sharetrader
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 121
  1. #101
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heisenberg View Post
    Howís everyone going here with trying to time the bottom...?
    Pretty good I think, instead of converting to a Ďsafeí portfolio and lock in losses, I dropped a few K into the bottom and remained largely aggressive and growth. Do people know it can take a couple of weeks at least for portfolio changes to take effect? Anyway, my KS is substantially up on the value as at the COVID collapse, not just from my top up but because my money has been invested in units that have rebounded significantly. I really donít think KS is a trading tool, the delay to execute a portfolio change and a Ďtradeí is to slow, best imo to stick to the core purpose of it and just load up when prices crash, and chip in other times. Otherwise leave it alone. 😀

  2. #102
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,540

    Default

    Agree with Baa Baa
    Moved it into aggressive fund when it opened
    https://milfordasset.com/funds-perfo...ew-performance
    Top performer of all the Milford funds,surprised ?

  3. #103

  4. #104
    Legend peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiora View Post
    i would think its more the blanket nature of the advice that is the problem.
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  5. #105
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Irresident
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiora View Post
    It might have been good advice on the first of March. It might have been poor advice later in the month.

    I'm just amazed to see anyone in the New Zealand financial services industry doing something pro-active. Time for a cup of tea and a nice lie down. . .

  6. #106
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    It might have been good advice on the first of March. It might have been poor advice later in the month.

    I'm just amazed to see anyone in the New Zealand financial services industry doing something pro-active. Time for a cup of tea and a nice lie down. . .
    The FMA is the product of NZ's Nanny State regulation. The same could equally apply to any adviser making the 'aggressive' recommendation instead of the 'conservative'.

    But really... what are they really talking about? I'm looking for accountability of those Kiwi managed funds to man up on underperformance. From what I see, someone has to be in the top 1, 2, or 3. Where are those that say they're #1 for 5 or 10 consecutive years in a row? How about this bold move, no managed fund to charge any management fee if their fund does not beat the index return? Nope - instead the NZ Gov't has all these funds put out stupid risk levels for their clients in the form of "Defensive, Conservative... Balance... to all the way to Aggressive" and you know how all that risk level works? It's based on a proportion of the investment that is put into [cash interest / bond returns] : [share] ratio. Anotherwords, why would I pay a managed fund to put 2/3rds or 67% of the funds I give them into a low interest bond or cash deposit in the "Conservative Fund" when I could just only give them 1/3rd or 33% of the cash and tell them to invest it 100% into growth equties and let me deal with the 67% of the funds by putting it into a cash term deposit?

    and before any person that is pushed into Kiwi Saver, where are the financial adviser that give advice to their clients that they can do what I said above? Maybe it's due to people don't know how to save so they figure all the $ should come off their wages and salaries and the fund managers would gladly take a fee off the gross sum.

  7. #107
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,540

    Default

    ""Then the tables, such as those provided by Morningstar and Sorted, need to rank providers on what is called a 'risk adjusted' basis so investors can compare providers on both the return they made and the risk they are taking."
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300...iwisaver-funds
    https://sorted.org.nz/guides/kiwisav...ch-fund-suits/

    No one points out the effect of missing out on loosing a potential return of even a 1 % compounding return over ones life time
    If opened at 17 yr old,closed at 65 yr,48 yr less return of 1 % compounding is huge
    If deposit $5000 at age 17 yr & no more,1 % less return compounding is $8061 potential return not received
    https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fi...calculator.php
    Last edited by kiora; 10-06-2020 at 09:09 PM.

  8. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiora View Post
    ""Then the tables, such as those provided by Morningstar and Sorted, need to rank providers on what is called a 'risk adjusted' basis so investors can compare providers on both the return they made and the risk they are taking."
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300...iwisaver-funds
    https://sorted.org.nz/guides/kiwisav...ch-fund-suits/

    No one points out the effect of missing out on loosing a potential return of even a 1 % compounding return over ones life time
    If opened at 17 yr old,closed at 65 yr,48 yr less return of 1 % compounding is huge
    If deposit $5000 at age 17 yr & no more,1 % less return compounding is $8061 potential return not received
    https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/fi...calculator.php
    I've made this point in my post here :

    https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...l=1#post820032

    No one as been more vocal about the charging of high management fees than Warren Buffet. Even at 1% per year is a massive hit on the total compound returns over a person's total investment lifetime.

