The Canadian Investor - Why Chasing High Yielding Dividend Stocks Rarely Pays Off

Episode Date: September 15, 2025

In this episode, we go over yield traps and why abnormally high dividends often signal business stress rather than easy income. We walk through how falling share prices inflate trailing yields, why payout ratios and free cash flow coverage matter, how special dividends can skew TTM yields, and when sector “norms” turn into red flags.  To make things easier to spot, we do a sector by sector overview of what is considered a normal yield and what is considered a high and likely unsustainable dividend yield. Tickers of stocks/ETFs discussed:UPS, FDX, BCE.TO, T.TO, T , VZ, DIS, NFLX, WBD, FOXA, NWSA, GOOGL, CNR.TO , TFII.TO, PFE, LLY, IBM, AQN.TO, FTS.TO, IFC.TO, SU.TO, CNQ.TO, XOM, FNV.TO, WPM.TO, TOU.TO, AP.UN.TO, MMM, QQQ, QYLD. Check out our portfolio by going to Jointci.com Our Website Our New Youtube Channel! Canadian Investor Podcast Network Twitter: @cdn_investing Simon’s twitter: @Fiat_Iceberg Braden’s twitter: @BradoCapital Dan’s Twitter: @stocktrades_ca Want to learn more about Real Estate Investing? Check out the Canadian Real Estate Investor Podcast! Apple Podcast - The Canadian Real Estate Investor  Spotify - The Canadian Real Estate Investor  Web player - The Canadian Real Estate Investor Asset Allocation ETFs | BMO Global Asset Management Sign up for Fiscal.ai for free to get easy access to global stock coverage and powerful AI investing tools. Register for EQ Bank, the seamless digital banking experience with better rates and no nonsense.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this kind of market, I like having some cash on the sidelines. It gives me the flexibility to jump on opportunities when the right stock goes on sale. But just because the cash is waiting, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be working for me. That's why I use EQ Bank. They offer some of the best interest rate among Canadian banks, so my money is still earning while I wait. You can even get a boosted rate by setting up direct deposit for your payroll and depositing $2,000 or more per month into your EQ Bank account.

account. Your cash stays liquid and ready to go when it's time to invest. And if you're not in a rush to access your funds, EQBanks noticed savings accounts and GICs are great ways to grow your returns even more. It's a smarter way to park your cash. Visit EQBank.ca to learn more and keep your money earning even while you wait. Investing is simple, but don't confuse that with thinking it's easy. is not just a ticker. At the end of the day, you have to remember that it's a business. Just my reminder to people who own cyclicals, don't be surprised when there's a cycle. If there's uncertainty in the markets, there's going to be some great opportunities for investors. This has to be one of the biggest quarters I've seen from this company in quite some time.

Welcome back to the Canadian investor podcast. I'm Simone Belange. I'm here with Dan Kent. We are back for another regular episode for this one, so where we talk about concepts, stocks on a radar, something like that. Today we'll talk a little bit more on the concept side. We'll talk about dividend stocks, but more about yield traps, so high yielding dividend stocks or dividend ETFs and what to keep an eye out for, especially for newer investors, but sometimes also more experienced ones that will do some value, deep value investors. in some of those stocks, so some of the things to just be careful with because I think we all know that dividend and getting paid while waiting is definitely enticing, but you have to, you have to be careful because those high yields oftentimes, there's a reason where there's a high yield and it's usually a warning sign from the market. Yeah, and I think like right now with the way

it's going, especially with some like cyclical options as the yields are are getting much higher. like I think right off the top of my head I can think of a company like UPS which is I think it's yielding almost 8% right now which I mean to to some people that yield in isolation can be kind of attractive but you definitely have to dig into the into the underlying business I'm not mentioning anything about like UPS like I don't don't know if it's a poor quality company or anything but it's just a stock that has gone from a reasonable yield to you know an abnormally high yield because of a 60% drop and share. price. And a lot of these companies that get to these yields, that tends to be the situation. And it's pretty important you kind of cover the business first and then yield second. Well, there's a wide variety of things, but yield should come after quality research for sure. Yeah, exactly. And I mean, some dividend investors, if that's what you invest in and you really just want to stick to dividend stocks, that's fine. You can screen on dividend yield. That's okay. but there are other things that you should be looking at and making sure, and like you said,

making sure there's a good business underlying business and also that the dividend is actually sustainable. So let's start with just talking about yield traps. What is a yield trap? A yield trap is a stock that pays typically an unusually high dividend yield. So you'll be able to notice what a yield trap is pretty. If you have some experience and you see an extremely high dividend yield. there's a high chance that it's going to be a dividend trap or a yield trap. The high yield will typically be because of a falling stock price and the more the stock price falls, the higher the yield rises since the yield is determined by using the annual dividend payout per share divided by the share price.

So if the payout stays the same but the share price goes down, then clearly the yield will go up and typically you'll see those dividend yields being on trailing 12-month basis. So the actual dividend, obviously the stock price is quoted daily or every minute, every second when the market's open. But the actual dividend payout will be the dividend that was paid per share over the trailing 12 months. So you have to be careful because it's possible there's a couple of different elements here, but it's really important to understand that because I've seen a lot of newer investors that will see like, oh, 10%, 15% dividend. and, oh, I have $100,000 if I invest all my money, my $100K in this 20% yielding stock or ETF, I'm going to have $20,000 in income per year.

And it gets a little more, quite more complicated than that doesn't have to be super complicated, but that is a mistake that I've seen time and time again, especially newer investors make, and it can really cost you a whole lot of money. because getting a, even if you continue getting the dividend of 20% if the assets of the stock or the ETF goes down 50% in price while you're looking at some pretty significant losses at that point. Yeah, I do see that a lot like say a market returning yield. You'll hear a lot of people say, you know, if you can get a 6% to 8% dividend yield. But the thing is, the yield is not total return. I mean, buying a high-yielding asset that just kind of consistently declines in price

is not really getting you all that ahead. I mean, what did, I believe BCE was upwards of 10 or 11 percent, I think, before they cut the dividend. And again, like, that's on a trailing basis. And I mean, what that is telling you is the market does not expect that dividend to be maintained. I mean, they were pricing in. The market is generally efficient at pricing a lot of companies. So if you see a company that, you know, historically yields 45%, but is now yielding 10%. It's a sign that they either think the business is going to continue to struggle moving forward or that dividend will be cut. And usually it's kind of, if the dividend does get cut, it's kind of a result of both. Yeah, exactly. And you have to also, another thing I forgot to

mention is you have to be careful because looking at the trailing 12 months, most sites will include special dividends. So the yield could be misleading. So you could be thinking it's actually a dividend yield trap when in fact it really isn't. If you look at the dividend closer, maybe the company was just firing on all cylinders and the management teams said, you know what, we'll just issue a special dividend and that dividend will actually boost the trailing 12-month dividend yield without the company necessarily being a bad company or having a sustainable dividend payment, it might actually be quite sustainable because they posted that special dividend. So you have to make sure you actually look at the dividend as well.

