Key Points From This Episode:
The purpose of the podcast [0:00:00]
How we invest [0:01:12]
DFA [0:02:57]
Factor investing [0:07:09]
Our worst investment ever [0:07:29]
Tripling our money in JDS [0:08:52]
Hedge funds still can’t beat the market [0:09:38]
CSA won’t deploy a statutory best interest standard [0:17:26]
The cheapest financial advice may not be the best [0:20:52]
Is a financial advisor worth it? [0:22:07]
Cost vs. complexity [0:27:09]
Read the Transcript:
Ben Felix: This is the Rational Reminder Podcast, a weekly reality check on sensible investing and financial decision-making for Canadians. We are hosted by me, Benjamin Felix, and Cameron Passmore.
Welcome to the Rational Reminder with Cameron and Ben. This is the first episode. So we do want to talk a little bit about why we're doing the podcast and what we hope to achieve. For now is just Cameron and I, we may bring some guests on, in the future. We spend most of our waking hours thinking and talking about investing, not just about markets, but about how people interact with the markets to make financial decisions. We're hoping this podcast will let our listeners plug into those conversations and hopefully become better and more rational investors.
Cameron Passmore: Yep because we get asked quite a bit about what we're reading and what Twitter feeds we follow and what our thinking is in terms of how the practice is being run and what issues we see from clients. So I think our goal is just to give some insight to people about what is going on in our worlds and to share some kind of stories on the front line.
Ben Felix: So seeing as how this is the first episode, and we may have some listeners who don't know us or what ourselves and our firm is about, we figured it's probably a good idea to start by talking a little bit about how we invest and view the markets, both how we tell our clients to invest, and also how we invest our own money. For our clients, we recommend index funds in general and funds from a company called DFA Dimensional Fund Advisors. Specifically anyone who's a DIY investor that may be listening, they can't access DFA, but it's fine to use simple, low cost ETFs to achieve a similar result. Personally, I invest my own money and my kids RESP money in the DFA global equity portfolio.
Cameron Passmore: And I'm exactly the same, 100% in Dimensional Funds, including my own a registered account. And as well as my kids RESP, little different asset mix for the kids as they're both in post-secondary now, but it is all Dimensional for sure.
Ben Felix: We, both Cameron and myself, not doing any stock picks or anything like that on the side.
Cameron Passmore: It's also worth noting that, I mean, this is our belief system, our framework for managing assets and we manage all clients' moneys similarly, the only reason we wouldn't be largely in Dimensional Funds is if they're a non-resident, may not qualify to purchase them. So it's not like we customize the portfolio solution based on what someone wants. Someone can choose to not agree with our thesis. In that case, they naturally would not become a client, but we treat everyone's portfolio similarly, in terms of the philosophy.
Ben Felix: I think the moral of the story is we have a philosophy that we're very deliberate about implementing both for our clients and for ourselves. And we really don't stray from that at all.
Cameron Passmore: Yeah, it's David Booth, the founder of Dimensional that says, "It's best to have a strategy A and B stick to it." So these are regularly rebalanced, globally diversified portfolios with certain tilt, which we can get into over time to give it a higher expected return over time. It's really using what's come out of academia and applying it to portfolios day in, day out. And I think it's safe to say that all of our clients have a sense of that and what's going on and they know the message does not change. It has not changed in close to 20 years, I guess now
Ben Felix: I don't want to spend the whole first episode here talking about Dimensional, but I know that you wanted to mention the podcast, the Barry Ritholtz Masters in Business podcast with Dave Butler, and that's probably a decent way to give a bit of an introduction to Dimensional too.
