AMP brings up the rear based on four-year rolling returns for KiwiSaver funds

AMP brings up the rear based on four-year rolling returns for KiwiSaver funds

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.

Chris Douglas, co-head of research for Morningstar suggests investors in the AMP scheme, whose funds are liberally represented below, should bear that in mind.

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
- AMP -5.1
- 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
- AMP -3.6
- 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
- AMP -3.0
- 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
- AXA -0.6
- OnePath SIL -0.5
- Firstchoice NZ -0.5
- Westpac -0.4
- ASB NZ Bank deposit -0.3

 

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.

89 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

Harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhahaaaaahaaaahaaaaahaaaaaa

And they were paid too

4 years....down the dunny....all that money....how funny

Wolly, the only thing you can conclude from this article is that some KiwiSaver funds have done better than others.  This article doesn't tell us anything about how KiwiSaver funds in general have performed compared to other investments.  Perhaps Amanda's going to tell us?

Hs Ms. de Meanour,

I have been supplied with the following from Morningstar for comparison's sake:

Name

Return Date

Return 01-01-2008 to 12-31-2011

New Zealand OE Multisector - Conservative

31/12/2011

4.53

New Zealand OE Multisector - Moderate

31/12/2011

3.15

New Zealand OE Multisector - Balanced

31/12/2011

0.84

New Zealand OE Multisector - Growth

31/12/2011

-1.17

New Zealand OE Multisector - Aggressive

31/12/2011

-2.49

 

Cheers,

Amanda

 

 

 

My apologies, the formatting was lost. 

Indeed it was Amanda, but thank you for your trouble. 

Am I understanding right that these figures should be compared with the "averages" shown in your original article?   So that (for example) "NZ OE Multisector- Aggressive" (-2.49) should be compared with KiwiSaver Aggressive average of 2.4?

 

wooah.  Christ, make that compulsory please.  Thats a lot worse then I thought.  Agressively losing money. 

Yep, you put up 100% of the money, carry 100% of the risk, and only get a fraction of the profits, if there are any.  Can't change the current power structure when you are handing all your money over to the rich.

Meanwhile how were the profits on these funds?  Consistent cashflow, no risk, of course they want a compulsory kiwisaver, it's a no brainer.  Even a retard could get those returns by buying the index.  Thye are called brokers because they make you broke-er.

Can no one see the big picture? The whole system is bankrupt, corrupt, unsustainable, and precariously teetering on the edge of collapse.

Does anyone actually believe the value in the KiwiSaver funds will be there when it comes time to drawdown on them?

There are ways to protect ones wealth; gold and silver work in an inverse-leveraged play on the strength (weakness) on fiat currencies.

Over the last few years if one had bought silver coins of bars they would of increased 5 fold, with zero counter-party risk, by just sitting on your bum doing nothing.

 

 

 

 

Some of us bansterbasher but soon the establishment will run the spin about what awful people we are and how the public have to see us as terrorists and report us to the policeman.

Lying is soon to be a required course of study in all schools.

All those KS folk seem strangely quiet on this one!

I refer you to my comment above ...

Many years ago i took out an insurance policy on my children that could be cashed in when they turned 21.I would have been better putting the money under the mattrass.

these insurance companies turned kiwi saver providers are rouges and mustrank alongside some of our sharebroking companies as full of shite.ifs ,buts and maybies.

KEEP CLEAR.

Would've been better buying shinies.

So if all the KS fools had bought gold at the mint...where would they be today?

.... they would be under a coconut palm , on a tropical beach , sucking mango juice , Wolly  ..

... and don't say that I didn't warn youse all about KS  ! ... Gareth Morgan did , too .

The KS was Michael Cullen's all time Christmas present to the fund managers . Forget sending your kids to learn a trade , get them into finance , the fund management industry is the biggest free ride going , outside of being a list MP in parliament , or an EQC accessor in Christchurch .

Wolly, most at best could have afforded a Kruger Rand or two after 4 years saving a $100 a month over 4 years. As it stands even with KiwiSaver at a zero interest they now have over $10000 for their first home... How can that be a bad thing?
Oops, forgot to include the $1000 a year first home incentive... Make that $14000 if they were to buy their first home now. How else could they have made that kind of money?