I think that's a second thing. But like you alluded to, a high yield will typically be a warning sign from the markets. And look, the market's not always right, but most of the time, the vast majority of of the time is right. And it could be the market that's saying, look, we don't think this company can continue paying this dividend for much longer, even if the business is still doing, okay, you mentioned BC, it's not like BC was going out of business anytime soon. Like, they still have a decent business.

Like, they're not, the revenues were flat, but it's not like the revenues were dropping 15, 20% every single year. It was, BC, it was more of a case. The dividend yield was high because it would, it could, you could, you could. just not cover it with the free cash flow that they were generating. So they were paying more than that in dividend. And that's why we were pretty vocal. I think we were quite early on it. And then a lot of mainstream media kind of picked up on it as it was more and more evident. But for us, I think a year and a half before end, we're just basically saying like, look,

this is not sustainable. Like this will have to be cut at some point. And the other reason could be that, look, there is some major issues with the business itself and the market things that the dividend cut or even worse, the company will need to completely eliminate the dividend, which would be the worst nightmare of dividend investors. So you have to really understand what's happening because, again, it's usually a warning of the market telling you that something's not right here. And you can compare that to itself historically or another way to compare as all, well, I think I would do both personally, so I would compare with its own self historically, but I would also compare with its peers. And saying that the company has never

cut the dividend over 100 years or they've been paying it for 40, 50 years is not a good argument, is essentially putting your head in the sand and trying to just disregard all of the signs are happening right now, because what happened 40 years likely doesn't matter much to the business that it is today and going forward in the future. Yeah, I mean, we've seen that a lot with telecom companies, not only just BCE, but AT&T as well. Like kind of post-financial crisis, you know, money was fairly cheap. These telecom companies did fairly well because debt was cheap. And then why they did very well during COVID too, like when they drop interest rates to

effectively nothing. The telecoms did very well. But then we came in with that, you know, what do we have, 9% inflation for almost a year. raised interest rates, I mean, dramatically. And, you know, a lot of it, a lot of the issues with BCE was interest expenses. Like, what did they, they like more than doubled? Kind of buried the company. And like in certain instances, companies can pay out more than they earned. But it can only be for, you know, there's only a limited amount of time you can do that and hope kind of the forward environment improves before it ultimately catches up to you. And in that situation, they kind of

had no choice but to cut it because, you know, the business is only growing at a one to two percent pace and the dividend is unsustainable. I mean, there's ultimately not going to be any room to move. You're going to have to cut it. Whereas, you know, a company that gets into a bit of short-term troubles and is paying out more than they earn, but they're expected to, you know, kind of make up that difference over the, over the next few years. I mean, the dividend can look unsustainable, but the forward outlook kind of improves in that regard. I mean, one situation I can think of in that in that regard is maybe TELUS. They kind of hovered around that, you know, 100, 110% free cash flow payout ratio.

And now it's kind of normalized because the environment improved quite a bit. I mean, it's still kind of teetering on the edge there. But I don't see a dividend cut on their front. But B.C. was kind of in a much different situation. And that's why you also saw that BCE yield much higher than TELUS. Yeah, exactly. Do you keep hearing about these all-on-one ETFs lately? Well, I have some exciting news.

BMO ETFs just cut the fees on their flagship all-in-one ETFs to 0.15%, making them one of the lowest cost options in Canada. That's right, more value, same smart diversification, all in a single ETF. Whether you're just starting out or simplifying your portfolio, BMO all-in-one ETFs make it easy to invest with confidence. Just Z-It and forget it, considering ETFs like Z-E-Q-T, B-M-O's all- Equity E-T-F, or Z-G-R-O, B-M-O's growth ETF. Calling all DIY-D-Y, do-yourself investors, Blossom is an essential app for you.

It has been blowing up with now more than 50,000 Canadians plus and growing who are using the app. Every time I go on there, I am shocked. The engagement is amazing. This is a really vibrant community that they're building. And people share their portfolios, their trades, their investment ideas in real time. And it's all built on the concept of transparency because brokerage accounts are linked. And then once you link your brokerage account, you can get in-depth portfolio insights, track your dividends. And there's other stuff like learning duolingo style education lessons that are completely free.

You can search up Blossom social in the app store and join the community today. I'm on there. I encourage you go on there and follow me. Search me up. Some of the YouTubers and influencers and podcasters that you might know, I bet you they're already on there. People are just on there talking, sharing their investment ideas and using the analytics tools. So go ahead. Blossom social in the app store and I'll see you there. We didn't prepare this part, but you mentioned UPS. So United States, a United Parcel Service. It's not USPS, of course. And let's just do a quick analysis. So I haven't been following UPS all that closely, but let's just look at it from a numbers perspective.

Let's not, look, we haven't listened to all the calls and stuff like that. So the first thing with UPS that I notice is for a joint TCI subscribers, you'll notice here that first revenues kind of peaked right around the end of the pandemic. So 2022 revenue peaks at around $100 billion per year. And then ever since it's been the last three years and the trailing 12 months, it's essentially been flat, but it declined at $90 billion. So it went from $100 to $90 billion and then has been essentially flat for the last few years. And then when you remove the revenues and then you start looking at free cash flow and also common the dividends that are paid annually. So that's just the dividends that are paid to shareholders. So you just compare both.

So the first thing I'm sure you notice and I notice is that first free cash flow has dropped off a cliff. So they were generating close to 10 billion, even upwards of 11 billion in free cash flow in 2020 and then 2021 close to 10 billion, a bit less. And they were paying a dividend that was around 3.4 billion. So you don't need to be a mathematician to be able to figure out that the dividend was pretty sustainable. They're paying out 3.4 billion and they're generating 9.7. in free cash flow. So that's a payout ratio of roughly 33% or so. Then you start looking at 22, 23, 24, the last 12 months. What you start noticing is they increased the dividend pretty massively. So now they pay over $5 billion in dividend. But the problem is that free cash flow has

fallen to about between $5 and $6 billion. So that is a warning sign right there. Without knowing the full state of the business. I'm looking at these numbers and there's all kinds of alarm bells that go off and I'm starting at to look at that and then I see the dividend yield that is 8%. And I'm like, okay, I'm starting to piece the pieces together and I'm seeing a lot of warning signs and also the market saying that, you know, the market probably agrees with my assessment even though it was just a couple minutes here looking at numbers. Yeah, I mean, this, I don't follow UPS that much, but this looks like really bad timing, I guess, in regards to the dividend. Like, it looks like in February of 2021, they paid around a dollar a share.

