What Would Dan Bortolotti Say?
Enter your portfolio and fees to see which single one-ticket ETF matches your target mix, and how much you'd keep over a lifetime by trading a ~2% mutual fund for a ~0.20% Couch Potato portfolio. Boring is good.
Not affiliated with or endorsed by Dan Bortolotti. An educational interpretation of ideas published in Reboot Your Portfolio: 9 Steps to Successful Investing with ETFs (Figure 1 Publishing, 2021). Not provided, reviewed, or approved by Dan Bortolotti or PWL Capital Inc.
Up to 50 points for a low fee, 30 for a long horizon and 20 for a steady contribution.
What your fees cost you
Your balance year by year at your current MER and at a one-ticket ETF at ~0.20%, in future dollars. Same market return, different fee; the shaded gap between the lines is what the fee costs.
What he'd have you do next
The list starts with buying one fund and ends with ignoring it.
How this is calculated
Risk-tier matcher
Your target equity share is snapped to the nearest standard one-ticket asset-allocation tier: 100/0 → VEQT / XEQT / ZEQT; 80/20 → VGRO / XGRO / ZGRO; 60/40 → VBAL / XBAL / ZBAL; 40/60 → VCNS / XCNS / ZCON; 20/80 → VCIP / XINC. Source: model portfolios and the asset-allocation ETF line-up documented at canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios (Dan Bortolotti's own free primary material).
Fee-savings projector
We grow your portfolio at a net return of (expected gross return − MER), compounding annually and adding your contribution at each year end, for two scenarios: your current blended MER, and a one-ticket ETF at 0.20%. Each year's balance is P × (1 + r)n + C × ((1 + r)n − 1) ÷ r, with r the net return, P today's portfolio and C the yearly contribution (P + C × n when the net return is zero). The gap between the two balances in your final year is your lifetime fee savings. The compounding is reimplemented here from first principles.
The chart draws both balances for every year from today to the end of your horizon; the shaded band between them is the fee gap so far: what your MER costs over and above a one-ticket fund's, including the growth those extra fees would have earned. For horizons of 4 years or more, two markers give the gap at the middle of the horizon and at the end. With a positive return the fee comes off a balance that keeps growing, so the gap widens faster each year and most of it opens late. All of these are future (nominal) dollars, at the gross return you enter. The today's-dollar figures divide by (1 + inflation)years at FP Canada's 2.1% inflation assumption. If your MER is already below 0.20%, your line stays on top and the band shows how far ahead you are; there is nothing to save by switching. Source: the low-cost, buy-the-whole-market thesis in Reboot Your Portfolio: 9 Steps to Successful Investing with ETFs (Figure 1 Publishing, 2021), which contrasts typical ~2% mutual funds with ~0.20% one-ticket ETFs.
The score
Rewards the three things the strategy says you can control: low cost (up to 50 points, full marks at a one-ticket's ~0.20% MER, falling to zero at a typical 2% bank fund), a long horizon to let compounding and discipline work (up to 30 points, full at 20 years), and a regular automated contribution (up to 20 points, full at $6,000 a year). The line under the gauge shows your points for each part; they add up to the score. Global diversification and rebalancing come free with any one-ticket fund.
The gauge and the verdict share one colour rule: red below 40, gold from 40 to 69, and green from 70 only when your MER is 0.30% or less. A high score built on a long horizon and steady contributions stays gold while the fee is above that floor, because the fee is the part he would have you fix first. Source: the "minimize cost, diversify globally, rebalance automatically, stay the course" principles in Reboot Your Portfolio (2021).
Where this is a simplification
Real returns vary year to year, MERs and trading spreads differ slightly between fund families, and taxes on non-registered accounts are ignored. This is an educational projection, not a forecast.
The fine print
This is an educational interpretation applying Dan Bortolotti's well-documented public philosophy to your numbers. All verdict lines are respectful paraphrases in his calm, plain-spoken style, not real quotes. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Dan Bortolotti or PWL Capital Inc.; not provided, reviewed, or approved by them. If you are Dan Bortolotti or represent them and want this changed or removed, email [email protected] and we'll act promptly.
Common questions
What is a Couch Potato one-ticket ETF portfolio?
It is a single, globally diversified asset-allocation ETF that holds thousands of stocks and bonds in a fixed target mix and rebalances itself automatically. You pick one fund to match your risk tolerance, keep costs near 0.20% a year, contribute regularly and leave it alone, with no stock picking and no manual rebalancing.
Which one-ticket ETF matches my asset allocation?
Roughly: 100% equity maps to VEQT / XEQT / ZEQT; 80/20 to VGRO / XGRO / ZGRO; 60/40 to VBAL / XBAL / ZBAL; 40/60 to VCNS / XCNS / ZCON; and 20/80 to VCIP / XINC. Choose the split you can hold through a downturn without selling.
How much do high fees cost over time?
A typical bank mutual fund charges around 2% a year while a one-ticket ETF is about 0.20%. That ~1.8% gap compounds: on a six-figure portfolio held for decades it commonly adds up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in foregone growth. Cost is the one variable you control, so minimizing it is the highest-probability way to improve returns.
Do I ever need to rebalance a one-ticket ETF?
No. The whole point of an asset-allocation ETF is that the fund maintains its target stock/bond mix internally, so you never rebalance by hand. Your only jobs are to keep contributing and to resist tinkering when markets are noisy.