HOT TOPICS:   Election 2014  |    Regional development   |  OCR                                 RESOURCES:    Economic calendar   |  Home loan incentives

Find your KiwiSaver fund

The comment stream

Recent comments

Reader poll

What will Fonterra's 2014-15 dairy season payout (Farmgate Milk Price that excludes dividends) ultimately be?

Choices

Retail investors' understanding of risk and diversification still lacking, departing FMA boss says, wishing he had 'got out in the community more'

Posted in KiwiSaver
See video

By Gareth Vaughan

A proper understanding of diversification and investment risk is still lacking among many New Zealand retail investors, says outgoing Financial Markets Authority CEO Sean Hughes, emphasised by some people putting all their savings into rental property.

Hughes, the FMA's inaugural CEO who steps down next week after three years in the job, also told interest.co.nz in a Double Shot interview his main regret was not having got out more into the community and regions and spoken to "real New Zealanders" about their investment experiences. Hughes also questioned the role of what are effectively vested interests in the regulation of KiwiSaver.

Asked to what extent retail ma and pa investor understanding of investment risk on the one hand, and financial literacy on the other, have improved over the past three years Hughes says he still has concerns.

"I still have misgivings about whether the average investor understands about risk and the risk of being in the market," says Hughes. "I still think there is an assumption out there that when you invest in the market it is capital guaranteed in the same way as if the bank where my deposit is placed goes under, I'm going to get all my money back."

"The reality is there is no place in the world in any financial market where you are absolutely capital guaranteed. And of course your projected investment return is not guaranteed as well. So there does need to be a conversation and understanding that when you invest, the higher the rate of return the higher the rate of risk and there is a chance that you won't get your money back," Hughes adds.

However, this doesn't mean people shouldn't invest.

"Because the only way in which you can improve your lot and advance is to take some risk. But it needs to be educated risk and the risk needs to be appropriate to your own personal circumstances. If you are somebody who has only got a very small amount of money to invest and you need that money, you need to rely on it being there at the end of the day, then don't take a high risk investment."

"We saw in the last decade that people thought they were diversifying their asset in terms of their investments by spreading it across several finance companies. That's not diversification," Hughes says. "We see it today, particularly here in Auckland, with people putting all of their investments into property and to residential property for renting purposes. Again that's not diversifying your assets."

"So this understanding of the way in which markets work, the nature of risk and pricing risk in a way that's appropriate to your own circumstances, is still something that we've got a long, long way to go on. And it was never going to be anything we could've fixed in the first three years of FMA's existence," says Hughes.

'I would've liked to have spent more time in the community'

Hughes says much has been accomplished by the FMA, but "the missing piece in the puzzle" is investor education.

"For me it would have been ideal if we could have also got out into the community more, spoken to mums and dads, understood their fears, listened to some of their experiences that they had during the GFC (global financial crisis) and the collapse of the finance company sector. I think that would have been a really important and appropriate thing for us to do, to sort of show the human face of FMA," Hughes says.

"At times in this job, particularly as chief executive, it's very easy to get bogged down in internal governance and the bureaucracy of running an organisation and approvals processes. Ideally in a perfect world, and if I had been able to stay on for longer, I would've liked to have spent more time in the community, out in the regions and actually talk to real New Zealanders about what their experiences were. And what they are missing in terms of their own education and understanding in terms of the way markets operate."

"So I'm hoping that Rob (Everett his successor) will get a clean sheet of paper and be able to have the time and the interest to do that sort of thing. Because I think that is where FMA of the future should position itself, very much there to assist and support a growing population of what I hope are confident New Zealanders in a successful, thriving financial market. But it's up to him now," Hughes says.

KiwiSaver regulation 'relies on people who themselves are involved in the market of KiwiSaver'

Meanwhile, Hughes points out trustees and fund managers are a key component of KiwiSaver regulation, even though they're "involved in the market of KiwiSaver." He says this ought to be questioned. These comments come after Hughes pointed out last year KiwiSaver lacks the type of prudential regulatory regime that's in place for retirement savings in Australia.

"When I made those remarks a year or so ago we had no licencing regime for fund managers and we had not in fact started the process of licencing statutory supervisors or trustees," says Hughes. "Since that time there has been a significant increase in the regulatory standards. We've now gone through the process of licencing statutory supervisors and trustees and not every applicant for licencing got through. So that has been an increase and an improvement in the system."

"From next year under the Financial Markets Conduct Act fund managers will also be licenced and so there will be new standards also put in place," adds Hughes.

"Now is it the same regime as Australia? The answer to that quite clearly is no."

"Is there a business, regulatory or political case for implementing an APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority) like model for KiwiSaver in New Zealand? I think it's something that should be looked at but at the end of the day the decision doesn't rest with the regulator it rests with the Government and with the implementation of a prudential model that will obviously entail some cost," Hughes says.