Cameron Passmore: Yes, so it's certainly one of my favorite podcasts. I listen to Barry religiously every week and he interviews interesting people from the industry, be it academics or fund managers or portfolio managers. And on Saturday's podcasts that came out, Barry interviewed Dave Butler, who was the co CEO of Dimensional Funds. And he gave a great, I found very human introspective on Dimensional Funds and his background, competitive basketball player, which I know you can relate to. But to bring that team spirit to Dimensional, it really is a collaborative relationship that we have with Dimensional. And it's not easy to work with Dimensional. They're very selective on which advisory firms that they do work with. And the reason for that, it's all about the ultimate client experience, where Dimensional in the early days was an institutional manager, largely of small caps. And then a proposition was made to allow retail investors to have access.
But they want to make sure that they had the best experience to the end clients. So they said we will allow access, but only to certain types of advisors, which means it would only be a certain type of clients, so much more patient type investors. And they stuck to that rule all the way along. And they've gone from nothing, 25 odd years ago in the retail side to something around 350 billion, I believe in retail clients.
Ben Felix: It's about half, about half their overall business is retail now.
Cameron Passmore: That's right.
Ben Felix: And they were nervous at first. I think Dave Butler talks about this in the Masters of Business podcast episode. They were nervous at first going into the retail market because if you look at the fund flows of mutual funds, they're extremely volatile and correlated with the markets. When the market's dropping funds tend to leave, cash tends to leave mutual funds, which would make it very challenging for Dimensional to implement their strategies with the small cap and the value, which tend to be somewhat less liquid stocks. So they had this idea from a guy named Dan Wheeler, who was the first advisor to use Dimensional that they would distribute exclusively through these special types of advisors that kind of got what they were doing, and that would reduce the volatility in cash flows. And it's worked really well to the point, like I said, that DFA is now about half their business is with retail.
Cameron Passmore: And we can to our clients who are patient, long-term focused, respect for risk and respect for highly diversified portfolios and not looking to hit home runs. They've made their money, they want to now keep their money. So it's a good fit. And we know from other peers that that's how they treat their clients as well. So we know we're in this pool of like-minded people.
Ben Felix: But I think we also know that, and we'll talk a little bit more about advice and all that kind of stuff from some of the topics we want to cover today. But if you own a DFA fund, you own more small cap and value stocks than a market cap weighted index and small cap and value don't always outperform. And for the last 10 or so years, they have not outperformed. It's expected that they will over the longterm, but when you go through periods like that, if you're doing it yourself and not getting advice and not talking to someone, I think that a lot of people would pull their money out of the small cap value index fund and move it into the market cap fund because that's what's doing well.
Cameron Passmore: The data shows that, there's no doubt about it.
Ben Felix: That's right.
Cameron Passmore: So we spend a lot of time educating where there's interest in terms of how markets are expected to perform. So it's all about expected return and expected volatility.
Ben Felix: But instead of someone just pulling their money out because it's performing poorly, they might ask us, or we might be proactively bringing it up.
Cameron Passmore: But what's so interesting is when you add in the small cap and value, which have higher expected returns and certainly on smaller cap, higher expected volatility when you mix in that portfolio, and this is what makes clients happy, I think is that it ends up lowering the volatility of the portfolio and giving it higher expected returns, which I think is safe to say is a goal for everyone.
Ben Felix: Yeah, it's factor diversification. You add in different risk factors together in a portfolio and it can reduce overall volatility. So I think maybe just touch on to finish this portion up we want to talk a little bit about how... we talked about how we invest our own money. I thought it'd be neat to talk about the worst investment that each of us have ever made. So maybe I'll go first because mine's not very interesting. In my early mutual fund days when I was first starting out in the financial services industry, I was about a third of the way done my MBA. Just really starting to learn about how markets work. And I was being told by the firm that I was at the time that fund managers like Fidelity and Dynamic and CI were completely necessary for clients to be successful over the long-term.
So that's how I was investing my own money. I was in the Fidelity dividend plus fund, I believe it was called. I had all my own RSP assets in there. Obviously, I have since pulled it out, put it into DFA. Like I mentioned, I've never really done anything crazy like trying to pick stocks or cryptocurrencies or placing any concentrated bets like that. I'm pretty boring. I have trouble making decisions that aren't rational and none of those kinds of bets are rational. Cameron, what about you?
