6 min
A Closer Look at Index Funds in Retirement
Someone in their early sixties slides a statement across the kitchen table. Balanced portfolio. Broad index funds. Low annual fees. They did everything the industry told them to do, in the order the industry prescribed. Then they ask the question that has nothing to do with the statement: "Will it last?" I call that FORO. Fear Of Running Out. People tell me it's just nerves. It isn't. Here's what I think is really happening. An index fund is a very good machine for one job: growing money over thirty years. It assumes you have time. It assumes you're buying, not selling. It assumes you don't much care what's inside, as long as the number goes up. Every one of those assumptions stops being true the day you retire. Why do index funds treat expensive stocks as growth stocks? Campbell Harvey teaches finance at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. This spring, he published a paper with four colleagues in the Financial Analysts Journal that tackles something so basic that most of us never think about it. (Source: Arnott, Brightman, Harvey, Nguyen & Shakernia, "Fundamental Growth," Financial Analysts Journal, 2026.) Almost every index fund is built on one idea: if a stock is expensive, the company must be growing rapidly. Harvey's finding is that this is often wrong. A stock can be expensive because it's popular. But popularity and growth are two different things. If you want proof that price and business performance can go their separate ways, think back to 2021. GameStop. AMC. Stocks that shot up on Reddit forums, with very little of the chatter based on earnings reports. Think back to 2021. GameStop. AMC. Share prices shot straight up because people online decided they should. Not because those companies were selling more of anything. Now consider how index funds work across every retirement account. A stock becomes popular, its price rises, and the fund buys more of it, not because the business improved, but because the price went up. How concentrated is the S&P/TSX Composite? Everything above is American. Here's the Canadian version, eh? The main Canadian index is not a broad mix of the world's best businesses. It's dominated by banks, mining and oil. Those three groups make up close to 70% of the index. Banks alone account for about 31%. According to the iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite, the ten biggest holdings are roughly 38% of the whole thing, with Royal Bank at the top. In fact, close to half the weight of the index is made up of just financials and energy. I'm not saying anything negative about those companies. I'm saying you own them, whether you picked them or not, in amounts you didn't choose, for reasons that have nothing to do with what you need at age 72. That's been a fine bet for long stretches. It's also a narrow one. And narrow feels very different at 65 than it did at 35, because at 65 you no longer have the thing that makes a bad market survivable. Time. Why does a market drop cost a 65-year-old more than a 35-year-old? Let’s illustrate this with an example. Two people own the same fund. One is 35 and still contributing, while the other is 65 and withdrawing. Both are dealing with $6,000 this year. A unit of the fund costs $100. Then the market drops 20%, and a unit costs $80. The 35-year-old puts in $6,000. Before the drop, that money bought 60 units. Now it buys 75. Fifteen units he didn't pay for. The 65-year-old needs $6,000 to live on. Before the drop, she'd have sold 60 units to get it. Now she must sell 75. Fifteen units she'll never get back. Then the market recovers. Units return to $100. His 15 extra units are worth $1,500 more than he paid for them. Her 15 units were sold at the bottom. They aren't there to recover. Same fund. Same market. Same $6,000. The only difference is the direction the money was moving. That's why a retiree needs to look inside the fund, whereas a 35-year-old mostly doesn't. RRIF minimum withdrawals: why Canadian retirees are forced to sell In Canada, we've set a rule. When your RRSP becomes a RRIF, you must withdraw a minimum amount each year. The rate starts at 5.28% at age 71 and increases each year after that. (Source: Canada Revenue Agency, prescribed RRIF minimum withdrawal factors.) So, a Canadian retiree can be forced to sell in a bad year, from a narrow index based on a definition of growth that a Duke University business professor has just called flawed. Three problems stacked on top of each other. None of them show up on the statement. This is exactly the point I made with EY Canada in The Canadian Retirement Evolution, published in July (Source: EY Canada, 2026). FORO isn't a personal failing. It's a design gap. We built a system to save money, then asked it to pay people reliably for thirty years. It was never built for that. And the biggest thing most Canadians over 55 own isn't in the index at all. It's the house. About 70% of the coming wealth transfer in this country sits in real estate, and more than 85% of seniors say they want to stay in their homes (Source: EY Canada, The Canadian Retirement Evolution, 2026). Asset-rich, cash-poor, and treating their largest asset as off-limits. 5 questions to ask your advisor about your index funds I'm not telling you to sell anything. I can't. I don't know your health, your pension, your taxes, or your nerves. But here's what I'd want answered before my next meeting with an advisor. What are the ten biggest things I actually own? Not the fund name. The holdings. Do my funds overlap? Three funds that all own the same five banks isn't three bets. It's one. What happens if I must withdraw in a bad year? Is my "growth" fund measuring actual growth, or just price? Where does my home equity fit into all this? Ask. A good advisor will be glad you did. If you get a pie chart and a pat on the back, ask again. One last point from Professor Harvey. More than half of all invested money now sits in funds that buy automatically. He thinks it could reach 80% within ten years. (Source: Duke University Fuqua School of Business, 2026.) When enough money buys without looking, price stops being a judgment and becomes a reflex. But retirees are the least able to afford someone else's reflex. Here's the plain truth beneath all the jargon: nobody swapped out your equipment when the game changed. You're still holding a golf club on a pickleball court. Momentum is still wearing a cardigan. Your funds still can't tell the difference between expensive and growing. And most retirement plans still hand you a seatbelt when what you need is a crash-proof suit. Nobody in the industry is racing to fix this for you. So I will. Consider this the first chapter, not the last word. It's time to take back our retirements and reset. Don't Retire…ReWire! Sue My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one. It's available September 29, 2026 published by ECW Press - You can now order at Indigo or Amazon. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you. References: All figures verified 4 August 2026 Important: This article is general information and commentary only and does not constitute financial, mortgage, tax, legal, or investment advice. Before making decisions about your retirement or home equity, consult qualified liscensed professionals who can assess your personal circumstances.