But mandalay..."that kind of money" includes a fat chunk of taxpayer benefit...and you seem to forget the gst face bashing tax on a new build...and that the govt and RBNZ are actively supporting the property bubbles to make sure the fat banks keep creaming off the fat....

Put it another way Mandalay...would the KS scam be needed if the banking money scam were not the mainstay of the economy!...I think not.

Then you need to ask yourself what market action takes place when the KS dosh is allowed out to chase property...bingo...prices rise...negating any 'benefit' from the govt pork top up. Exactly what govt and RBNZ want...protected bubbles...and what better than to use stupid taxpayer money to acheive it.

I think you doth protest too much!t $14000 is $14000 for people who haven't been able to exploit the fast cash no CGT rip off that so many on this site have.

Tax breaks for the rich, good thing, that'll keep the economy ticking along big time!! Tax breaks for the middle class and working class.... HELL NO!!!!! Who the hell are they? What do they do to contribute to the economy... I can hearing you thinking it from here!

 

 

Wolly, you need to start your own political party... of course the government is porking the system, where in the world are they not?

I would say Sweden Mandalay....not saying there isn't any pork politics going on there but the Swedish govt seems to be free of most of the financially filthy farce one is familiar with here.

while Wolly mocks the KiwiSavers, the reality is most people don't have the incredible financial nouse that he does. For most struggling Kiwis, and there are bunches of them, 3%of their salary and an equal amount from their employer, plus the annual $500 and the $1000 kick start from the government is an excellent start, not only for retirement but also first home buying incentive. Investing say $100 a month by yourself is going to get you nowhere, or somewhere close to nowhere pretty slowly. However, add the company hundie and $40 from the government and $240 per month aint that bad...

 

A bloody shame the Nats changed the rules by taxing the people who can least afford to be taxed though!

 "Investing say $100 a month by yourself is going to get you nowhere".....!

Really?....let's say you aimed at building $5000 by the end of a year in a rubbish bank account paying 4%...that's the rate on offer...OK the RBNZ will have debased the $ and the govt stolen some tax leaving you with maybe a 1% gain but screwed because it took a year to build the total in the first place. Second year another $5K to save  with the lousy return of course.... 4 years and you have $20ooo plus a smidgen of interest.

Plus...you might have learned something.

You've missed my point completely and argued at an arbitary tangent, which in itself might be correct, is incorrect in the context of my comment and how well KiwiSaver is doing for the average Kiwi...

How much do you have to invest to make you 5K? Certainly NOT $100 a month ... most Kiwis ( I know you'll find this hard to believe)  DON'T have $400 a month to save/invest etc... people like SK and the other property moguls out there are screwing them in to the ground with their "fair" 15% rent hikes when salaries have not moved over 3% in 4 years... Yip and your hated 15% GST has not helped either! Add a further rip off of things dairy and most other of life's necessities and you might find middle NZ, not to mention working class NZ is struggling just a wee bit!

As for your learning something comment... sigh! One can change KiwiSaver providers, manage the investment mix and get a handle on the whole process... and if you do it smartly. learn from Amanda and other smart people on this site and else where, you can get about 8% return on your KiwiSaver invest ment.... an extra 2K on your $14000...

PLEANTY of Kiwis "investing" $100 per month in Lotto.

a shame skudiv, lottery such a waste... be better spent on beer!

Anyone interested in starting up a Lotto kiwisaver?

Basically, every dollar of yours, the taxpayer's and your employer's that goes into the KS account goes to buy Lucky Dips and Big Wednesdays.

Apparently over the long run, the returns are about 80% (including what you put in). But you've got triple the chance of winning the bach, the car, and the $10 million, than if you bought the ticket by yourself.

Most people understand nil about finance, money, and how to get ahead.  Not because they don't wont to.  They just have never learned, and the only word on the street is buy a house.  Which is not going to make you rich, and if they continue down the hopium continuim by buying a better home every few years, it never gets any better.  Locking wages into kiwisaver, and getting a govt debt handout, is fine for those who have no understanding of money.  Which going by the numbers enrolled in kiwisaver, is a fair whack of the population.

Take the $100 monthly debt handout, and spend it educating people about money.  It might upset the current power structure, but it will ensure a prosperous future for NZ.

