Deciding on a Brokerage

Leave a Comment

Its time for uc to start diversifying. I have a lot in property (as we have rentals), but we really are overdue growing our financial investments.

Though early in my career I sold mutual funds, I now know they are really not the best way to participate in the market because of their high management fees. Even at ING Direct where we bank, the 1.07% MERs for indexed mutual funds are too high for my liking (thats a $10/year cost for every $1000 invested). These management costs destroy your return. Never mind that the managers paid these MERs off the top of your investments do a pretty crappy job at investing. By far (75%+) don't perform better than the market index anyway. So no mutual funds for me.

As well, I want to be a bit more selective with what I hold, so don't want to be limited to just a few set funds. I want real choice. So I'd prefer to do some general market indexing through an ETF, but then also get in on the stock of a few steller companies.

So, what broker is best? Everyone will have their reasons for going with a certain broker. And often people just go with their existing financial institution. As Scotia hasn't brought a brokerage service to ING yet, I have shop around. But I would suggest doing this anyways, just to find the right fit of brokerage for you.

The first consideration for me was, I wanted a cheap rate per trade (so no $20+ trades). When I actively traded it was pennies to transact, or you even got paid if adding liquidity, so regular brokerage fees still make me cringe. At this point I'm not planning on making many trades, so I want low cost on low trading volume. And I also don't have a huge amount to start with either, so low fees can't be based on a high account balance. And wherever I went, real time data had to be built in, so timing trades is simplified.

My criteria for no high cost trades automatically eliminated all the major banks and the credit unions (and CU partners, like Qtrade). Through them, trades are priced at $20+ unless you are an "active trader" with lots of trades a quarter, or have a high account balance (think $50k+). Disnat was the only one close to true discount rates, but at $10/trade was still a little high.

Next, I started looking at the online only players. Virtual Brokers made the cut with low trading fees ($6.49/trade), but real time data comes at a price of $15/month. That means I'd have to use quotes from somewhere else, which is too much of a hassel, so they were out.

Then there was ShareOwner ($10/trade, $40 maximum for trades in several stocks done at one time). Interesting pricing concept, but not what I was looking for. And they limit you to only a certain selection of companies, not cool. Out.

That left me with just just two choices: Questrade ($0.01/share with $4.95/trade minimum and $9.95 max) and Interactive Brokers ($0.01/share trades with a $1/trade minimum and $10/month minimum cost, 0.5% of trade value max).

What does that look like in the real world? Well, at one trade a month, of up to 500 shares, it works out to $5 at Questrade and $10 at IB. Two trades of up to 500 shares would be $10 at either. Pretty similar.

So digging deeper, Questrade has $1000 minimum to open an account, for IB its $10000. That is a significant barrier to entry at IB for many right there. Then there is platform. Both sound great, but reports from trader friends are that IB has the definite edge here.

Then there was the matter of registered accounts, like RSPs and TFSAs, which I had not originally considered a factor. Looks like all brokers do them except IB, so that took them out of consideration.

So Questrade wins!

For me, not wanting to commit to a minimum monthly cost, only doing 1-2 trades a month, and wanting to hold my investments in a TFSA, Questrade was the clear choice. Definitely would recommend them if you are in a similar situation.

uc


Read More...

6 in 60: A Six Pack in Sixty Days

, , Leave a Comment

This is what I'm committing to: 6 in 60. Where did that come from? I just said it to the little lady one night, and it made sense to us both. Its been brewing in both our minds for some time.

The idea is simply: a healthy lifestyle, asap; the tangible goal is a six-pack.

Is it possible? With extreme diet changes, and some (light) exercise it definitely is. We're going to see if I can do it.

We all know how to drop weight and get in shape. Diet and exercise, that dreaded combination, thats what it takes. The specifics of how to work good nutrition and fitness into your life, thats often the difficult part to figure out.

By committed to getting a six-pack in 60 days I'm really committing to figure out the essentials of nutrition and fitness.

Here is what I look like now:


Its not the biggest gut in the world, but not a fit bod either. Getting a six pack in two months is going to be a huge challenge.

But I have goals, determination and some truly fantastic support from the little lady and from real pros.

First, the goals.

My brother's wedding is in 60 days, and I'm not just the best man, I'm the chubbiest man. As well, I'm also sick of popping buttons on both my jeans and dress shirts (once recently in front of three colleagues). Goal #1: drop in size enough to fit into a slimmer tux and my existing wardrobe.

