sharetrader
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Comments?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    180

    Default Comments?

    I just saw this article (by my soon to be ex-provider) and would be interested in your views and opinions.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kiwiwealt...3_GJhcQzj8ak8s

  2. #2
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,557

    Default

    one does have to pay for 'experts' to formulate their strategy and pick winners etc....
    or not, and get the index.
    That article isn't controversial to me
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  3. #3
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    I just saw this article (by my soon to be ex-provider) and would be interested in your views and opinions.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kiwiwealt...3_GJhcQzj8ak8s
    what a load of waffle didnt justify anything

    heres how fees affect three different portfolios , the only way any active fund can justify charging more in fees is if they make a way better return than an index follower with lower fees.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/hidd...t-savings.html
    bull

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    180

    Default

    No, it isn’t controversial. I get what they are saying. I just felt the “tone” was a pretty defensive one (of their own position) and a somewhat patronising towards low fee schemes in general. The “noisy providers at the lower end of the market who managed to hint at some sort of overcharging” comment implies there is no overcharging of fees. Which I don’t believe is true.

    i realise these guys are all competing for our money but fees are important as is performance. KiwiWealth charges significantly higher fees than many equivalent (actively managed) providers and their performance for the same fund type is not significantly (or even) better than their competitors - both actively or passively managed.

    By by the way, I had already made the decision to switch providers before I read this article. Just found it interesting and was curious what others thought.



    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    one does have to pay for 'experts' to formulate their strategy and pick winners etc....
    or not, and get the index.
    That article isn't controversial to me

  5. #5
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    I just felt the “tone” was a pretty defensive one (of their own position) and a somewhat patronising towards low fee schemes in general. The “noisy providers at the lower end of the market who managed to hint at some sort of overcharging” comment implies there is no overcharging of fees. Which I don’t believe is true.

    i realise these guys are all competing for our money but fees are important as is performance. KiwiWealth charges significantly higher fees than many equivalent (actively managed) providers and their performance for the same fund type is not significantly (or even) better than their competitors - both actively or passively managed.

    By by the way, I had already made the decision to switch providers before I read this article. Just found it interesting and was curious what others thought.
    yeh of course people will defend their position, and who knows in the next few years they might make a few good calls in their active positions and suddenly they will improve their performance rating.
    No one knows (my favourite saying). Pay your money and take your chance. One could of course diversify KiwiSaver and have some active (higher fees) and one passive (lower fees) .

    Performance should be measured over a time frame as long as possible of course but as we all know past performance is not indicative of future performance
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  6. #6
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,612

    Default

    Check out the performance here ...thses numbers are after fees and before tax .A simple look at the growth over 10 years shows Milford # 1 13.3 % PA, and over last 5 Generate # 1 @ 10.8 % .( both actively managed)
    For those looking at fees Simplicity over the last year are # 3 @ 9.2 % # 2 is Fisher growth @ 9.8 % and #1 Generate @ 10.5 %...Obviously past performance and future disclosures etc ... but even 1 % difference compounded over 25 years makes a huge difference.
    https://www.morningstar.com.au/s/doc...ey-Q1-2019.pdf

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Yes I have looked at this. KiwiWealth Balanced fund - they came in at number 23 for performance. Simplicity came in at number 3. Yes, I do realise Simplicity is very new so there is insufficient historical performance data to make a truly fair comparison but I am impressed enough (by everything, not just this report) to take a chance. Time will tell. But either way, KiwiWealth Balanced has not performed well enough (compared to other active providers) to justify the high fees. JMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    Check out the performance here ...thses numbers are after fees and before tax .A simple look at the growth over 10 years shows Milford # 1 13.3 % PA, and over last 5 Generate # 1 @ 10.8 % .( both actively managed)
    For those looking at fees Simplicity over the last year are # 3 @ 9.2 % # 2 is Fisher growth @ 9.8 % and #1 Generate @ 10.5 %...Obviously past performance and future disclosures etc ... but even 1 % difference compounded over 25 years makes a huge difference.
    https://www.morningstar.com.au/s/doc...ey-Q1-2019.pdf

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    180

    Default

    As of today, $900,000,000 under management and they are not yet 3 years old.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    yeh of course people will defend their position, and who knows in the next few years they might make a few good calls in their active positions and suddenly they will improve their performance rating.
    No one knows (my favourite saying). Pay your money and take your chance. One could of course diversify KiwiSaver and have some active (higher fees) and one passive (lower fees) .

    Performance should be measured over a time frame as long as possible of course but as we all know past performance is not indicative of future performance

    The game still goes on just like at the casinos, no matter the results are that actively manged funds do not return more to the shareholders than buying the index itself. Buffet has proven then but industry standard practise proves to be ignorant. "More money has been made from salesmanship than actual returns to the investors" and he's speaking from an aggregate whole and cumulative returns over the decade.

    But be as you will - even expert financial advisers are none wiser by boasting claims and performance returns that are unaudited. BTW, everything should be reported in after taxed returns. EBITA has been the most senseless measurement taught at finance schools ever and has little relevancy to the end investors.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •