sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

National hopes spreading KiwiSaver funds across multiple providers will drive competition, innovation, and lower fees

Investing / news
National hopes spreading KiwiSaver funds across multiple providers will drive competition, innovation, and lower fees
[updated]
AB
Andrew Bayly.

A National Government would let New Zealanders invest their KiwiSaver money with multiple providers and rollback the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA).

Andrew Bayly, the party’s commerce spokesperson, said requiring savers to invest their money with just one provider was limiting choices and potential returns. 

“As the sector grows and matures, some KiwiSaver providers are looking to diversify their investments into different classes of assets – such as start-ups and build-to-rent investments.” 

“However, under the current settings, savers who want to access these new investments are forced to shift all their savings to that provider – limiting choice and competition.” 

National would let them split their funds between more than one KiwiSaver provider. It hopes this will fuel competition and innovation, as well as driving down fees. 

“Increasing flexibility and choice for KiwiSavers to allocate their savings across multiple providers will encourage innovation, and higher potential returns over their lifetime,” he said. 

When KiwiSaver was introduced by the then-Finance Minister Michael Cullen, National opposed it.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon said with KiwiSaver providers increasingly diversifying their offering, “we think that savers should be able to get on some of those new offerings without putting all of their savings at risk with a single provider”. 

He said the current settings required KiwiSavers to keep all of their savings with a single provider “limiting and ultimately worsening competition”. 

That meant New Zealanders would be left on the sidelines of new investment opportunities, limiting choices, competition, growth and ultimately “that means smaller savings for Kiwis at retirement”.

InvestNow General Manager Mike Heath said while National had pointed out the risks of investing via a single KiwiSaver scheme, InvestNow and other providers already offered wide fund choice “in a simple administrative wrapper”.

“While we applaud National for identifying a long-known issue with the KiwiSaver system, innovative schemes such as the InvestNow KiwiSaver Scheme have solved the problem without the need for government intervention,” he said. 

He said InvestNow offered KiwiSaver members access to investments from about 15 fund managers from the same administrative system – avoiding the costs and complexity involved in reporting across multiple schemes.

“The National Party emphasis on flexibility and choice in KiwiSaver is on the money. But the proposed policy is more likely to introduce confusion and expense when cost-effective solutions already exist.”

Much of the complexity, expense and risk would fall on the Inland Revenue Department, which channels most contributions to KiwiSaver schemes, Heath said.

He said members of more than one scheme would also lose the benefit of consolidated KiwiSaver reporting where all costs and investment returns can be viewed in context. 

Leighton Roberts, Co-Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer at online investment platform Sharesies, said it was working on a self-select KiwiSaver offering through its platform.

Roberts said it was great to see further innovation being explored in the KiwiSaver space, and “we agree that there is a huge opportunity to provide Kiwis with more choice and control over how their KiwiSaver is invested”. 

“What National is proposing will benefit some investors, but to drive better outcomes for the significant portion of people who are really concerned about having enough money to retire in comfort, there are other policy changes to consider.”

He said for “a step change, why not do a proper policy review of KiwiSaver that considered access, contributions, tax incentives and compulsion".

Reduce CCCFA, abolish CoFI

The party said it will also roll back “some of the financial red tape” such as in the CCCFA. Bayly said this law was supposed to be targeted at predatory payday lenders, but has ended up stifling consumers' access to debt. National would find other ways to restrict predatory lenders, while reducing the scope of the CCCFA.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Duncan Webb recently announced a wide review of the controversial CCCFA, after it already underwent substantial tweaks in 2023 to ameliorate some of the issues around borrowing being halted to even low-risk borrowers.

“National will maintain tight restrictions on predatory lenders, but significantly reduce the scope of Labour’s other changes to the CCCFA," Bayly said.

“Someone looking to start a business by extending their mortgage shouldn’t have to tell their bank which brand of cat food they buy or justify their Netflix subscription,” he said. 

“National will also repeal the recent Conduct of Financial Institutions Act, which was meant to manage financial misconduct, but will impose additional burdens on lenders, making credit more expensive and harder to obtain, even for basic services such as overdrafts and mortgages."

The Conduct of Financial Institutions Act (CoFI) was introduced to oversee the conduct of banks and insurers by putting a legal obligation on them to make sure they treat customers fairly.

Finance Minister Grant Robertson said he was "staggered" by the National Party deciding New Zealand doesn't need the Conduct of Financial Institutions legislation.

"This is the legislation that makes sure financial institutions behave well with respect to their consumers. It would be the wild west with National's policy."

