Tag Archives: default management

How divorces affect mortgages


How divorces affect mortgagesThey say about half of all marriages end in divorce—whatever the figure, complications arise when it comes to dividing assets like homes, and determining who keeps making mortgage payments.

“It’s a commercial transaction irrelevant to marital status,” said Nathalie Boutet of Boutet Family Law & Mediation. “If one person moves out and the other stays in the house, they still have an obligation to pay the mortgage to the bank, so the sooner the separating spouses make an arrangement the better because it could impact credit rating.”

According to Statistics Canada, there were roughly 2.64 million divorced people living in Canada last year—a figure brokers may not find surprising. While divorcing couples often fight over their marital home as an asset, the gamut of considerations is in fact more onerous.

“With the stress test, it’s a lot harder,” said Nick Kyprianou, president and CEO of RiverRock Mortgage Investment Corporation. “The challenge is qualifying again with a single salary. The stress test adds a whole other level of complexity to the servicing.”

Additional complexities include a new appraisal, application, and discharge fees.

“If you have a five-year mortgage and you’re only two years into it, there will be some penalties,” said Kyprianou. “Then there’s a situation of whether or not the person will qualify as a single person for a new mortgage.”

As an equity lender, RiverRock has welcomed into the fold its fair share of borrowers whose previous institutional lender wouldn’t allow one of the spouses to come off title because they were qualified together.

If one spouse is the mortgage holder and the other is not, Boutet explains how the law would mediate.

“Let’s say she owns the house and he moves in and pays her something she would put towards the mortgage but it’s still below market rent, she’s effectively giving him a break,” she said. “Would part of his rent go towards a little equity in the house because he helps pay the mortgage? Or is he ahead of the game because he pays less than he would to rent an apartment? What they have decided in this case is that a percentage of his payment will be given back to him as compensation for helping her out with her mortgage and he will never go on title.”

Boutet recommends that cohabitating couples, one of whom being a mortgage holder, should have frank discussions at the outset about where the rent payments go.

“Sometimes the person who pays rent has a false understanding of paying the mortgage. They have a misunderstanding of what that money is going towards.”

Tagged , , , , , ,

Walking Away From A Mortgage in Canada

If you are over-mortgaged and facing negative equity in your home, can you walk away from your mortgage in Canada?  We explain what you can do when you can’t pay off the entirety of your mortgage loan after a sale or bank foreclosure.

How does a mortgage shortfall happen?

If you’re a homeowner and your mortgage is higher than the equity or the market value of your home, you are by definition, underwater. Meaning, if you sold your home today, you are not likely to get the full mortgage paid out by selling. Put another way, you have negative equity in your home.

Causes of a mortgage shortfall:

  • Price decline: you bought at the peak with a high-ratio mortgage, and the market dropped. For example, you bought a condo or a house for let’s say a million dollars with 10% down. The market subsequently flattens, and the list price is now $800,000, so you’re underwater by $100,000 plus selling costs, real estate commissions and potential mortgage penalties.
  • Debt consolidation: our typical homeowner client has more than $50,000 in unsecured debt. If you consolidate this through a second, or even third mortgage and the market softens, you can easily find yourself with less equity in your home that the total of all your mortgage debt.
  • Negative investment cash flow: you may have purchased an investment property and are funding the rental shortfall via a secured line of credit. If the market does not increase sufficiently to cover your accumulated cash loss, you may find yourself facing growing negative equity.

Canada has full recourse mortgage laws

A theoretical shortfall is not a real shortfall. You don’t have to sell. If you can keep your mortgage payments current, and expect that the market will return before you intend to sell you can hold tight.

If you are in default your lender will begin proceedings to collect. If you do not respond and cannot catch up on missed mortgage payments, your bank or lender will likely begin proceedings to sell your home through a power of sale.

If you sell with a shortfall, or your bank forecloses, you still owe your mortgage lender any deficiency between the money realized from the sale and the balance owing on your mortgage.

Should you sell your home for less than you borrowed and find yourself unable to repay the shortfall, in Ontario, your lender can pursue you to collect the difference, as they have full recourse:

Full recourse means that a lender can pursue you if your house is underwater and you sold your home, and there’s a shortfall … your mortgage lender can come after you legally for that debt in Canada.

How do I deal with an unsecured mortgage shortfall?

