sharetrader
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 132
  1. #81
    Aspiring to be an Awesome Bear
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    In the Woods
    Posts
    1,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    (Moved from the Heartland thread as donít want to hijack that one.)


    As a beginner I struggle so much with threads like this one. Iím constantly asking myself ďif all of these experienced investors have such vastly different perspectives/opinions on a particular company, how on earth am I ever going to get my head around it to the point where I can make good decisions about my investments?Ē


    Iím not criticising or complaining, just making an observation. Investing is really fun but heck itís hard!

    You started a great thread justakiwi, there are lots of interesting posts on here

  2. #82
    percy
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    christchurch
    Posts
    14,429

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    580

    Default



    This is awesome. Thank you! Signing up for the free courses for sure

    Quote Originally Posted by percy View Post

  4. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    If you read a single book, and then follow only the ideas in that book, then you will eventually come unstuck. Whatever system you have or follow, there will be a set of circumstances where it will be almost exactly the wrong thing to do.

    The trick is to read everything you can lay hands on, change your ideas as time slithers by, and then diversify among the various ideas you have come across as you read more and more.

    Variety is the spice of life. I think one of the blokes at Mauldin Economics said something like ". . . you should diversify across strategies as well as asset classes. . . ".
    I've read many books in the past. Now, I prefer someone smarter, Warren Buffet already has read the books and what he conveys is smart enough. How many ways does it take to show the people how much of a scam 'salesmanship' has been in the selling investment packages for the newb investor?

    Diversify across all asset classes? Man, if that was true i'm sure many would of outdone Buffet's track record. But I will EAT my own shoe if the markets hold a 'strong form of market efficiency' for which diversification to work well. Market Efficient Hypothesis is just like EBITA - the same BS crap that they teach at business schools.

  5. #85
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wandering Free
    Posts
    768

    Default

    So this Buffet bloke, he just buys the index then?
    om mani peme hum

  6. #86
    Reincarnated Panthera Snow Leopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wandering Free
    Posts
    768

    Default

    PS: It is EBITD​A
    om mani peme hum

  7. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    ..

    I think it is not unusual for capital gains to be taxed at a lower rate than income. When capital gains tax was introduced in Australia it was to be taxed at half the rate that income was taxed at. Why? Because not all of the capital gain was capital gain above the rate of inflation. Taxing capital gain at half the income tax rate was the ATOs way of adjusting the tax take to reflect the capital eroding power of inflation.

    AFAIK Australia and NZ are the only two countries that give individual shareholders credit for tax paid by any company they hold shares in as an entity. Tax has already been paid at the corporate rate by US companies at least, before any dividend is paid to shareholders. I wonder if the lower tax rate paid on Canadian dividends is Canada's way of accounting for this?
    Actually capital gains in Australia was not treated like in Canada in the past. They use to take the full gain less an inflation factor % figure. Early 2000 my uncle in Australia was asking how Canada treated CGT and it was clearly different. But it seems that Australia has gone to the Cdn way as it was more simple to half the gain for taxable income instead of looking at inflation tables for each year in the past.

    With the tax treatment in Canada you have outlined, I can understand why you object to the tax paid under the New Zealand system SBQ! If you pay no tax at all in your Canadian TFSA, even upon redemption, it is hard to imagine any other country being able to compete with that. I guess there must be some restrictions on TFSA though. I presume you can only take money out of it once you hit 65? Is there a limit on the amount of money you can put into a TFSA?
    Hard to imagine? The US has ROTH IRA. The UK has the ISA. All in the form of being tax free investing so this is nothing new. The TFSA came later (only started 10 years ago) only restriction is how much funds transferred in each year. On it's initial introduction it was $5,000 per year, then gradually rising to match inflation (indexed to inflation) to now $6,000 for 2020 contributions. There was 1 year that was $10,000 allowed to be moved in but that was a special year. The restrictions on most part in a TFSA don't really affect the typical investor. Such as say if a person had inside information and bought a penny stock and it grown to like 10,000% fold. Well such penny stocks aren't eligible for TFSA as they don't trade on a reputable stock exchange. So TFSA limit certain equities around the world and I believe the NZX is not allowed (who would?) but most trade the TSX and NASDAQ/NYSE with no issues.