    You know we have this FMA regulation in NZ, but as you say none of them are prioritizing management fees over which risk category so and so Kiwi Saver person should be invested in.

    I'm still awaiting for various Kiwi Saver managed funds to come out with their hands clean and tell investors how much tax their manage funds actually pays (i'm talking everything from FIF to dividends to expenses they have in the managing of funds). Warren Buffet said it's robbery how they do it for "merely breathing air".

    Such managed funds have been overly criticized in N. America and the trend has been clear. People saving for retirement or into some pension scheme DO NOT choose the actively managed portfolios. In recent years, and I can't recall the exact % but I would not be surprised if over 90% of all employee / employer matched contribution schemes in America go into a passive managed fund or ETF like the Vanguard S&P500. Why is this trend not duplicated in NZ but instead, the investment industry in NZ still pushes people to do the 1980s approach (in America) of having people invest in managed funds?

  9. #109
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    "The recovery showed a market downturn was the worst time to switch funds, Murphy said. ďIt demonstrates the importance of long-term investment strategies for what is supposed to be a long-term investment.Ē

  10. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    "The recovery showed a market downturn was the worst time to switch funds, Murphy said. “It demonstrates the importance of long-term investment strategies for what is supposed to be a long-term investment.”
    Utter rubbish! The problem with all these stated figures is they make unrealistic assumptions. One being you can not assume the market return a static ie. 5 or 6% return compounded until the person retires nor can any advisor be held accountable if their investment plan does not work out. Believe me, these advisors are very good at tweaking things and pitching scenarios to their clients... but will never admit any fault.

    “It really does demonstrate the importance and power of people not trying to market-time.”

    People who pulled out of growth or aggressive funds in March, worried about the future, would have both locked in the losses their funds experienced that month", and missed out on the rebound experienced since. "
    The article also doesn't say WHY individuals would switch from aggressive to conservative? Based on what logic? Do we assume the individual is scared and rather than 'risk' losing more by staying in the aggressive fund, they feel they want to go to a lower risk fund? What if there was no recovery and it proved the conservative funds fared better than the aggressive funds?? Sounds to be (like all these articles), they're cherry picking based on a hindsight 20/20 scenario. If you ask all of the top long time running stock pickers, from Buffet to Ray Dalio, to any reputable fund manager, they ALL agree that timing does matter. They also do not believe holding bonds, to any long term certainty, is a wise plan to reach retirement. Buffet has never been a big fan of investing into junk bonds but would gladly underwrite the terms of such bonds in his favour.

    I've mentioned before, the whole problem of NZ's Kiwi Saver is the lack of any real financial advice and the absence of how funds manage their risk levels between portfolios. That is the difference between say an aggressive vs a conservative is mainly due to the % holdings in bonds or interest bearing assets in each portfolio. An aggressive fund would have a low allocation of cash & bonds while the low risk funds would have a very high % of holding cash and bonds. This is very different to the managed funds over in N. America where financial advisor point you to reputable mutual funds that specialise in that area. Out of the 5000+ managed funds you can pick, no financial advisor is going to pick ONE family of funds that so happens to have various portfolios and let their clients choose in between the risk categories.


    I'm still waiting for Stuff to report the huge tax difference between investing in NZ residential properties vs investing in Kiwi Saver funds. Not even Ms Ardern could address this problem by not allowing CGT.

  11. #111
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Utter rubbish! The problem with all these stated figures is they make unrealistic assumptions. One being you can not assume the market return a static ie. 5 or 6% return compounded until the person retires nor can any advisor be held accountable if their investment plan does not work out. Believe me, these advisors are very good at tweaking things and pitching scenarios to their clients... but will never admit any fault.



