sharetrader
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    43

    Default Compound growth - looking for some advice

    Hi Folks

    I want to retire early and stop working in about 20 years and figured that my best way of getting there is through investing in ETF / PIE funds and letting the compound/exponential growth do the work.

    I'm thinking of investing 250k initially, and then 50k per year for 20 years, and I estimate the growth to be somewhere between 10% and 15% average across the 20 years, which would mean I would end up with a figure between 4.8m to 10.7m at which point I should be able to comfortably retire.

    My investment would be weighted evenly across 5 different ETFs / PIEs as I don't want to be exposed to a single market or fund manager etc. I haven't made a decision on which ETFs / PIEs, but I was considering the following:

    1. Piefunds - Australasian Dividend Growth
    2. Smartshares - US Large Growth (USG)
    3. Kernel wealth - S&P Global 100
    4. Kernel wealth - S&P NZX20
    5. yet to be determined


    I'm making the following assumptions:

    1. Growth funds work in the same way as compound interest e.g. if one was to invest 50k in a growth ETF and get 10% growth year on year then it will grow in first few years to 55k, 60.5k, 67k etc. as it will grow based on both the principal and also exponentially with the increase in value of the fund.
    2. If my above assumption is correct, then we would see the same application for dividends being reinvested.
    3. There are ETFs / Funds that could return between 10% and 15% growth per annum across 20 years (this would be averaged as I'm taking into account there will be some years in the negative and some years above 15%)


    Questions:

    1. Is my assumption #1 correct?
      • Would 50k at 10% growth per year increase by 55k, 60.5k, 67k, or;
      • Am I wrong and that it is only principal amount would grow e.g. 55k, 60k, 65k?

    2. Is 10% to 15% growth per annum feasible? (taking into account the management fees etc.)
    3. Is investing in these ETFs / PIEs via a provider like smartshares or piefunds etc. secure/safe? i.e. will the investment be in my name in the off chance the provider folds?
    4. Any thoughts/feedback on my selection of funds?


    Just looking for some advice to avoid any newbie mistakes, so any tips/help would be much appreciated.
    Last edited by GOAT; 19-03-2022 at 09:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    You have some very high assumptions that are far from reality.

    I'm thinking of investing 250k initially, and then 50k per year for 20 years, and I estimate the growth to be somewhere between 10% and 15% average across the 20 years, which would mean I would end up with a figure between 4.8m to 10.7m at which point I should be able to comfortably retire.
    The ETF guru and founder Jack Bogle (below) has summed it that for the next decade, expect returns of maybe 6% per year.

    https://youtu.be/lJeTZIzsWfk?t=53

    My investment would be weighted evenly across 5 different ETFs / PIEs as I don't want to be exposed to a single market or fund manager etc.
    Warren Buffet's right hand man Charlie Munger quoted,

    "The idea of diversification makes sense to a point if you don’t know what you’re doing and you want the standard result and not be embarrassed, why course you can widely diverse. Nobody’s entitled to a lot of money for recognizing that because it’s a truism it’s like knowing that two and two equals four. But the investment professionals think they’re helping you by arranging diversification. An idiot could diversify a portfolio! Or a computer for that matter. But the whole trick of the game is to have a few times when you know that something is better than average and to invest only where you have that extra knowledge. And then if you get just a few opportunities that’s enough. What the hell do you care if you own three securities and J.P. Morgan Chase owns a hundred? What’s wrong with owning a few securities?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHAQtMdjzew

    So what exactly are you expecting and getting when you invest in multiple ETFs from different markets around the world?

    Questions:


    1. Is my assumption #1 correct?
      • Would 50k at 10% growth per year increase by 55k, 60.5k, 67k, or;
      • Am I wrong and that it is only principal amount would grow e.g. 55k, 60k, 65k?


    This is how you calculate compound interest returns:
    https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/finance/compound-interest-formula.php


    2. Is 10% to 15% growth per annum feasible? (taking into account the management fees etc.)


    No - above all the most misleading point you have to factor (and is not well discussed in the NZ Financial industry, is the overall tax implication on these investments). The publicised returns are gross figures and do not factor taxation. Too much emphasis has been given to investors in picking managed funds or ETFs that have the LOWEST management fee which is only half of the story


    3. Is investing in these ETFs / PIEs via a provider like smartshares or piefunds etc. secure/safe? i.e. will the investment be in my name in the off chance the provider folds?
    Nothing in life is safe. You could have money in a bank account in NZ and lose it all in a bankruptcy as NZ banks do NOT have depository insurance (a common protection in overseas banks). A lot has changed in terms of investor protection since the coming of the FMA. I will regard all those providers in NZ as safe and nothing compared to buying cryptocurrencies on an unregulated exchange.