    NO restriction when you can sell up and withdraw regardless of age AND the gains are locked in. That is say you had $100,000 balance and like $40,000 of gain, well you don't lose that $100K balance in the following year. You withdraw the full $100K this year, then wait next year and can put BACK that $100K + (the annual contribution of that year) and resume investing.

    But here's the real reality. How many people do you know who can put aside $6,000 in savings per year out of their wage / salary? This is the real deal because MOST people can't and when Justin Trudeau came in as PM, he criticised that TFSA was only an investment vehicle for the RICH. The only reason we have Kiwi Saver is simple, people don't know how to save so by taking a portion off their weekly / monthly pay essentially forces them to save ; (same deal in Canada's RRSP).

    As a matter of interest, the max contribution you can put into an RRSP is 18% of the annual income. Many high income earners do this in Canada despite their employer would only match 8% or less. But there are some companies that do.

    Now going back to TFSA, well say if you wanted to open one up now but never invested before. If you were over 18 in 2009, you do not LOSE the past contributions. The total of those years $69,500 which means you could move in THAT amount to start investing, and this 'contribution amount' continues to grow in future years that you do NOT contribute savings to. So what the gov't is saying that you're not restricted because you don't have funds to invest in 1 year or another; they're giving you the break that in future years you may come across some large sum of savings and you can apply that amount to the past years that you didn't use up.

    The sad reality is clear. The NZ investor is going to have less of an AFTER-TAX share investment than the Canadian in the many decades to come.

  8. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Leopard View Post
    So this Buffet bloke, he just buys the index then?
    Upon his death, for what is left after he's gifted all his wealth, he's instructed to invest only in the index ETF.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wa...nds-2014-03-13

    "
    My advice to the trustee couldn't be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard's.) I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors — whether pension funds, institutions or individuals — who employ high-fee managers."

    Why? Because as he's explained before, there exists no fund manager that can prove otherwise of consistently beating the index return.

    Also some of you may ask why has Buffet been able to beat the market index for MOST of the years since he took over Berkshire? I mean it's like he's speaking in contradiction to himself. It's because his caliber to investing differs to managed fund. For eg. brokering deals for merger and acquisitions, being able to led out cash at obscene rates, the list goes on and you can bet NONE of the Kiwi Saver funds would be in any position to make such deals. During the GFC, Goldman Sac needed $$... so they went to Buffet, in return he demanded 10% on the $ + with warrants and options. You can bet the strike price on the options deal with GS was to his terms. So all these gravy incomes come into Berkshire that benefit the shareholder. As his right hand man said to Buffet at the at their AGM some years ago, "Why are you telling the audience this?.. they've essentially done better than the index ETF by buying Berkshire".

  9. #89
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Actually capital gains in Australia was not treated like in Canada in the past. They use to take the full gain less an inflation factor % figure. Early 2000 my uncle in Australia was asking how Canada treated CGT and it was clearly different. But it seems that Australia has gone to the Cdn way as it was more simple to half the gain for taxable income instead of looking at inflation tables for each year in the past.
    Yes the Howard government overhauled the Australian CGT system in 1999. The previous system that was introduced in 1985 had a CGT linked to gains above inflation. The 1999 changes meant that taxpayers paid their capital gains at rate equivalent to 50% of their marginal income tax rate. There was a transition period as well where taxpayers could choose whether they paid their CGT under the new or old systems.

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  10. #90
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    The US has ROTH IRA. The UK has the ISA. All in the form of being tax free investing so this is nothing new. The TFSA came later (only started 10 years ago) only restriction is how much funds transferred in each year. On it's initial introduction it was $5,000 per year, then gradually rising to match inflation (indexed to inflation) to now $6,000 for 2020 contributions. There was 1 year that was $10,000 allowed to be moved in but that was a special year. The restrictions on most part in a TFSA don't really affect the typical investor. Such as say if a person had inside information and bought a penny stock and it grown to like 10,000% fold. Well such penny stocks aren't eligible for TFSA as they don't trade on a reputable stock exchange. So TFSA limit certain equities around the world and I believe the NZX is not allowed (who would?) but most trade the TSX and NASDAQ/NYSE with no issues.

    NO restriction when you can sell up and withdraw regardless of age AND the gains are locked in. That is say you had $100,000 balance and like $40,000 of gain, well you don't lose that $100K balance in the following year. You withdraw the full $100K this year, then wait next year and can put BACK that $100K + (the annual contribution of that year) and resume investing.

