Tag: ZGRO

close up view of colorful liquids in laboratory glasswares

Are my portfolio’s asset allocation targets “correct”?

RobH1 Comment

A key aspect of my investment philosophy is to have targets for each of the asset classes I invest in. Because I like to keep things simple, my asset classes are rather broad1:

  • Cash, which includes ultra-short-term bonds (bonds with durations measured in days, not years)
  • Bonds2, which means corporate and government bonds from multiple geographies with various and assorted durations
  • Canadian Equity: Canadian stocks
  • US Equity: US Stocks
  • International Equity: Stocks that don’t sit in North America

The targets I’ve used for a few years now are

  • 5% Cash
  • 15% Bonds
  • 20% Canadian Equity
  • 36% US Equity
  • 24% International Equity

But where did those target numbers come from?

The easy answer is that they are based on the target number of the Canadian 80/20 fund I use in my retirement portfolio, namely XGRO, one of my ETF all-stars. XGRO’s makeup is actually

  • 20% Bonds
  • 20% Canadian Equity
  • 36% US Equity
  • 24% International Equity

The immediately obvious difference between XGRO and my target is the presence of “Cash” in my target, something XGRO doesn’t have3. “Cash” was a recent arrival to the portfolio, a decision I took to accommodate the presence of a Cash Cushion in my portfolio. The Cash Cushion is an integral part of my chosen decumulation strategy, VPW. So rather than keep the Cash Cushion as something set apart from my asset allocation model, I chose to create a new asset to track. 5% was a small and round number, and is about 2x the value of the Cash Cushion today.

That 5% is almost all invested in ultra-short term bond funds so perhaps you could also argue that I never stopped holding 20% bonds in my portfolio4; I just segmented that category a bit more precisely.

But why 20% bonds? Shouldn’t a retiree have a greater portion of bonds to protect against market downturns5? Habit, I suppose. I’ve held 20% bonds for decades now, since well before I retired. I don’t see any reason to change that now. I’m hoping my retirement will go on for decades, and so having a good chunk of equity is a good way to make sure my portfolio returns outpace inflation and offer some protection against outliving my money.

So 80% equity it is; but are the allocations between Canada, the US and International markets the right allocations? Like I said, I basically picked the equity targets to match what the percentage allocations are in XGRO. If I look a bit further at the other *GRO funds (TGRO, VGRO, ZGRO), I find that XGRO is a bit of an outlier with respect to International Equity allocation:

ETF% CAD% US% Int’l
XGRO (Blackrock)203624
TGRO (TD)626.735.617.8
VGRO (Vanguard)253520
ZGRO (BMO)204020
Average for all22.936.720.4

This tells me a few things

  • My US allocation target of 36% is justified by looking across multiple funds
  • My International Equity target is probably too high if I rely on the wisdom of (small) crowds.

Since I like dealing with round numbers, a case could certainly be made for my targets to instead look like

  • 23% Canadian Equity
  • 37% US Equity
  • 20% International Equity

Using these targets and looking at my current holdings would require me to move about 3% of my International equity holdings into Canadian equity.

I can control my equity allocations in normal monthly transactions, somewhat — since a good chunk of my retirement salary is funded by selling non-registered assets, I get to choose (somewhat) what equity class to liquidate. Here’s the problem I see — my International Equity component in my non-registered account is SCHF, which trades in USD. Liquidating SCHF is possible. but the small problem with SCHF is that it’s denominated in USD, and thanks to my current credit card lineup, I don’t have a way (or need) to spend USD natively anymore.

Sigh. Actually, there’s really no good reason for me to hold *any* USD assets in my non-registered accounts. USD assets are now, for me

  • Difficult to spend as USD
  • Problematic because they are counted against my “foreign income”, per CRA’s T1135; hold too much foreign income, and you have to file additional paperwork at tax time. I hate paperwork.

