Tag: asset allocation

ZGRO versus ZGRO.T: what’s the difference?

RobH2 Comments

ZGRO and ZGRO.T are both asset allocation funds (aka all-in-ones1) offered by BMO. They hold the same assets, and they both generate the same (dividends-reinvested) returns. But ZGRO.T says it has a yield of 5.65% whereas ZGRO has a yield of 1.73%2. How is this possible? Full disclosure: I don’t own either of these funds because I have historically invested in a very similar-to-ZGRO product, XGRO, instead3.

Let’s start with a really high level look at these funds4.

ZGRO vs ZGRO.T, Overview Tab (source bmogam.com)

The first thing I’ll point out is one of caution: ZGRO and ZGRO.T have very similar tickers and it’s all-too-easy to mix them up. The fund names are also very similar, although ZGRO.T adds the words “Fixed Percentage Distribution Units” to the mix. That’s a clue. The other things we can learn from this first glance is that ZGRO.T is pretty new (Inception Date), is about 1/20th the size of ZGRO in terms of investments (Net Assets), has an identical MER to ZGRO, but whoa, that distribution yield is off the charts. Put simply, if you had $1000 in ZGRO, and $1000 in ZGRO.T, and the last distribution paid was assumed to be constant5, you’d get $11.73 from ZGRO and $56.50 from ZGRO.T over the next twelve months. Huh?

This is even more puzzling if one takes a look at what each of the two ETFs hold: it’s identical:

ETF HeldZGRO %6ZGRO.T %
ZSP – S&P 50037.037.0
ZCN – TSX Capped20.420.4
ZAG – CAD Bond13.813.8
ZEA – MSCI EAFE13.413.4
ZEM – MSCI Emerg6.76.7
ZUAG – US Bond5.85.8
ZMID – US Mid Cap2.02.0
ZSML – US Small Cap1.01.0
Cash00

Comparing top holdings, ZGRO versus ZGRO.T. Can you see a difference? I can’t see a difference.

I spent quite a bit of time searching on the BMO website trying to get their take on the difference. In a lot of places, (e.g. the simplified prospectus7), the two funds are treated as the same. After nearly giving up, I did come across this document which has a teeny tiny footnote, which I reproduce here:

These units are Fixed Percentage Distribution Units that provide a fixed monthly distribution based on an annual distribution rate. Distributions may be comprised of net income, net realized capital gains and/or a return of capital. The monthly amount is determined by applying the annual distribution rate to the T Series Fund’s unit price at the end of the previous calendar year, arriving at an annual amount per unit for the coming year. This annual amount is then divided into 12 equal distributions, which are paid each month.

BMO Asset Allocation ETFs Whitepaper

So the big difference as I see is is that ZGRO.T attempts to give a stable yield in 12 month chunks. It does this by

  1. Giving you dividends from the underlying assets (so does ZGRO)
  2. Selling underlying assets (and generating a capital gain)
  3. Giving you back your own money (this is known as as return of capital)

Let’s take a look at the two from a tax perspective (note that this only matters if you were to hold these funds in a non-registered account):

ZGRO vs ZGRO.T 2024 Distribution Tax Tab (source bmogam.com)

And here the distinction between the two becomes clearer: ZGRO.T is making good use of Return of Capital (RoC) to distribute a dividend with limited near-term tax implications. But as always, there’s no free lunch — using RoC means that future capital gains will be higher since RoC reduces the ACB8 of the funds in question, and if your ACB drops to zero, you have to treat RoC as a capital gain.

So when might you consider using ZGRO.T instead of ZGRO?

ZGRO.T makes sense in a RRIF account. It’s essentially automating some of the steps I have to take every month to get paid (you can see the mechanism I use here). Every month, I have to sell some of my holdings in order to get the RRIF-minimum payment out.