CoFI comes into force in March 2025.

Bonded savers 

The party’s previous KiwiSaver policy announcement, which allowed people to use funds to pay rental bonds, was widely criticised by the fund management industry. 

Financial capability said it detracted from the key purpose of the scheme, which was supposed to be about saving for retirement. 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

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.

57 Comments

while i agree with the kiwisaver idea, not sure how they can get that to work, will there be a new page on your IRD page that you can determine how much goes to each provider, how much will that cost to set up and administer, like all the things being talked about at the moment there is a cost but no mention of who or how it gets paid for, especially if they are going to cut the public service 

Up
6

I agree, it is a good idea in principle, but there is added complexity and some setup costs associated with it.

Up
3

Thirded. I think being able to divvy up your Kiwisaver across different providers is a good idea but there's going to be a cost that will presumably be passed on to the "customer" by the providers and it would be interesting to see the impact of that additional cost on the effective returns of the Kiwisaver account. So a good idea in theory but the devil is in the details. 

 

Up
5

The above comments are exactly why NZ is falling behind.

It should be more about "how can we..." not "it's too hard".

Nothing good is ever simple.

Up
11

Falling behind what?

Up
4

Have a look at the countries in a recession. See who's in our company.

Up
2

I don't disagree with you. Like the cheese ad told me, "good things take time" and presumably good things are complex as well (at least that has been my experience) BUT isn't part of the idea with Kiwisaver that you want to keep management fees/costs low as every $ of fees takes away from your opportunity to earn compounding returns.

This is an added complexity/cost that is far better than Labour's one (pissing around with the GST system) and I'd personally love to be able to split my investments - as I do with existing non-Kiwisaver investments BUT for the average joe on the street who will probably never bother doing so if they are effectively forced to face higher fees that eat into their Kiwisaver returns it could be a net negative. 

If the cost is only applied to those who opt into the scheme, then no problem whatsoever with that. I don't have any insight into the tech/requirements in the background to make this happen, it could well be easier than I think to make work.

 

Up
9

Hmmmm...failing behind. Nothing to do with exporting the lion share of our productive energy to Aussie as bank profit choaking whats left of productive NZ then.

Up
5

That kiwi can’t do attitude at it again eh. 

Up
2

I am sure there will be a cost, the government will find a way to overpay some company to set the up. From a developers view it would take me a few months to do, maybe with a tester but given how much the relatively simple IRD web site took to setup, and how buggy it was to start with (couldn't even total values correctly) I am sure it will probably cost billions.

Up
0

I'm not sure it will be that complex to implement. There is already capability to switch funds. If you can do that, it's not much more of a stretch to have splits across multiple funds. 

Yes, it will take some work, but I don't see this as a massive mountain. 

Up
8

while i agree with the idea the devil is in the detail and all i see is a way of providers collecting more fees and more costs added to IRD and accounts departments of companies, as a disclaimer i have three funds going at the moment two outside of kiwisaver

its a simple system at the moment for the IRD and companies i guess that is why it was designed that way to try to keep fees and costs low , they just direct  all the funds (employee, employer, interest) into your selected providers account, now you are asking them to only direct a portion, into different accounts so now they have to calculate how much to each, what if you want to split over 3 or 5, if its a small amount to each does the provider charge a min Fee?  

Up
3

Why is IRD involved at all? In Australia you just give your employer your providers bank account details and the amounts you want paid to each .  Pretty much the same as how employers can pay your salary into multiple accounts.  In NZ its not compulsory so you should be able to just get the money yourself and make the payments yourself.  How hard is that?

Up
7

Would it be to ensure employers pay the agreed amount and also is there a tax incentive for employers to do so? No idea, just a thought.

Up
0

I would hope they don't make it too complex, perhaps allow 2 or 3 providers with fixed contribution amounts, i.e. half or one third each.

Contrary to what they say this will likely increase Kiwisaver fees, both for the consumer as they will have to pay multiple providers, and for providers as they will tend to have a larger number of customers with smaller account balances. Maybe for niche providers it will help as they can get more business. Also, as you say there will be some work for the IRD to do which will come out of tax dollars.

Up
5

Fees are usually a % of FUM so it makes no difference if its with one or ten providers.  However, in Australia Super also covers life and disability insurance, so you have to make sure that only one fund is doing the insurance otherwise you are paying multiple premiums.  I have no idea if Kiwisaver does insurance, probably not because that would be "too complicated" for little Kiwi minds.