    But here's the real reality. How many people do you know who can put aside $6,000 in savings per year out of their wage / salary? This is the real deal because MOST people can't and when Justin Trudeau came in as PM, he criticised that TFSA was only an investment vehicle for the RICH. The only reason we have Kiwi Saver is simple, people don't know how to save so by taking a portion off their weekly / monthly pay essentially forces them to save ; (same deal in Canada's RRSP).

    As a matter of interest, the max contribution you can put into an RRSP is 18% of the annual income. Many high income earners do this in Canada despite their employer would only match 8% or less. But there are some companies that do.

    Now going back to TFSA, well say if you wanted to open one up now but never invested before. If you were over 18 in 2009, you do not LOSE the past contributions. The total of those years $69,500 which means you could move in THAT amount to start investing, and this 'contribution amount' continues to grow in future years that you do NOT contribute savings to. So what the gov't is saying that you're not restricted because you don't have funds to invest in 1 year or another; they're giving you the break that in future years you may come across some large sum of savings and you can apply that amount to the past years that you didn't use up.

    The sad reality is clear. The NZ investor is going to have less of an AFTER-TAX share investment than the Canadian in the many decades to come.
    One area where NZ seems to differ to the UK and Canada at least is that income earners in the latter two jurisdictions have a choice between contributing to a government regulated 'investment scheme' or a government regulated 'pension scheme'.

    https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/sa...lifetime-isas/

    In the UK if you invest in a 'pension scheme', then at age 55 (rising to 58) you can only take out 25% of your pension scheme as a lump sum. The rest is paid to you as income and you pay tax at your marginal rate on that. Pension scheme contributions are made from pre-tax income. So with a pension scheme you do pay tax eventually but at normally at a lower rate because your income is lower in retirement. Furthermore employers are required to top up any employees pension scheme at a rate of 3% of salary.

    However with the ISA which is more an 'investment scheme' your contributions are made after paying income tax. With the pension investment scheme ISA, the LISA, The maximum amount you can save per year is £4,000 (c.f. ten times that for a pension scheme). There is no top up from employers and you have to wait up to five years longer (at age 60) to access it. Why should you need to access your LISA early? You will have to pull money from your LISA before getting access to any pre-retirement age benefit entitlements. Having to do that could decimate your retirement savings.

    Both schemes have a state contribution of 25% to top them up. However, if you have to access your LISA early this must be paid back. Higher-rate taxpayers get tax relief at 40% in a pension. So to contribute £100 only costs them £60 – easily beating a LISA.

    Is that SBQ 'Pension vs LISA comparison, somewhat akin to the difference between the Canadian TFSA and RRSP?

    It looks like the good old Kiwi taxpayer does have some advantage over the UK saver at least.

    1/ Kiwisavers can take out all of their savings in a lump sum if they want to once they reach the qualifying age. There is no tax to pay at that point.
    2/ No government subsides have to be paid back if the Kiwisaver is reclaimed early due to hardship.
    3/ You can go on a benefit without being forced to withdraw your Kiwisaver.
    4/ There is no limit to annual contributions
    5/ No restrictions on Kiwisaver providers on markets they can invest in.

    So really the average punter with a Kiwisaver account is not as badly off relatively as you make out?

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 20-01-2020 at 09:59 AM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  11. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    580

    Default

    Thank you for this explanation. I have never understood the apparent contradiction until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Also some of you may ask why has Buffet been able to beat the market index for MOST of the years since he took over Berkshire? I mean it's like he's speaking in contradiction to himself. It's because his caliber to investing differs to managed fund. For eg. brokering deals for merger and acquisitions, being able to led out cash at obscene rates, the list goes on and you can bet NONE of the Kiwi Saver funds would be in any position to make such deals. During the GFC, Goldman Sac needed $$... so they went to Buffet, in return he demanded 10% on the $ + with warrants and options. You can bet the strike price on the options deal with GS was to his terms. So all these gravy incomes come into Berkshire that benefit the shareholder. As his right hand man said to Buffet at the at their AGM some years ago, "Why are you telling the audience this?.. they've essentially done better than the index ETF by buying Berkshire".