In a non-registered account, ZGRO.T’s monthly distributions might be useful if you had the need for consistent monthly cash flow; in addition, if you expect to at some point be in a lower tax bracket, it might help you save future tax, since it’s deferring some gains by using Return of Capital. In my case, I don’t see a good reason to use it since I would have to sell existing assets in order to raise funds to buy it, which generates capital gains.

So, in summary, the two funds are the same from a total return perspective, with ZGRO.T more monthly cash and ZGRO providing more paper gains. In a RRIF account, ZGRO.T automates some of the manual selling needed to execute decumulation. In a non-registered account, the tax treatment of the two is different, and you’d have to work out the numbers to see if it’s a benefit or not.

  1. If you want to read about all-in-ones, https://moneyengineer.ca/2025/01/21/why-you-can-fire-your-advisor-asset-allocation-etfs/ is a good place to start. ↩︎
  2. This yield is calculated by dividing the most recent per share distribution by the share price and multiplying by 12. In essence, this number is the value of the most recent (monthly in the case of ZGRO.T, quarterly in the case of ZGRO) dividend payout extrapolated over the full year. It may or may not represent what kind of yield you get in the future. ↩︎
  3. Why? Inertia. There are minor differences in the makeup of XGRO versus ZGRO but either is a fine choice for the lazy investor. ↩︎
  4. All the tables here are right off BMO’s ETF selector, which is excellent, by the way. ↩︎
  5. ZGRO is currently paying 7.3 cents per share every quarter and this has been stable since 2020. ZGRO.T is currently paying 6 cents per unit held every month and this has been stable since March 2025. ↩︎
  6. As of September 18, 2025 ↩︎
  7. which weighs in at ~450 pages. I’d hate to see the non-simplified prospectus. ↩︎
  8. Adjusted Cost Base. The average per unit price you pay for a share, necessary to track in order to accurately calculate capital gains (or losses). I use adjustedcostbase.ca for this, found in Tools I Use ↩︎

The Cost of Asset Allocation ETFs

RobH4 Comments

Readers will know that I’m a fan of the asset-allocation ETF. In fact, the vast majority of my retirement savings are dedicated to them. (New to the concept of asset allocation ETFs? Here’s an intro.)

Owning asset-allocation ETFs means you can quite literally invest and forget. The target asset allocations are maintained automatically for you, eliminating the all-too-common desire to tinker/experiment/play and mess with your returns in the process.

As with all things investing, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. This automatic asset re-allocation is reflected in the MER1 of the asset-allocation ETFs. So what’s this automatic management actually costing the holder of the all-in-one?

To work out the answer to that question, you have to look at how the asset-allocation ETF in question is built. Some people refer to asset allocation ETFs as “funds of funds” and this is actually quite an apt description, since most asset-allocation ETFs are just constructed by buying up index ETFs issued by the same company.

For example, iShares and TD each have an all-equity asset allocation ETF, named XEQT and TEQT2, respectively. Here’s what’s actually under the hood of each of them:

(I tried to keep the colours consistent between the two: red is Canadian equity, blue is US Equity, and other colours are international equity).

The thing about the MER of an all-in-one is that it already includes the MERs of the funds from which it is built. The tip-off is phrases like this one in iShares’ literature:


…MER includes all management fees and GST/HST paid by the fund for the period, and includes the fund’s proportionate share of the MER, if any, of any underlying fund in which the fund has invested…

https://www.blackrock.com/ca/investors/en/literature/product-brief/core-etf-portfolios-product-brief.pdf3

What this means is you can work out what the MER would be if you decided to simply manage the underlying funds yourself, and in so doing, figure out the premium that the all-in-one is adding to the mix.

I did this exercise, and here’s what I found:

XEQTTEQT
MER of component parts40.103%0.089%
All-in-one MER50.20%0.17%
MER premium for all-in-one60.097%0.081%
Annual premium cost per $1000 invested7$0.97$0.81

I offer a few takeaways from this analysis:

  • The MER costs I’m talking about here are lower than a factor of 10 (at least) that what’s charged by typical investment advisors and bank-backed mutual funds
  • The cost premium of the all-in-one is small, but it’s higher than I expected; even small percentage differences are greatly amplified when you work out (say) the 10 year cost of using these products.