Like any debt, you are expected to make payments on it. If you are unable to pay back this shortfall, your creditors will pursue legal actions like a wage garnishment. In the case of CMHC, while it may take some time, they can also seize your tax refunds.

In Ontario, any mortgage shortfall after the sale of your home becomes an unsecured debt. Initially, your mortgage lender was a secured creditor. However, because the security, your home, has been sold, there is no longer any asset attached to the debt, and they are now an unsecured creditor.

If your mortgage was subject to insurance because you had a low down payment, your first step might be to draw on your CMHC Insurance. In this case, CMHC pays your original lender. However you still owe the debt, it’s just that now CMHC is now your creditor.

The good news is you have options to deal with mortgage shortfall debt:

  1. Make a settlement offer through a consumer proposal,
  2. File for bankruptcy to eliminate what you owe faster and get a fresh start.

The best place to start is to speak with a licensed debt professional about your relief options.

I think the big myth buster here is that if you have a shortfall on a house that someone’s pursuing you for, a consumer proposal or a personal bankruptcy actually takes care of that. And that’s where I think a lot of people are pretty surprised about Canada’s legislation around this stuff.

For a more detailed look at how to deal with mortgage shortfalls and how lenders can pursue you to recover a mortgage shortfall in Canada, tune in to today’s podcast or read the complete transcription below.

Source:  Hoyes.com (Hoyes – Michalos) By 

Tagged , , , ,

Can you walk away from your home?

The fluctuating housing market can make purchasing a house a bit of a gamble. If you buy when prices are high and the value of your home goes down, most homeowners can just wait it out. Houses are long-term investments and eventually with time you know the market will rise again.

“If you bought at the market high and prices drop, you could be underwater on paper, which means you owe more than the home is worth. If you’re not planning to sell and you can meet your payments, you don’t lose,” says Scott Terrio, manager of consumer insolvency for debt relief experts Hoyes, Michalos & Associates. “It becomes a problem for someone who discovers they can’t carry the mortgage payment plus all their other debt, especially if they’ve lost a job, dealt with an illness or they’ve simply run out of credit.” In those instances, it may make fiscal sense for the homeowner to abandon their mortgage and walk away. The home goes into foreclosure — the home is turned over to the lender, who attempts to recover their investment by forcing the sale of the home and using the money to pay off most of the debt.

If you have lots of debt and you’re not meeting your payments, can you simply choose to pack up your belongings and walk away from your high-priced mortgage?
If you have lots of debt and you’re not meeting your payments, can you simply choose to pack up your belongings and walk away from your high-priced mortgage?  (CONTRIBUTED)

This happened frequently in the U.S. during the financial crash in 2008; lenders were forced to absorb the unrecovered debt. Could this happen in Canada? It’s not quite as simple here. “In Ontario and most other provinces, there are full recourse rules, which means you can’t walk away from your mortgage obligation without recourse from the lender, who can pursue mortgage shortfalls in court,” explains Terrio. However, homeowners can file a proposal or bankruptcy, which makes any shortfall unsecured (like other debt such as student loans, payday loans, car loans, line of credit and credit card debt). “Once a proposal or bankruptcy is filed, you can’t be sued for any shortfall, which is the difference between what you owe and what the lender can get for the house.”

What is the difference between filing a proposal and filing for bankruptcy? They’re both solutions to resolve debt and provide legal protection from creditors (for example, creditors stop wage garnishments). In bankruptcy, you surrender certain assets in exchange to discharge debt. When you file a proposal, you make an offer to settle debt for less than you owe.

“Proposals are filed more frequently with our clients now than bankruptcy,” explains Terrio. While you have to make a better offer to your creditor than what they would get if you filed bankruptcy, “it has less impact on your credit long-term and you can keep your belongings, which makes it a very realistic and favourable option for many.”

Tagged , , , , , ,

Late payments set to rise on Canadians’ $599-billion of credit card, non-mortgage debt, Equifax predicts

‘We will start to see delinquency rates inching up a little bit, and debt probably slowing down,’ as Bank of Canada starts raising interest rates, credit agency says

Canadian delinquency rates, which have been declining since the last recession, will probably reverse and begin to climb by the end of 2018 as the central bank presses ahead with interest rate increases, according to the country’s largest credit reporting firm.

Regina Malina, senior director of analytics at Equifax Canada, predicts late payments on the country’s $599 billion (US$455 billion) of credit card, auto and other non-mortgage consumer debt will begin to move “modestly higher” by the end of this year.