  12. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    One area where NZ seems to differ to the UK and Canada at least is that income earners in the latter two jurisdictions have a choice between contributing to a government regulated 'investment scheme' or a government regulated 'pension scheme'.

    https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/sa...lifetime-isas/

    In the UK if you invest in a 'pension scheme', then at age 55 (rising to 58) you can only take out 25% of your pension scheme as a lump sum. The rest is paid to you as income and you pay tax at your marginal rate on that. Pension scheme contributions are made from pre-tax income. So with a pension scheme you do pay tax eventually but at normally at a lower rate because your income is lower in retirement. Furthermore employers are required to top up any employees pension scheme at a rate of 3% of salary.

    However with the ISA which is more an 'investment scheme' your contributions are made after paying income tax. With the pension investment scheme ISA, the LISA, The maximum amount you can save per year is £4,000 (c.f. ten times that for a pension scheme). There is no top up from employers and you have to wait up to five years longer (at age 60) to access it. Why should you need to access your LISA early? You will have to pull money from your LISA before getting access to any pre-retirement age benefit entitlements. Having to do that could decimate your retirement savings.

    Both schemes have a state contribution of 25% to top them up. However, if you have to access your LISA early this must be paid back. Higher-rate taxpayers get tax relief at 40% in a pension. So to contribute £100 only costs them £60 Ė easily beating a LISA.

    Is that SBQ 'Pension vs LISA comparison, somewhat akin to the difference between the Canadian TFSA and RRSP?

    It looks like the good old Kiwi taxpayer does have some advantage over the UK saver at least.

    1/ Kiwisavers can take out all of their savings in a lump sum if they want to once they reach the qualifying age. There is no tax to pay at that point.
    2/ No government subsides have to be paid back if the Kiwisaver is reclaimed early due to hardship.
    3/ You can go on a benefit without being forced to withdraw your Kiwisaver.
    4/ There is no limit to annual contributions
    5/ No restrictions on Kiwisaver providers on markets they can invest in.

    So really the average punter with a Kiwisaver account is not as badly off relatively as you make out?

    SNOOPY
    Canada's choice of pension is a many but TFSA and RRSPs are not mandatory. I recall some years ago the Finance Minister of NZ wanted to make it compulsory for ALL workers in NZ to go into Kiwi Saver. In Canada RRSP is entirely up to you but most choose so because of the ability to defer tax and REDUCES the person's taxable income. I'm not sure if this is done for Kiwi Saver because the small 3% employer matching would make much difference to the person in NZ. I question, if the wage earner were to contribute 8% of their pay into Kiwi Saver, does THAT 8% lower their taxable income? Does IRD recognise you earned say $100K and can take $8,000 off that so your actual taxable income would be $92,000? In Canada they have RRSP contribution limits that you can carry forward if not used so you can have situations where 1 year a person pays so little income tax as they keep lowering their taxable income. I know the carry forword and back for contributions is not allowed in NZ.

    @1) and that's entirely the point i'm hitting hard at. Kiwi Savers are being hit hard with tax every year without the ability to future plan your tax outcome in retirement. No consideration to the high income earners or the low income earners throughout their lifetime. For RRSPs, I should add that all of it must be converted to RRIF before age 71. Basically the gov't does not want the person to compound their investment forever so the conversion to an 'income fund' so they can get taxes on it. Keep in mind when the person dies, deemed disposition kicks in so the whole portfolio will be taxed. Under RRIF, there's a minimum amount of income that MUST be drawn from it but the investments stay compound tax free.

    @2) same with any gov't grants in Canada. The only time they do have to be paid back is if the person doesn't play by the rules and over contributes, withdraws too early, etc but rarely the case. In 2020 the Cdn gov't has introducted the FTHBI (1st time home buyer incentive) which the gov't will lend 5% (or 10% on a newly constructed home) for amounts up to $500K. That loan has no annual repayment but instead, adds as part equity stake to the person buying their home. Either 25 years or when the person sells, that capital gain that results is when the person repays the gov't ; a WIN : WIN because the person doesn't pay interest on the loan and the gov't of Canada shares part of the capital gain.

    @3) same deal in Canada as laws prevent the sale/withdrawals from the RRSP ; but generally speaking people on welfare or on the dole don't have much of a savings plan.

    @4) only limit on the RRSP is 18% of your total annual income. But as I mentioned before, the more you contribute, the lower your taxable income becomes.

