that might sound contradictory, and it is, and I don’t have a way to build that bridge today, but I think that’s where we’re going to arrive.
Colin White:
I think it’s going to be industry and application-specific. I think there’s different things that are going to require different levels of intermediation. Because yeah, as much as we hate intermediation, there’s an argument for it. Now, it gets abused because you brought up ETFs. One of the reasons ETFs have gotten so popular is they’re market-making, the margins are market-making for a lot of these institutions. So again, there’s a vested interest in the system of adopting that technology there. And there’s a business model, too. Let’s go back to that. There’s a business model, too. And the business model has to exist in a regulated framework because, again, we live in democracies.
So, I’m not sure how this is going to evolve. And I’m not ready to consider it the thing. I’m not even sure what that means when we’re comparing it to Tiger Woods, LeBron James, Sidney Crosby. I’m not sure which sports podcast you were using as analogous there, but I’m not sure it’s the thing. I think it’s going to be technology that exists.
Josh Sheluk:
All right. Here’s a different one for you. Changing courses entirely. And this one is a pretty bold one. We will see outright deflation over the next decade. Two words to answer why: artificial intelligence. 15 years prior to 2021, inflation, it was there, but it’s been low for that entire period of time. If you take out the last couple years, inflation was extremely low for about a 15-year period of time, and perhaps even a little bit longer than that. One of the big reasons why people say inflation was so low over that period of time is technology and the fact that we have all this open-source stuff. We have all this free technology that we use to enhance productivity and all that these days. I think AI is perhaps even more profound on its impact to some of that stuff, especially its impact on labor.
We were just talking before we started recording here about some of the mind-blowing stuff that AI is already doing in our day-to-day lives, and it’s just a matter of time before that really gets applied. Automation, robotics, computers, that has been driving manufacturing costs down for years. AI is the next evolution of that. AI is going to make the supply of a lot of things exponentially higher. Some knowledge-based goods or services, if you want to call them that, will be in a nearly limitless supply with AI. And even some of the physical goods, AI is going to drive the supply that higher as it makes the manufacturing processes easier. This stuff is all open-source today, so it’s not even stuff that we’re paying for. It’s making our lives way easier. Higher supply of all this stuff that I’m talking about, what does that mean? That means prices go down
Colin White:
Maybe. Let’s walk back keeping in mind that this is off-topic, but let’s walk back through other technologies that have come forward, like cars. Cars are going to make it so much easier for everybody to do everything, and all the horse people are going to be out of business. Cotton gins, railways, the original computers. I think if you actually plot all of this, what’s going happen, if AI is as successful as people are thinking it’s going to be, and right now, we don’t know, there’s no way that we could know this, what’s going to happen is it could lead to a fairly substantial increase in consumption or quality of life in ways we don’t understand yet.
So, it’s going to make things possible. It’s going to free up time. It’s going to free up capital. It’s going to free up interest. And people will move on the next thing because, again, even talking about inflation is a nebulous thing. To track inflation back the last 1,500, 1,600 years, 100 years ago you weren’t buying computers and TVs and those things that we consume today. It’s a financial construct that doesn’t always line up with how economies are working as we go through all of the various revolutions we’ve gone through, be it technology, be it internet, be it self-driving cars. But this AI, it is ubiquitous. It is going to affect a lot of different things, but I’m not sure that the complete knock-on effect of that is going to be, we’re going to use exactly the same services and just pay less for it.
I think it’s going to cause new services to uprise, so I think AI is going to be fighting against itself. You’re going to have two lawyers at a court, both using AI, and I don’t think that’s more efficient. It may even take longer. I don’t know that we know how this is all going to play out. I do think it’s going to make some things less expensive, for sure. And if I’m optimistic, my hope is that that it’s going to be passed down to the end consumer and everybody begins to enjoy, by some description, a better standard of living, which is, at the end of the day, what you want to see in a new technology. But you’re drawing the conclusion, economics are going to slow down with that. I’m not sure. You give people more time, more leisure time, the ability to do more work.
I sat at an accounting desk when the first mainframe computers came on board and were starting to replace the accountants. It didn’t replace the accountants. I just walked into my office, and I had a three-foot stack of paper on my desk I had to go through that the computer generated. It didn’t replace me, it just trimmed me to a paper sorter. There was not a reduction in accounting staff when the original mainframe computer showed up. You could look back and say, “Yeah, the computer is way more efficient. It’s going to replace all these people.” Or we’re not going to quite know how to use it, and it’s actually going to create more work for people.
And we’re not going to expect things in real-time. We’re going to expect more data. We’re going to expect more information. We’ll make some better decision-making, because it’s a competitive marketplace. If I can get A to Z better with AI, ooh, now I’ve got time. Let’s go on to the next outfit. Let’s do the next thing. That’s where the competition becomes just-in-time manufacturing, just-in-time processing. How quickly, how soon can get into this? Because again, that’s the human condition. You’re seeking to keep driving the rock up the hill. I don’t think it’s a straight line. I don’t think you’re wrong, and I don’t think you’re right. But I would not be confident now that this is going to cause the inflation.