Now govt is borrowing, to fund this handout, at about 4.5-5%.  Gross returns need to be above that for it to be economical.  So for me, because I'm not involved in it, it's Lose-Lose-Lose.  As Gummy said this is just a gift to the fund managers.

Yup...a scam...a great scam because the large segment of financially ignorant remain ignorant and they voted for the KS rort thinking they were getting a $$$ gift...too silly to realise they were paying the taxes to fund the $$$gift....how dumb is that.

when in doubt insult everyones intelligence and scream scam... sigh! It's working for a whole bunch of people mate... we're all screwed by tax, it's life... well except for the really rich, whose money will be tied up in those lovely hideaways exclusive to the rich!

but if you want to scream scam look at what your blue boy cronies are doing to NZ

 

My dear mandalay...you need to see the fact that what is "working for a whole bunch of people" is actually not. The fund result data is clear on that. In many cases the funds would be deeply negative but for the taxpayer input..the "whole bunch" you refer to are also taxpayers..so they are funding themselves to stand still...

Worse than that is the fact that by washing their hands of making the effort to invest their savings themselves, they fail to make any progress on the road to learning about financial matters...they were encouraged to hand the problem over to the fund managers by Cullen and Clark...indeed they were enticed to do so with taxpayer pork.

My dear dear Wolly, I won't repeat  too much of what I have written earlier, clearly you can read... But seriously mate, someone sitting with 14K in 4 years at paying just $25 a week, how can they have lost? If someone decides to take an interest in their KS they can find a provider that can give them 8% return... the facts are there have a look. And if the thing is such a failure, why is your mate Jonkey so desperate to make it compulsory? Maybe because he realises it'll get NZ saving again? Maybe he just wants to 'pork'?

But again explain to me how someone can make any money for their retirement by investing $100 a month? You labour under the premise everyone has wads of disposable income... mistake, most people don't! The middle-class are the ones struggling the most and things are getting tougher, 15% rent hikes for NZ shitboxes, no salary increases, increas in GST, rise in cost of living etc...

As a tax payer we are all footing the bill for so much, leaky houses, the lack of Christchurch rebuild ( which wouldn't be bad if they we're actually making decisions and moving forward), the Rena clean-up, now the floods in Nelson... why build a house on a cliff in NZ? I mean really!

As a wealthy man, are you going to take your NZ Super when you hit 65? Maybe use your Gold Card? You bet you are! When you sell your million dollar house in Nelson, are you going to pay a fair CGT or when you flick your shares on the market, you bet you aren't... Governments 'pork' tis what they do my dear fellow... as a tax payer it behooves us to get some return on our 33% investment.

 

Skudiv I think you're wrong. In order to make money you NEED money, that's how it works now days. Yes there are the fortunate few who have the mental agility and ability  to make something from nothing, most  don't! Not fair, but then life aint fair!

The government is not handing out 100 bucks, they are giving $45, hardly a huge sum when you compare the money that could be made by a fair CGT.

But lets say Jo Average takes his hundie and gets an education on money at the end he will know about money and be able to do nothing as his landlord SK will have raised his rent by 15% and he'll be down to 60 bucks to play with in the investment game

If he invests the money in KiwiSaver, chooses the best provider with the best results and after a few years uses it as a deposit on his house. He now has a house and can start aquiring more wealth, it's pretty much the only way you can in NZ.... and hang in there for the 300% capital gain, as a heap of  'successful' self starters made their money on this site... And the way things are going, they'll proabaly get it in 10 years or so... there is NO crash coming skudiv, you know it....

As for gifting the fund manager, well you have to pay someone to have money in this country, may as well be her... but seriously a couple of hundred a year is no ship wreck, when you're making at $2800 off $100 down a month, not even 10%

I think you'll find the government is borrowing that money to fund the tax breaks for the rich ... I like to think the extra 2.5%gst is paying for KiwiSaver a nice blue collar break for a change...

Tell someone who can put a nice deposit on a house in 5 or 6 years  for a hundie a month, it's a lose lose scenario!

Seriously skudiv you are clearly better off then most, in smarts and fortune and it would be great if we all could be like that...  and so I agree KiwiSaver doesn't have to be for everyone, but for a bunch of Kiwis it sure works well!