Up
3

It may be that the fees charged by providers increase a little, or fall more slowly, due to managing more accounts with the same total FUM (in aggregate). If we can all split, the average balance will fall.

I think some providers still charge a fixed fee in addition to a % charge which would obviously increase what you pay if you split over a few fixed charges, but that should be avoidable.

I don't think the difference will be huge as I doubt many will take it up, but I think it is a useful change. 

Up
0

just like bank account, you can has as many as your need, save to each account as you wish.

All they need to do is link each account to the kiwisaver ID.  

Up
2

Frank agrees, however why can’t it be like a 401k and we self direct? So could be in some funds, shares, bonds whatever?

Also, why ain’t anyone talking about raising the contribution rate? Aussie has 11% instead of our measly 3%. Consequently they have the 5th largest funds in world, over 3 trillion and pushing towards 10tn within a decade or so. That’s funded all their infrastructure upgrades, gives capital to startup, borrowing etc as well as their own burgeoning fund Mgmt business.

If national want to get the economy growing raising rates 1% a year over their term in office would help. 

Up
1

If you want to contribute more than 3% you are free to do so, your KiwiSaver provider will be happy to help.  However, contributing at higher levels is not the optimal strategy for everybody and could lead to real financial hardship for individuals.   

Australia has more money because Australia has more money, not because it directs the money differently.

 

Up
0

If you're financially savvy enough to be playing around with asset allocation through splitting up your Kiwisaver, you're probably in the position where you can just have other non-Kiwisaver funds to do that.

 

National has already reduced the value of directing your funds into your Kiwisaver, so besides the annual government contribution, if you're not getting anything extra from your employer (as many people might be on total-remuneration contracts) then there isn't much value in using your Kiwisaver given the drawbacks (limited access etc).

 

And just like the other comments above, the large majority of the public are quite apathetic towards their Kiwisaver.

Up
14

Do you think a National Part government who is committed to providing tax cuts will continue topping up kiwi saver balances each year?

If you believe that then I have a bridge you can buy. Nice bridge too. Going cheap. Some call it London Bridge but its proper name is Tower Bridge.

Up
7

National opposed kiwisaver? Wow I don't remember that.

Up
2

they always vote against savings scheme , muldoon was the first when he scrapped the first scheme.

 

Ayes 71New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 48New Zealand National 48.

Up
4

Not just that, but when they came into power they made it worse:

  • Removed $1000 "kick start" payment
  • Halved tax credit to $521/year
  • Added a new tax on Kiwisaver employer contributions (ESCT)
  • Increased the minimum contributions from 2 to 3% per year, and the required employer match to 3% per year. The latter basically means the employers get to pay the new tax as anyone on a 30 or 33% tax rate effectively still gets 2% into their account after the tax.
Up
18

So? In Australia it will be12% compulsory contribution and the employer has to foot the bill for that as well. New Zealand has a long, long way to go.

Up
3

They also don't tax Super, although that might change soon.

Up
2

It should be tax free on the way in to accumulate it as big as possible.
Then on way out it’s treated like income. So take a lump sum and pay top tax, buy an annuity and get paid X each year and taxed accordingly 

Up
0

This site is full of commentators who have little or no idea on how the world works (even little old nz)?

NZ Super and Veteran's Pension are taxable payments, so any income you get may affect what tax code you need to use. This may affect how much tax you need to pay on your pension. If you have any questions about your tax obligations, please contact Inland Revenue.

Up
0

The employer doesn't foot the bill.  The employee does.  However it's dressed up and presented, the employer contribution is part of the total remuneration.

Up
0

Choice is a good thing. Except when you get it wrong. Then it's a learning - which is also a good thing.

Up
1

Don't worry under a Labour govt you'll get bailed out 😂

Up
0

Nobody has pointed out the obvious, yet:

MONEY IS NOT A STORE OF WEALTH

The misconception (that it IS a store of wealth) is endemic to 'both sides' of this argument. If there is less, or nothing, to buy in the future, money is worth less, or worthless.

Saving and investment and return, were words which fitted a temporary paradigm, being milked by a few lucky generations - not only is Kiwisaver moot is shares go lower or extinct; so too is ACC in trouble, and a lot of others. Storing proxy was never a guarantee, indeed we could argue it's a bit like a mass edversion of those firms which are in trouble, so give employees shares instead of pay - knowing the shares will be worthless. That example disadvantages the employees, the 'investment' one disadvantages future generations.

