By Amanda Morrall
Four years on, investors might be wondering which funds have been the best performers and the worst performers in the world of KiwiSaver.
Playing the Scrooge, we thought we'd compile a list of the weakest KiwiSaver funds in terms of the poorest rolling returns since inception. If you'd like to see a full ranking in ascending order see our performance ranking list here.
Our tables below rank the bottom five after fees but before tax. The usual caveat applies; past performance is no indication of future returns so read into the figures what you will.
AMP ranked dead last in all category of funds below, save one where it ranked second last.
Douglas said AMP's overweighted exposure to an unlisted property fund which has done particularly poorly in 2009, and 2010 is the main reason.
"I don't think it's a cause for concern,'' said Douglas.
"What you see from all the funds is they ebb and flow and AMP has been hit hard by its unlisted property holding.''
Douglas said performance was but one criteria that Morningstar uses to evaluate and rate KiwiSaver funds so the returns in and of themselves are not a reason to switch.
"We'd expect all managers to go through periods where the investments they make don't perform over time. You'll find that some investments go out of vogue, some of them make a poor relative decision and that can impact on short-term results.
"When you look at the AMP process and how they are managing the funds, there is no cause for alarm in that regard.''
Because of an ongoing merger between AMP and AXA, Morningstar has AMP rated as "under review" on its new KiwiSaver performance analysis. (To read more on its rating system see this story by Amanda Morrall).
AMP could not be reached for comment on its scheme's below average performance.
Douglas also cautioned investors against putting too much emphasis on rolling returns as a measure of fund performance. While a longer time frame is useful for establishing a track record and pattern, Douglas said it was still early days for KiwiSaver established in 2007.
|Default funds||Average four year performance over mean of 4.7|
|- AMP default||-1.4|
|- Tower conservative||-0.3|
|- AXA Income Plus||0.1|
|- ASB Conservative||0.2|
|- OnePath Conservative||0.5|
|Aggressive funds||Average four year performance over mean of 2.4|
|- Aon Russell Lifepoints 2045||-3.2|
|- Mercer Super Trust High Growth||-2.4|
|- Mercer High Growth||-2.2|
|- AXA growth||-2.0|
|Growth funds||Average four year performance over mean of 2.2|
|- Grosvenor High growth||-3.1|
|- Smartshares Balanced||-1.6|
|- Aon Russell Lifepoints Growth||-1.5|
|- Tower Growth||-1.3|
|Balanced funds||Average four year performance over mean of 3.2|
|- AMP Tyndall||-2.0|
|- Aon Tyndall||-1.4|
|- AMP Tower||-1.0|
|- Tower balanced||-0.4|
|- AMP moderate balanced||-0.4|
|Moderate funds||Average four year performance over mean of 4.6|
|- Smartshares Conservative||-1.8|
|- Craigs Conservative||-0.4|
|- Firstchoice Active Conservative||-0.4|
|- OnePath Conservative||-0.4|
|Conservative funds||Average four year performance over mean of 4.5|
|- Staples Rodway conservative||-2.2|
|- AMP Default||-1.2|
|- Tower preservation||-0.6|
|- Tower Cash enhanced||-0.3|
|- Grosvenor Enhanced income||-0.1|
|Cash funds||Average four year performance over mean of 3.8|
|- OnePath SIL||-0.5|
|- Firstchoice NZ||-0.5|
|- ASB NZ Bank deposit||-0.3|