The little lady, though she never says it, I know does miss my sculpted bod. I used to be super fit, and she enjoyed that! I'm now pudgey enough that when I saw an old friend recently she blurted out: "your face looks so... full now!" Goal #2: look sexy for the little lady once again.

And really the biggest reason is, I miss that incredible feeling and fullness of life you can experience by being super healthy and fit! I got injured and became immobile for a time partially because I wasn't taking care of my body well enough. Goal #3: learn from past mistakes and prevent re-injury.

This is going to be an interesting journey. My determination will no doubt wane, and thats where my supports will be crucial to helping me reach these goals. I'm going to keep track of the whole adventure here: UC's 6 in 60.

uc
Read More...

Food Documentaries That Will Blow Your Mind

Leave a Comment
There is so much to know about food and nutrition, and how what we eat can radically affect our physical and mental health. There are countless food documentaries, but these are among the best. They deal with issues such as the origins of modern food production, nutrition and desease prevention and treatment, and back to basics farming.


2009
Trailer Buy


2008


2008


2008

Other Food Documentaries:


How to watch if you just want to stream?

Apple iTunes and Amazon Prime are good bets.

Netflix has some. If your region doesn't yet have it, you can use the Hola Unblocker extension (chrome) to view it.  And netflixQ (chrome) for a queue.

1channel is a very good option otherwise. To remove most ads use Adblock (chrome) or Adblock Plus (firefox).

uc
Read More...

Green Building: Assessing the Benefits

Leave a Comment


Defining Green Building

Designing and building green/ energy efficiently/ sustainably, is really just about building better, smarter. In using resources more carefully there is not only a social/ environmental benefit, but also generally a direct financial benefit. You can break down these benefits further:
  • Efficiency in using energy, water and other resources;
  • Protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity;
  • Reducing waste, pollution and environmental degradation.

Background and Context

Buildings consume a vast amount of resources, which has implications financially, socially and ecologically. For instance, 38.9% of energy in the US is used for buildings.1 If you can improve the energy performance of a building, you also reduce your resource use and the effects of it.

 To address the financial, social and ecological strains from the resource use of buildings, sustainable building practices have been developed. This way of building is quickly becoming the new standard. In the US for instance, 28%-35% of new non-residential starts in 2010 were green, and its estimated to increase to 40-48% by 2015.2

 There was a steep learning curve with the first significant modern projects in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then techniques and materials have been refined and a whole new discipline of building design and construction has been created.

 Green building strategies are straightforward: they are about finding ways to build better in order to use less and create more enjoyable spaces. In employing green building strategies you save money, improve the living environment within the building, and reduce the negative environmental impacts of resource use.

Financial Implications

Some people will tell you that building green is expensive. But the cost per square foot for buildings seeking LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), one worldwide green building standard, falls into the existing range of costs for buildings not seeking LEED certification.3 That means there is not actually a significant cost difference between green and non-green projects.

 Also, the financial benefit from building green is significant: an upfront investment of 2% in green building design, on average, results in life cycle savings of 20% of the total construction costs – more than ten times the initial investment.4

Efficiency Benefits

The efficient use of energy, water, and other resources is a core component of green building.

Energy, Water and Other Resources

Using resources more efficiently is really a strategic investment decision. To determine how this investment should be made, the performance of various designs, materials and technologies will have to be evaluated in terms of their efficiency in using resources.

Background and Context

Buildings use a significant amount of resources in both construction and operation. In the US they consume 72% of electricity,5 and they use 13.6% of all potable water.6 Buildings also use 40% of all raw materials globally.7 Finding ways to efficiently use these resources will have a direct effect on construction and operating costs.

 There are numerous designs, materials and technologies that can be used to make a building more efficient. Here is a short list of some of the options available:
Designs
  • High R-Value Wall Construction
  • Passive Solar Heating
  • Solar Shading
  • Daylighting
  • Xerscaping
Materials
  • Mineral Wool
  • Spray Foam
  • Low VOC Paint
Technologies
  • Boiler
  • Underfloor Heating
  • Geothermal
  • Solar Thermal
  • Solar PV
  • Green Roof
  • Cool Roof
  • Light Tunnels
  • Automation (lights, taps, toilets, hand dryers, climate control)
  • Low Flow and Dual Flush Toilets
  • Greywater Recycling
  • Drain Water Heat Recovery
In order to ensure a building effectively uses resources, each of these options should be thoroughly evaluated to determine performance, cost and suitability.