And then at the end of 2021, they jacked the dividend like 50%, which is where you see that huge spike in common dividends paid. And then Freecastle dropped by 15. Yeah. And then we, you know, just so happen to hit rapid inflation and like the largest freight recession we've seen in a very long time. And now, yeah, like this, and this is a situation where they're probably going to do all they can to not cut the dividend because if the freight environment improves, it could probably get to the point where it's covered again. But if you get an extended period of time where it's a continually rough environment, I mean, they're not going to have much of a choice but to cut it. And this was a very similar situation to Bell. Yeah.

So it's just an easy example, but just goes to show that. just seeing that high yield and I can say with a strong degree of confidence that an 8% yield on a transportation or logistics company, whatever you want to call UPS, I can tell you now that that is in very alarming territory. That's not normal. You know, these companies, I don't know what like FedEx is yielding right now. We can check, obviously. It's one of, you know, the easiest competitor that comes to mind. So you look at the competitor here at FedEx is yielding. 2.5%. So I think right there, you look at these two things and you don't have to be an expert in this. And I would have said probably to like one and a half to 4% was probably going to be a normal range here for a company in this space. For me, just seeing the 8% would have been alarm bells. And clearly you can just look at a competitor and say, okay, you know what? It probably is. So it's just an easy example. We didn't prepare it. It's not like we follow these companies. like very closely. I mean, obviously I know FedEx, you know, you PS, but it just wanted to highlight

that it's usually the market telling you something here. And as a general rule, I don't know about you, but I just avoid high yielding stocks. If I see that, I'll very rarely invest in with them, in them. The last time I invested in high yielders was Allied properties REIT. And my investment started around 8%. I added a little bit more around 8.59%. And that's high even for a read, but it's probably like, it's definitely not as alarming than 8% for a company like UPS. So I'll just mention that. Yeah, because reads will typically, like, for a read, it's quite normal to see a range of like four to, you know, six, seven percent. Like, that's not out of whack. So the yield in itself when I invested in the Allied wasn't alarming. I had done my research, of course. I looked at tons of

metrics, adjusted funds from operation, funds from operation. I looked the occupancy rate on and on. And so I did a I did tons of research and I had a premise that it's an office real estate reed and I just thought that things would be turning around and more and more people would need office space and companies would use companies like would rent from a company like Allied because they wanted very nice office space to attract their employees to the office. I was wrong. Clearly it didn't pan out. Things started getting worse.

In the end, I can't recall exactly, but I lost about 15, 20% if I include the dividends that I got in the return. But it just goes to show that you have to be careful when it's a high yielder. Obviously, Allied was probably more of a borderline high yielder here. but my way of investing is typically I will avoid these companies unless I have a very good reason to think that the market is missing the mark and I think it's a very strong value play. Yeah, and I think like we had mentioned, like the market is fairly consistent at kind of pricing in potential troubles

and back when Allied was trading at this amount, like it would have been considered probably a pretty reasonable contrarian play because the market was pricing in, I mean, they were pricing in the situation we see right now effectively. The market, the market was right. Payout ratios are, I think allied is really, really close to 100%. I mean, they're teetering on the edge of a dividend cut at this point in time. So, I mean, these high yielders for the vast majority of the time,

especially when the yield is much higher than the company typically pays out, it is a sign that, you know, there's some operational difficulties there, and the market is generally right. In the case of UPS, it kind of highlights how important dividend policy is as well, because, I mean, they crank, their UPS, unless like something else happened here, but like the 50% jump in dividend, like if that doesn't happen, the coverage ratios probably aren't that tight right now. And the company's probably yielding a similar range as FedEx or a similar range as like a TFI. But I mean, one bad situation from management when it comes to dividends or, or. buybacks can really kind of tank a company. We've seen that with Suncor during COVID. They ended up buying back a ton of shares in 2019 and 2020. And then, you know, the pandemic hit, which is

ultimately not their fault, but they didn't have enough money to pay the dividend and they had to cut it. So policy is is very important as well. In terms of, go ahead. That's why I'm a big fan of special dividends, especially when you have a situation or company benefiting from something that has a good chance of being a bit more cyclical or more temporary. And I think obviously hindsight is 2020 with UPS and people were clearly using their services a lot because of the pandemic. But when you see situations like that, if I, like if I'm a company, why wouldn't I just not pay a special dividend? If I have a whole lot of cash, I'll pay a special dividend this year and I'll reevaluate like next year and the year after. And you know what? If this is really sustainable,

longer term, then sure, then I'll start increasing the dividend more gradually. You don't get yourself in this situation where, well, first of all, the dividend is never a guarantee, but companies when they start doing a regular dividend, they oftentimes are very reluctant to cut it, whereas the special dividend just tells your shareholder, look, this is a special dividend, it may or may not happen again, you know, take it as it is, a one-time thing, and then we'll reevaluate next year. So I do like management teams that will do that. especially with cyclical companies, and clearly UPS would be a cyclical company as well. Yeah, we see that with Tourmaline.

Like they pay a very small base dividend, and then the rest is special issuance. It's like it kind of looks like a situation where, you know, UPS was generating a ton of free cash flow. The stock was probably expensive, so again, they just, they ticked up the dividend and they got in a bit of trouble. But in terms of high yielders, like I don't generally, I don't own a lot of them. I know I owned one, I don't own it anymore. I sold it. It was Alaris equity partners, but that is a company that's kind of structured to pay out that yield. Like just like a quick explanation, they effectively take distributions from medium-sized businesses in the U.S.