“Our prediction is that we will start to see delinquency rates inching up a little bit, and debt probably slowing down,” Malina said last week in an interview.

The delinquency rate — which measures the number of payments on non-mortgage debt that were more than 90 days past due — was 1.08 per cent in the first quarter, up slightly from the fourth quarter but still close to the lowest level since the 2008-09 recession.

The Toronto-based analyst declined to estimate how high delinquencies will climb, saying it depends on the pace of interest rate increases and what happens in the trade battle between the U.S. and Canada. She cited the experience in Alberta, where delinquency rates rose in some instances 20 per cent or 30 per cent on a year-over-year basis after the oil-price collapse. Such an extreme case, however, isn’t what Equifax is predicting. “It will only happen if we start seeing deterioration in employment numbers,” she said, adding delinquencies should remain “still very low,” and “they’re just going to start inching up a little bit, probably not double digits.”

CHANGE COMING?

Household credit has ballooned to unprecedented levels in Canada, as in many other developed countries, amid historically low interest rates. That hasn’t posed too many difficulties so far, because the economy and the labour market have generated solid growth, allowing people to handle servicing costs. But with the Bank of Canada intent on raising rates and the U.S. and Canada engaged in a tit-for-tat tariff fight, that could change.

A red flag in the Equifax data was a decline in the share of people who completely pay off their credit cards each month. The 56 per cent who did so in the first quarter matched the fourth-quarter number and was down from as high as 59 per cent last year. It’s a small but important detail, according to Malina.

“The changes aren’t big, but when they’re consistent and we see it for two or three quarters, we start to believe it,” she said. “Given that less people are making their credit card payments in full, and those people are usually people with lower delinquency rates, we might be seeing overall delinquency rates deteriorating.”

A red flag in the Equifax data was a decline in the share of people who completely pay off their credit cards each month. Elise Amendola/AP Photo file

Consumer debt including mortgages was $1.83 trillion in the first quarter, up 0.4 per cent from the end of 2017 and 5.7 per cent from the same quarter a year earlier, Equifax said.

Excluding mortgages, Canadians carry an average of $22,800 each in debt. Some other highlights from the report include (all figures exclude mortgage debt):

Those between the ages of 46 and 55 have the highest average debt loads, at $34,100.

That age group is also seeing the largest increase in debt, year-over-year, at 4 per cent.

Of nine cities listed, Fort McMurray, Alberta, had the highest average debt levels, at $37,800, as well as the highest delinquency rate, at 1.72 per cent.

Vancouver and Toronto saw the highest rate of debt accumulation in the first quarter, with 5.2 per cent and 5 per cent growth from a year earlier Montreal is the least indebted city, with average debt loads at $17,300 Ontario and British Columbia have the lowest delinquency rates, at 0.95 per cent and 0.84 per cent. Nova Scotia, at 1.74 per cent, had the highest.

Source: Bloomberg News Chris Fournier

Tagged , , ,

Closing defaults hit Toronto sellers hard in housing plunge: report

Hundreds of homeowners whose real estate transactions collapsed in the aftermath of Toronto’s market plunge last spring lost an average of $140,000 in property value when they eventually managed to sell their houses, according to a new report.

The study is the first to measure the loss of market value associated with so-called closing defaults, an unwelcome reality of real estate that lawyers say surged in the last half of 2017.

The report also identifies high demand from real estate investors as a key factor that fuelled the region’s white-hot market in early 2017. Investors bought 16.5 per cent of all low-rise houses in the Greater Toronto Area in the first quarter last year, a 65-per-cent increase compared to 12 months earlier.

At least 866 sales deals for low-rise houses failed to close in the GTA last year, according to the study released on Thursday by John Pasalis, a Toronto broker who analyzes industry statistics. The actual number of closing defaults is likely much higher as many other homeowners in similar situations still have not found new buyers.

On average, Mr. Pasalis found that homeowners lost $140,200 in property value over the 4.5 months it took them to find another buyer later in 2017, or in the first quarter of 2018, for a combined total loss of $121-million in market value.

“It tells you how rapid the decline was,” Mr. Pasalis said. “It tells you how quickly the markets turn.”