Financial Implications

Efficiency improvements over standard design, materials and technology can have large financial benefits by significantly reducing operational expenditures. For instance, if you can reduce your heating and cooling load by 20% through better insulation, a tighter building envelope, and a reduction in thermal bridging, you will automatically reduce expenditure on energy for climate control by 20%. If you can distribute heat more efficiently, by say 10%, there is a savings of equal amount to heating costs. And if you can heat and cool 30% more efficiently through better technology choices, there would be a further 30% reduction in those ongoing costs. The combined benefit of incremental cost savings can be significant in the short term and incredible over the life of the building or technology.

 In order to evaluate the financial benefits of various options it is necessary to have a set of measurements with which to evaluate the costs and benefits of each investment in efficiency. To clarify and define the different types of financial measurements, here is a compilation of some of the most relevant ones:
  • ROI: one of the most common financial measurements is return on investment. This refers to the ratio of money gained/ saved on the investment relative to the amount of that investment.
  • Payback: another common measurement. This refers to the period of time it takes for the return on an investment to repay the total original investment.
  • TCO: then there is total cost of ownership, which can be calculated various ways to include a variety of considerations. At a basic level it simply considers acquisition and operating costs over the useful life.
To gain a better understanding of how these measurements work, the following is a real world example comparing the efficiency and cost effectiveness of various toilet models:
Standard
Item 1
Item 2
Toto Aquia     
Item 3
gSpecificationsg
ggg6L/1.6Gggg
3.8/6L/1/1.6Gg
3.4/6L/0.9/1.6G
ggg3L/0.8Gggg
Acquisition Cost
$153
$219
$382
$188
Annual Cost
$180
$147
$141
$90
Annual Savings
--
$33
$39
$90
ROI
--
15%
10%
48%
Payback
--
6.63 years
9.79 years
2.08 years
Useful Life
8 years
8 years
8 years
8 years
TCO
$1440
$1395
$1510
$908
Notes: 1) Dual flush models are assumed to be a combined 50/50 efficiency; 2) The Standard Item is assumed to cost $50/month water, of which it is assumed that 30%/$15 is from the toilet; 3) Minor deficiencies typically start to occur in years 5-7, and major ones in year 8, so it is assumed that useful life is 8 years; 4) The Standard Item and Item 1 had $25 added to their acquisition costs for toilet seats, which are not included in their list price, and $40 was added to Item 2 for its more pricy matching seat (Item 3 comes with a soft close seat); 5) The magic of math: Name/Consumption/% of baseline/monthly water cost/annual water cost S/6/100%/$15/$180 | 1/4.9/81.6%/$12.24/$147 | 2/4.7/78.3%/$11.75/$141 | 3/3/50%/$7.5/$90 6) For the payback of other efficiency measures, see Home Improvement Paybacks.
Toilet Evaluation Findings and Conclusions:
1) The clear winner is Item 3, which has a marginal increase in acquisition cost compared to the baseline, but is 50% more efficient, saving $532 over its life (compared to the Standard Item).
2) Despite Item 1 having a lower efficiency than Item 2, it has a better ROI and payback. The extra efficiency for Item 2 just costs too much more to be worth it.
3) The cheapest and least efficient toilet, the Standard Item, actually has a lower TCO than the more efficient, but also much more expensive Item 3. Efficiency doesn't always win out, sometimes a cheap price upfront can mean a cheaper overall cost.
4) The TCO of the Standard Item and first two options are all within $115 of each other. There is almost no cost difference for these three different models when you look out over their useful life.

Application

Building the most energy efficient building possible will save considerable energy over time. Measuring the efficiency (effects) of designs, materials and technology, will allow you to better assess the financial impacts of various choices, and cater your investment to your desired goals.

 One massive challenge in assessing the potential features to include in the building design is the expertise and time that are required to do a thorough job, especially if there is a time constraint. A possible solution is to hire an engineering firm to conduct an energy modelling simulation. This is often the best way to get detailed and accurate numbers on a comprehensive set of design possibilities, without which it would be difficult to make informed decisions. Having professional reports will also allow you to have a solid document to reference if any of your decisions are ever called into question.

Health and Productivity Benefits

The protection of occupant health is a central component of green building.

Occupant Health and Employee Productivity

Buildings can either contribute to the health of their occupants, or detract from it. As well, an occupant (employee, volunteer, resident) can be more productive if they are in a healthy environment.