    4. Any thoughts/feedback on my selection of funds?
    Yes. I would say it's way over diversified. But that's just my opinion. The problem I have with investing in NZ is we have a problem with taxation. In my many rants in the past, we have a system that rewards those taking risks in the NZ housing market, but disadvantaging those that choose to invest elsewhere like in the sharemarkets. Here is the reality, a person who is able to mortgage and buy their 2nd or 5th residential home (leverage) is ALWAYS going to do better because in a long term plan (you say 20+years?) the person buying houses will not pay any capital gains tax when they sell the houses. Every year the house grows in value tax free.

    Hop on over to a PIE (28% max tax rate) and you have a situation where you can't leverage. The tax issue is no matter what you invest in these ETFs or managed funds, you are paying paper gain taxes. The PIE fund taxes a max of 28% (so if you're a high income earner in the 39% bracket, that fund you invest in only pays max 28%). But the crux of the issue is we are talking 28% tax on PAPER GAINS! You simply don't have this situation when you buy another house (other than the rates you pay).

    The situation also applies when you invest in foreign shares like in the US equities. So you buy an S&P500 ETF, the gains are subjected to FIF which typically is 5% of the paper gain, becomes taxable income and is taxed at the tax bracket you are in. So your generalisation of 10% is far from it reality from a NZ perspective. If you dig deeper into Jack Bogle's understanding, the overall loss in compound interest is very high when management fees are taken out of the ETFs. Citing:

    “What happens in the fund business is that the magic of compounding returns is overwhelmed by the tyranny of compounding costs. It’s a mathematical fact.”

    Frontline interviewed index fund pioneer John Bogle, who compared the performance of two hypothetical equity portfolios – one earning 7 per cent, and the other earning 5 per cent (7 per cent less 2 per cent in fees).

    Two per cent may not seem like much in any given year. But over a long time period, the impact is enormous: Assuming a 50-year horizon, the second portfolio would have lost 63 per cent of its potential returns to fees, Mr. Bogle said.

    "What happens in the fund business is that the magic of compounding returns is overwhelmed by the tyranny of compounding costs. It's a mathematical fact," he explained.



  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Thanks SBQ for the detailed response.

    How does the 28% PIE tax work? is it a tax on dividend only? or on growth also?

    Below is an example I took from the quarterly fund update for piefunds Australasian dividend growth.. Why is it that after tax is only less than half a percent less? Shouldn't tax be much more considering it's 28%?

    Average overpast 5 years Past Year
    Annual return (after deductions for charges and tax) 18.27% 35.91%
    Annual return (after deductions for charges but before tax) 18.71% 36.25%

  4. #4
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,451

    Default

    Hi Goat ,
    This is a great aim you have . I have been in many of the Piefunds.co.nz , Funds.
    Very happy with the long term performance . Be prepared with all your investments for negative years .
    Milford would be another place I’d trust my money with .
    Maybe 10 years down the track look at an investment property , this would give you some leverage as well .
    Sometimes it’s not about that 20% return , but protecting your money in a big downturn .

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    Hi Goat ,
    This is a great aim you have . I have been in many of the Piefunds.co.nz , Funds.
    Very happy with the long term performance . Be prepared with all your investments for negative years .
    Milford would be another place I’d trust my money with .
    Maybe 10 years down the track look at an investment property , this would give you some leverage as well .
    Sometimes it’s not about that 20% return , but protecting your money in a big downturn .
    Thank you for the advice.

    I just had a look at Milford asset funds, looks like they have lower fees compared to piefunds. Their top performing fund (Dynamic Fund) has a 14.76% at 5 year pa return (after fees and taxes) which seems to be extremely good.. unfortunately for me, it looks like they closed that fund for new investments. I will definitely consider their other funds, it looks like they have a relatively new 'aggressive fund' but without a way to benchmark results, I would probably have to go with one of their other funds.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GOAT View Post
    Thanks SBQ for the detailed response.

    How does the 28% PIE tax work? is it a tax on dividend only? or on growth also?

