kiwisaver worth a punt?

[winner69]

Beauty. The fund managers are working on the premise that if you can't convince them, confuse them. The latter seems to be so much easier anyway.

I am beginning to wonder if that is what they actually do

Lot easier than explaining whether the benchmark is based on fully hedged returns or partially hedged returns .... or just on plain degrees of stupidity

It's all a big rort anyway

[minimoke]

I
If you were to be in kiwisaver Minimoke and choose a fund for 30+ years, which would be your top 3?

I can't tell you which ones I'd go for because I can't be bothered analysing the myriad of diffferent funds out there.

But I did put my whanau into Aonsaver and my tax special dividend went into the Russell Conservative Fund (which is returning +9.3%) and the Milford Agreesive Fund (which is returning +32.2%)

Of the providers I wouldn't put my money into right off are: First off would be Forstthy Barr. Then would go Fisher Funds, Gareth Morgan and Huljich. I'd then take the likes of Professionals Group, Anglican Church, legal and credit unions off the list. From there the banks would probably come off so there goes ANZ, National and Westpac. That leaves enough providers to have a poke around.

[beacon]

Of the providers I wouldn't put my money into right off are: First off would be Forstthy Barr. Then would go Fisher Funds, Gareth Morgan and Huljich. I'd then take the likes of Professionals Group, Anglican Church, legal and credit unions off the list. From there the banks would probably come off so there goes ANZ, National and Westpac. That leaves enough providers to have a poke around.

Second that elimination list.

[ENP]

Why is everyone not so keen on Gareth Morgan Funds?

The growth fund is doing better than the MSCI world index which is what I would compare it to.

[minimoke]

Why is everyone not so keen on Gareth Morgan Funds?

I was either going to choose them or superlife or smart shares.

Why Smart Shares - isn't that just the taxpayer and employer propping up NZX? Superlife? - Who are Michael Chambelrain (he's a trustee of the superscheme and gets to choose his remuneration you'll be paying him) and Owen Nash? Clealry you know since you are looking at trusing them with 30 years of investments.

Best I don't comment on Gareth. I was the first poster here to be in the slightest bit negative and I could hear other posters putting the tar on to boil and the chickens were running scared.

[ENP]

Why are you making it all sound like so much hard work to choose a provider? Just get one that matches up with your long term expectations out of an investment and go with them. Gareth Morgan invests in well established blue chip stocks around the world in various sectors and countries for long term growth of wealth. This includes Nike, McDonalds, Apple, BHP, etc for example. I wouldn't be able to access a variety of well known world stocks by myself in the near future if I wans't with this fund. I don't see anything wrong with this...

But I presume you will Minimoke, as everything has to be an argument.

[minimoke]

Why are you making it all sound like so much hard work to choose a provider? ...

But I presume you will Minimoke, as everything has to be an argument.

I'm not trying to suggest its hard work choosing a provider. I'm suggesting that since someone is going ot put 30 years worth of cash with someone, some work is not only desireable but essential.

And no - not everything is an argument. I prefer rational fact based thought. But then if you are happy with your approach to investing in something thats making you a loss compared to my whanaus, which isn't, (and I pretty much threw a dart at a board on that one) so be it.

[ENP]

If I wasn't in GMK, I'd be in a fund which aims to follow the MSCI index. Since GMK is beating the index, for me, I'm happy with it.

I probably could have done better in another fund over what, two? Three years? But I'm not into chasing the lastest fund, plus all the entry/exit fees would eat up that extra return. I'm sure you are aware that the sharemarket has ups and downs, lately it's been downs. We will see how well all the funds go in the next 2-3 years, I could and most likely will be a completely different story.

[ENP]

Does it make sense to get into Kiwisaver for just 5 years, pay the 2% out of my wages ($800), top up to the $1040 each year to get the $5000 for the first home buyer, then go on a 'contributions holiday' for 40 years?

That way I'll put in only around $5200 of my own money, get around $4000 from my employer, recieve the $5000 first home buyer package from the government and still have $7000 odd in my Kiwisaver to leave in there until 65, which will compound for 40 years, which basically is all the governments money as I've taken all mine and my employers out to pay for my first home.

Does this make sense?

[CJ]

If you get $5k out of the government, then it does.

Dont forget you get all of your contributions (and your employers??) out when you get the home grant. Only the government $1k kickstart and $1042pa will be left in it. <- I just reread yours and you understand this point already.

Personally I dont see the home grant of $5k lasting that long. Why should the government subsidize that.