    @5) as i've hammered before, there lies a huge tax disparity between NZ shares vs overseas share that fall under FIF. The small investor up to $50K NZD is better off investing abroad as the FIF doesn't kick in until over that threshold. You have a disparity between Kiwi Saver funds and the individual in this respect ; why? and as I mentioned before in other threads, the individual that invests abroad directly owning the shares can pay no FIF on years of loss ; why the fund manager is stuck paying FIF regardless on years if they profit or lose % return on their clients.

    So when you look at all the complexities and differences, it's no wonder why people keep investing in real estate instead of the sharemarkets. IMO the average person in NZ is better off getting a mortgage from the bank to leverage their investment in another house.

    FYI, Canada has a mandatory pension scheme called CPP (Canada Pension Plan) where a portion of the pay cheque is paid into. We don't have this in NZ and it's not to be confused with the gov't superannuation scheme; Canada has that too called OAS (Old Age Security) pension that everyone gets; and if OAS is not sufficient say you earn below income threshold ; you can claim the 'supplementary benefit'. So when you look at Canada at the various pension plans and schemes they have, it's no wonder why very very few exPat Kiwis living in Canada would ever reside back to NZ. Why would they when FIF will hit them so hard and if they had to sell up their portfolio, the tax on the gains would hit them hard. End result being, who in their right mind would move from a deferred tax scheme to an inequitable tax scheme we have in NZ (FIF/no tax on NZ share gains etc) ?

  13. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Out of curiosity, why did you move here? I came from the UK for the lifestyle, not the tax system, and have no regrets. Now I play the tax hand I am dealt here, and find it reasonably easy to save and invest. Tax certainly doesn't stress me out, happy to help out the less fortunate and pay my share.

  14. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfd View Post
    Out of curiosity, why did you move here? I came from the UK for the lifestyle, not the tax system, and have no regrets. Now I play the tax hand I am dealt here, and find it reasonably easy to save and invest. Tax certainly doesn't stress me out, happy to help out the less fortunate and pay my share.
    There are 2 things in life you can not get away from. One being taxes & the 2nd, being part of a family. The latter is what brought me to NZ and the former was what took me away from Canada. Now i'm confident to say the table has turned around when comparing both places.

    Family relations that are close to me know my displeasure in the direction that NZ is going (or has gone in the past 10 years). It never use to be that way when I first arrived in 1996. Back then NZ never had Kiwi Saver, taxes on foreign investment or any form of regulations like the NZ FMA, OIA, & AML. GST was 10% More people owned their homes and newly uni grads and trade workers had better prospects of landing a decent job.

    I recall some years ago waiting in the airport lounge before boarding talking to an older man how he believed NZ was still the land of the milk and honey. I questioned him about home affordability why it's so expensive in Auckland. How do normal jobs like teaching can afford to live in places like Auckland when their pay is not reflective to the cost of living. His response was well... not very convincing and this is what I find with most of the view in NZ. No one questions and no one seems to care until it goes way way out of control that you can't fix it. No different when I spoke to an architect here in Chch from one of these major group builders. I was asking about lifting the building standard like we do in Canada. Issues like solar PV, thicker walls, air tight construction with balanced pressured HRV, etc and the guy's face had the same look as the guy I spoke to at the airport. His response was, "well you may think these are great ideas but unfortunately, the people in NZ don't think this way and the reality is they really don't care about the price of electricity over the long term. Instead what they feel is they accept the small gradual increases in electricity pricing annually and adjust their lifestyle / income towards that". He also said you're never going to get a payback on these improvements and certainly the insurance companies don't care for it. With no surprise, i'm seeing the same views in NZ finance too because so little of this subject is talked about in general public ; perhaps need to look at the schools for a lack of teaching in this subject, because in Canada, finance is such an integral part in living ; on the TV news, talk shows, etc. So what I learned here in NZ is people don't care about money and therefore the ignorance of not knowing would lead them to less stress in life. Perhaps question why 25% of NZ's global population lives abroad? Why are few senior expats moving back to NZ? There are a lot of questions to be asked but no one in NZ seems to want to hear the real answers.

