<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Superficial loss rules regarding RRSPs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/</link>
	<description>Helping you invest and prosper</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:54:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Canadian Capitalist</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-110863</link>
		<dc:creator>Canadian Capitalist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-110863</guid>
		<description>Mike: The wording of the superficial loss rule suggests that the settlement date does not matter - only the sell and buy dates. A few examples I saw through Googling (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mccollturner.com/tiparchive/oct03.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;) seem to confirm that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike: The wording of the superficial loss rule suggests that the settlement date does not matter &#8211; only the sell and buy dates. A few examples I saw through Googling (<a href="http://www.mccollturner.com/tiparchive/oct03.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>) seem to confirm that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Four Pillars</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-110845</link>
		<dc:creator>Four Pillars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-110845</guid>
		<description>CC - Do you know if the superficial loss rules applies to the trade date of stock sale? I had assumed that it did but when I looked at my records I noticed the settlement date was several days later so I’m wondering if I should be using the settlement date to be safe?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CC &#8211; Do you know if the superficial loss rules applies to the trade date of stock sale? I had assumed that it did but when I looked at my records I noticed the settlement date was several days later so I’m wondering if I should be using the settlement date to be safe?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennie W</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-107594</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennie W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-107594</guid>
		<description>Thanks, CC. Just saved out quite a few hundreds of dollars. I was about to take action and buy stocks in RSP !!  

Why can our world be fair? We have to claim gains but not the losses?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, CC. Just saved out quite a few hundreds of dollars. I was about to take action and buy stocks in RSP !!  </p>
<p>Why can our world be fair? We have to claim gains but not the losses?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Canadian Capitalist</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-107051</link>
		<dc:creator>Canadian Capitalist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-107051</guid>
		<description>JG: Thanks for your interesting comments.

1. Unhedged positions in foreign equity markets has two advantages: lower cost and reduced volatility of the overall portfolio. Foreign currencies on their own have no expected positive returns over cash but adding them to a portfolio provides valuable diversification benefits. Admittedly, not hedging has not worked so great in the past five years but at some point the cycle will turn.

2. The MER on VTI is 7 basis points. On a $10,000 investment that&#039;s $7 per year. Even if you could replicate the performance of VTI with just 12 stocks (i.e. there is no tracking error, which I doubt can be achieved), the extra commissions would more than eat up any savings in MER.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JG: Thanks for your interesting comments.</p>
<p>1. Unhedged positions in foreign equity markets has two advantages: lower cost and reduced volatility of the overall portfolio. Foreign currencies on their own have no expected positive returns over cash but adding them to a portfolio provides valuable diversification benefits. Admittedly, not hedging has not worked so great in the past five years but at some point the cycle will turn.</p>
<p>2. The MER on VTI is 7 basis points. On a $10,000 investment that&#8217;s $7 per year. Even if you could replicate the performance of VTI with just 12 stocks (i.e. there is no tracking error, which I doubt can be achieved), the extra commissions would more than eat up any savings in MER.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JG</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-107011</link>
		<dc:creator>JG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:12:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-107011</guid>
		<description>Hi

I just started reading your website, but I&#039;ve gone back and read a fair bit now and am enjoying it.  I wonder if you&#039;d be willing to answer two questions (my wording on stuff might be a bit off, being fairly ignorant):

1.  If I recall, you say that when having the option you prefer  buying the unhedged US market ETFs, figuring the exchange rate will balance out over time.   I can see that on average, that&#039;s true, but doesn&#039;t that introduce volatility into your expected return that you&#039;d normally pay (in terms of expected return) to remove.  Since you&#039;re Canadian (and paying Canadian prices, etc), doesn&#039;t it make more sense to have everything hedged against changed in the exchange rate.  If you want to make up for the loss in MER or whatever, you could go on margin a bit to introduce the corresponding level of volatility and improved returns into your portfolio.  Again, sorry if I&#039;ve misworded anything.

2.  If you&#039;re concerned about optimizing MER, why not simply replicate the stocks held by an ETF (or whatever).  I appreciate it&#039;s more work, but you could probably get a pretty close correspondance just by picking the top dozen or so stocks in a given large-cap ETF  - I think that diversifies out most of the possible risk (looking around at various citations).  That&#039;s more work, but not crazily more.  It does make you pay more for more trades but the lower MER would seem to compensate.  Presumably you could just rebalance by buying whatever deviated most from the ETF&#039;s position you were mimicking at your next investment to rebalance.