I think one of the bigger pushes from a deflationary impact has been the modernization of places like India, Pakistan, and China. With all that labor coming, with all the transfer of marketing in those, or manufacturing in those countries. I think that was hugely deflation. Because North America likes to buy salad spinners. I don’t know why we like to buy salad spinners, but we do, and they can make them really cheap overseas. I think that that’s also, again, something that’s maybe… I don’t know if that’s getting more or not. Do those countries have continuing population growth that are going to continue to be in deflationary pressure by a global economy? That’s how much globalization comes back, if it does. Is that a long enough answer for you?
Josh Sheluk:
Great, great, great counter. Great counter. A-plus. A-plus counter.
Colin White:
Oh, okay. Oh, good. I won one.
Josh Sheluk:
There’s no winning of losing here, Colin. We’re all winners.
Colin White:
Let’s hope.
Josh Sheluk:
All right, last one here. We are nowhere near a recession. A recession won’t happen in 2023. It won’t happen in 2024. It may not even happen in 2025. We have unemployment at or near all-time lows. We have inflation coming down kind of naturally, kind of with the interest rate hikes, but inflation coming down. Bottom line, it means hikes won’t have to go up. Interest rate hikes won’t have to be that much more from where they are today.
And with the disaster that COVID was for disruption in the economy and supply chains and labor forces, that is still working itself out. And that working itself out alone will be a disinflationary force. Interest rates are higher, yes, but they’re bending but not breaking anything yet. The banking system seems to be on pretty solid footing, despite a few issues in the US. Housing is holding up well in North America. People are spending less, but that’s the intent. They’re still spending at a decent clip. Economic growth hasn’t been on a straight line, but it is still ticking up, and it’s ticking up even a little bit more so recently. So, this is why say we won’t have a recession for at least a couple years. Tell me why I’m wrong.
Colin White:
I think there’s maybe a 20% chance you’re right. I guess this could be the soft landing, but the argument against it is I don’t think we have seen the full effect of the interest rates, to this point. You’re still seeing financing getting more expensive. You’re still seeing things needing to be renewed. It’s seeping into the collective minds of consumers. And that that’s truly what’s going to drive this, because if the continuing renewal of various financing things continues to ripple through the system, and that affects connectedness to a point that people pull back, I still think that that’s a very real probability, and even likely, to some degree. If it’s a large enough magnitude to cause a recession, yeah, that’s where I’m going to be in 20%. Maybe it isn’t.
I don’t think it’s at this point. I haven’t seen any evidence here yet. Nothing has convinced me that it’s imminent or it’s going to be dire, but there’s still some stuff working its way through the system. And again, the central banks have admittedly come out and said that they’ve gotten it wrong a number of times now, so they’re not confident, and they have way more information and way more time to spend talking about it. I think this is more of a confidence thing. And I still think that there’s a likelihood or a probability that people are going to see enough things that it’s going to affect their confidence. As to whether that’s a large enough magnitude to slow things down to tip us into a recession, I’m not confident of either side of this one. How’s that? I’ll score this one a draw.
Josh Sheluk:
You’re so diplomatic, so ambivalent.
Colin White:
Sorry, I have to be more entertaining. No, you’re wrong! Where’s my sound effect button, Josh?
Josh Sheluk:
No, that’s my role in this podcast. That’s my role here.
Colin White:
Oh, okay. All right.
Josh Sheluk:
Yeah. So, consumer confidence is still reasonably strong. It’s waned a little bit over the last year, but as interest rates have started to perhaps crest, perhaps, it seems like there’s a bit more stability on the consumer confidence side of things and the consumer spending side of things as well. And that would be the argument here, is that it’s been a tough 12, 18 months for people dealing with inflation. But again, they seem to be in a fairly decent spot, built up some savings through the pandemic time. We can thank the governments for those. They’re not doing too bad. It’s harder, but it’s not at a point of breaking down and dissolving yet.
Colin White:
Well, and I think you can only stay upset so long. You can only worry so long, and then you get on with your life. And I think that’s part of what is the-
Josh Sheluk:
That’s complacency.
Colin White:
Well, it’s-
Josh Sheluk:
In a way.
Colin White:
If there’s no solution, there can be no problem. I mean, we’ve been waiting for a year or more for this eminent recession that’s going to destroy all of us, and it’s not manifesting itself. The jobs numbers still look good. GDP is still going up. Inflation is coming down. You’re not seeing anything to really support the level of anxiety that was out there. And after a while, it’s too much work walking around that anxious. So yeah, okay, whatever. I’ll stop worrying about it, which feeds into the confidence, which actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people walk around confident, then maybe we’ll be fine. So, we could find a way out of this.
Josh Sheluk:
Well, this is one, some of these are going to be hard to prove or disprove in the near-term, but this is one where we’ll have an answer within the next several years, at least. We can revisit this one day. We’ll have to rate it down, and you’ll grade me 10 years from now when we actually see how all this stuff has played out.