 "...a nice blue collar break for a change".......come on Mandalay you don't really believe that crap do you!

 

well if the rich get 'em Wolly shouldn't the rest?

Yes I do understand where you are coming from Mandalay..yes the govts dish out the pork to mates..all govts...this govt too...a rorting behaviour endemic to NZ politics.

The point is the "breaks" as you call them, are the cancer cells in this economy...they are part of the sickness.

So we have National et al making sure the banks can skim the economy and inviting the players to grab at least $100million on the SOE sales rort...toss in the SCF scam profits made on Queen street...

The Kiwisaver was Labour's version of the game...structure to win votes first and keep winning votes for as long as the pork was sliced...had Clark managed to stay in office the pork KS offerings would have been sliced a bit thicker last year pre election time...vote for Labour and look at how great we are..you can have a bonus thousand for your KS account...

And I you Wolly, I seriously do... but unless there is a radical change to the system, what are we supposed to do?

"what are we supposed to do?"....well it's a start to admit to a lack of understanding and skill level..not you personally Mandalay...I could have a go at removing a brain tumour...I reckon I could cut the sod out...but the patient would cark it...so I do not have the skills and the experience...but after a few dozen failures I reckon I would get the hang of it...

People need to learn that they will learn from failing...take that away from them and you have a zombie nation.

So a good govt move would have been to focus on things that helped peasants learn about what saving was all about...Kiwisaver does not do that....it robs peasants of the chance to learn. Labour was not keen on that learning taking place and neither are National. A dim witted nation is easier to manipulate.

 

Give me a child for the first seven years and I will give you an Austrian economist.

 

 

 

Absolutely agree with you on that one - Wolly. In general kids learn from their parents and are confronted about consumerism – daily, but not on how to save and invest money wisely.

You know something Walter.....where will it all end up if we have one smaller group of Humans consistently parenting to educate and foster learning...and the rest doing the opposite?

When those in the fields of science and math and so on tend to partner up with kindred spirits...!

And when the bulk of this smaller group tend to be Asian.

And the larger % of them tend to be Chinese and Indian.

Applying that to NZ with the % of Asian Kiwi expected to reach 13% by 2025....

Wolly - simple in the best case scenario by 2025 - 20% of properties/ businesses owned by clever , hard working Asians, Indians, and a few others, but with 80% Kiwis pheasants, renting and working for them –  "Kiwi Slaves" of modern times.

pheasants?

I should've thought that their only job was to be fat and succulent , but Walter knows best ...

... www.woodfieldgamebirds.co.nz

OMG Roger – that is funny, I always ask myself, why the English call people pheasants (peasants). My understanding was, that pheasants - the birds, were hunted mostly by the establishment. So the symbolic meaning is, poor, rather uneducated people like me are available to work for the rich aristocrats.

Yeah – as a bloody foreigner life isn’t always easy – but Roger, I do my best - learning.

The English aristocracy are egalitarian in that they hunt , shoot and stuff both  pheasants and peasants with equal degrees of  relish ..... yoiks , and tally-ho ... pip pip !

peasants?

I got three you can have.

Like the old man yelling stuff at people on WINZ day, I finally think I get through to you, then you start tirading again about brain surgery and peoples upbringing...

People need to learn that they will learn from failing...
 worst case for you and your argument Wolly is KS does tip up or is killed by Jonkey, then people will have learnt...

As you want mandalay...feed in all you have...why should I give a hoot. For all you know I might be a fund manager harvesting the cash flow...am I essential to boosting saving by peasants...no....are taxpayer incentives necessary to get people saving....no

 

Wolly for all you know I too could be a fund manager who actually believes in his product... If you are a fund manager and have an inside scoop on the KiwiSaver 'scam' (as you say it is) then shame on you...

In a perfect world there would not be a need for a tax payer incentive, people would be better off and wouldn't be being bilked... as it stands tax paying Kiwis are getting a little bit of their hard earned cash back from the government and hardly a massive amount... $500 a year is NOTHING when I think of the tax breaks other people get, say dairy farmers...