Cameron Passmore: Well, smartest thing at the time I thought was when I bought JDS, I think it was a JDS Fitel at the time actually, and tripled our money in that, which gave us enough to put a down payment on the house. We were quite proud with that decision until we looked two years after that and realized, how did we hell, we could have paid for the whole house cash. So tripling our money was pretty good, but had we held, it would have been nice.
Ben Felix: So your worst investment history was tripling your money.
Cameron Passmore: Yeah, so that was the worst stories. I mean, we could have paid off the whole house, but then had we held on, a couple of years after that it would have gone to zero or next to zero, I guess. So in hindsight it was all right. It could have been better but [crosstalk].
Ben Felix: So you're bad at market timing.
Cameron Passmore: Yeah, clearly.
Ben Felix: That's it?
Cameron Passmore: Yep, that was it. That's the one.
Ben Felix: All right. So kind of on the topic of bad investments, there was a piece in New York times last week on how hedge funds have continued to underperform the market, even though the market, the equity market has been relatively slow this year, compared to the last few years. One of the, I guess, complaints of hedge fund managers has been well, in an equity bull market, hedge funds aren't going to compete, which is fair enough. Hedge funds are not designed to match equity returns, that would defeat the point. They're supposed to be a diversifying asset class. But so far this year equity markets have been much, much more tame, slow, and hedge funds continue to underperform stocks. The hedge fund index from HFR has gained 0.81% in the first half of the year, compared to the S&P 500's 1.67% in US dollars. So that argument of hedge funds doing better when equity markets are doing worse is not holding up.
Cameron Passmore: But it's a great sales idea.
Ben Felix: Yeah, it's a great sales idea.
Cameron Passmore: And often these are funds that have great sounding names, that have great emotional appeal. And of course, everybody wants something that hedges. Something that's going down, of course, you want it to go up. Very hard to hurdle those fees though.
Ben Felix: Yeah, the fees are tough. There's also the massive skewness in hedge fund returns. So you get a small handful of funds doing really, really well, but most of the funds not doing very well. And that I think helped or hurts this, well helps depends how you want to look at it. It makes it easier to sell because you can look at these hedge funds with crazy good returns, like the fund in the big short movie that obviously had massive returns, but the majority of hedge funds don't do well. And yeah, fees are a big part of that.
Cameron Passmore: But it amazes me when you have that many smart people with that much technology and so much resources to throw at more technology. The brain power and technological power is so huge, I just can't understand how, I guess arrogant you have to be to think that you can pull this off persistently, really? You're going to compete against people like you with technology as good as yours, and you're going to persistently beat them?
Ben Felix: The problem is you have stories like Renaissance Technologies, which was one of the most famous hedge funds ever with insanely high returns, apparently consistently. I don't think they have to have actual public disclosure so I'm pretty sure their returns are self-reported. But in any case, there's consensus that their returns have been unbelievably high and continue to be. So you have stories like that that make it really hard.
Cameron Passmore: But to show the demand. I mean, we had that paper, it was going around from NACUBO, which looks at the portfolios of over 800 endowments of us colleges and universities. And recent one that we looked at, the average allocation to alternatives, which includes commodities, energy, private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds had allocation of 52%. Whereas if you look at the 10-year returns of that, it was 11 basis points less than a simple 60, 40 DFA type globally diversified portfolio with just slightly less volatility.
Ben Felix: So they had the university endowments had slightly less volatility.
Cameron Passmore: Slightly less. So call it neck and neck, but for a whole lot more fees, a whole lot more effort and not necessarily persistent expectations of outperforming just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Ben Felix: More risk, less liquidity.
Cameron Passmore: Definitely less liquidity.
Ben Felix: Yeah. So it's tough. Well, why would you want to invest in that? You're going to get maybe some diversification, I guess.