    Below is an example I took from the quarterly fund update for piefunds Australasian dividend growth.. Why is it that after tax is only less than half a percent less? Shouldn't tax be much more considering it's 28%?

    Average overpast 5 years Past Year
    Annual return (after deductions for charges and tax) 18.27% 35.91%
    Annual return (after deductions for charges but before tax) 18.71% 36.25%
    RWT or portfolio tax ? Both are very different. The figures they are showing are almost meaningless, only pertaining to the tax paid on certain sources (ie bond income or preferred share income that come under different tax treatment). They have nothing to do with the individual RWT which varies a lot and from year to year. So let's say you're in the 33% tax bracket, if the fund made 10% return in 1 year, then 1/3rd of that 10% gain would be taxed at your end. Regardless of what fund you invest in, NZ's taxation is applied throughout the investment period because at retirement or when the funds are disbursed out, the amounts withdrawn have no tax liability, even if you choose to withdraw the entire balance.

    These tax distortions must be considered in any investment. If the fund operates in Australia (where tax rules differ greatly to NZ), they are not going to report 2 different tax treatments. Australia has capital gains tax while NZ does not have a formal CGT. The Australian invested in the same managed fund will always have a tax liability at retirement or when the funds are disbursed out. So to save confusion, these ETFs and funds will only report on a gross return basis.

    Again, I suggest having a serious watch to my previous YouTube links. It's the kind of info financial advisers don't want to hear because they only want to get paid for showing no investment skill whatsoever.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    RWT or portfolio tax ? Both are very different. The figures they are showing are almost meaningless, only pertaining to the tax paid on certain sources (ie bond income or preferred share income that come under different tax treatment). They have nothing to do with the individual RWT which varies a lot and from year to year. So let's say you're in the 33% tax bracket, if the fund made 10% return in 1 year, then 1/3rd of that 10% gain would be taxed at your end. Regardless of what fund you invest in, NZ's taxation is applied throughout the investment period because at retirement or when the funds are disbursed out, the amounts withdrawn have no tax liability, even if you choose to withdraw the entire balance.

    These tax distortions must be considered in any investment. If the fund operates in Australia (where tax rules differ greatly to NZ), they are not going to report 2 different tax treatments. Australia has capital gains tax while NZ does not have a formal CGT. The Australian invested in the same managed fund will always have a tax liability at retirement or when the funds are disbursed out. So to save confusion, these ETFs and funds will only report on a gross return basis.

    Again, I suggest having a serious watch to my previous YouTube links. It's the kind of info financial advisers don't want to hear because they only want to get paid for showing no investment skill whatsoever.
    I did watch the youtube videos, but I don't think I'm in a position to invest in single companies and be confident in my decisions.. I want to invest for the next 20 years, and also be able to sleep well.

    I'm more confused now than before around the taxes.

    Ok, let's take a look at page 2 as an example from Milford asset's growth fund: https://milfordasset.com/wp-content/...Fund_Feb22.pdf

    The 5 year (p.a.) is 11.66% (gross of tax) and 10.85% (at 28% tax).

    If I understood you correctly, is that companies like Milford (and others) don't provide the additional figures which would be the 33% RWT.. so the 10.85% is misleading as it doesn't include all the tax figures, and a third of that would be cut down, so essentially the 5 year p.a. is actually 7.29%. Did I understand that correctly? If not, how would we figure out what the 5 year p.a. is for Milford Assets active growth fund?
    Last edited by GOAT; 20-03-2022 at 06:36 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GOAT View Post
    I did watch the youtube videos, but I don't think I'm in a position to invest in single companies and be confident in my decisions.. I want to invest for the next 20 years, and also be able to sleep well.

    I'm more confused now than before around the taxes.

    Ok, let's take a look at page 2 as an example from Milford asset's growth fund: https://milfordasset.com/wp-content/...Fund_Feb22.pdf

    The 5 year (p.a.) is 11.66% (gross of tax) and 10.85% (at 28% tax).