And they provide financing to them. So the sole purpose of that company is to collect income and pay it back to shareholders. So I think when you get in that situation, like, You need to understand the business. Some of them are structured. I mean, when you say REITs, I mean, they have to pay back that amount. So you'll typically get higher yielders in that space. But there are some companies in particular that are structured and their strategy is to provide a higher yield.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, which is why I think comparing to something like historical averages is, you know, kind of an indication that, you know, there could be some issues. And I know a lot of people kind of screen for higher. dividend yields relative to historical averages as like a sign of value, which in some cases it could be, but in some cases there could be a change in the overall business. Yeah, exactly. And if you're going to take a stab at a high yielding stock, here's I think what you should be doing. So first, you want to make sure management has a plan when it comes to the dividend and the business. You want to make sure that you size your allocation appropriately. Don't think that it's save because you're getting a 10% dividend yield. If anything, it's probably even more dangerous

because you're getting a high yield. But you want to size your allocation appropriately. And unfortunately, our great sponsor blossom. I think, you know, they've been a great sponsor for us, but sometimes I go on their platform. And there's a lot of good content, but you see a lot of stuff where I just close my eyes and just shake my head because it's pretty crazy. Where people literally, like I remember, I think you had flagged this to me a while back was essentially someone in their TFSA, they had like 100 grand, and they were putting everything in like covered call ETFs and generating like 15, 20 percent yield per year. I mean, 30. That is, yeah, that is extremely risky. Like you said 30. Okay, it was worse. But anyway, so that's really risky because they're

clearly putting everything in, even if it's a few different ETFs, they're still like, super levered in terms of ETFs typically to be able to generate that kind of yield. It's very risky and they end up putting their eggs all in the same basket. So the position sizing is all out of whack there. And then they probably fool themselves and thinking, oh, they own a bunch of companies within that ETF, but not realizing that the way the ETF is structure is super risky to generate that yield. And that's just an aside. And we'll touch a bit more on high yielding ETFs later. And you want to make sure you look at the payout ratio to better understand if the dividend is sustainable or not. So we did this quick exercise with UPS. I can tell you right

now if things continue like that, the dividend is not sustainable because it's barely covered. They're probably a 90-something percent payout ratio. And if it's not, you still like it as a turnaround play, then you have to, if the dividend's not sustainable, but you still like the company as a turnaround plate, then just make sure you incorporate that in your investment thesis. If you look at the payout ratio and you examine the business and you're like, you know what, there is a decent chance that divin it gets cut. Well, if it's yielding 10% right now, make sure you don't do your forecast with a 10% dividend, like cut it by half, cut it by 60%, 70% so that your investment thesis takes that into account. Be aware of the various outcomes for the stock

and assign some probabilities for each. We've talked about that before, but I would recommend being very conservative in your assessment if you're going to deep value hunting with these high dividend yielder. I would recommend building an extremely bearish case, so kind of a worst case scenario, which will probably be the thing going maybe not to zero,

but down significantly a bearish case, a base case, and then a bulk case. Notice how I put two more pessimistic outcomes, I think that's more of a protection for yourself if you're going to invest in those kind of companies is that you may as well put a higher probability outcome on the worst probabilities and then on the worst outcomes.

And then if the investment still makes sense despite that, then it may make some sense. You want to research the company thoroughly. You're really kind of going in, you know, the Warren Buffett quote, like what, taking a puff out of a cigar, like a few last puffs out of remaining cigar butt or whatever it is like you're really going deep value hunting so you want to make sure you do not leave any stones unturned here and you have to

stay on top of an investment like whenever you whether it's a high yielder or now whenever you're going to deep value you have to stay on top of these businesses like you have to i would say keep track of all the news coming out. You don't miss any quarterly results. You don't miss any conference calls, any investor presentation. These are the kind of companies that you cannot like put on autopilot. Like you literally have to really stay on top because things can change quickly for the better, but mostly for the worse. So that's how I would approach it. But again, it's not something that I really typically invest in. Well, yeah, and there's a lot of situations where I mean, obviously the market will price the dividend cut in well in advance.

And you'll actually get, I mean, after the dividend is cut, you'll, you'll typically get kind of a spurt of good performance. Yeah. I mean, because, you know, a lot of people, the theory of these high-yielding stocks is they're like, oh, if they cut the dividend, the stock price will tank. And the market's going to recognize the dividend is unsustainable well in advance. The stock price will typically tank well before it's cut. And then when they cut it, it's kind of, you know, and they have. have more capital. If the business is sustainable, though.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would say I would probably put that caveat because B.C's, and I think it's gone up a little bit since, but if you see them cutting, and I think one that comes to mine in a long time, it was like chorus entertainment. Yeah. They're not doing too well. No, they're not. But I remember pre-pandemic, I think they cut it and the business just continued going

downhill. So it never really, it just never recovered, just continued going downhill. So I would probably put that caveat if, yeah, if the business is sustainable. Yeah, it's not, it's definitely not every company. But if you look to something like AT&T, they cut the dividend, they've done, well, I mean, they didn't cut the dividend, but they did like this weird spin out. And then it was effectively a dividend cut that they kind of tried to mask among other things, but it's done quite well.

3M cut the dividend. They've kind of come back, BCE. I think they're up like 16 or 17% since the dividend cut. a dividend cut again it's not you know the news of cutting the dividend i don't think you know unless it's like a real big surprise but again for something like those companies it was well known in advance it was it was kind of unsustainable and i mean for those companies as well is really the only lagging factor for a lot of them was the fact that that dividend was unsustainable i mean bc was going through some of its issues of its own but most of those issues were because it

didn't have the cash to pay down debt kind of shore up the balance that balance sheet. So the dividend cut was a perfect situation that, you know, they can get back on track. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Do you keep hearing about these all-on-one ETFs lately? Well, I have some exciting news. BMO ETFs just cut the fees on their flagship all-in-one ETFs to 0.15%, making them one of the lowest cost options in Canada. That's right. More value, same smart diversification, all in a single ETF. Whether you're just starting out or simplifying your portfolio, BMO all in one ETFs make it easy to invest with confidence. Just ZD it and forget it. Considering

ETFs like ZEQT, BMO's all equity ETF, or ZGRO, BMO's growth ETF. Calling all DIY, do-it-yourself investors, Blossom is an essential app for you. It has been blowing up with now more than 50,000 Canadians plus and growing who are using the app. Every time I go on there, I am shocked. The engagement is amazing. This is a really vibrant community that they're building. And people share their portfolios, their trades, their investment ideas in real time. And it's all built on the concept of transparency because brokerage accounts are linked. And then once you link your brokerage account, you can get in-depth portfolio insights, track your dividends and there's other stuff like learning duolingo style education lessons that are

completely free you can search up blossom social in the app store and join the community today i'm on there i encourage you go on there and follow me search me up some of the YouTubers and influencers and podcasters that you might know i bet you they're already on there people are just on there talking sharing their investment ideas and using the analytics tools so go ahead blossom social in the app store and i'll see you there So what we'll do, we have a fun last segment to do in regards to this. So you'll go over a little bit more on the ETF side of things, probably for like 10, 15 minutes, just for people to understand that part of high yielding ETFs.