The alternative of managing the constituent parts can be a cheapskate alternative and can save real money over time8, but one must beware of

  • The added complexity inherent in managing a portfolio of multiple ETFs. The XEQT/TEQT example is the simplest one; if you add bonds to the mix (e.g. XBAL/TBAL) you will need to add a few more ETFs to replicate the all-in-one. I used to manage my portfolio without using all-in-ones. I enjoyed it (you may have noticed I have a deep interest in investing). In retirement I have chosen to be practical and have attempted to create an environment that won’t be cognitively overwhelming as I get older.9
  • The greater likelihood of straying from the plan due to inaction or emotion kicking in. I myself didn’t put a lot of credence to this argument, but people smarter than me have pointed out that this is probably the one biggest factor that derails investment plans.
  1. The MER (Management Expense Ratio) is the cost of operating the ETF, expressed as a percentage. You don’t directly pay MER fees, but they reduce the overall returns of your investments. Lower MERs = more money for you. ↩︎
  2. No points for originality here ↩︎
  3. In teeny tiny letters at the bottom of page 1 ↩︎
  4. Weighted MER of each of the component ETFs. ↩︎
  5. You can find these on the ETF pages for XEQT and TEQT ↩︎
  6. Subtract 2 previous rows ↩︎
  7. Just multiply. Watch those decimal points, though. ↩︎
  8. I’m ignoring trading costs which aren’t zero but ought to be very small. Rebalancing assets is necessary of course but is perhaps a monthly, quarterly or annual exercise. ↩︎
  9. And even a portfolio just based on all-in-ones may prove to be too much to handle at some point. I’ve started to pay a bit more attention to the services offered by robo-advisors. ↩︎

XEQT Shifts again

RobHLeave a comment

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but XEQT, one of my ETF all stars, recently made some changes under the hood1. Specifically, in their words:

XEQT primarily accesses its broad market U.S. equity exposure using …ITOT, a U.S.-domiciled ETF. In certain circumstances, U.S.-domiciled ETFs … are subject to limits on the sale of their shares to non-U.S. domiciled investment funds such as XEQT. Prior to July 2025, iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF (XUS) had been held as an additional instrument… Effective July 2, 2025, XEQT has replaced XUS with iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market Index ETF (XTOT). Going forward, XEQT is expected to hold a mix of XTOT and ITOT.

https://www.blackrock.com/ca/investors/en/literature/product-brief/core-etf-portfolios-product-brief.pdf

So, in other words:

  • XEQT isn’t allowed2 to hold “just” ITOT (a broad US market ETF) to cover the US market3
  • XEQT used XUS (the 500 largest US stocks) to get around this restriction until very lately
  • XEQT now uses XTOT which is 99% the same as ITOT to get around this restriction
  • TL/DR: XEQT is now pretty much what it was at the very beginning of 2025

What this means is that lately4, XEQT has reduced its exposure somewhat to the very largest US stocks. I did a little analysis to convince myself, summarized below:

Stock5% delta change XEQT6% delta change ITOT7delta XEQT/ITOT8
Apple-1.7%1.2%-2.9%
Microsoft-2.9%0.2%-3.0%
NVIDIA3.5%6.5%-3.1%
Amazon-1.3%2.3%-3.6%
META-9.2%-6%-3.2%
Berkshire Hathaway-6%-3.4%-2.6%
Alphabet A2.6%6.4%-3.8%
Broadcom-1.0%2.3%-3.3%
Tesla-6%-4%-1.9%
Alphabet C1.6%6.5%-4.9%

The change in the contribution of the largest 10 US stocks has been consistently reduced in XEQT in the past month — that’s what the last column shows. This is what one would expect by removing the “double investing” that was going on previously when XEQT was holding both ITOT and XUS.