    Canada use to have this kind of attitude towards taxation and finance to the point that the PM had to address brain drain and a flight of capital leaving the country. The US health care system was continually draining the skilled doctors and nurses from Canada (I know 1st hand of close friends that left Canada during the time I left and you know... they are NOT going back). So if you question about being "happy to help out the less fortunate and pay my share" well there's a rude awakening about this view. What happens is the gov'ts realise there isn't enough $ to go around and people's life and liberty begins to erode. They bring in new taxes, elevate the cost of living, and keep things highly regulated (gee sounds the opposite of what Donny Trump is trying to do in the US). All while we are lead to believe 'Yes it's OK if i'm paying more taxes and taking a huge cut on my standard of living' while we see the skilled leave NZ. As I told my wife, the 2 of us have no problems and financially we've already made it and it would not matter where we live. However, when I speak about my children? Whoa daddy that's an entirely different story. How acceptable that it becomes cultural that the only way the next generation can buy their 1st home is to rely on their parent's wealth to make it affordable? and to think how that man at the airport says NZ is the land of the milk and honey?

    So you may ask again, why am I still living in NZ if the grass is greener in Canada? Again, you can't run away from family. But 1 day my relatives can't live forever and 1 day my children will grow up and will need jobs. So until that time comes we are pretty much stuck here.

  15. #95
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Irresident
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    I've read many books in the past. Now, I prefer someone smarter, Warren Buffet already has read the books and what he conveys is smart enough. How many ways does it take to show the people how much of a scam 'salesmanship' has been in the selling investment packages for the newb investor?

    Diversify across all asset classes? Man, if that was true i'm sure many would of outdone Buffet's track record. But I will EAT my own shoe if the markets hold a 'strong form of market efficiency' for which diversification to work well. Market Efficient Hypothesis is just like EBITA - the same BS crap that they teach at business schools.
    Yeah well, if you and Warren Buffet share the same goals and the same timeframe, then why not?

    Diversification is a strategy to reduce risk. It's obverse is concentration. They are both valid strategies - indeed I'd imagine that they're probably complementary.

  16. #96
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    Yeah well, if you and Warren Buffet share the same goals and the same timeframe, then why not?

    Diversification is a strategy to reduce risk. It's obverse is concentration. They are both valid strategies - indeed I'd imagine that they're probably complementary.
    Of course, we learn lowering risk in elementary stats class and it's sold on to everyone in portfolio theory. But it's by no where near a proven strategy for outperforming the market. You should know the more you diversify, the less return you get as you get closer the level of averages (kinda like the limit function in calculus on the x/y graph where the line gets closer and closer but never gets to the line)

    The whole investment community has been lead to believe everything has to be diversified. You have the gov't embracing it, schools embracing it, and who are the real losers? The real winners are the fund managers that make themselves look good (who spend a lot of time doing nothing) because they don't know how to produce exceptional returns with skill. The losers are the investors because as I said before, more $ is robbed from them in the form of administration fees, taxation, and making bad investment choices, than showing real returns. I recall some years ago the NZ Superannuation fund was trying to sue some bank in Spain because they took a bad stake in a poison pill venture. Like who was the goon that OK this kind of deal? - and you can be sure no one was held accountable. The markets are not efficient enough to make diversification a relevant AND reliable form of investing to depend on. Yet, financial advisors still push this hopeless strategy to their clients. I see over diversification all too often. You have a newb investor that says I have $10,000 to invest and instead of picking key performing stocks in an index, they're compelled to believe diversification is the key and buy like 30 stocks over the 5 years they stay invested. Or they feel that so and so Kiwi Saver fund is good and puts $10,000 to them for which the aggressive fund allocation has like 200 different shares invested. Then the investor comes back after several years saying how come my investment returns are so little? Well the financial advisor will always say something like, "Investing is a LONG TERM plan and you should ignore the times when the market is doing very bad". They all seem to have the right excuses...

    That's why in Canada, the gov't realise that for the vast majority of 'small' investors looking to save, they brought out TFSA, RESP, RDSP, etc aimed specifically for the low and middle class people that would struggle to save $2K to $6K a year. By leaving them with a tax free status on those registered investment plans, it gives a HUGE incentive for the general public to get knowledgeable about finance, when in the past, it was only the big boys with large 7 figure accounts that would make the money. The small guy doesn't have to seek to pay lofty fees for some 'financial advisor'; there's already plenty enough information online about investing; so they can invest directly in a low cost discount brokerage account that doesn't charge moronic fees like 1% per year on total account balance that i've seen with some NZ brokerage firms.

  17. #97
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Irresident
    Posts
    962

    Default

    "You should know the more you diversify, the less return you get as you get closer the level of averages. . . "- I'm inclined to think that how and what you diversify is also important. Conversely, the more you concentrate, the further away from the level of averages you can get. Out of idle curiosity, what do you benchmark yourself against?