So, in conclusion,

  • I think I will shift my asset allocations slightly, tilting a bit towards Canadian Equity at the expense of International Equity; this will take time as I draw down SCHF from my non-registered portfolio
  • I will get rid of USD-denominated assets from my non-registered accounts. This will start with reversing the decision I took about a year ago when I went with a majority of ICSH in my Cash Cushion.
  1. 5 categories could easily morph into 20 if you were particular about things. For example, bonds could be split by geography, and/or by duration and/or by bond quality. The US and Canadian equity categories could be split into sectors and/or company size. The international equity categories could be split by region, country, sector, company size. The possibilities are endless, and so could the number of assets you actually hold to meet them. I don’t claim that my 5 are the right ones for you, but I’ve used them for quite a while now. ↩︎
  2. For the longest time, and for many earlier posts, I refer to this segment as “Income”. This made some sense in the days where I didn’t track “Cash” as a distinct category. But it’s time to move on. What lives here are bonds, and only bonds. ↩︎
  3. Of course, all ETFs hold some portion of cash, it’s pretty much unavoidable as you shift assets, collect dividends and so on. I don’t worry about this sort of thing; my assumption is that the ETF manager is doing their job and adhering to their published targets. That MER has to be worth something, right? ↩︎
  4. Questrade (my primary broker) doesn’t offer high interest savings accounts; at my previous broker (QTrade) this cash cushion really was cash held in a high interest savings account. ↩︎
  5. And there will always be market downturns. SORR is a common acronym thrown around; it stands for “Sequence of Returns Risk”. Basically this is the admission that there will be market downturns during retirement; SORR is the risk that those downturns happen really early in retirement and blow up your well-crafted plan because you are forced to sell into a down market. My mitigation strategy concerning SORR? I can always find a job if things got really bad… ↩︎
  6. The reason TGRO’s numbers aren’t round is because the other *GRO funds hold 80% equity while TGRO holds 90% equity. I’ve scaled TGRO’s holdings accordingly. ↩︎

Top Five Money Engineer posts of 2025

RobHLeave a comment

The Money Engineer launched in January 2025 and according to the WordPress stats, I made 144 posts last year. What were the most viewed posts of 2025?

5th-ranked post of 2025: ZGRO versus ZGRO.T

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

I got wind of ZGRO.T through Reddit, specifically r/CanadianInvestor. ZGRO and ZGRO.T are both all-in-one asset allocation ETFs from BMO, but with vastly different yield characteristics. I was confused, but in the end, decided that ZGRO.T was probably not a bad pick for use in a RRIF account as it might save you the hassle of selling shares. Their TOTAL returns (assuming all dividends are invested) are effectively identical.

4th-ranked post of 2025: Spousal RRIF Attribution Rules

Caution! Spousal RRSP/RRIF Attribution Rules

I think I was first warned about this nuance of spousal RRSPs/RRIFs by my DIY neighbour (thanks, Steve) and is the main reason I’m only drawing RRIF minimum for the next two years1. I think most of the visits to this article were search-driven. Either that, or people came to admire what might be my favourite article thumbnail2 I’ve posted thus far.

3rd-ranked post of 2025: Norbert’s Gambit with Questrade

Questrade Example: Exchanging USD/CAD with Norbert’s Gambit

As someone who holds more USD-denominated assets than might be wise, I do very much appreciate the existence of a cheapskate way of converting between USD and CAD assets. I think I first learned about this trick via The Loonie Doctor’s blog. The #3 blog entry explains how it works if Questrade is your broker. I would also recommend https://moneyengineer.ca/2025/08/21/tracking-norberts-gambit-costs-with-questrade/ for a very clear picture of what it actually costs (in time and fees) to execute the Gambit: in three of four instances, the time delay of executing the gambit has worked in my favor as the FX rate has drifted a bit to my advantage.

2nd-ranked post of 2025: TD versus iShares all-in-ones

TD versus iShares: XEQT/XGRO/XBAL versus TEQT/TGRO/TBAL

I’m a fan of all-in-ones (and am a little sad https://moneyengineer.ca/2025/01/21/why-you-can-fire-your-advisor-asset-allocation-etfs/ didn’t crack the top five last year). I am genuinely puzzled why people seem to get so wound up about which family of all-in-ones to choose3. I examined TD’s only because their cost to own is a bit cheaper than iShares (who I use primarily), and I’m a cheapskate. (I studied the cost of owning an all-in-one here.) Anyway, in the end, the biggest difference is visible in TGRO versus XGRO because TGRO, unlike any other GRO ETF, uses 10% bond allocation and not 20%. This gooses its return a bit, at the cost of additional volatility. Otherwise, it’s a case of tomato/tomahto. Pick one, or pick them all, it doesn’t matter much.

