How apropos to start off a new month – with another dramatic headline about President Trump! This time it is “round 2” in Iran, following the June 2025 attacks on the Iranian nuclear facilities, with a surprise morning attack which ended the life of one of the most murderous thugs in history, “Supreme leader”, Ali Khamenei. He and his murderous regime were behind death, destruction and destabilization in the Middle East and around the world since the late ‘70s, in its support for global terrorism, to the great detriment of its own domestic population. Many of his top advisors were also killed in the initial strike, as the military of the U.S. and Israel band together to destroy the head of the self-proclaimed “Axis of Resistance”, after the heads and top leaders of the Iranian proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen have already been eliminated. Ironically, last week I just finished reading a book, “Confronting Evil” by Bill O’Reilly and Josh Hammer, which dedicated a chapter to Khamenei and his evil regime. Those of us old enough to remember the drama of the 1979 take-over of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, by Khamenei’s predecessor, the Ayatollah Khomeini (not related), and the disastrous response of President Carter in the aftermath, can appreciate the significance of this attack. As has been proven over and over in history, an approach of appeasement to thug-like behaviour does not bring about “peace for our time.”

The sad part however, of an attack on Iran, as “just” as it might be, is the loss of life that occurs in any military confrontation. Few will shed tears for Khamenei, or for former President Ahmadinejad, who was apparently also killed, but already counterattacks by Iran have killed innocent citizens in Israel and elsewhere, as well as some U.S. military personnel. Does that make the attack on Iran wrong? Is it possible to wipe out evil without having an impact on good? These are much bigger questions for much bigger people, and this is not the forum, but one thing is clear, without a certain amount of pain, there cannot be any pleasure.

I once heard a wise man discuss the notion that when most people are given the choice between “pleasure” and “pain” they will almost always choose pleasure and avoid pain. However, the speaker pointed out that these two concepts are NOT opposites. The opposite of pain is not pleasure, but rather it is “no pain”, and the only state of absolutely no pain is death. Furthermore, he suggested that it takes real pain to achieve real pleasure. He gave the example of an Olympic athlete, so having just finished the Olympic Games in Italy, consider the likelihood of hearing a complaint from one of the athletes, in preparing to qualify for the Games, about the “pain” of training in their pursuit of the “pleasure” of winning gold – unimaginable! For those that have children, most would say their greatest pleasure comes from their children, but their children are also often the cause of their greatest pain, as the child-rearing years take their toll on even the hardiest. The concepts of pleasure and pain go hand in hand, but the confusion in understanding their relationship can often lead to a lot of poor decision-making.

How many people do you know who spend everything they make, to foster a lifestyle they cannot afford, in pursuit of enjoying today’s pleasure and avoiding the pain of putting money aside regularly in anticipation of retirement? Others are so afraid of experiencing the “pain” of volatility in their investments, they stick to overly conservative investment strategies which are likely to leave them short in their plan to have enough money set aside for retirement. While GICs/CDs may “feel good” because they do not fluctuate, consider the old “Rule of 72” – the performance number of your investments divided into 72 will tell you how many years it will take to double your money. At an 8%+ return, which one could expect over time from an equity-based portfolio, it would take 9 years. In a GIC/CD based portfolio of 2-4%, it will take 18-36 years… Those who want the “pleasure” of building sufficient funds for retirement and perhaps to pass on to another generation, need to put up with the “pain” of volatility that is inherent in holding equity (stocks). Recently, a client complained to me about his “pain” in watching his portfolio decline in value from the previous month, after a sparkling performance of 19%+ last year and solid returns of 11%+ per annum over the past 5 years. In response, I offered him the alternative of “no pain” GICs at 2-3% per annum. He declined the offer.

In planning for the retirement lifestyle, this same principle also applies. How many people do you know who want to avoid the “pain” of the career “rat race” in retirement, only to show signs of physical and mental impairment within years of “avoiding pain”. If true, perhaps one needs to find new ways of assuming some level of pain to enjoy the pleasure of the post-working years? Like that Olympic athlete, the greater the preparation for retirement, which can be painful at times, the greater will be that pleasure. Seeking “no pain” is to not have a realistic plan. Avoiding writing or updating a will does not push off the time of one’s passing. Instead, if it remains unattended, it can leave a lot of “pain” of wasted time and unnecessary expenses (including unnecessary taxes to pay) for those left to settle an estate which was not well-planned in advance.

Bottom line

As we all watch with concern over the military strikes in Iran and wonder what will be the aftermath, it is crucial to remember that without some pain there can be no real pleasure. Sadly, many innocents will undoubtedly die, and we all hope and pray that the losses are few, but the confrontation against evil should always be celebrated. If you have concerns about the markets, your investments, or even questions about how much pain is necessary for you to assume to achieve your goals of a pleasurable future, contact us and let’s chat!

Global benchmarks

As of February 28, 2026 (Canadian $ Returns – except where noted)

Source: RBC Capital Markets Quantitative Research