We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
In my 2017 paper, Asset Location and Uncertainty, I demonstrated that the failure to accurately predict future returns can quickly make an ex ante optimal asset location strategy ex post sub-optimal. That paper focused on the value-added from optimal asset location through the lens of pre-tax asset allocation. I focused on pre-tax asset allocation because that is how most practitioner literature approaches the topic.
The problem with comparing various asset location strategies through the lens of pre-tax asset allocation is that it provides a poor framework for comparing expected investment outcomes. Two portfolios with the same pre-tax asset allocation can have materially different risk-return characteristics. This is the most important point to be made in this paper.
For example, assuming a 50% tax rate, take a $600,000 taxable account and a $400,000 RRSP with the RRSP full of bonds and the taxable account full of stocks. This portfolio has a pre-tax asset allocation of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, but it has an after-tax asset allocation of 75% stocks and 25% bonds. It is important to recognize that the after-tax asset allocation is measuring the allocation of the capital that you own. The pre-tax asset allocation is skewed by the government’s capital – your future tax bill. While counterintuitive to consider, the after-tax asset allocation is the driver of your expected outcome.
If we optimize asset location for a given pre-tax asset allocation, our optimization will always lead us to hold bonds in the RRSP account, leading to a more aggressive after-tax asset allocation, which drives higher expected returns. The problem with this approach is that we are not comparing apples to apples; a more aggressive portfolio is not necessarily a more tax efficient portfolio. We will examine this issue with examples throughout this paper.