Cameron Passmore: And wasn't a CalPERS has completely eliminated all alternatives in the portfolio, only the California pension system, which is a two to $300 billion plan I believe has completely eliminated all of the exposure to this kind of investment.
Ben Felix: I think that was in 2015 or 2014, there was an article in Time Magazine about that, how they were exiting their positions. And if I remember correctly, they were citing just complexity as the issue. They weren't saying performance has been terrible, anything like that, they just said, it's too complex to manage.
Cameron Passmore: And they realized it's hard to beat.
Ben Felix: Yeah, right.
Cameron Passmore: I mean, look, it was it the Nevada state pension system, forget the size of it, but it's basically one guy in his lunch bag going to work every day to manage this portfolio of low cost Vanguard type ETF portfolio.
Ben Felix: But one of the things that makes that really tough is that when something like that, where a lot of people are relying on it, there's obviously a fiduciary responsibility. And I think that there's still a lot of pressure for public institutions like that to do the best they possibly can. And despite the evidence, I think that people still believe that the best they can possibly do requires having consultants because someone who's in charge of the pension fund from a political perspective, doesn't know anything about investing. So they hire consultants and the consultants have this vested interest in recommending complex investments because otherwise, why would anybody pay a consultant if they're just going to say buy index funds.
And Buffett's talked about this and his, either his talk or his letter, in the past about that exact issue. A consultant is not going to come back year after year and say, buy index funds because then no one's going to pay them a fee. So there's this big conflict of interest. I mean, we even look at Canada CPP, the Canada pension plan, and they've continuously increased costs, added complexity. Now, they're doing okay though.
Cameron Passmore: They used to be beautifully simple index fund type portfolios, but the fees have gone up dramatic. I think they're approaching 1% overall management fee in the portfolio excluding-
Ben Felix: But the performance hasn't been bad.
Cameron Passmore: No, it hasn't.
Ben Felix: So I guess, what do you say really? Statistically, it's likely it's going to be bad in the future, I guess. For now they're doing fine. Okay, let's talk about the Canadian securities administrators. That's the overarching regulator for firms like PWL and anybody that's giving investment advice in Canada, they have decided not to ban embedded commissions. That's a big deal. So embedded commissions that's like if you buy a mutual fund, you're paying a fee to the fund. And a part of that fee goes to the advisor. This was a conflict of interest because that means the advisors earn a commission for selling a certain product.
Cameron Passmore: However, if you're in a discount brokerage environment that's not expected to deliver service, I think in that case, they're going to be banning the trailer fees, right?
Ben Felix: Yep. They're cutting them out for discount brokerages that aren't getting advice
Cameron Passmore: But I like what Rob Carrick said about that in a recent podcast with our colleague Dan Bortolotti. It's like, if you're a do it yourself investor, you're taking that responsibility on yourself, you're saying you should have known there was trailer fees and you should have gone to the F class or D class, whatever class of shares don't pay a trailer fees. So he, to his credit, he came back and said, look, don't just blame the discount brokers, you made a choice to hold it.
Ben Felix: That's right. He had an article I think it was something along the lines of, he doesn't feel bad for you.
Cameron Passmore: And I think he took a fair amount of flock for it too, which I'm not sure it's totally fair. The other thing that's going away is the deferred sales charge. I believe they're going to propose to kill that too.
Ben Felix: They're killing it. I don't think that really matters at this point with the CRM. I mean, it matters, don't get me wrong. That's a good development. When the CRM two disclosure, which is all this new compensation and performance disclosure that financial firms have to give to their clients now, that started last year for the 2016 year. When that started, I think most firms like I know Investors Group, which is huge, they stopped doing the deferred sales charge. Because you do that and say 5% on a $100,000 investment, that's a $5,000 commission. The client's now going to get a statement saying they paid that much in commission.
Cameron Passmore: Correct.