Anyway, thanks for any help.  I&#039;m just thinking about my own financial decisions.  Nice blog and cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi</p>
<p>I just started reading your website, but I&#8217;ve gone back and read a fair bit now and am enjoying it.  I wonder if you&#8217;d be willing to answer two questions (my wording on stuff might be a bit off, being fairly ignorant):</p>
<p>1.  If I recall, you say that when having the option you prefer  buying the unhedged US market ETFs, figuring the exchange rate will balance out over time.   I can see that on average, that&#8217;s true, but doesn&#8217;t that introduce volatility into your expected return that you&#8217;d normally pay (in terms of expected return) to remove.  Since you&#8217;re Canadian (and paying Canadian prices, etc), doesn&#8217;t it make more sense to have everything hedged against changed in the exchange rate.  If you want to make up for the loss in MER or whatever, you could go on margin a bit to introduce the corresponding level of volatility and improved returns into your portfolio.  Again, sorry if I&#8217;ve misworded anything.</p>
<p>2.  If you&#8217;re concerned about optimizing MER, why not simply replicate the stocks held by an ETF (or whatever).  I appreciate it&#8217;s more work, but you could probably get a pretty close correspondance just by picking the top dozen or so stocks in a given large-cap ETF  &#8211; I think that diversifies out most of the possible risk (looking around at various citations).  That&#8217;s more work, but not crazily more.  It does make you pay more for more trades but the lower MER would seem to compensate.  Presumably you could just rebalance by buying whatever deviated most from the ETF&#8217;s position you were mimicking at your next investment to rebalance.</p>
<p>Anyway, thanks for any help.  I&#8217;m just thinking about my own financial decisions.  Nice blog and cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Madrid</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-106955</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Madrid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-106955</guid>
		<description>Cross the river is correct, general rule of thumb is &quot;We&#039;re bigger than you and if we don&#039;t like it we&#039;ll make life misable for you&quot; . 

In general it&#039;s best to err on the side of caution. I&#039;ve had several family members run into problems becuase Revenue Canada (or what ever they called now) didn&#039;t like what they did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cross the river is correct, general rule of thumb is &#8220;We&#8217;re bigger than you and if we don&#8217;t like it we&#8217;ll make life misable for you&#8221; . </p>
<p>In general it&#8217;s best to err on the side of caution. I&#8217;ve had several family members run into problems becuase Revenue Canada (or what ever they called now) didn&#8217;t like what they did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Canadian Capitalist</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-106914</link>
		<dc:creator>Canadian Capitalist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-106914</guid>
		<description>Green Dreams: No, it would be considered identical property. For instance, the TD e-Series International Index Fund tracks the same MSCI EAFE index that VEA tracks. In CRA&#039;s eye&#039;s they would be identical property.

XIN is a bit different. It has a currency hedging feature on top of tracking the EAFE Index, so it could be argued that it is a different fund. Whether the CRA would accept the contention, is a different story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Green Dreams: No, it would be considered identical property. For instance, the TD e-Series International Index Fund tracks the same MSCI EAFE index that VEA tracks. In CRA&#8217;s eye&#8217;s they would be identical property.</p>
<p>XIN is a bit different. It has a currency hedging feature on top of tracking the EAFE Index, so it could be argued that it is a different fund. Whether the CRA would accept the contention, is a different story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Green Dreams</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-106814</link>
		<dc:creator>Green Dreams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:05:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-106814</guid>
		<description>But isn&#039;t the extra 0.35% MER charged for one month likely to amount to less than the tax deduction from the capital loss? After 30 days, if I am interpreting the rule correctly, he can go back to VEA, again with costs involved but depending on the magnitude of the capital loss he&#039;s probably still ahead, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But isn&#8217;t the extra 0.35% MER charged for one month likely to amount to less than the tax deduction from the capital loss? After 30 days, if I am interpreting the rule correctly, he can go back to VEA, again with costs involved but depending on the magnitude of the capital loss he&#8217;s probably still ahead, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon D.</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-106813</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-106813</guid>
		<description>The MER on XIN is .5% whereas VEA is .15%.  XIN is basically a CDN$ holding of the US EFA etf which itself has an MER of .34%.  
Basically to reduce fees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The MER on XIN is .5% whereas VEA is .15%.  XIN is basically a CDN$ holding of the US EFA etf which itself has an MER of .34%.<br />
Basically to reduce fees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Y HAT</title>
		<link>http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps/#comment-106798</link>
		<dc:creator>Y HAT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/01/27/superficial-loss-rules-regarding-rrsps#comment-106798</guid>
		<description>I agree with Green Dreams. Can you not sell VEA in your taxable account and buy XIN in your RRSP?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Green Dreams. Can you not sell VEA in your taxable account and buy XIN in your RRSP?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