 

mandalay -  hear hear!  I have had 4 happy years in the scheme and it's doing great.   I automatically joined -have barely lifted a finger - and I now have at least 250% growth on what I have put in, despite GFC and all that.  

 

 

Nice! Almost as good as buying an Auckland property in 1976 and selling it now... 

Who is your provider?

It's not the provider that gave the big return, it mainly came from the 1,000 kickstart, the member tax credits and the employer's matching contributions.

Also - the money has been paid in regularly, every time I have been paid.   The performance figures published in the media always assume a lump sum paid in X years ago.   Kiwisaver contributions don't work like that.    You can be in a 0% returning fund over one year and still make money.  

Let's say I put in $100 three times a year, 1 January,  1 July and 31 December :

1 January - Unit Price  = 1.00, so my $100 buys 100 units

1 July - Unit Price = 0.80, so my $100 buys 125 units

31 December - Unit price = 1.00, so my $100 buys 100 units

So the unit price has not changed for the one year between 1 January and 31 December.

According to Morningstar et al, that means my fund has not made any money.  0% growth.

Yet - you can see I have 325 units, which is valued at $325.  So I *have* made money!

And that is exactly how it works.  Money for jam, without the jam.

Fair call.

$240 per month @ 2.5% real return will net you $128k in 30 years, which should be heaps for retirement.  all calculated in todays dollars.

http://www.sorted.org.nz/calculators/regular-savings/page2.php 

 The calculations ...... are based on saving $0.00 per week at a real rate of return of 2.50% per annum. These savings amounts are regularly adjusted for inflation....(who knows what it will be) There is an initial savings amount of $0.00. You will have saved $0.00 after 1 year....

Well jeez Trev...didn't you do well...nuffin to show for doing nuffin....but you got 2.5% Trev....now pay some bloody tax Trev....

yeah but in 5 years you'll have 15k for a deposit on a house... with a total input of 25 bucks a week.... 5 years after that you'll be able to sell the house with a 50% capital gain and buy a bigger better house which in 5 years you can sell for 150% capital gain and then lecture everyone else on what a fantastic financial whizz you are... all for 25 bucks a week! Then you could be like all the other property moguls on this site, who got their money from a 300% lucky housing bubble and then tell anyone who didn't what a bunch of moronic 'peasants'(SIC) they are for not buying a house in Ponsonby for 1.8 million, then selling it 3 months later for 2.7 million...

AND ALL FOR 25 BUCKS A WEEK FOR 5 YEARS!!! TWENTY FIVE BUCKS A WEEK!!!!!

Come on people!!!!!

 

You had me until "sell the house and buy a bigger and better house"

Your own home is not an asset, it's an expense and a liability, it doesn't provide income.  If your house has gone up in value 50% there is a good chance that bigger and better houses have also gone up by 50%.

How about reduce your mortgage as quickly as possible, increase the equity in your home, then use that equity to buy an asset, like a rental property.  It's not a perfect stratagy, but at least once you retire you will have an income producing asset that is hedged against inflation.

What you are suggesting, will lead to retirement without any assets, and you will quickly realise how much of a liability your massive big awesome home, with the equally awesome mortgage really is.

If you want to be wealthy, not just pretend to be wealthy, you need to know the difference between assets and liabilities.  An asset puts money in your pocket, a liability costs you money.

I was being sarcastic/joking/having-a-dig about the house and capital gains and becoming a property mogul bit (I thought you of all people skudiv would have got it)... But serious about the fact a person in just 5 years can build up a deposit for a home, and can't think of another way someone can do that with just 25 bucks a week (and obviously have more if they pay in more say 200 a month and have 32k in four years)

I know this will probably surprise you and a lot of people on this site, but a lot of middle and working income folk in NZ don't own a home and therefore are slaves to your mate SK et al... and their 'fair' 15% rent increases. These people who have at best had a 3% salary increase since the increase of GST, power etc and are really struggling!

So what I am saying in a nutshell is, if  punters use KS as a deposit making machine for purchasing their own FIRST home then they will be far better off with less money then someone who didn't!

 

Please show how you make out that $128k is "heaps" for retirement.  At 2.5% that will give you $8,000/year for 20 years, or $10,000/year for 15 years. 

I think he's being sarcastic.... Ms dM...