For Vicki Clayton, the cost of her failed deal was even higher. After a buyer agreed to pay $1.9-million for her North York tear-down bungalow in late April, 2017, the transaction fell through as the market plunged and the two parties couldn’t agree on a lower price. She relisted her house and it recently sold for $1.27-million, a loss of $630,000.

“It’s really a sad state of affairs but that’s what’s happened,” said Ms. Clayton, who is 66 and recently retired from her job as an office manager.

Ms. Clayton, who said her health suffered from the stress associated with the failed deal, has launched a lawsuit for damages for lost market value, as well as for the defaulting buyer’s deposit.

The GTA’s real estate market whipsawed from huge gains to rapid declines last year. Home prices were up by 34 per cent in March, 2017, compared with one year earlier, but plunged after the provincial government announced a 15-per-cent foreign-buyers tax in late April, falling 18 per cent in just four months.

The sudden shift caught many by surprise and lawyers reported an uptick in calls from buyers and sellers whose deals were in danger of collapsing. “In some cases, it was beneficial for the seller to just reduce the price, bite the bullet, get the deal closed without litigation,” said Mark Weisleder, a real estate lawyer.

Others have headed to court as angry sellers try to recoup defaulting buyers’ deposits, which are usually held in trust until both sides come to an agreement or a judge issues an order, as well as damages for the difference between their homes’ initial selling prices and what they eventually settled for.

In some cases, lawyers said their clients are involved in litigation related to two properties, as both sellers and buyers, as the domino effect of a buyer not closing on a seller’s deal caused that person to then default on their own purchase of a new property.

“It can be a chain reaction,” said Wendy Greenspoon-Soer, a lawyer who specializes in property-related litigation and currently has about 10 closing default cases already in litigation or heading that way.

For his study, Mr. Pasalis isolated low-rise homes that were sold on the Multiple Listing Service in the GTA in 2017 and then checked to see if they were later resold by the same owner before the end of March, 2018, indicating the first sale collapsed.

Mr. Pasalis and his team found 1,784 properties that sold last year and were later relisted for sale but did not sell, although they did not determine whether the seller for both listings was the same.

He also identified 122 low-rise properties that closed successfully last year, but were later sold again by their new owners for an average loss of $107,325.

“I don’t know if it’s panic selling or just that they’re overstretched financially, they think things are going to get worse,” he said.

Source: Globe and Mail – 

Image result for toronto home sales january 2018

Tagged , , ,

Good debt, bad debt and good bad debt

There has been an awful lot of noise in the media recently about the increasingly high levels of debt the average Canadian is carrying around on his or her back. And rightfully so: According to a recent report from Statistics Canada, our total national debt load, including mortgages, sits at around $1.8 trillion. (Why does that number always make me think of Mike Myers?). That’s more than $50,000 for every Canuck. But amid all the commotion are some surprisingly difficult-to-answer questions: Is all this debt bad? Is any of it good? And how can we determine what debt is good, what debt is bad or should we just try to avoid all debt like the plague? The answers aren’t always clear-cut. Clearly, further insight is required.

Economic types traditionally describe debt as being either good or bad, depending on what it’s used for. The good stuff is generally defined as money borrowed to buy something that will appreciate in value, like a house. Conversely, bad debt is described as money borrowed to buy something that will depreciate in value, like Buddy using his credit card to borrow $2,000 for a new set of golf clubs (they’re on sale!), because everyone knows you’ll play like Tiger Woods once you have a $2,000 set of his Nike golf clubs.

Unfortunately it’s not that simple. Not all good debt is good and not all bad debt is bad. (Warning: This is going to get wordy.) Yes, I am saying that there is such a thing as bad good debt and good bad debt. An example of bad good debt is when Buddy goes out and buys an oversized house that exceeds his needs. And to make matters worse, Buddy buys the house before he is financially ready. He puts down a too small down payment on his too big house and as a result, he ends up with a too big mortgage—which he amortizes over too many years. Given enough time, the house will likely appreciate, and this technically makes Buddy’s big mortgage “good” debt. However, it’s unlikely the house’s value will increase enough to cover the cost of the interest he’ll end up paying, let alone the larger expenses the house is going to generate: heating, upkeep, taxes and so on. To boot, there is a real possibility that this “good” debt will interfere with Buddy’s ability to properly save for his future. Broadly speaking, if Buddy’s housing costs (mortgage, utilities, insurance and taxes) exceeds 32% of his gross income, and if he will be paying those costs for more than 25 years, then it’s bad good debt.

