@AravindSitham Honestly I am going by memory so I could be wrong, but I could’ve swore I knew some other advisors that were opening TFSAs for 18 year olds in BC and I thought they looked into it. I haven’t actually personally verified to confirm that’s correct so maybe I should delete that 🙃
I always find it amusing that those who declare the death of the 60/40, which is keeps being declared dead ever year for at least two decades now yet it still seem to persist, always fail to identify exactly what they think the 60/40 is supposed to be doing, let alone presuming that everyone else is on the same page with said definition.
Can say the same for creating/selling complexity.
Been doing this long enough to see when you let taxes drive decisions, you can turn a good investment into a bad one.
Make decisions for the plan first. Then optimize tax.
Selling to pay the tax isn’t an all or none decision. It’s part of the overall decision tree to measure against other strategies that can “optimize “ the plan…
A joint account issues tax slips with the SIN of the first/primary account holder on the tax slips.
Just because the slip has the primary account holder’s SIN, it doesn’t necessarily mean they should report all of the income on their tax return.
The slip will show beneficiary code = 2… that tells CRA it’s a joint account, so all the income may not be reported on the tax return of the person who’s SIN is on the slip.
Just because it’s a joint account, that doesn’t mean that the couple can each report 50% of the income on their respective tax returns.
Instead, Canadian tax rules state that the person who first earned the money to deposit into the investment account, should be the one who should report the investment income earned on those dollars.
So, joint accounts might be taxed all to one spouse, or all to the other, or 50/50, or 10/90, or 25/75.
There’s no one size fits all. It depends on the history of who saved the money in the first place.
I am a senior vice president at a $68.7 billion gaming company.
Activision-Blizzard.
We have a 30-year-old franchise.
Warcraft.
Millions of players. A subscription model that prints $15 a month per user. A cash shop on top of the subscription. Paid expansions on top of the cash shop.
Our former creative director just told the press he wishes we hadn't called it "Warcraft."
He said the name sounds intimidating.
He helped create the name.
We ran focus groups. The focus groups said the brand needed to be "more approachable." We asked the focus groups if they played the game. They did not. We took their advice anyway.
Our VP told an interviewer we want players to experience "weddings, raids, and new adventures." She listed weddings first. Before raids. In a game called Warcraft. Nobody in the room flinched.
She also said "No one thinks the same about Warhammer."
She compared our franchise unfavorably to a competitor. On the record. As a defense of the franchise.
The forums are on fire. Twenty-year veterans are writing goodbye posts. One thread is titled "Think I'm done with WoW." Another calls our pre-patch a "player purge."
We called our GDKP raiders "delusional."
We timed a cash shop bundle to launch during the Trading Post anniversary -- the one event where players earn free cosmetics. We offered 200 discounted items but kept the monthly currency cap at 1,000. The math doesn't work unless you open your wallet.
The community noticed. We described their concerns as "feedback we're monitoring."
We are always monitoring. We have never once changed course because of monitoring.
The players say we're "Disneyfying" the game. Turning gritty into cute. War into weddings. Orcs into mascots.
They're not wrong.
The data says approachable properties have wider TAM. Total addressable market. That's the metric now. Not "subscribers who love the game." Not "community that built this franchise." TAM.
TAM doesn't post on forums. TAM doesn't write goodbye letters. TAM doesn't have 20 years of muscle memory and lore knowledge and raid nights that turned into real friendships.
TAM is a number in a slide deck that makes a board feel comfortable.
We added player housing. Players have asked for it since 2004. We launched it in 2026. Twenty-two years. We described this as "listening to our community."
We are very good at listening. Eventually. When the feature aligns with a monetization roadmap.
Here is what I know and cannot say in a meeting:
The name was never the problem. The name built this. The name survived server crashes and subscription drops and an activision merger and a harassment scandal and a $68.7 billion acquisition.
The name is "Warcraft" and for 30 years nobody was confused about what it meant.
The problem is not that new players find the name intimidating.
The problem is that old players are starting to find us unrecognizable.
And we don't have a focus group for that.