And then we'll finish off here with a fun little exercise. So I asked Chad GPT to tell me by sector what a typical yield would be for the sector and then kind of a plateau or let's say, a baseline where it starts being a bit of a yield trap warning. And we'll say whether we agree or not with Chad GPD in this assessment. So it should be fun and just goes to show that it's a good tool like we've talked before. But I think there are some spots where we agree and there's spots where we don't really agree with Chad GPD. So we'll finish out with that kind of a bit more rapid fire to close out the episode. So at least people can have a little bit more of a baseline and say, you know what,

But for tech companies, if they're yielding this high, it's a little bit of a warning sign. So if I like the business, I'll do even more research than I normally do because I'm seeing that warning sign here. Yeah, there was a few of them that I disagreed with. That should be a pretty interesting side of the episode. But you want to go over the ETF side first? Yeah, let's do the ETF side. And then we'll finish with that little rapid fire and see if we agree with not with Chad GPT. Yeah, so ETFs are, actually, I don't want to say a little harder to diagnose, they're much harder to diagnose, like on the yield trap front, because, you know, unlike a stock, which is pretty transparent, I mean, you have its dividend paid per share. You take the net income or the free cash flow generated and kind of compare it as to whether or not the dividend is safe. An ETF, in theory, can kind of pay out whatever it wants as a distribution. It's just kind of a pass-through vehicle for investors.

If it can't make up that distribution with dividends, capital gains, interest, it can simply dip into the assets and kind of pay, you know, some of that out. So the fund manager can kind of designate whatever yield it wants to. So it can have a set distribution of 12 percent, kind of built on the hopes and dreams. It's actually able to sustain that distribution. And if it can't, it can kind of make up that shortfall with a return of capital distribution, which is, you know, it's effectively. your money being taking out of the net assets of the fund and paid back to you. So this is kind of why headline yields for ETFs, especially ones that promise really high yields need to be investigated in depth. The only thing I would argue is that, you know,

kind of checking up on this with an ETF is much easier than a stock. They don't have a lot of the danger that an individual yield trap would have. I would guess in the case that if the dividend gets cut and the business continues to struggle, maybe the stock continues to do poor. It's more so of kind of a slow bleed, I guess you would say, in terms of them continually paying out a lot of return to capital and kind of declining, you know, that nav value of the unit. But for the most part, you will get your income, but it comes at a cost of your unit value because the unit value is effectively the ETF relative to the net asset value, the amount of ETF's outstanding. So if they're dipping into those assets to kind of sustain dividend payouts, your unit value is effectively. unit value will fall. It's kind of like, it's, it's a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation. I mean, you're taking from one area and paying it out to the next. So, and the other thing I would say is

I don't really want to give people the impression that return of capital is always a bad thing. For some funds, they kind of structure them to provide return of capital because it's a very tax efficient form of income. Effectively, when you, when you receive return of capital, the your adjust cost basis of the units goes down. And it's kind of a deferral. I don't want to get too in depth with it. But effectively, you can defer it now to kind of, you know, trade it for capital gain down the line. Yeah. You're basically trading being taxed on the dividend versus a capital gain tax. Yeah. Yeah. It's deferred down the line and then, yeah, ultimately when you sell the units, you, you would pay. But a lot of these funds can structure, especially when we

look to covered call funds, they can structure options premiums as a particular form of a return of capital so it's not always a bad thing it's it definitely needs to be investigated and it's really it's not a you know a big task to investigate but i mean you know you need to be digging into whether or not the fund providing that return of capital is doing so from a tax sufficient manner or you know it's it's a flawed distribution policy so when we look to things like covered call funds generally the more volatile the market the better this is because obviously the more volatile the market the higher the options premiums are going to be and they're selling these premiums and ultimately, you know, getting money from it.

And where these funds can kind of get into trouble is if the distribution is kind of at a set point and is expected to be paid by investors. So in this instance, you know, the fund might be forced to sell calls during poor times in an effort to get enough cash to pay the distribution. So you can always sell call options, but the payments you receive might not be optimal.

And in this instance, for them, when in order to sustain the distribution, they might kind of be handicapping your growth in that regard Because obviously when you're selling options premiums, like you're selling calls, you're kind of capping your upside in terms of share appreciation. So, you know, and one of the best examples here, you can do it with all different kinds of ETFs, right? You just compare covered call ETF with the, it's equivalent, the non-covered version. So this one, I mean, it's an easy example. So it's QQQQ, so the NASDAQ power shares, I think, yeah, the power share that can't remember the company.

But it's NASDAQ 100. and QILD, which is the NASDAQ 100, but covered call ETF. And if you look pretty much any time period, it's just covered call is completely trailed here. The regular NASDAQ, so I'm just looking here at the last, let's say, the last three years, just to make it a bit more recent. So you have the NASDAQQQQ up 92% for total return. So that includes the dividend or the distribution payment. And you have the covered call version at 39%.

So I know income investors will say, well, it's still cash in my pockets and all that stuff and blah, blah, blah. Well, you know, I like math. So the math tells me that it does not look good. I know math can be hard, but it's pretty easy when you're looking at it. It's funny. You kind of read my mind on this because this was, I pulled this as an example of probably the worst, like one of the worst examples. I would say that the more high beta, so the more. more like high growth the underlying assets are, the more you'll have the divergence because

then you'll you'll be capping your, yes, you'll get some strong premiums for the covered calls, but the problem is if they, you're in a bull market especially, is that you'll constantly have to sell, like the fund will constantly have to sell stock because those calls will be, like, those call option will actually be exercise. So you're constantly capping. your upside more and more. And the stronger the bull market, well, the more the divergence, you'll see where it will likely slightly perform better and it's just slightly will be in bare markets, but it will only protect your downside to the extent that you got the premium minus the fees that you pay. Yeah. I mean, the element of funds like this, you know, it kind of isn't necessarily

like the, you know, the risk in them is not necessarily like a shock like dividend cut or anything. it's more opportunity cost, like what you have given up to generate that income. And I mean, again, we look to Q ILD. This fund pretty much, it sells at the money call options, which will get you a higher premium. But they're very close to the current stock price or in this case the indexes value. And I mean, you would be hard pressed to find a poorer strategy than selling at the money call options on an index that has returned 19. percent annually since 2010. Like that's why you see this huge, huge divergence in terms of overall returns.