If the previous government had just stuck with the universal NZ Super as it was , it was affordable , if they just pushed out the retirement age to 67 / 68 yrs .....

.... And $ 128 k invested in common stocks would easily yield $ 6400 p.a. ( 5 % yield , tax paid ) . That's a tidy $ 120 / week ontop the super payment . Nice !

GBH, universal NZ Super is still as it was.  KiwiSaver is on top of super, not instead of it.   You may believe it to be the Government's intention in due course to change that, but that is nothing but your belief.

I'd certainly agree that a nest egg of over $128k would make a nice addition to NZS.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood skudiv's intent before.  I thought he was suggesting that $128k on its own would support a comfortable retirement, which certainly ain't so.

Which accords with my thinking too . My gripe being that the Cullen Fund and KiwiSaver are unnecessary ..... but the fund managers love them ,... so much so that word has it  they're erecting a statue to honour their lord & saviour , Sir Michael Cullen .

Um, how do cash funds make a loss? (inflation/debasement aside....)

Fees, or fires.

I reckon I could out peform those bottom 5 cash funds. Anyone got any pointers on how to set up a kiwisaver fund management house?

You need to tick all the regulation boxes, so it may mean a few years at uni, or else get a front man.  Then legal help, and lots of bribe, I mean lobbying money to govt depts.

How's that other guy's fund doing? You know him, I just forget his name all the time. Oh, how frustrating. The guy' that is a climate scientist now - you know the one. How's his funds stack up?

You mean the guy that goes ona bout ther BiG Kumera or something?

..... good salesman that fella , could trade me any bloody thing ....

Amanda, regarding reported performance calculations - a question for you

Three Managed Funds

(a) A cash fund
Additional contributions $1 per business day
Interest calculated on a daily basis @ 4% pa
Balance at beginning of the year $10,000
Additional contributions $260
Interest received $412
Management Fees $50
Balance at end of year $10,622

(b) A Shares Fund
Valuation at beginning of the year $10,000
Additional contributions $260
Dividends received mid-year $412
Management Fee $50
Valuation at the end of the year $10,000

(c) A Managed Fund comprising (a) and (b)

What is the performance of fund (a)
What is the performance of fund (b)
What is the performance of fund (c)

Hi Amanda,

Are you able to crunch the numbers for Gareth Morgans KS fund, so there is a meaningful comparison with the others?  His returns don't seem very good despite his complaints about his competitors lack of transperancy on fees. Looks a little like the pot calling the kettle....to my mind with GMs reluctance to be on the Morningstar table, has hubris got the better of him

I think once I retire, I'm going to start a Kiwisaver fund.  I'll invest the money into things that will actually help people when they retire.  Like building some retirement homes, medical centres.  Instead of dividends they recieve free services, maybe with a few enterprises so they have something to do, that can also earn them income.  Something like that makes a lot more sense to me, then gambling in the national and global casinos. Not for everyone but some people may like a bit of security when they retire.

How about a crime Kiwisaver?  Funds go towards the activities of gangs and organised crime kingpins, you get a share in the proceeds of armed robberies and drug dealing, without having to risk your entire stake on one importation.  High risk, but less so than doing the crimes yourself, and the returns would be unequalled.

Govt/Council's have got the extortion market cornered. 

That's when we send in our gang minions to menace them right back, or offer to launder on their behalf.

Shit, I've said too much.

Why bother teaching a man to fish, when you can just give him a fish.

hahahahahaha... a bit of a stretch mate... KiwiSaver is for workers... people who actually contribute to society, people who go to work, pay taxes, buy cars, buy food for their kids... how is a tax break, not unlike the lack of CGT for the rich house traders, "giving a man a fish????"

And for once incentive to actually save rather then hope for a government super when they retire, which I bet you'll still take when you turn 65...

Incentive to save... Have you ever wondered why East Asian societies have such high savings ratios (regardless of their political arrangements)? I would suggest the main reason is, when you become too old to support yourself, you are either supported by your family,your savings,  or starve. No govt super there. Most people in these societies work until they drop, even if that work is minding the grandkids while the kids parents both work.Surely the prospect of starvation is the most powerful incentive of all.