Ben Felix: And people will be upset about that, or at least ask questions. Ontario and one other province had been considering a best interest standard, which means that advisors would have been legally required to act in the best interest of clients, that has also been squashed by the Canadian Securities Administrator. So there will not be a best interest standard. But they've proposed changing some of the suitability guidelines to add in some stuff about suitability in terms of risk and costs. So leaning a little bit more towards a best interest standard, but not an overarching statutory best interest standard. Other countries have done that, Australia has done that, the UK has done that. A lot of people were saying they were concerned about that decreasing access to advice.
My thought on that though, has always been, if the only way you can access advice is by buying DSE mutual funds, it's not advice you want to get anyway. So it's probably not a bad thing if you're losing access to that type of advice. We know from the data of Morningstar does a massive study. I think every four years, the global fund investor experience survey, we can put a link to that in the show notes. But the vast majority of mutual fund assets, which is a fairly sizable chunk of overall Canadian investment assets, the majority of those are still in A class, so commission-based mutual funds. So I'd say most retail investors in Canada probably own commission-based mutual funds.
Cameron Passmore: For sure, that's where the money is. That's where the assets are. And we see it all the time as people come through, rarely do people know how much they're paying and usually they think they're not happy with whatever it is. And then once you explain, you can see the relief that when they're explained that we charged separately for our management fees, and it's not part of the embedded cost.
Ben Felix: So none of this affects PWL because we as a firm we've been upholding ourselves to a fiduciary standard. We've been fee-based for...
Cameron Passmore: All since day one.
Ben Felix: Since day one.
Cameron Passmore: In this office, we haven't done a commission mutual fund in 22 years, 21 years.
Ben Felix: Right and we've been doing performance reporting. So all this stuff, all these reforms that have been happening, like the CRM two disclosures for performance and fees, this new suitability in terms of both risk and cost, all of this stuff that's happening in the industry is stuff that PWL has been way, way ahead of. Cameron you said to me in the past that you thought way back in the day when PWL started with this model, you thought that you had maybe five years before the rest of the industry caught up.
Cameron Passmore: I was warned in 1995 that you got to get feed base as fast as possible or you're going to be out of business. So that's when we really scrambled and retool the practice. And here we are this many years later and still being debated. It's incredible to me.
Ben Felix: It is incredible fees. We're talking about fees, I think that's probably a good segue into the... you already mentioned Rob Carrick on the CCP podcast, which is a great episode. People should listen to that.
Cameron Passmore: Canadian Couch Potato. Great, great podcast and Rob's a great writer. I think we'd agree that he's probably be the best financial author columnist in the country.
Ben Felix: Yep, we agree with that and with Dan on that. Rob had a really good article in The Globe and Mail for subscribers only. So maybe not everyone can see it, but it was about how the lowest fee advisors may not be the best. So Rob talks a lot about fees. The whole industry talks a lot about fees where lower fees are generally accepted as the best thing. Now, there's an important distinction on product, that's probably true. Well, in most cases, DFA has got higher fees than a index ETF. And we prefer DFA for a lot of reasons. But in general, when you're looking at investments, lower fees are better. And what Rob said in his article is that while that is probably true for product, it's probably not true for advice.
So when you pay for financial advice, you're paying for two different things. You're paying for advice and you're paying fees on products or investments. Rob cited a study that showed that fees last year declined. But the majority of the declining fees were concentrated in a relatively small group of advisors. And those advisors who had been decreasing their fees were the ones that were losing assets and not growing in revenue.
Cameron Passmore: Interesting.
Ben Felix: So Rob basically said in the article, if you find the lowest fee advisor, they may be low fee because they have to lower their fees to keep their clients because they're not great advisors. Then they're not maintaining great relationships and giving good advice.
Cameron Passmore: Fees are important, but we're finding more and more people have a certain value proposition they're looking for and then deal with fees after. And I think that's a smart way to go after it. I mean, it's a competitive business and certainly we're aware of that. And I think we're probably in many cases, more sensitive to fees than many of our clients even are.
Ben Felix: We're also hyper competitive on fees.