Background and Context

Protecting occupant health is an important consideration in building green. Numerous designs, materials and technologies have and still do cause health problems. Asbestos, outgassing, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mold, improper exhaust ventilation, poor fresh air intake --these are some of the causes of health problems that come from poor building design and construction. Building design that takes into consideration the health of its users is better for everyone.

 Just as a building affects the health of occupants, so it also affects the productivity of its users. Specific green measures such as high quality natural light, exceptional ventilation, and user controls are associated with higher productivity gains.

Financial Implications

The value of occupant health is hard to quantify, but it definitely is a desirable feature. A healthier indoor environment will result in lower health care costs due to a reduction in illness or adverse health effects from sick building syndrome.

 Since salaries are usually the highest cost over the life cycle of a building, the effects of a building on worker productivity are important to consider. Even in a volunteer driven organization, where the majority of time worked is unpaid, higher productivity delivers benefits that can be quantified. For example, if total annual salaries were $200000, and in-building volunteer hours were valued at say $300000 annually; and if the building was 30000 sq ft, a 1% productivity gain would result in annual savings of $2000 of salary and $3000 equivalent of volunteer hours, for a savings of $0.17 a sq ft/ yr. Moving to a green building from an average one has been found to provide productivity gains from 2-10%.8 That brings the total estimated value of productivity gains to $10000 to $50000 annually, or $0.33 to $1.67 sq ft/ yr. When you factor productivity gains into a cost benefit analysis, they would significantly leverage ROI on those particular green building measures.

Application

A healthy indoor environment that contributes to the mental and physical health of its occupants is what should be targeted. It will improve occupant health and increase the productivity of employees, volunteers and residents. 

Environmental Benefits

Buildings have an effect on their environment, and also on their users. Green buildings make that effect a positive one.

Waste, Pollution and Environmental Degradation

As one of the largest consumers of natural resources, buildings account for a significant portion of the waste and pollution that affect climate change and our health. Reducing waste and pollution is an effective way to work towards sustainability.

Background and Context

Buildings create significant environmental problems. In the US, buildings account for 38% of all CO2 emissions.9 Potable water is an ever highly valued commodity, and buildings regularly use it when greywater is a suitable substitute. Also, the EPA estimates that 170 Million tons of building-related construction and demolition (C&D) debris was generated in the U.S. in 2003, with 61% coming from nonresidential and 39% from residential sources.10

Financial Implications

Except for in the most extreme cases, and even then its an exception, environmental costs are externalized. This means that the owner/user of the building is not responsible for the ecological consequences, and so carries no financial burden from them.

 However, a company/ organization can develop, for the lack of a better term, a sustainability affinity from a project that is environmentally sensitive. Through an association to a sustainable building, an identity/ brand could be enhanced.

Application

Reduction of resource use is directly correlated with a reduction in environmental degradation. Where the cost is about the same (or better), choosing the more ecologically sensitive design, material or technology is clearly the best decision. However, weighting sustainability considerations into decisions is tricky, as they do not necessarily provide direct financial benefits.

References

Read More...

Greatest Thinking Movies

Leave a Comment

These movies will leave you wondering, asking questions, self examining, thinking. There are various genres, and some are quirky and unusual, but what they all have in common is a thoughtful approach to their subject. Well worth watching.

2013
Trailer Buy


2012
Trailer Buy


2011
Trailer Buy


2010
Trailer Buy


2010
Trailer Buy


2010
Trailer Buy


2009
Trailer Buy


2009
Trailer Buy


2008
Trailer Buy


2007
Trailer Buy


2007
Trailer Buy





2006
Trailer Buy


2004
Trailer Buy

2004
Trailer Buy


2003
Trailer Buy


2002
Trailer Buy


2002
Trailer Buy


2002
Trailer Buy


2001
Trailer Buy


2000
Trailer Buy


1998
Trailer Buy


1996
Trailer Buy


1994
Trailer Buy


19722002
Trailer Buy                                               Trailer Buy


How to watch if you just want to stream?

Apple iTunes and Amazon Prime are good bets.

Netflix has some. If your region doesn't yet have it, you can use the Hola Unblocker extension (chrome) to view it. And netflixQ (chrome) for a queue.

1channel is a very good option otherwise. To remove most ads use Adblock (chrome) or Adblock Plus (firefox).

uc


Read More...