GIC Wealth Management Broker Rates | Page 7 | GIC discussions | Discussion forum

savemoresaveoften said
Just to chime in quickly on prefs, as long as one is not sensitive to the price volatility (as in no panic sell or sell for whatever reason), prefs is not a bad ‘fixed income’ product. Even for the rate reset prefs, their min dividend is usually at least 3-4% given they reset at spread over 5y, so holding it long term they actually beat a GIC esp with the dividend tax credit.
The best prefs were the min rate reset that were issued a few years back and yielding 5-6%, all those are being called now.

That is the way I treated them - in fact I considered them similar to (but better than) an annuity since I have received over many years regular quarterly tax advantaged dividends (average 4% to 6%) but living with the ups and down of the principal but the principal eventually comes back if, as you say, you don't panic and sell.
You are correct in that the min rate reset were superior. They were issued by quality issuers like Banks and paid superior dividends and got redeemed at full cost. They were conservative and worked well for the fixed income part of one's portfolio.
Anyways, back to GICs - I am waiting to see if there are any new posts today that someone has found great new higher GIC rates and is posting such.

1 year 2.63%*
18 month 2.55%*
2 year 2.78%*
30 month 2.75%*
3 year 2.83%*
4 year 3.10%**
5 year 3.20%*
* Minimum Investment $25,000
** Minimum Investment $50,000
*** Minimum Investment $100,000

GIC Wealth now shows a 5 yr at 5% as well as some other updated rates

1 year 4.23%***
18 month 4.35%***
2 year 4.42%*
30 month 4.44%***
3 year 4.46%*
4 year 4.64%*
5 year 5.00%*

The minimums at GICWealth often change very frequently, but never below 25K in my experience. The issuers can also change from day to day, which may affect the rates.

Oaken is fine for some things, and GICWealth is good for others, such as when you've maxed out your insurance at Oaken. It's also good for accessing more obscure FIs that you might not otherwise be able to use.

"GIC Wealth Management is only interested in dealing with the big shots!"

A financial planner at one of the big banks once told me she spends (waste?) more time with a client who has $5,000 in assets than with clients with $500,000 in assets.

COIN said

A financial planner at one of the big banks once told me she spends (waste?) more time with a client who has $5,000 in assets than with clients with $500,000 in assets.  

I can believe that! But I'll shed no tears.
I think it's really marketing time. The hope is that the person with only 5K will morph into a wealthier person over time and will keep coming back to that bank. It must work because those banks make a heck of a lot of money and they don't turn away the smaller clients.
With the profits they make from wealthier folks, it probably works out fine for the bank on average.

Right. But COIN said it was a "financial planner". Those people who sell the mutual funds to the $5K candidates are not financial planners; they are sales agents. They are now obliged to call themselves what they are, so their business cards now make it clearer.
Naturally they promote in-house mutual funds such as PH&N at RBC. They can sell them directly without brokerage.
If that 5K starts to lose money and the client comes in to try to sell it, the sales agent will do everything in their power to prevent this from happening. (I've seen this at close range.) Eventually , they hope to be able to hand this client over to the brokerage side, so, like I said it's marketing - and retention - probably a good investment for the bank if the majority can be convinced to stay in the game and keep adding new savings to the account. So, whining about how much time these clients take up per dollar is just that, personal bellyaching, not a measure of their value to the bank. The bank will always need new people and their new money in order to grow and make more money.

why would someone with only $5k to invest hire a financial planner ? Thats the worst decision that person ever make.
Anyone with less than at least $100k investable asset should not "pay someone" to invest for him/her. Stick to ETFs and blue chip and guarantee will come out ahead over the years. Cumulative advisor / mutual fund fees over time are a portfolio's biggest enemy, not the market downturn.

canadian.100 said

people are either clueless or disinterested (I know several)

yup, I know a few that complains about long hours at work, job sucks etc. Yet happy to spend $$$ a year on advisor fees and whats not.
To me that makes no sense when the person is "suffering" at work to earn $$, and then so easily "give it away" just for being lazy or not interested... sigh

The broker can assign some of the customary ¼%-per-year GIC commission to the client to give client a higher yield.

Broker may be inclined to do so for larger purchases but not smaller ones.