Cameron Passmore: We believe so, certainly in the peer studies we look at for our practice. We are at the lower end of similar service offering.
Ben Felix: Well, that's DFA peer group, the people using... And that's in general, they're all competitive. Rob had another subscriber only tool in The Globe and Mail where you can compare your fees based on your assets and the services that you're getting. It's actually a really interesting tool. So you put in, I'm getting investment advice, financial planning advice, these are my assets under management. And it spits out based on everybody else that's used the tool where you fall. And I can tell you we're [subs 00:23:16]. I mean, I don't know how many people use the tool. It doesn't give you the data, but I tried it for a couple of different asset levels and we are substantially lower than what other people are paying.
Cameron Passmore: He also was interesting conversation he had with Dan about the future of robo-advisors or robo-firms. So we have, I think 18, 19 in Canada, I believe. And basically this commoditize the asset management part of it for a globally diversified type portfolio, which I would argue that still 90% of the population doesn't know what that even means. But once it realized, this is what you want, there are affordable options to have the actual portfolio built, rebalanced, made tax-efficient. So that is happening. So we have a solution like that with dimensional funds. However, they're not gathering assets fast enough. And it's almost like a race to the bottom in terms of costs.
So he's saying in the future, it'll be neat to see what the future holds for these types of firms, where they may be forced into adding the advice channel on like Vanguard did in the US where you pay the basic fee for the robo portfolio. And then you pay an extra 30 or 50 basis points a year for the financial planning advice. Where he also said, some may look to cross selling, we'll do your mortgage, we'll do a line of credit for you with credit cards and other financial services to generate revenues. So it will be very interesting to see where the ultra low cost online basis meets up with the advice channel.
Ben Felix: Yeah, it's very, very interesting. I had an article in The Globe Mail that just came out recently talking about Wealthsimple and sort of my thoughts on the different services that Wealthsimple is offering for their fee. And like you said, it's a lot of stuff that is a commodity and will continue to be a commodity.
Cameron Passmore: But people have questions.
Ben Felix: That's the thing.
Cameron Passmore: How does Wealthsimple or any robo, it's not about Wealthsimple, how does any robo handle questions?
Ben Felix: It's not just questions, it's the... for sure questions are important and you want to be able to call someone well, ideally for a lot of people anyway, someone that knows you and knows what is important to you and what your situation is and what your goals are. With Wealthsimple you're not getting a dedicated advisor. Some of the robo-advisors in Canada do have a model where you are getting a dedicated person. Their fees tend to be a bit higher, which is what you'd expect. But Wealthsimple I just have this data point because of the article that I just wrote, they've got 65,000 clients but they announced that in March of this year so it's probably more than that now. And then as of June, when I wrote the article, they had 10 people licensed to give investment advice. So IIROC licensed, registered representatives, and that's crazy. It's 65,000 clients with 10 people licensed to give advice.
And the other thing is, I don't know the details of how Wealthsimple runs their operation, but some of those 10 licensed people were in non-client facing roles within the company. And you start looking at our model where we have way less clients and-
Cameron Passmore: Way more people.
Ben Felix: ... more licensed people licensed to give advice. But I mean, even in meetings, when I'm meeting with people that are interested and potentially working with PWL, I'm almost always telling them about robo-advisors as an option. You should look at this and I've had nobody choose that over, dealing with us.
Cameron Passmore: No, because we're transparent about it. You have to do what's best for them, whether it means business for us or not.
Ben Felix: Our sample is super biased, I guess, because the people that come and talk to us are the people that are looking for a relationship with a person. But I mean, we've had people transfer over from Wealthsimple that wanted that, they wanted the relationship with a person. I don't have and it would probably be hard to find the data from the broad population of how many people want a human to interact with? I don't know what the answer is.
Cameron Passmore: I have no idea.