Colin White:
Well, I grade you all the time. I just don’t show you the report card.
Josh Sheluk:
Don’t you know in BC, they’ve gone away from letter grades?
Colin White:
Well, are they really going to-
Josh Sheluk:
So, it’s a bit of a faux pas.
Colin White:
Are they going to replace it with dinosaurs or something? I didn’t hear what they’re replacing it with.
Josh Sheluk:
I don’t know, number of star stickers or something. Who knows?
Colin White:
Smarter people than me. I have to believe smarter people than me are coming up with these systems.
Josh Sheluk:
We have to hope.
Colin White:
All right, so was that your list?
Josh Sheluk:
That’s my list.
Colin White:
Oh, I thought you were going to come at me with the gold or something. Maybe we can save that one for next time.
Josh Sheluk:
You know what? I really tried really hard to come up with a gold one, and I just couldn’t. I couldn’t even come up with a well-thought-out, well-supported argument for gold that there’s… So, to me, I was looking at 100-year history of the price of gold recently, just this is what I do in my free time, and it really goes in long cycles. It’ll go 20 years and be flat, then it will spike up 300% over 10 years, and then it will be down for the next 40 years, and then it will go up 1000% over the next 10 years. But I haven’t been able to ever find a convincing argument for why it does one thing or another.
My only argument for gold being a great investment from here would be that it just could have one of those runs. It just could have one of those runs where it just goes up exponentially over a 10-year period of time. That’s as much as I can come up with for it. So I’m sorry, Colin. I didn’t know I disappointed you by not having that one in there.
Colin White:
Well, I don’t think you understand show business. You’re supposed to get dressed up, and put on a mask, and start slamming the table, and just scream out, “Gold, gold gold!” I mean, that’s entertaining for people to listen to.
Josh Sheluk:
This is a little bit more thoughtful than that, I hope.
Colin White:
Oh, it was. And hopefully, people found it entertaining, but no. No, I’m still waiting. It was funny, somebody joined recently. They called me out on not liking gold. And I said, “Sure, tell me I’m wrong. Put together some kind of argument.” Every time I’ve asked somebody, and I go talk to gold bugs because that’s a thing, and I keep thinking one of these days, somebody is going to put together a coherent argument, and I’m still looking.
Josh Sheluk:
Yeah. The best argument that I’ve seen is it has shown historically to be a diversifier as part of a portfolio. It tends to do well at different times, then you just don’t think you really know what those times are going to be. So, my only argument for, do you invest in gold? Well, throw 5% of your portfolio in gold and keep it there permanently. You’ll probably do just okay, but I just think there’s better ways to diversify still. So, not for me, not for me. I couldn’t even get there, even squinting my eyes a little bit.
Colin White:
All right, fine. Maybe we need to do a follow-up podcast on the stuff that’s so far out there, we couldn’t even argue about it.
Josh Sheluk:
Yeah, you got it. I’ll work on that this weekend.
Colin White:
All right. Thanks for tuning in. Click follow, subscribe. And send us your feedback if you have anything you want to hear. We’d love to hear from you.
Josh Sheluk:
Thanks, Colin.
Colin White:
Thanks.
If you’re breaking a sweat trying to figure out what your financial advisor is talking about, you’re not getting the service you need. You probably hate trying to get an answer from them, but you also think moving your accounts will be a headache, and it might be. But working with Don’tRocktheBoatWealthPlanning.com or .ru isn’t exactly stress-free, is it? Call us. We will demystify the world for you.
Speaker 1:
Verecan Capital Management Inc. is a registered portfolio manager in all… Verecan Capital Management Inc. is a registered portfolio manager in all of Canada except Manitoba. So sorry, Manitoba.
Nothing in this podcast should be considered as a solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell a particular security. Statements made by the portfolio managers are intended to illustrate their approach, and are meant for information and entertainment purposes only. Opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the portfolio manager only, and do not necessarily reflect those of iA Private Wealth Inc. iA Private Wealth Inc. is a member of the Canadian Investor Protection Fund and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada. iA Private Wealth is a trademark and business name under which iA Private Wealth Inc. operates.
This should not be construed as legal, tax, or accounting advice. This podcast has been prepared for information purposes only. The tax information provided in this podcast is general in nature, and each client should consult with their own tax advisor, accountant, and lawyer before pursuing any strategy described herein, as each client’s individual circumstances are unique. We’ve endeavored to ensure the accuracy of the information provided at the time that it was written. However, should the information in this podcast be incorrect or incomplete, or should the law or its interpretation change after the date of this document, the advice provided may be incorrect or inappropriate. There should be no expectation that the information will be updated, supplemented, or revised, whether as a result of new information, changing circumstances, future events, or otherwise. We are not responsible for errors contained in this podcast or to anyone who relies on the information contained in this podcast. Please, consult your own legal and tax advisor.