Up
2

The problem is PDK, that in the modern world, it is a store of wealth in the only way ordinary people can achieve it. It provides a basis of trade for individuals without having to possess real resources per se. It is an artificial construct, and is to a limited extent in denial or real limitations, but that doesn't change the fundamental reality for the average man on the street.

Up
3

What do you suggest then PDK? Instead of investing or saving use the money to get solar, batteries etc and a massive tunnel house? Or simply fritter it and enjoy the ride down? Not being facetious - genuine questions..

Up
6

Why instead of?

Anything that adds to your resilience (energy efficiencies? Insulation? Solar gain? Tools? Spares? Food production?).

Up
0

Rifle, gold, krugerrand?

Up
0

skip the krugerrand. You''ll pay gst on them. They are not bullion, gold content is too low.

Up
0

Previously I have advocated having multiple KiwiSaver providers, to reduce provider manager risk.

Sooner or later some provider could do a Bernie Madoff.

Up
0

I don't know why we cant just outsource the entire thing to Australian superannuation providers - adopt the exact same rules, and allow them to manage our money.  In Australia you can be invested in multiple funds under the same provider, can have accounts with multiple providers, and more importantly, you can have a self managed super fund.  Of course, Australian superannuation is tax advantaged and KiwiSaver is not, so therein lies the problem. 

Up
5

It is already possible with InvestNow to split up your Kiwisaver into different fund providers. 

Up
3

Good that they will kill off the stupid CCCFA!

Up
2

Well they would have to wouldn't they if they're going to lift the FBB?

Up
1

I've worked on "pension" systems in Australia and the UK. While on the surface it may appear simple to allow contributions to multiple funds and and different providers, the reality is very, very different.

It is a complete minefield of exception cases externally and a massive headache internally. Further, the poor punter often gets confused and allocates contributions in daft ways. Provider costs will go up considerable and fund returns down to compensate. Regulations will change continuously for the first 10 years or so. And politicians will wade into the various processes (that none will understand) and the whole system will become a mess.

Overall, the vast majority of kiwi savers will be worse off. Far better to allow a switch of fund and provider each year, or each quarter. Over a 30 year period that's heaps of opportunity to fine tune allocations into funds that most people simply have no idea about how they're managed.

Up
4

Meanwhile in Labour land, more taxes coming your way.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300951731/live-government-says-…

Up
1

I recollect my KiwiSaver provider (Simplicity) not being keen to split funds across accounts due to the increased complexity and costs.

Asset Allocation should be an investors number one investment decision. How many investors get that right I wonder? I’m not sure how this policy will really help people in any meaningful way.

Sadly, it just seems to me to be more fiddling while Rome burns.

Up
5

Meanwhile 121k spent on Prezzy Cards in 1 year by the Ministry of Pacific Peoples

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2308/S00113/act-would-abolish-the-min…

Up
1

I see your 121k on prezzy cards and raise you $17bn per year on a non means-tested benefit for the cohort of this country with greatest wealth accumulation, least debt, and those who burnt every bridge which helped their journey behind them (education, health, public transport, food) whilst keeping those benefits for themselves.

800k currently on it rising to 1.2mm claiming it within a decade - sending the country bust.

Up
3

B-b-b-b-b-but they paid t-t-t-t-taxes all their life sir.  It's a loyalty scheme, not welfare.  

Up
0

+1, but if they wanted to do something useful and productive they would ban management and admin fees and force providers to take their cut as a % of returns rather than gouging the public with their current fee structures

Up
2

A surefire way to see half the providers go bust if we hit a bear market for a couple of years in a row. I agree many fees are too high but don't agree with the solution.

Up
0

Kiwi's at the end of each financial year.

There was a mistake in my allocation. I had 100% in the fund that got the highest return. Honest.

Up
2

No matter which provider, the money goes to pump up share market and property market and people have no real control of their KiwiSaver money.

KiwiSaver is an “Investment “ not a savings account.

Up
0

You can put it in a cash fund if you like, but if your time horizon is more than a decade or so you'd be crazy to do so. Extremely high risk that your retirement will be insufficiently funded as your nest egg is whittled away by inflation. 

Up
1

I like the idea, kiwi saver is too controlled at the moment. There needs to be more competition in the market as the providors are creaming it un regulated to an extent.

Up
0

Leave KiwiSaver alone!

Up
1

If they really wanted to help Kiwisavers, they would reduce the fees that the providers are charging. A % fee makes no sense with passively managed funds. Seems this move will instead allow more fees to be charged due to the complexities. As a result kiwisavers will miss out of thousands in retirement due to fees over the life of the investment. 

Up
1