And I mean, it's just kind of, I don't want to say burning money because again, it's like it hasn't, there's no actual losses here. But the trap in this case, in regards to, you know, investing in these ETS for yield is opportunity cost. I mean, you're taking on very similar risk owning QILD in terms of downward, you know, volatility because covered calls, the only downside protection they offer is the premiums. There's nothing else. Like, you'll face the full brunt. Yeah, mine is the fees. I think that's important because the covered call ETFs will always be higher in fees than their non-covered call

version. Yeah, so there's no downside protection. You're facing the full brunt of the indexes decline, maybe, you know, offset by a bit of premiums, but you're taking on the exact same amount of risk for, I mean, in QILD's case, like a fraction of the return. So, ETFs, I think, is really more important. I mean, they're both important, but these high-yielding ETFs, again, they can make up whatever distribution they want and they can pay it out, you know, a wide variety of ways. So they're easier to identify than stocks. So, I mean, the first step would be to look beyond headline yields and instead just, you know,

dig deeper to see how that company is providing you with that yield. So every fund manager has to report the distribution structure of the fund on an annual basis. so you can go to an ETFs page, you can see how much of that dividend, or sorry, how much of that distribution is dividends, income, capital gains, return of capital. So a fund that is paying out the vast majority of its distribution with income capital gains, dividends, etc. That's a good sign. If return of capital is high, you need to dig a bit deeper. Again, I mentioned it's not all bad. Some of these covered call funds do book a lot of options premiums as return of capital. But the main way you can tell if return of capital is good or bad is, is that. is to kind of move more into the net asset value of the funds. So you kind of pull up a chart of the funds nav, not necessarily its price, it's net asset value. So if that's stable and return of capital is high, it's likely they're doing a bit of tax maneuvering.

But if you have a net asset value that's consistently depleting, which is I don't have a chart of QILD's nav, but I did look at it and it is pretty much consistently declining. I mean, you do get back to that situation where, the distribution is being made up in ways that you're getting that yield, but in reality you're not, it's just coming out of a perpetually declining unit value. But yeah, that's kind of,

that's all I had to say about the ETF side of things, because it's not as out there as stocks. I mean, it's not as cut and dry as, you know, dividend versus payout ratio. Yeah, and exactly. And just to finish your again, QILD versus QQQQ, so you're looking at 0.6% for fees for QI. ILD and 0.2 for QQQ.

So that's not, 40 basis point is a pretty meaningful difference in fees. So you're paying higher fees because they are more active with that option strategy. So it is normal. Those options do cost something. So disnormal as well. In exchange for that and the lower returns, you do get a distribution rate that's higher or a dividend yield or distribution yield, however you want to call it. So the last trailing 12 months for a QILD, it was the exchange. equivalent of 13.74%. But again, when we talked about total returns and incorporated that 13.74%. So

unfortunately, I think we've talked about this before, I think people who really, again, on Blossom, there's a few example of people that literally like just invest in covered call ETFs. The reality is they are consistently underperforming the ETFs that would be the equivalent that are not covered call. and they are playing mind games to justify the fact that it's a good strategy because they get an income, but at the end of the day, it is costing them a lot of money. So if that's a strategy they want to do, it's their money, that's fine. It's not a scam. It's just, you know, there's a reason these ETSs are popping left, right, and center

because they're good for the fund managers because they make more money on the fees. Like, look, they're, like, their investments, like, it's fine. It's not a scam, anything like that. But I think there's much better investments and the data's there. Like the math is there. Like I don't know how much more to say it. But I'm sure some people will tell us that, you know, for them, I don't know, it's a psychological effect. So if that's the reason you invest in them, that's fine.

But at least understand the products. So probably a good point to wrap it up for the ETF. So we want to see how Chad GPT does in terms of telling us what normal yields are by sector and then kind of the threshold where it becomes a little bit of a warning here yeah so this one you want to dig into the first one the communications yeah so i'll i'll start and then i'll ask your i'll give mine and then ask your opinion so i just took the sectors from the sector spedr from the smp 500 so obviously you can debate a little bit for some sectors keep in mind that communication services which is the first one we'll talk about this one tends to

incorporate some companies like Google. So clearly that's going to be very different than a company like BC, TELIS, or these large telecoms. So keep that in mind. But communication services, typical yield, one to three percent, yield trap, more than six percent. So I think this is debatable. I don't fully agree.

And we didn't rehearsed it. So I'll let you the chance. The typical yield, I think the one to three percent is probably more on the end. other category of kind of communication services, so the Googles and the other types of companies that would be in this space a little bit more. For companies that are telcos, like a BC Telos, I think anywhere from like 4 to 7% is fine. Anything above personally, like, when you're pushing 8%, it starts being a bit of a warning sign. So that's my view. What do you say then? Yeah, that's my exact view.

I mean, one to three percent is very tiny. And I would imagine it is factoring in companies like, I mean, I think even Disney is in communications. Netflix as well, but I don't think Netflix pays, I don't think Netflix pays a dividend. But I think Canada's communication sector is. Yeah, so they have Netflix, Electronic Arts. That's just for the sector for the S&P 500. So AT&T, Verizon, Walt Disney's in there. said it, Warner Brothers, Fox News Corp, a lot of different. So there's a mix of different things.

So yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. And I think like Canada's communication, like when we think of the communication sector, we pretty much think of the telecoms. And for the most part, they're yielding even in good times. They're often yielding 5 plus percent. So yeah, I think once you get into that 8 to 10 percent range is when when the market's starting to price something in. Okay. Yeah, next one on the list, and we'll do this a bit more rapid fire. And I did ask Chad GPD to factor in both U.S. and Canadian companies in its assessment. So consumer discretionary, so retailers, automakers, leisure, stuff like that. Typical yield less than 2%. Yield trap warning, 4% plus. I would say that's, yeah, that's not a bad, bad one. I would would say, like, that seems pretty reasonable to me. I'd probably put it more at 5% plus in terms of yield trap a little bit more for consumer discretionary. But yeah, that probably is about right. What do you think? I think so, yeah. And you'll typically see yields tinier just

because, I mean, a lot of those companies are cyclical and don't necessarily have like consistently raising dividend policies. So a lot of them will kind of be all over the map. But yeah, a lot of them don't yield a lot. So if you see it that high, it's usually kind of a sign. I would agree on that one. Yeah. So consumer staples. This one typically yield two to four percent thinking here, grocers, packaged good, alcohol, tobacco. So like kind of the more essentials kind of company. So companies that should do pretty well, regardless of the economic environment. Tad GPT says yield trap warning, 6% plus. More than 6% is usually kind of a point here. I would, I would, I would thing that's probably good. I would probably say like the more typical is probably, I don't

know, I'd say one to four percent is probably, I'd kind of go down a little bit because the really blue chip in that space will yield less than 2%. But that's, yeah, overall, I agree with it. What you say? Yeah, I don't know if I know a consumer staple in Canada that actually yields over 4%. I don't know if there would be one. Like, you don't have many consumers. Yeah, Yeah, like most of the grocers yield, I mean, under that, like almost less than one, almost most of the time. So, yeah, I mean, 6% in a Canadian consumer staple would be, would be big. Like, you imagine the drawdown Wobla would have to have to go a yield north of six, yeah. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