    If I understood you correctly, is that companies like Milford (and others) don't provide the additional figures which would be the 33% RWT.. so the 10.85% is misleading as it doesn't include all the tax figures, and a third of that would be cut down, so essentially the 5 year p.a. is actually 7.29%. Did I understand that correctly? If not, how would we figure out what the 5 year p.a. is for Milford Assets active growth fund?
    What Mr Munger was getting at is not for you or anyone to choose specific companies to bet on. What he was getting at is the idiocies of these various managed or passive funds that offer nothing more to their clients than if the clients were to buy the index ETF directly. I see a lot of these managed funds in NZ that do nothing more than buy the Vanguard VOO SP500 ETF but in doing so, they're charging THEIR cut of fees in the deal. There's a better way to get what Munger has done - just go and buy Buffet shares "Berkshire Hathaway" ; that's done far better in the past multi-decade than the S&P500 index ETF. I've seen countless of these fund prospectuses and they're just window dressed as they pick and choose things. Did you understand about Jack Bogle's 2% mgt fee off the 7% return in the market, that over 50 years, you would lose 63% of the returns? That Milford I see charges 1.25% + a performance fee on top. That's pretty high compared to Vanguards ETF family with an average fee of 0.08%

    Regarding the tax situation, that Milford does show the different net % return for each tax bracket. For eg. 5 year gross is 11.66% and on the 28%, it's 10.85%. Looking at it you may think it's not much difference. What you are not seeing is that the wee difference in % does amount a lot taking off your ending balance. Recall again on the above paragraph. On a 7% return, taking 2% off (for mgt fee, taxation?) makes you lose 63% of the gains over 50 years (this is a mathematical fact on compound interest as Jack Bogle said). So 11.66% vs 10.85% to me would say this small difference would have a similar impact on the overall compound returns. Anotherwords, that 11.66% is going to have a hell of a larger balance after 50 years than the 10.85% by a significant margin. All because of the magic of compound interest (that is the portion of the fees and RWT you pay is ALSO compounded in returns to IRD).

    Since the fund comprises mostly NZ equities, what you should be doing is taking the NZX50 index return and match it's cumulative return to this Milford fund. Does it beat the market return? how consistently?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Oh I should add, how did that Milford Fund come to using this 10% return target figure? That is not the basis of how fund managers perform. In industry the measuring stick is how often they beat the market index return such as the S&P500. Have a look at this video where Buffet rants at all these managed / hedge funds for 'non performance':

    https://youtu.be/xp9KUCel778

    Watch it from the beginning to the end... and then watch it again!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    What Mr Munger was getting at is not for you or anyone to choose specific companies to bet on. What he was getting at is the idiocies of these various managed or passive funds that offer nothing more to their clients than if the clients were to buy the index ETF directly. I see a lot of these managed funds in NZ that do nothing more than buy the Vanguard VOO SP500 ETF but in doing so, they're charging THEIR cut of fees in the deal. There's a better way to get what Munger has done - just go and buy Buffet shares "Berkshire Hathaway" ; that's done far better in the past multi-decade than the S&P500 index ETF. I've seen countless of these fund prospectuses and they're just window dressed as they pick and choose things. Did you understand about Jack Bogle's 2% mgt fee off the 7% return in the market, that over 50 years, you would lose 63% of the returns? That Milford I see charges 1.25% + a performance fee on top. That's pretty high compared to Vanguards ETF family with an average fee of 0.08%

    Regarding the tax situation, that Milford does show the different net % return for each tax bracket. For eg. 5 year gross is 11.66% and on the 28%, it's 10.85%. Looking at it you may think it's not much difference. What you are not seeing is that the wee difference in % does amount a lot taking off your ending balance. Recall again on the above paragraph. On a 7% return, taking 2% off (for mgt fee, taxation?) makes you lose 63% of the gains over 50 years (this is a mathematical fact on compound interest as Jack Bogle said). So 11.66% vs 10.85% to me would say this small difference would have a similar impact on the overall compound returns. Anotherwords, that 11.66% is going to have a hell of a larger balance after 50 years than the 10.85% by a significant margin. All because of the magic of compound interest (that is the portion of the fees and RWT you pay is ALSO compounded in returns to IRD).

    Since the fund comprises mostly NZ equities, what you should be doing is taking the NZX50 index return and match it's cumulative return to this Milford fund. Does it beat the market return? how consistently?
    I agree with you, but if I invest directly into overseas ETFs (over 50k) then I will need to spend time figuring out tax laws etc. I would prefer to invest directly into Vanguard VUG rather than smartshares equivalent (USG) and avoid the 0.51% charge but I don't know anything about FIF tax implications. Perhaps if the government simplified the tax system, we would have more people investing in stocks rather than houses, which could fix the housing crisis.

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
  •