Ben Felix: I think there's probably some relationship between complexity of the situation, assets, goals, and wanting to speak with a human and have a human advisor. But anyway, it's an interesting... who said... Kitces. Michael Kitces said, I think two or three years ago that robo-advisors are not going to eliminate the need for human financial advisors. All they're going to do is modernize the financial service industry, which they're doing.
Cameron Passmore: And that's a good thing.
Ben Felix: Carrick in that article on value versus cost said that the categories that should matter when you're evaluating, if an advisor is worth the fee that you're paying, they should put people before investments. So they should know you and your situation and understand what your goals are before selling an investment product, you're talking about product. Communication, so easy access to communication. Transparency, access to financial planning, access to retirement planning, tax and estate planning, and being extremely open answering questions any time. And if you think about obviously, those things you should want for, if you're paying a fee. I don't think you're getting that in a lot of cases.
Real quick to cap off I think this first episode, Justin Bender, our PWL colleague who writes the Canadian Portfolio Manager Blog last week, he updated his model portfolios. Traditionally Justin's model portfolios have been more complex with, I believe, five or six ETFs relative to our other PWL colleague, Dan Bortolotti who always had three ETFs. And it's just fascinating to see Justin moving more towards simplicity. And Dan went through the same transition in 2015. He had his Uber Tuber portfolio with 13 ETFs or something. And now he's down to three ETFs and it's this realization that people can't handle complexity.
Cameron Passmore: And simple will do just fine. I listened to Bill Sharpe on Barry Ritholtz podcast this morning talk about that four ETF solution, no matter how much money you're managing, even if it's a pension fund, you can build a great diversified portfolio with that. And there's nothing wrong with simple.
Ben Felix: Yeah, we definitely favor simply here. So I think that's probably good to wrap up the main chunk of the content. Do you have anything else you want to talk about?
Cameron Passmore: No, I'm pleased with this. I think we'll do this every week and we're open to questions. And we'll answer questions on a go forward basis.
Ben Felix: Yeah, and it'll just be us for now. Maybe we'll have some guests in the future, I think I mentioned that at the beginning. If you enjoyed the podcast, it would be great if you could rate us on iTunes or wherever else you listen to podcasts. So I'm told, I'm new to podcasting, but so I'm told that really helps other people find our content, which we hope has been helpful.
Cameron Passmore: And if they have questions, just email you I guess.
Ben Felix: Yeah, anybody that wants to get in touch, I'm always accessible. BFelix, B-F-E-L-I-X@PWLcapital.com. You can also check out my YouTube channel, I guess, I may as well throw in a shameless plug while we're here.
Cameron Passmore: They're good video, very good videos.
Ben Felix: Common Sense Investing on YouTube so you can check us out there too. All right, well, until next time.
Cameron Passmore: It's a wrap.
Links From Today’s Episode:
Rational Reminder on iTunes — https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-rational-reminder-podcast/id1426530582.
Rational Reminder Website — https://rationalreminder.ca/
Shop Merch — https://shop.rationalreminder.ca/
Join the Community — https://community.rationalreminder.ca/
Follow us on Twitter — https://twitter.com/RationalRemind
Follow us on Instagram — @rationalreminder
Benjamin on Twitter — https://twitter.com/benjaminwfelix
Cameron on Twitter — https://twitter.com/CameronPassmore
'Dave Butler Discusses Finance and Basketball' —https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2018-07-13/dave-butler-discusses-finance-and-basketball
'Hedge Funds Should Be Thriving Right Now. They Aren’t.' — https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/business/hedge-funds.html
'It just became clear we’ll never see an investment industry where clients must come first' —https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/article-well-never-see-an-investment-industry-where-clients-must-come-first/
'Why hiring an adviser who’s offering low fees could be a terrible move for your finances' — https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-look-for-investment-advisers-who-earn-their-fees-not-cut-their-fees/
'Millennial looking to start investing asks: Should I go with Wealthsimple?' — https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/gen-y-money/article-millennial-looking-to-start-investing-asks-should-i-go-with/