On the other side, when Buddy’s sister Buddy-Lou takes out a two-year loan to help her pay for a gently used Honda Civic, that loan is technically bad debt since the car is going to depreciate. However, borrowing this money makes more sense than borrowing for a new car and it certainly makes more sense than leasing a new vehicle. (We’ll save that discussion for another time.) Assuming she takes care of it, Buddy-Lou’s car will still have value for years after the loan is paid off. Sure, it would be nice if she had the money in her bank account to buy that Civic when her old car died, but it would also be nice if George R. R. Martin didn’t kill off all of the best characters in Game of Thrones. Life happens. The loan needs to be manageable, without putting pressure on Buddy-Lou’s ability to save for her future. If that’s the case, it’s good bad debt.

It’s important to understand there is a big difference between accepting that you likely will incur some debt as you go through life and accepting debt as a way of life. It’s also a good idea to occasionally remind ourselves that even good good debt, like a properly structured mortgage is debt nonetheless and, as such, the interest you are paying on it isn’t doing you any favours. All debt, good, bad or anything in between, costs money and we should always be on the lookout for ways to pay it off as quickly as reasonably possible.

As a nation, we have become far too comfortable with personal debt. Today’s low interest rates are certainly a contributing factor, but the “keeping up with the Joneses” syndrome plays a part too. In some circles, it has become acceptable, even fashionable, to rack up mountains of high-interest credit card debt and then borrow more money to make the payments. Do not buy into this thinking. Pun intended. Credit card interest rates are anything but low, with many cards charging up to 29.99% interest. Even a “low interest” credit card will charge you around 12%. If you’re carrying a balance on your cards and you’re struggling to pay it down, you should transfer the balance to a low interest line of credit while you work it off. That would at least be better bad debt.

There is an inherent danger in describing debt as good. Sure, some types of debt are obviously better than others but that’s not the same thing as being good. Maybe we should further refine the two traditional definitions of debt into “bad debt” and “responsible-debt-that-I-thought-about-carefully-before-I-took-on-but-I-still-need-to-eliminate-as-quickly-as-reasonably-possible debt.” Because really, the only good debt is no debt at all.

Source: Money Sense – Robert R. Brown is a personal finance speaker and the author of Wealthing Like Rabbits. Follow him on Twitter @wealthingrabbit

Tagged , , , , ,

Retiring with a mortgage? Why you might want to think twice about that

When it comes to opining on seniors carrying debt into retirement, I’ll state upfront my personal bias that anyone with credit-card debt — or even mortgage debt — has no business fantasizing about retirement. To me, it’s simple: if you have debt of any kind, you keep working until it’s all discharged. As I have written elsewhere, I believe the foundation of financial independence is a paid-for home.

That said, I recognize there’s a large segment of the population not fortunate enough to have a paid-for home, corporate pensions or financial assets like RRSPs and TFSAs. I personally know seniors who still rent and have no financial safety net. Some may have to resort to payday loans just to get by until the next month’s government-issued Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security or Guaranteed Income Supplement cheques arrive.

Doug Hoyes, president of Kitchener-based bankruptcy trustees Hoyes Michalos & Associates Inc., profiles senior debtors every two years in his Joe Debtor study. The data are shocking. He defines seniors as 60 or older, so many are baby boomers either in retirement or on the cusp of it. (The oldest boomers, born in 1946, are now 70, while the youngest boomers, born in 1964, are 52 and presumably still working full-time.)

Senior debtors make up 10 per cent of Hoyes’ 2015 study, up from eight per cent four years ago and owe an average of $69,031 in unsecured debt, higher than any other age group. Nine per cent borrow against their income — often pension income — by resorting to payday loans.

Payday loans are, in my opinion, almost usury — defined as debt instruments charging more than 60 per cent in interest a year. However, because the loans are only a few weeks in length (literally, until the next payday), the lenders can charge up to $21 for every $100 borrowed in Ontario, which if paid over a year would be interest of 546 per cent, Hoyes says.

Fifty three per cent of these senior debtors live alone and often cite illness or injury as a cause of their financial troubles. Among bankrupt seniors, nine per cent had payday loans. In some cases, their adult children are making financial demands and they’re too embarrassed to admit they have few alternative resources.