    The article also doesn't say WHY individuals would switch from aggressive to conservative? Based on what logic? Do we assume the individual is scared and rather than 'risk' losing more by staying in the aggressive fund, they feel they want to go to a lower risk fund? What if there was no recovery and it proved the conservative funds fared better than the aggressive funds?? Sounds to be (like all these articles), they're cherry picking based on a hindsight 20/20 scenario. If you ask all of the top long time running stock pickers, from Buffet to Ray Dalio, to any reputable fund manager, they ALL agree that timing does matter. They also do not believe holding bonds, to any long term certainty, is a wise plan to reach retirement. Buffet has never been a big fan of investing into junk bonds but would gladly underwrite the terms of such bonds in his favour.

    I've mentioned before, the whole problem of NZ's Kiwi Saver is the lack of any real financial advice and the absence of how funds manage their risk levels between portfolios. That is the difference between say an aggressive vs a conservative is mainly due to the % holdings in bonds or interest bearing assets in each portfolio. An aggressive fund would have a low allocation of cash & bonds while the low risk funds would have a very high % of holding cash and bonds. This is very different to the managed funds over in N. America where financial advisor point you to reputable mutual funds that specialise in that area. Out of the 5000+ managed funds you can pick, no financial advisor is going to pick ONE family of funds that so happens to have various portfolios and let their clients choose in between the risk categories.


    I'm still waiting for Stuff to report the huge tax difference between investing in NZ residential properties vs investing in Kiwi Saver funds. Not even Ms Ardern could address this problem by not allowing CGT.
    Letís just face it, you need to move back to Canada. So down on NZ investment opportunities. Kiwis donít have an option to invest in overseas retirement savings schemes. Your glass half full itís really tedious to be honest, and we still have no ideas whether you have any credentials to back up your assertions or advice. Do you?

    The article simply said it was a bad idea to switch a long term fixed investment from growth to cash. And thatís exactly how it worked out. My KiwiSaver for example which I didnít touch and is balanced/growth is substantially up since the COVID crash and recovery.

    The message itís pretty simple which you choose to distort and deflect from Ö Just decide a KiwiSaver strategy and stick to it, donít duck around with it trying to time the market.

    Back on ignore, you bore me to tears and I really dislike your negativity

  12. #112
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    Let’s just face it, you need to move back to Canada. So down on NZ investment opportunities. Kiwis don’t have an option to invest in overseas retirement savings schemes. Your glass half full it’s really tedious to be honest, and we still have no ideas whether you have any credentials to back up your assertions or advice. Do you?

    The article simply said it was a bad idea to switch a long term fixed investment from growth to cash. And that’s exactly how it worked out. My KiwiSaver for example which I didn’t touch and is balanced/growth is substantially up since the COVID crash and recovery.

    The message it’s pretty simple which you choose to distort and deflect from … Just decide a KiwiSaver strategy and stick to it, don’t duck around with it trying to time the market.

    Back on ignore, you bore me to tears and I really dislike your negativity
    You mean it's ok for NZ financial advisors to tell half truths? 20/20 hindsight is all they work on and the real distortion is they make no mention on why those that really reach retirement in NZ quick, have done so in residential properties.

    There is no deflection or distortion of the facts. We have a gov't that is simply not interested in leveling the playing field on taxation, and the financial advisors don't seem to be ethical enough to care. It's like talking to a car salesman trying to sell a lot full of cars knowing all of them have issues.

    Perhaps you're not interested in hearing anyone to point fingers at this key problem and you can ignore it all you want. Hell, just look at the way NZ continues to build sub-standard housing or how the OECD continues to say NZ needs to do more to make housing affordable and implement some form of tax on real estate to discourage tax free investment in this area. It's not rocket science.

    Going back to the article. I stand firm. The problem isn't about how people switch between risk categories. The problem is the lack of financial advice for these clients making the wrong move between portfolios without full disclosure. Accountability? nope and to have an article that simply rubs in the face of such investors for making the wrong choice? = FAIL!