Is our society capable of making a transition to this type of retirement/aging? Would it be preferable to our current policies? And no, I do not single out transfers to the elderly (purely on the basis of their age!) as the only reason for the unsustainable trajectory our economy is on, but it is certainly part of the problem

On a more personal note, I joined KS not long after it started, The employer contribution made it a good idea, the Govt contributions while "nice" I recognised as unsustainable long term so I never assumed they would continue.I would prefer more freedom under the scheme to self-manage one's investments, as I believe the scheme in Oz does. KS does not represent a major part of my retirement planning, property does (sorry Wolly) not in the hope of CG but as somewhere desirable to live, with the option of sharing with others to help pay the rates, insurance etc.

Mandalay you go on about CGT as some sort of panacea - its not. Simpler and more effective to just have a land tax - easy to administer and collect, and forces land (our most scarce resource) to be used more productively. If you look into it most "capital gains" arise from increases in the market value of land. Even ninenteenth century thinkers like Ricardo, J.S. Mill and George recognised this.

Finally, wealth can give you security, but as Aristotle said, your best security is your skills. No one can take those away from you. Maintain and enhance those and you remain useful to society and can earn a living.

Happy New Year!

Crooked Thumb (the following said tongue in cheek) those same countries that are run by central governement, dictators and the military? Am pretty sure we could move in that direction, but I for one am happy with the almost democrarcy we live in... Seriously though I do agree with your sentiment that we do need to do something more for our retirement and old age, but what I am saying is KS is a start at least...

I don't believe there is a cure all formula and was just using CGT as an example of an advantave that property sellers have that non-property sellers don't... just looking at KS as a bit of a 'break' for Kiwis that don't own a home/property...

 

Happy New Year to you too... and may we all keep learning new skills!

 

Thank you, and yes I have a strong belief in democracy, and in liberty as well. The marriage between the two does have its tensions, however one seldom endures if the other departs.

Re KS - I agree, its a start if nothing else, if you are talking about retirement planning. In my view, the right to retire should in some way be earnt. I don't expect other people to support me financially just because I reach the age of 65, and my retirement planning takes account of this belief.

Mandalay for you to describe land tax as criminal is ... your opinion, not a statement of fact. In the beginning, no one "owned" land, it was the commons. Private ownership of land came about by the application of force by the strong against the weak, that is, violence with no moral legitimacy whatsoever . Whatever transactions in land that subsequently occurred does not alter this FACT. In my view, a land tax is nothing more than a rent paid by the current occupier to the community for the use of the land, bearing in mind that in exchange for that rent no one else is allowed to use the land without the occupier's consent. So in my opinion, "ownership" of land has a somewhat different meaning to ownership of, say, a boat or a car..

um I didn't say a land tax was criminal. That was someone else responding to your comment.

um I didn't say a land tax was criminal. That was someone else responding to your comment.

Sorry that was sloppy on my part.
Even the Productivity Commission (who I would have thought would try to protect vested interests) recommended the idea of this tax be further investigated. The Green Parties in the UK have adopted this idea, but unfortunately the local variant is not so brave.

Incentive to save .....The difference is mental toughness. We are mentally weak, we want everything now, we don;t have the will power to wait. We sucumb to the advertisements so easily. oh yes give me give me give me. In the end I think we are poorer for it. We don't have more we actually have less.
In a lot of other countries credit is not so in your face because people don't want it and don't need it. They are stronger than us, they wait and pay cash. In they end they have everything they want and no debt. That is why the savings are high - no debts that need continual feeding.
We could learn ( and earn )  alot by being patient I reckon.
At the end of the day it is cash that is king and has real value, not the trinkets. 

I was referring to teaching people to invest as opposed to taking their money and investing for them.  People are never taught about investing, all we get taught at school is to obey authority, without questioning.  I doubt govt super will be around by the time I'm 65.

and I agree with you on all those points 100% ...

RE:"But serious about the fact a person in just 5 years can build up a deposit for a home, and can't think of another way someone can do that with just 25 bucks a week (and obviously have more if they pay in more say 200 a month and have 32k in four years)"
 
 
......well you could just go offshore for a while and save 32k or more a year easily. That is a better use of your nouse than waiting around for kiwisaver to make you some money isn't it?