To me, that’s all round a good thing, since it provides greater diversification when holding XEQT. I’ve updated the What’s the deal with XEQT? post accordingly!

  1. Thanks to r/JustBuyXEQTfor pointing this out ↩︎
  2. And I don’t know why this is ↩︎
  3. XGRO, my normal go-to in this all-in-family, has not changed at all and continues to hold ITOT and never bothered adding XUS. I guess since the US portion of XGRO is smaller than that of XEQT, it can skirt this restriction. ↩︎
  4. Since July 2 to be precise ↩︎
  5. These are the top 10 US holdings of XEQT, and the top 10 for ITOT. ↩︎
  6. This is % change in the % contribution of each of these stocks between June 30 2025 and July 25, 2025 as reported by the XEQT “underlying aggregate holdings” data on its product sheet. The XEQT change is driven by both the differential in the monthly returns, AND a reduction in the weight of each of the underlying stocks. ↩︎
  7. This is the % change in the % contribution of each of these stocks between June 30 2025 and July 25, 2025 as reported by the ITOT “underlying aggregate holdings” data on its product sheet. The ITOT change is driven purely by differential monthly returns of the stocks. ↩︎
  8. Simply subtract the two previous columns ↩︎

Dealing with Drift in Asset Allocation ETFs

RobH1 Comment

I rely a lot on asset-allocation ETFs in my retirement portfolio, mostly XGRO in the CAD side of the portfolio and AOA on the USD side1. These ETFs (about 70% of my overall retirement portfolio, as you can see here), like all asset-allocation ETFs, rebalance their holdings periodically in order to stick to their asset allocation targets. This aligns perfectly with my way of investing; I’ve always tried to stick to my asset allocation targets portfolio-wide, assisted by tools like my multi-asset tracker spreadsheet. (If you aren’t familiar with asset-allocation as an investment strategy, you could give this article a read.)

XGRO’s asset allocation targets are written right in the prospectus2:

  • 80% Equity, with 36% US equity, 20% Canadian Equity, 20% International Developed Market Equity, 4% Emerging Market Equity.
  • 20% Bonds, 16% being held in Canadian bonds. The other 4% are designated “non-Canadian” but seems like it’s always US bonds.

Anyway, XGRO’s approach to making changes to the portfolio in order to maintain this target percentage is written in the prospectus too:

XGRO’s portfolio will be monitored relative to the asset class target weights and will be rebalanced back to asset class target weights from time to time …XGRO’s portfolio is not expected to deviate from the asset class target weights by more than one-tenth of the target weight for a given asset class

Page 419 of the iShares Prospectus (June 2025)

Now “from time to time” isn’t terribly precise. I thought I’d take a closer look at the history of XGRO’s asset allocations. So I dug through annual and semi-annual reports as well as the website. I focused on the Fixed Income (aka Bond) proportion of XGRO over time because that’s the asset class that’s most likely to drift lower3…equities typically outperform fixed income historically. So this is what I found:

So there is a bit of drift in the fixed income portion of XGRO, but in the past year I haven’t seen it off by more than 1.2%, meaning that the promise made in XGRO’s prospectus is being adhered to.4

Turning now to AOA, the fixed income proportion is clearly stated to be 20%, and rebalancing is stated to happen twice annually, in April and October. After that, things become a bit harder to work out56. The various equity contributions are determined by the target index, namely the S&P Target Risk Aggressive Index, which are constructed by using market capitalization of the various indices used7.

Anyway, like XGRO, what I’m most concerned about is the fixed income portion of AOA, and digging through the various reports, I came up with this:

Of late, the fixed income portion AOA has become small, almost 2% lower than it should be. And given that AOA is about 50% of my holdings, it means that my equity exposure is quite a bit higher than I would let it drift myself.

I suppose the next rebalancing in October 2025 will correct this, but I admit it makes me a little uneasy to see that sort of volatility in the asset allocation8. I could of course just sell some AOA and reinvest it in some bond fund (AOA uses IUSB and IAGG, which seem like fine choices) but then I’m just working around the asset allocation strategy I’m paying for in AOA’s management fees, which seems dumb. Not to mention that anything I do now will almost certainly have to be undone come October.