At the other extreme are the fortunate, wealthy boomers with paid-for homes, large defined-benefit pensions and maxed-out registered and even non-registered (taxable) investments. For them, says Emeritus Retirement Solutions president Doug Dahmer, the biggest expense will be tax, something that must be planned for well in advance. In this case, borrowing may turn out to be tax efficient.

Then there are the rest of us: perhaps with no large company pensions, modest financial assets and a home with only some equity in it, which may be a tempting source of future funds in retirement or semi-retirement.

This middle group is often torn between paying down the mortgage before retiring, or capitalizing on low interest rates to take a chance on building their financial nest eggs in the stock market.

Last July a CIBC poll found that, on average, Canadians expect to be debt free by age 56, although some are indebted well into their sixties. Even in the 45-plus cohort, more than 68 per cent are in debt, including 31 per cent who still have mortgages. In 2013, CIBC found 59 per cent of retirees were in debt.

But this may not be necessarily a bad thing, argues CIBC Wealth tax guru, Jamie Golombek. “There’s no harm in having debt if it’s for an appreciating asset. If you’re in your home for the long term and borrowing at low interest rates, it’s not a big problem. The problem is when you run out of cash flow to service the debt.”

Interest rates are near 60-year lows: posted five-year mortgage rates are under three per cent at most financial institutions (and under four per cent for 10 years). Of course, unless you lock in, there’s no guarantee rates won’t rise to more uncomfortable levels.

In a paper he wrote for CIBC last year (Mortgages or Margaritas), Golombek suggested the zeal to pay down debt could put some people’s retirements at risk. It was written in response to another CIBC poll that found 72 per cent of Canadians prefer debt repayment over saving for retirement. He found that if you can get 6 per cent annual returns in a balanced portfolio of investments, the net benefit was almost double that of paying down debt.

Back in 2012, BMO Financial Group tackled the same issue, noting that rising home prices meant real estate formed a disproportionate amount of couples’ net worths. This tempts some to tap into their home equity in retirement in order to overcome their past failure to save. As boomers become net sellers of homes instead of driving up prices, BMO said home prices could fall by one per cent per year. Downsizing, renting or moving to a small town are all ways to access some of the equity in your home.

Still, Hoyes has seen enough senior debt to argue against taking on more. “Low interest rates are great as long as you can make payments, but what if you lose your job, get sick or divorce? The fact moderate interest rates are only three per cent is irrelevant if there’s no money coming in. When your income becomes fixed, your expenses have to become fixed, but it’s hard: you can’t control the price of gas or car insurance.”

Personally, I like to have enough Findependence that you reach what Dahmer terms the “Work optional” stage. It’s about being in control of your days, Hoyes says, “If you have debt when you retire you are not in control of your day.”

And of course, medical expenses can creep up. It’s not as bad here as in the United States, where medical costs can have catastrophic consequences, but “In Canada medical expenses are insidious,” Hoyes says, “It’s a lesser amount, but creeps away and boomers are more likely to get whacked.”

One option, if available, is to work part-time in retirement. An analysis by Toronto-based ETF Capital Management found that if a retiree earns just $1,000 a month extra in consulting income or a part-time job, a nest egg’s depletion slows dramatically. For couples, if both partners earn that much, the financial picture is rosier still.

This may or may not be “optional” work. BMO found 29 per cent of Canadians expect to delay retirement and work part-time in retirement because of savings shortfalls. For them, BMO says, tapping home equity constitutes “Plan B,” one that 41 per cent of Canadians are considering.

But avoid reverse mortgages, Dahmer counsels. He says it’s more cost efficient to use a secured line of credit against the house. Draw funds only if needed, but set it up while you’re still working and the bank thinks you’re a good credit risk.

Dahmer thinks flexible use of debt through a line of credit is a sound strategy for smoothing spending in peak years, especially if your main income is from registered assets. “You’re far better off paying 2.5 to 3.5 per cent in interest for a few years than forcing yourself from a 33 per cent to 42 per cent marginal tax bracket, not to mention Old Age Security being clawed back.”

The savings can be in the hundreds of thousands: “Retirement is the one time in life that strategic tax planning can make a significant difference. That’s because of the many different places you can source cash flow from, each with its own distinctive tax implications.”

Source : Financial Post Jonathan Chevreau | March 22, 2016 | Last Updated: Mar 23 6:56 AM ET

Jonathan Chevreau is the founder of the Financial Independence Hub 

Tagged , , ,