So I think I would agree, maybe now thinking about it, maybe like 5% plus is probably starting to enter that warning sign here. Because they are very stable companies, so the fact that the yield would get that. high it probably there could probably be some underlying issues with the business next one is energy typical yield three to five so obviously oil and gas majors pipelines yield trap warning seven percent plus i don't really agree with this one so i'm going to say that a typical yield so i think you can see a really wide range in that space because you'll have like energy services you'll have pipelines i mean pipelines it's not unusual to see them like six to nine percent range like it's really pretty common so i would say it kind of depends if you're

looking at oil and gas majors like a canadian natural resources or exon mobile and stuff like that i think anywhere between like four and six seven is kind of reasonable here probably eight percent plus for those and if you're thinking about pipeline i'd say like if you get like 10 percent plus that would be the yield uh warning so there's probably a bit more nuanced in the energy space. That would be my take. So what's your take on that one? Yeah, I think you really have to separate it from like producers to pipelines here. And also, I mean, if you look to a company like Tourmaline, on the surface, they won't yield that much. I think it's around seven or three percent, sorry, but the amount of those special dividends they dish out, it pushes the north, or the yield,

I think pretty close to seven percent. Yeah. Potentially even north of that. So I mean, the one thing with these companies is you got to watch the dividend relative to free cash flow because a lot of them will pay out, well, I mean, Canadian Natural Tourmaline, a lot of those companies have 100% payback policies or pretty close to it. So this can really depend on the industry. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Next one, I think this one is fun. So financials, again, financials, I think you would have insurance companies in there too typically in the financials, obviously the banks says a typical yield 3 to 5% and yield trap warning 6% plus for U.S. banks and 7% plus for Canadian banks. So without going into too deep of a dive here, I would say, yeah, that's probably

pretty good. Yeah, anything over 6% I think, regardless if it's Canadian or U.S., I would start being Yeah, I would say this is pretty accurate. Yeah, there's starting being a little bit warning signs here. Insurers, I think, can fall into that same category as well. If you get like 7% plus, there's definitely some warning bells going on. Clearly, when you're thinking about more the big banks, they'll typically yield a bit lower than some of the smaller banks too, so keep that in mind.

But that's probably a decent rule of thumb. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, for the banks, I think, Scotia Bank crept over 7%. It was probably a few years ago now and there was a lot of issues with that. I don't know if the other ones crept below or above 7% less like pandemic situations. And the other thing I'd say for on the insurance side, the life insurers, yeah, like the property and casualty insurers like intact. Yeah.

You don't like those would be a signal well below 7, 6%, because they typically only yield one or two. Mm-hmm. No, that's a good point there. Now, health care. So typical yield, and this will be more U.S., because Canada just really doesn't have much here in terms of health care, but typically yields 1 to 2%, and yield trap warning, 4% plus. I think that's probably fairly accurate. It's not a sector I looked at super often. So for me, just based on limited knowledge, I think it's about right. Do you agree? This is. Agree with that one. Again, healthcare includes a whole lot of different companies. So you have pharmaceutical company. You have insurers like in the U.S. You have medical care companies. Like there's a whole right range of companies here. So again, it's where it probably makes sense in the aggregate. But if you start looking at more specific pockets, it'll probably vary a little bit here. Yeah, I think so. I think this one is hard to judge just because a lot of them have different dividend policies. Like Pfizer's yielding almost seven. percent now, but like a company like Eli Lilly is less than a percent. So I don't know if you could do this on a broad base. Like Pfizer is probably a warning sign. I think so. Yeah. You know, there's some issues with the drugs in their pipeline and some of their their best drugs. So I know Pfizer has been facing some issues. So that would probably be a good example of sign because yes, seven percent for a company like Pfizer is definitely on the higher end here. Yeah, it's, I mean, it's never been close to this for quite a while.

I mean, back in 2024, it was, but if you looked to the last, like, 20 years of Pfizer, the last time it's yielded this high was financial crisis. So the next one, industrials. So typical yield 1 to 3%, so railways, aerospace, logistics. It's funny that we talk about UPS. So clearly, yield trap here warning of 5% plus. Usually points to cyclicality stress. So, yeah, I mean, it's hard.

to disagree here. 5% plus is definitely would be a big red flag. I mean, the railways, it's very rare that they even like Canadian National Rail that has been returning a lot of money to shareholders in the form of buybacks and dividends. Even them, they rarely yield more than like 2.5%. So I would say like railways specifically, like if you get above 4%, there's definitely, that would be eyebrow raising for me. But as a general rule, yeah, 5% plus is probably a good rule of thumb here. Yeah, I would even say it's lower because a lot of these companies, yeah, I think, yeah, I'd be there for that. A lot of these companies have pretty, like, conservative dividend policies. Like, they do grow the dividend relatively consistently, but they also do so well that the yields stay relatively low.