    "I recall some years ago the NZ Superannuation fund was trying to sue some bank in Spain because they took a bad stake in a poison pill venture. Like who was the goon that OK this kind of deal? - and you can be sure no one was held accountable." - Context can be quite important - should it turn out that your goon made 5 good calls for each one bad one, what then?

    But in general, I suspect the broad thrust of your comments about the New Zealand retail financial services industry is sure to strike a chord with many.

  18. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    "You should know the more you diversify, the less return you get as you get closer the level of averages. . . "- I'm inclined to think that how and what you diversify is also important. Conversely, the more you concentrate, the further away from the level of averages you can get. Out of idle curiosity, what do you benchmark yourself against?

    "I recall some years ago the NZ Superannuation fund was trying to sue some bank in Spain because they took a bad stake in a poison pill venture. Like who was the goon that OK this kind of deal? - and you can be sure no one was held accountable." - Context can be quite important - should it turn out that your goon made 5 good calls for each one bad one, what then?

    But in general, I suspect the broad thrust of your comments about the New Zealand retail financial services industry is sure to strike a chord with many.
    How and what, and concentrate? You can pick narrow base fund that concentrate in a certain segment but then they should be measuring their performance their relative index. ie. relevant commodity index, relevant emerging market index etc. The same rules apply, the more you diversify, the more you become average to that index. Personally i'm only interested in a broad market index so I look at the S&P500 or the DOW index. That is the same benchmark that Buffet refers too and so should most managed funds when they are choosing a broad base diversification for their clients.

    As for the NZ Superannuation Fund, the link in question is here:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...over-200m-loss
    That goon needs to measure his performance to OTHER superannuation funds around the world just like you would with an index fund. So if he's picked 1 bad one (re: the Portugal bank loss), then his other 5 good calls need to be compared to the good calls by other gov't pension funds in other countries. Perhaps there is no benchmark if the NZ Superfund holds most of it's assets in NZ. But I can assure you no pension fund would limit their investment in a narrow base investment if they choose to hold investment mostly in their native country. But going back to the bank investment in Portugal. You have to question how was this goon sucked into this investment by GS? Why couldn't GS suck in some other managed fund in another country? My guess.... the NZ Superfund didn't know better because they never had better information outlining the risks they were getting into. Because it certainly sounds very fishy to lose that $ in 1 or 2 months time frame. Certainly, it's an issue of lack of information for all investors and if you don't have a strong form of market efficiency, then there's little point of pushing the diversification button.

    But in general, I suspect the broad thrust of your comments about the New Zealand retail financial services industry is sure to strike a chord with many.
    Why would it? Is it not because the truth hurts too much? Just like the NZ building industry we're timber prices are 3 times the price in NZ than what the American can buy at Home Depot? HUGE barriers of trade and HUGE levels of regulations. How about that FMA the NZ gov't dished out last year? You know how stupid NZ looks when they impose a NZ regulation abroad saying for eg. to US brokerage firm, if you're providing services to a NZ resident, that you must comply to our NZ regulation by banning the client access to derivatives and futures / options and forex? What are the repercussions over this? I tell you, the foreign markets will just exclude the NZ market and then you wonder... why is it the NZX experience dwindling liquidity? Here's what I see, the NZ equity market is gonna dry up like a deep fried potato chip and the only people holding the bag are the poor NZ investors.. stuck in schemes like Kiwi Saver all while you have FIF that distorts the tax issue when you want to invest abroad. Other developed nations like Sweden, I know for fact opens the door wide open. Their residents and their pension funds allow full access to foreign markets with no regulation or restriction and certainly not such tax disparity like FIF.

  19. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    580

    Default

    At the risk of pissing people off, can I just say, this thread is getting off track again, and the current debate is really not helping me with my original question, or anything else for that matter. Maybe the thread has run its course and we should all move on to something else.

  20. #100
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    7,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justakiwi View Post
    At the risk of pissing people off, can I just say, this thread is getting off track again, and the current debate is really not helping me with my original question, or anything else for that matter. Maybe the thread has run its course and we should all move on to something else.
    I second that, justakiwi. If there is something else to air, others should start the appropriate thread/s and leave your original question for relevant comments.

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
  •