"But if we get the right standards in place around things such as liquidity, capital adequacy, risk management, unit pricing, outsourcing, all the things I regard as sound prudential governance or prudential regulatory steps, then whether you need a separate regulator to do that or not is really by the by."

"At the moment the only regulator for KiwiSaver outside of the IRD in terms of its work, is FMA. And my question is; is that too big a burden to place on one regulator because at the same time we're also relying on trustees to do their job and in time we'll be relying on the fund managers to do their job."

He notes that in comparison in Australia both the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and APRA have roles in overseeing retirement savings.

"In New Zealand we are placing a great deal of reliance on front line entities like trustees and fund managers. Is that the right thing to do? Well, only time will tell. But as the KiwiSaver total funds under management get up to around $50 billion in the next decade, you'd have to ask yourself is it time at some point to revisit the model and say have we got it right, are we placing too much trust in the hands of people who themselves are involved in the market of KiwiSaver?"

*This is part two of the Sean Hughes interview. Part one can be seen here.

This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and to subscribe.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

12 Comments

No Investment is a 100% sure

No Investment is a 100% sure thing , just as no business is a 100% sure thing , and that is why Banks should never have been allowed to  become too big to fail. 

Beautifully said. Banks will

Beautifully said. Banks will likely to be the first to express caution to punters, when they have no need to practice it themselves. They wear their implicit guarantees on their sleeves.

Spot on Boatman. Bring back

Spot on Boatman. Bring back the NZ equivalent of Glass-Stegal.
However you forgot the golden rule......that in NZ, these sage words only count if it's the working class that loose money.
If the rich however may loose, e.g. South Canabury Finance, then NO NO NO, we MUST bail them out.
A good question to ask is for how long could the unemployment benefit be paid to say 10,000 unemployed (excluding the property speculators welfare of rent relief), with the money saved from not bailing out the wealthy who gambled on SCF? My guess is quite a few years if not a decade or more.

"The reality is there is no

"The reality is there is no place in the world in any financial market where you are absolutely capital guaranteed. And of course your projected investment return is not guaranteed as well"
Not true. In Australia all bank deposits up to AU$250,000 per person per bank are guaranteed by the Australian Government.

That maybe the case but there

That maybe the case but there are concomitant risks and prices to pay when the music stops. Note the AUD/USD exchange rate and budget surpluses collapsing here and here.
 
Notably those individuals associated with the risks imposed upon unwitting investors seem not to take the required level of responsibility of stepping aside when the proverbial hits the fan. Incompetent corporate management risk demands a much higher profile within analytical studies when it comes to pricing the present value of future casflows.
 
Chorus is a company currently playing out an inordinate corporate failure if one is to believe the press in conjunction with the collpased share price.
 
And yet Chorus chairwoman Sue Sheldon apparently remains firmly in place as she does as a director of the RBNZ. Mr English needs to look beyond a health check for the regulatory authorities if he intends to bolster the confidence of foreign investors.

In the words of Peter Lynch:

In the words of Peter Lynch: "Always invest in businesses any idiot can run,because eventually, an idiot will be running it." :)

Yes, indeed - the stench of

Yes, indeed - the stench of despotism patrolling NZ border control will do little to advance the fortunes of Air New Zealand and others dependent upon the goodwill of tourists.
 
A backpacker coming home from Christmas had every bit of electronic equipment stripped from him at the airport but has no idea why.
 
His only theory - his attendance at a talk in London about Edward Snowden's leaked documents.
 
A Customs officer at Auckland International Airport took law graduate Sam Blackman's two smartphones, iPad, an external hard drive and laptop - and demanded his passwords. Read more

Kiwisaver and

Kiwisaver and diversification.  We should be able to have our Kiwisaver in more than one provider.   I would think that useful especially in view of the 'Madoff factor'.

You don't have to have all

You don't have to have all your savings in KiwiSaver though. 

Hughes says "there does need

Hughes says "there does need to be a conversation and understanding that when you invest, the higher the rate of return the higher the rate of risk". 
it might be useful to reword that to the idea that "higher risk should have a higher rate of return"   - and that the two are not always well linked.
Because an investment with a low rate of return might just have high risk.  You should work out the risk, then determine the rate of return you demand.  Don't look at the rate of return and believe it indicates the risk.
Some of the finance company crims offered low interest rate investments to fool people that the investments were low risk.  When the investments were in fact very risky indeed.
 

""When I made those remarks a

""When I made those remarks a year or so ago we had no licencing regime for fund managers and we had not in fact started the process of licencing statutory supervisors or trustees," says Hughes. "Since that time there has been a significant increase in the regulatory standards"

Translation?:
We now have systems in place to skim profits from supervisors and trustees, and layers of redtape to kept them all busy away from their actual tasks.

. double post

. double post