I can't think of like an industrial company in Canada. That would be near 5% or over it, off the top of my head at least. but I would say this could potentially be lower. Yeah, no, that's fair. So let's say 4%, you know, could definitely. And again, when we're talking about the yield trap warning, just as a reminder, we did talk about it earlier in the episode, but it's more like I would see these yield trap warning is more of a signal that,

okay, doesn't mean don't invest in this company, just means like you need to do like you should do your own work on any investment, but you need to pay real close. attention. That's how I view it, if you're going to look at companies that kind of fall in that warning. And you may disagree. You may think these are not what we're saying are not quite accurate. That's fine. We're just kind of, again, a lot of the time in investing, it's not black and white. It's more in degree area. So I think it's just a good reminder here. The next one, materials. I think this one is definitely tricky. So typical yield two to four percent, uh,

yield trap warning, 6% plus. Yeah, I kind of agree, but disagree at the same time because miners, it's miners, chemicals, forestry. Chemicals is probably a bit different, but forestry and miners, if we look at those specifically, it's going to be, there's going to be cyclicality to it. There's going to be tied to the economy, but also the mining downturn or, you know, forestry also for like, you know, tariffs will be impacting forestry a whole lot when you think about Canada. I think this one you, I'm not even sure I would pay that much attention to the yield. I think I would just look at the company, understand the macro environment, understand like does tariffs have any implication here, understand what the commodities are doing? I would not really

pay that much attention to materials like dividend yield at all. It would not be part of my investment thesis. I'd look at the business. Yeah, that's just my point of view. I'm sure some people would invest more added for a dividend yield perspective, but I think those are so volatile in terms of how much are tied to the macro, but also the mining environment, the commodity prices, but also the trade front. Yeah, I think the materials end would probably maybe even be a bit lower, especially on the Canadian end, because I think a lot of them kind of learned their lesson the last time when gold took a nosedive back in 2012, and they're pretty conservative in terms of dividend policies now. Yeah. No, that's fair. And if you have like, let's talk about a subset real quick here. I know we're running a little long, so we'll do quick. But if you're thinking about like streamers, like Afrinco Nevada, Wheaton, precious metal, those companies, like if they were like above 3%, that would be that I would try to wonder why exactly, because that would not be typical for those companies. So that would be just my, my take on those subs, that subset specifically.

Yeah. I agree. Yeah. Okay, real estate. So this one, typical yield, 3 to 6%, yield trap warning, 8% plus. Yeah, I think that's, yeah, that's pretty good. I would think that if you get into a read, that's 8% plus, you definitely have to understand what you're investing in. It will oftentimes mean one or two things. The read itself is not performing well, or the subset of real estate that they have properties in. is not doing well at all. So obviously we talked about allied for office real estate. I think that's an obvious example there.

But you could also have sometimes a subset that's doing quite well, but the company or the REIT is actually just not doing well, even though the subset is doing well. So definitely 8% could mean different things, but it would definitely be a warning sign for me. Yeah, this one I think is all depending on the industry, like residential reits typically don't yield all that much, whereas like commercial office type reeds typically yield a lot more.

So I think you've got to be digging into like individual subsets of those wreaths themselves. Yeah, no, exactly. So we have two left technology. Typical yield less than 1%. Yield trap warning more than 3%. I would say typical yield, I would say less than 2%. I think it's not unusual to see, especially the more mature tech plays to pay, you know, anywhere up to 2%, I think that would be

reasonable, not cause for alarm. I would agree that anything 3% plus would definitely require closer examination. If you get like the 5% like range, then that would be like flashing red lights, alarms like alarms going off that something's clearly wrong with this tech business. Yeah, I can't even think of a tech company, at least a larger tech company that yields more than two or three percent. I mean, I'm sure there's plenty. I just, I can't think of any right now. I think IBM was one while back around the three to four percent range, just as an example, but IBM's business really stalled for a very long time. I don't know if they turned things around a little bit. Yeah, they're 2.6 percent, and that would, yeah. Yeah, but for a while they

were yielding like four to five percent, but again, it was, the business was stagnant. Yeah. So it's just an example here. Now, let's finish with utilities. Typical yield for, they mentioned regulated utilities, so that's fine. Three to five percent. Yield trap warning more than 7%. Yeah, I think that's probably, I mean, actually, I would say 8% plus. I think 7% is still relatively common for utilities just because they just return a whole lot in the form of dividend to shareholders.

they have typically very stable cash flows because it's regulated. Yeah, I would say more in the 8% plus range would be my view here. And then anything below 6% is quite normal. 7% keep an eye on it. 8% plus, that's where the warning bells would start going off for me. What do you think? Yeah, I would agree. I think we got up to that point when Algonquin eventually cut the dividend back when interest

rates started going up quite a bit and they just couldn't handle the, the floating rate debt they had, so that crept above 10. I don't think you'd see like a regulated utility like Fortis yielding 7% just because I don't think it would ever, well, I mean, I don't want to say never, but it'd be very, very rare for it to draw down that much. So yeah, I don't know if a company like that would be 7%, but I mean, we've seen it with Algonquin. It ended up cutting the dividend once it went that high.

So definitely an indicator. Yeah, exactly. So that wraps it up. I think that was fun. I think for the most part, it was not too bad. I think we didn't fully agree on quite a few of them. I didn't think it was far off, but definitely a few times whether it was oversimplifying it. Just putting a range. And obviously I asked it by sector. I didn't ask it to do it like, you know, some sub sectors and stuff like that. So I will, you know, I will give it the benefit of the doubt on that point. But for the most part, I think, you know, some decent guidelines, especially, you know, you and I talking about. So hopefully that helps people kind of identifying yield levels that would be concerning when they look at certain companies by sector versus themselves historically. Just kind of some rough guidelines. And of Ken, of course, none of this investment advice, but we're just, you know, talking about

it. And hopefully it will give you some of the tools to be able to do your own assessment, your own research, your own analysis. And look, You can probably find some high yielder that will end up being some really good investment because the company turns it around. I'm not saying that won't happen. But I think more often than not when you're finding a really high yield, like really out of the normal range, you're typically in for trouble. So I think it's probably a good point to wrap it up. Any last words, Dan? No, I guess the only thing I'll say is just use it as a starting point or at least part of your starting point and not the.

the endpoint. No, exactly. And I guess a little housekeeping as we close. So you'll be hearing this episode on Monday, which would be, I think, what would be next Monday? So the 15th. So the day after you hear this, we will be increasing the price for joint TCI. So if you want to lock in the $9 a month, make sure you do it today if you're listening to this episode on the 15th. If not, you can still subscribe, but the price will increase to $15 starting tomorrow when you hear this. So just keep that in mind. If not, if you want to just listen to us with the ads for free, that's completely

fine. But if you want to see us on the full video, get our monthly investment updates where we talk about changes in our portfolio. I do an update for my parents' investment portfolio as well and get the podcast ad free. And that's all available on our Patreon join TCI. So for those interested. If not, completely fine. We love the support. However you support us,

we really appreciate it and definitely we'll be back with some more content next Thursday. So thanks again, everyone for listening. The Canadian Investor Podcast should not be construed as investment or financial advice. The host and guest featured may own securities or assets discussed on this podcast. Always do your own due diligence or consult with a financial professional before making any financial or investment decisions.