Top ranked post of 2025: Mini-Review of Optiml.ca

Mini-Review: Optiml.ca

This was, as the title implied, a quick review of a made-in-Canada tool to help craft a retirement plan. And again, my DIY neighbour gave me a heads-up about it4. It got a lot of interest, probably because the kind folks at Optiml linked to my review from their website ;-). I was impressed by the completeness of the tool during my test drive, and it seems like a good and fairly priced way for a DIYer to do some validation of their retirement plan. Having validation of my plan was one of the ways I knew I could retire.

Looking forward to seeing what the 2026 list might look like! Got a topic or question? Send it along to comments@moneyengineer.ca, or comment below!

  1. RRIF minimum withdrawals are never subject to spousal attribution ↩︎
  2. Courtesy Pexels free photos, built into WordPress’ editor. ↩︎
  3. iShares, TD, BMO, Vanguard, Global X…. ↩︎
  4. Thinking he should write his own blog, maybe. ↩︎

Isn’t Yield Important in Retirement?

RobH3 Comments

I had an email from a reader this week (via comments@moneyengineer.ca, I read all the email I get) who was curious about the yield of my retirement portfolio. It occurred to me I haven’t really talked much about this topic, so thanks for the inspiration 🙂

A very common approach for retirement investing is to build a portfolio based on high-quality dividend-paying companies. The best example I can think of is the long-standing “Yield Hog” portfolio written about by the Globe and Mail’s John Heinzl. He updated readers at the end of 2025.

So, using the ETF fact sheets1 and my current holdings, I give you the overall yield2 of my retirement portfolio:

    So the overall yield is just a little north of 2%. For a divided investor, this would seem alarmingly tiny.

    If building an income stream from this portfolio was your objective, you’d either have to have a lot of capital, or very modest income needs, as this portfolio is only generating about $20k in dividends for every $1M invested.

    For me, I’m perfectly happy to dip into capital (i.e. sell ETF units) to fund my retirement. The overall growth of the portfolio is my only consideration, and whether that is in the form of dividends (which, in my portfolio, are always reinvested3) or capital appreciation (i.e. the price of the ETF increases) is irrelevant to me.

    Is it possible to build a dividend-focused portfolio just based on ETFs? Sure. But here I do offer a word of caution. The ETF providers out there have learned how to structure products with spectacular-looking yields that either use leverage (and are hence inherently more risky) or boost their yields by using RoC and giving you back some of your own money. So looking at yield numbers alone without understanding what’s inside the ETF is not a good idea. I took a look at one reasonable product (ZGRO.T) in a previous article.

    The Globe has been my go-to trusted source for such things for a long time; they have annually updated ETF lists in various categories, including dividend ETFs. One that jumps out for me on this list due to its very low cost to own4 (which is something I’m a bit fanatical about, admittedly) is XDIV.

    XDIV’s current yield is 3.93%, and holds large Canadian companies like TD, Royal Bank, Manulife, Sun Life, Suncor Energy, Power Corp…In total it holds only 21 companies, with never more than 10% invested in any one company5.

    Just for fun, I did a head-to-head comparison of XDIV versus XEQT using this calculator that is featured in Tools I Use. I chose XEQT even though it’s a smaller portion of my portfolio than XGRO, but is a better stand-in since XGRO holds bonds.

    So here it’s practically a tie. If you reinvested all the dividends for both ETFs, XEQT would have generated about $300 more on an initial investment of $10000 in August 2019.

    But is that really a good comparison? XEQT and XDIV are pretty different:

    • XEQT adds extra fees because it rebalances automatically between its different geographical holdings
    • XEQT invests globally; XDIV is limited to Canada only.

    What if I instead chose to compare the Canadian portion of XEQT to XDIV? (I broke down what’s inside these all-in-ones in a previous article: Under the hood of XEQT et al). XEQT’s Canadian portion is XIC, an ETF that tracks the entire TSX (219 stocks), so let’s run the numbers again over the same time period:

    Here the gap is more noticeable: XIC outperforms by about $1200 in the same time period, assuming all dividends are reinvested. Now, of course, you can see that sometimes XDIV was ahead during this period. I cranked up the timeframe to as far back as I could to see what the results were:

    Adding two more years of retrospective increased the gap by another $800, which is about a 1% per year return advantage to XIC.

