Revised performance rankings for KiwiSaver funds. OnePath SIL and SuperLife well represented in the top five across all camps

Revised performance rankings for KiwiSaver funds. OnePath SIL and SuperLife well represented in the top five across all camps

With apologies to readers and affected providers, please find a revised version of our adjusted KiwiSaver performance rankings below.

The original Aug.4 story contained some errors that went undetected until Monday Aug.8.

------------------

There's a well worn mantra in the investment community that it is time in the market that counts more than market timing.

Three years hardly constitutes a long time in KiwiSaver, but by now accounts opened at the launch of the national savings programme in 2007 should be showing signs of growth or at the very least life.

In that regard, SuperLife investors will be in a merry mood indeed.

Based on three year annualised returns (ending June 30, 2011), the low-fee provider, which ran afoul of the Financial Markets Authority recently over sales practices, has distinguished itself as a standout  after claiming top spots in all but one category of funds, balanced funds. See more on the FMA comments here.

OnePath SIL also distinguished itself from the crowd of 30 plus providers with five of its funds also ranking in the top five across four category of funds; growth, balanced, moderate and conservative.

The leader, in terms of the best overall return, was the Fidelity Options fund which delivered an annual three-year return of 11.5%. (For more on Fidelity's Options funds see this story by Amanda Morrall. That was followed closely by Milford's Aggressive fund which posted a 10% 3-year annualised return, SuperLife's NZ Shares funds at 9.2%, Fisher Funds Growth at 8.2%, and SuperLife's "D" Fund which returned 7% over three years.

Returns are after all fees and expenses, but before tax. See here for how we calculate our "adjusted" returns.

Interestingly enough, conservative funds (considered the least risky type of fund and presumed to deliver the worst returns)  were not that far behind the aggressive.

Three-years annualised returns among the top five conservative finishers ranged from 7.7% to 5.6%.

Growth and balanced funds were relative laggards with returns ranging from 6.2% to 4.5%.

Clicking on the title in each table will take you to a full list of that type of fund and clicking on the fund name takes you to its profile.

Aggressive Funds 3 year annualised returns Rank
Fidelity Options 11.5% 1
Milford Aggressive 10.0% 2
SuperLife NZ Shares 9.2% 3
Fisher Funds Growth 8.2% 4
SuperLife Ethica 7.0% 5

 

Growth Funds 3 year annualised returns Rank
Aon OnePath Balanced 6.2% 1
Westpac Balanced 5.1% 2
OnePath SIL Balanced Growth 4.9% 3
SuperLife AIM60 4.6% 4
Westpac Growth 4.5% 5

 

Balanced Funds 3 year annualised returns Rank
OnePath SIL Balanced 5.3% 1
AonRussell Lifepoints Moderate 5.0% 2
Mercer Super Trust Moderate 4.9% 3
ANZ Balanced 4.8% 4=
ASB Moderate 4.8% 4=
National Bank Balanced 4.8% 4=

 

 Moderate Funds 3 year annualised returns Rank
SuperLife AIM First Home 7.3% 1
SuperLife AIM 30 6.8% 2
Aon Russell LifePoints Conservative 6.6% 3
OnePath SIL Conservative 5.7% 4
Mercer Conservative 5.6% 5

 

Conservative Funds 3 year annualised returns Rank
Mercer Super Trust Fixed Interest 7.7% 1
SuperLife NZ Bonds 7.6% 2
OnePath SIL Intl. Fixed Interest 7.1% 3
SuperLife The D Fund 7.0% 4
OnePath SIL NZ Fixed Interest 6.1% 5

 

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.

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.

9 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

 Why is KiwiSafer not compulsory and how many and who of our parliamentarians are in it ?

Let us hope it never is Walter..we should not be forced to save, especially when the govt is running a policy aimed at debasing the currency 3 to 4 or more % every sodding year.

 What I’m postulating is the nation does it all together or not at all. The current scheme will never succeed.

Define "succeed".

Everyone pays rich and poor - from an age of 18.

An overview

 http://www.justlanded.com/english/Switzerland/Switzerland-Guide/Jobs/Old-age-insurance

Even in rich Switzerland without constant adaptation, very difficult to maintain.

Even if it means going without essentials or falling behind on the mortgage?  Even if they could get a better return by investing in a new business, or would rather invest in their children's education?

Kiwisaver is  not compulsory because Winne the Poo had an electoral referendum on this topic and 93 % were opposed.

Far better to wait for the cargo cult ship to come in.

Question:  Why do Ausralia, Chile Singapore - who all have compulsory super have probably 3 of the worlds most successful economies ?

Poor old Norm Kirk - we had one on the 70's .Torn up my Muldoon with an election promise to return all company contributions to investors - A sure election winner !

Isn't called TAXES !?!?

Ever get the impression that the Govt is now pushing KiwiSaver, not for the sake of the participants, but to give the impression to foreign powers, that it could sequester the cash to pay off it's follies if the need arose?