  13. #113
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,275

    Default

    Have any of you made any voluntary contributions to kiwisaver?

    Just had another term deposit mature, and was at a complete loss of what to do with it, so have just whacked it into the kiwi saver.
    Sensible or silly?

  14. #114
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    Have any of you made any voluntary contributions to kiwisaver?

    Just had another term deposit mature, and was at a complete loss of what to do with it, so have just whacked it into the kiwi saver.
    Sensible or silly?
    Depends .
    Are you able to get it out for first home purchase ?
    If you’re over 65 can get out anytime so fine .
    If in the middle , some of the providers have “ mirror” funds the same as their KiwiSaver offerings .
    So this might be a better option if you might need access to the money for some unforeseen reason .
    All in my opinion, not advice .

  15. #115
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    Depends .
    Are you able to get it out for first home purchase ?
    If you’re over 65 can get out anytime so fine .
    If in the middle , some of the providers have “ mirror” funds the same as their KiwiSaver offerings .
    So this might be a better option if you might need access to the money for some unforeseen reason .
    All in my opinion, not advice .
    59 so figured in terms of time frame it not much different to sticking it in a term deposit. Feels a bit safer than having it in an NZ bank esoecially as was only being offered 1.85% interest on it

  16. #116
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    59 so figured in terms of time frame it not much different to sticking it in a term deposit. Feels a bit safer than having it in an NZ bank esoecially as was only being offered 1.85% interest on it
    I recently received an unexpected legacy. I dialled down my kiwisaver risk back to conservative balanced and added the legacy as a voluntary contribution. It boosted the balance by about a third. Even though it will be locked away for longer than any term deposit, I preferred the current risk/reward at current interest rates. I did not want to add to my current shareholdings or need it elsewhere.

  17. #117
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    59 so figured in terms of time frame it not much different to sticking it in a term deposit. Feels a bit safer than having it in an NZ bank esoecially as was only being offered 1.85% interest on it
    I think one of the major benefits is you have the services of a lot of "professional investors " working for you. This comes with the protection of the Kiwisaver reigme and compliance that entails .One of the good safety nets is all the money goes through a trustee company .
    Certainly doesn't stop them losing money in the market , but nobody can get their hands on "your money "

  18. #118
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    I think one of the major benefits is you have the services of a lot of "professional investors " working for you. This comes with the protection of the Kiwisaver reigme and compliance that entails .One of the good safety nets is all the money goes through a trustee company .
    Certainly doesn't stop them losing money in the market , but nobody can get their hands on "your money "
    I agree. The media interest, regulation and oversight of the Kiwisaver regime is a comparative drawcard compared to non-kiwisaver funds.

    Also Kiwisaver funds can be treated differently in some situations. For example, if the applicant is under 65 (normal minimum age for access to kiwisaver funds), they are not included by WINZ in any asset or income testing. There may be other situations?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8653...e-my-KiwiSaver
    Last edited by Bjauck; 06-08-2020 at 02:19 PM. Reason: WINZ information

  19. #119
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    chch, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    I agree. The media interest, regulation and oversight of the Kiwisaver regime is a comparative drawcard compared to non-kiwisaver funds.

    Also Kiwisaver funds can be treated differently in some situations. For example, if the applicant is under 65 (normal minimum age for access to kiwisaver funds), they are not included by WINZ in any asset or income testing. There may be other situations?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8653...e-my-KiwiSaver
    Yeah this is true, my other half was unable to claim any benefits after losing job due to covid, I had too much passive income. Really peeved me off, if I had stuck it all in kiwi saver it would not have been a problem.

  20. #120
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratkin View Post
    Yeah this is true, my other half was unable to claim any benefits after losing job due to covid, I had too much passive income. Really peeved me off, if I had stuck it all in kiwi saver it would not have been a problem.
    That is tough. Especially if you exceeded the threshold based on passive income from an historic period which included rent or dividends and interest that may now have been cancelled or reduced as a result of Covid.

Tags for this Thread

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
  •