So I guess this all means I should just let sleeping dogs lie. I have minor bits of money to reinvest every month (I still contribute to my TFSAs) so using those funds to buy bonds are probably what I’ll do. It’s a tiny pre-correction that should be addressed come October…or by the next equity meltdown.

  1. And both are on my “ETF all-stars” page ↩︎
  2. And since detailed targets are clearly stated, these are the percentages I assume for XGRO in my multi-asset tracker spreadsheet. I could continually update the percentages since they calculated daily on XGRO’s page, but it seems like busywork. ↩︎
  3. My retirement decumulation strategy (VPW) relies on knowing what my asset allocation is, too ↩︎
  4. It does mean, however, that my equity exposure Is higher than I thought. ↩︎
  5. Well, or maybe I’m just not that smart — I’m not really sure if one can calculate the market caps needed to work out the allocations. ↩︎
  6. And unlike XGRO, I actually do track (from time to time) the underlying allocations of AOA so that my multi-asset tracker reflects reality. It was through my most recent update that I discovered that the bond portion of AOA was a lot lower than it had been. ↩︎
  7. Namely the S&P500, the S&P MidCap 400, the S&P SmallCap 600, the S&P Developed Ex-U.S. BMI, and the S&P Emerging BMI ↩︎
  8. It’s still within the stated drift that XGRO tolerates, however. So maybe I’m overthinking this. ↩︎

News: Webinar Roundup

RobHLeave a comment

Global X: “Beyond Borders: Why International Equity is Capturing Attention”

This webinar (registration link) takes place on July 28 at 11:30am EDT. I don’t myself make bets on any particular segment of the market, choosing instead to maintain my geographic splits consistent, including international equity (see my latest report on that). But maybe you don’t have any exposure to international Equity at all; this might be worth checking out in that case.

Global X is the newish name of Horizons, a company I’ve been dealing with for a long time thanks to their innovative swap-based ETFs, namely HXT (Canadian Equity), HXS (US Equity) and HXDM (International Equity)1 . They are useful funds to hold in non-registered accounts because they pay no dividends of any kind; this allows you to defer tax until you need the money and sell them2.

Wealthsimple: Five Costly Retirement Spending Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

I listened to the recording of this webinar, and you can too by registering here. Fair warning: this webinar is at least partly a sales pitch for Wealthsimple’s managed portfolios3, and you can expect a follow-up if you do register.

Sales pitch aside, I thought the presenters did a decent job in explaining the common errors associated with

  • Asset mix
    • Getting the asset mix wrong based on your needs. I talk about the concept of asset mix here.
  • Order of withdrawal (RRIF versus TFSA versus non-registered)
    • This was something my fee-based financial advisor helped me with. Even a DIY investor can benefit from a bit of oversight as you make the preparations for retirement.
  • Age to start CPP/OAS
    • Lots of Canadians take the money as soon as they’re eligible (age 60 for CPP, 65 for OAS) but that’s not always the best choice. I used the CPP calculator to figure out what my best option was.
  • Underspending
  • Ignoring Estate and Final Tax costs
    • These can be significant. In the case of my mother’s estate, Final Tax (and not Probate) was the expensive one4. The easiest way to reduce Final Tax is to give away your money while alive.

  1. Full disclosure, I own all three in my non-registered accounts. ↩︎
  2. At which point you will have to pay tax on capital gains, naturally. ↩︎
  3. And although I like and am more than capable of doing a DIY retirement, I need a plan B in the event I lose the capability to do this sort of thing myself. And so I pay attention to service offerings out there. Wealthsimple’s fees seem less onerous so that’s a vote in their favor. I hate fees of all kinds. ↩︎
  4. They would have been horrified at the tax bill and probably would have more aggressively donated their wealth had they known. ↩︎