    Now of course, you could find counter examples I suppose. But if capital preservation isn’t a concern6, then these results tell me that dividends needn’t be a concern in retirement. Even with my anemic yield stats, my net worth increased in 2025 even accounting for getting paid every month (chart from my latest What’s in My Retirement Portfolio):

    Every month, I sell XGRO shares to fund my RRIF payments. Every month, I sell some non-registered assets to cover the rest of my salary. The TFSA gets a monthly contribution. Selling shares isn’t bad — as long as those that remain keep growing, I can keep spending7!

    1. TEQT isn’t publishing a yield, so I made an attempt to calculate it based on the Dec 31 distribution. This seems a bit lazy on TD’s part: I get that it’s a new ETF, and 12 months of data isn’t available yet, so you can’t show a trailing yield, but you CAN show the forward looking yield based on the most recent distribution. Banks. Sigh. ↩︎
    2. A weighted average. You may wonder about HXS/HXDM — these are “corporate class” ETFs that by design do not make distributions and instead use accounting tricks to bury that growth inside the ETF price. It’s something I use in my non-registered accounts. ↩︎
    3. Either automatically via DRIP or through my own purchases; it’s a bit of a mix at the moment. ↩︎
    4. A MER of 0.11%, a bargain for this sort of ETF. ↩︎
    5. Otherwise, its tracking index (MSCI Canada High Dividend Yield 10% Security Capped Index) has a TERRIBLE name. ↩︎
    6. For me, it isn’t. I’m not looking to leave a large estate. Die with zero! ↩︎
    7. And if they shrink, so does my spending. That’s the VPW way. ↩︎

    XEQT, TEQT, VEQT, ZEQT, HEQT Fee Showdown

    RobHLeave a comment

    Summary: Although iShares(XEQT/XGRO) and Vanguard(VEQT/VGRO) get all the love, the all-in-ones from BMO and TD are actually the current winners in the “lowest all-in-one fee award”. Given how similar they are to their competitors, I see no reason not to park money there.

    I’m a fan of all-in-one1 ETFs in my retirement portfolio. If you’re new to the world of all-in-ones, you might want to start here. There’s at least five competing families of products out there, courtesy of iShares (XEQT, XGRO, XBAL et al), TD (TEQT, TGRO, TBAL et al), Vanguard(VEQT, VGRO, VBAL et al) BMO(ZEQT, ZGRO, ZBAL et al) and GlobalX2 (HEQT, HGRO, HBAL et al). We’ve taken a look at some of them “under the hood”, so to speak, but didn’t really find super-significant differences.

    One facet I haven’t looked at yet is the fees each of these companies charge. As I’ve shown elsewhere, small differences can add up if you have significant investments or are holding them for a significant time.

    With the news that iShares is reducing their management fees, (BMO did earlier this year) I figured it was time to do a head-to-head fee comparison for the four major families.

    Here you have it:

    CompanyRelevant TickersManagement Fee3
    iSharesXEQT, XGRO, XBAL et al0.17%, effective Dec 18, 2025
    VanguardVEQT, VGRO, VBAL et al0.17%
    TDTEQT, TGRO,TBAL et al0.15%
    BMOZEQT, ZGRO, ZBAL et al0.15%
    Global XHEQT, HGRO, HBAL et al0.18%

    TD and BMO are the low fee winners at the moment, but the gap has narrowed significantly from earlier in the year. I like low fees, and so I’ve started to invest in these families.

    1. Technically called “asset allocation” ETFs, which is good, since asset allocation is how I view my own portfolio. ↩︎
    2. Formerly known as Horizons, which explains the stock tickers used here. ↩︎
    3. Most of the time I use MER (Management Expense Ratio) to report on fees, but since a few of these companies have lowered their Management fees this year, and since MER is only calculated annually, the MER values only become relevant again on Jan 1. They are a few basis points higher than the management fee, but just a few. Most of the cost is buried in the management fee. ↩︎

    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 ↩︎