sharetrader
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 225
  1. #61
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 777 View Post
    Well that would be the dumbest advice she has ever received.
    Yep. At this stage of the markets - If Were not already in KiwiSaver, I would be at least looking at making the minimum contribution to a big bank conservative fund to become entitled for the annual credit.
    DYOR.

  2. #62
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    That defeats the purpose and looks like double dipping. Good reason why I told wifey to keep opting out of Kiwi Saver.
    No doubt kiwisaver saver has been a gold mine for fund managers and although I am not mad keen on investing in funds because of the fees.

    The $521 tax credit would be one reason to join Kiwisaver but when you say "opt-out" I am assuming your wife is working for wages. Therefore not joining Kiwisaver means she misses out on the compulsory employer contributions which would be like a 3% pay rise. An additional 3% of her gross wages less the employer contribution superannuation tax (ESCT) going straight into her retirement savings every pay day. That should more than cover the fees.
    Although I can't agree entirely with 777 I would suggest you relook at the pros and cons of joining Kiwisaver.

    There are other cons including having that money tied up until retirement(this could also be a pro). I imagine eventually they will require Kiwisaver funds to be turned into annuities at retirement so people don't blow it all. Especially if we ever start means testing NZ super. Although this is wild speculation at this stage and an annuity isn't the end of the world.

    My Kiwisaver strategy currently is to put it all in the most conservative fund and will switch back to grow after the next GFC.
    Last edited by Aaron; 15-02-2019 at 11:00 AM.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    No doubt kiwisaver saver has been a gold mine for fund managers and although I am not mad keen on investing in funds because of the fees.

    The $521 tax credit would be one reason to join Kiwisaver but when you say "opt-out" I am assuming your wife is working for wages. Therefore not joining Kiwisaver means she misses out on the compulsory employer contributions which would be like a 3% pay rise. An additional 3% of her gross wages less the employer contribution superannuation tax (ESCT) going straight into her retirement savings every pay day. That should more than cover the fees.
    Although I can't agree entirely with 777 I would suggest you relook at the pros and cons of joining Kiwisaver.

    There are other cons including having that money tied up until retirement(this could also be a pro). I imagine eventually they will require Kiwisaver funds to be turned into annuities at retirement so people don't blow it all. Especially if we ever start means testing NZ super. Although this is wild speculation at this stage and an annuity isn't the end of the world.

    My Kiwisaver strategy currently is to put it all in the most conservative fund and will switch back to grow after the next GFC.
    Having a background in finance, i'm not at all impressed with the whole NZ Kiwi Saver approach (keep in mind i'm speaking finance from a N. American point of view). Can you believe the insult I felt when speaking to countless of financial advisors in NZ when they could not tell me a clear cut example WITHOUT the advice of a SEPARATE TAX advisor? I questioned on tax minimisation and efficiency of the investments and they could not comment directly about taxation (regarding rules about FIF and FDR etc). Where I studied, attaining a CFA designation always accounts for taxation (meaning the person not only has to know accounting, but also taxation). It's a complete joke that the NZ advisor would charge out a fee for their service + another fee for a tax advisor. Just utter rubbish to think an investment advice does not include tax advice.

    Anyways, coming from the Buffet and Munger side of investing, i'm not convinced the 3% matching will cover the fees in Kiwi Saver on a "cumulative basis" over say 10 or 20 years. Buffet has won his wager bet last year that no hedge (or actively managed) fund could beat the market index (S&P500) and he presented this at his Berkshire annual meeting last year. What purpose does a Kiwi managed fund service when they just buy the low cost Vanguard ETF? Sounds like the bureaucracy that NZ investors would be subjected to under the FDR/FIF if they bought Vanguard funds directly.

    The $521 tax credit? That's called a bribe in my books.

    There is a real reason why share investing isn't a hot topic for NZ. The reason is that you have an asset class (real estate) where the capital gains can be untaxed. Now recent news says the Labour Gov't will introduce a CGT to address this issue but the opposing National Party may remove it if they win the next election. Either way, when you talk about the realm of investing, one CAN'T speak without the issue of tax minimisation and my crystal ball think the NZ equity market pales in comparison to the US equity market (from a risk reward point of view). But what am I to judge? We have high paying 'actively manged' Kiwi Saver funds that would tell Buffet and Munger is wrong.

  4. #64
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    Having a background in finance, i'm not at all impressed with the whole NZ Kiwi Saver approach (keep in mind i'm speaking finance from a N. American point of view). Can you believe the insult I felt when speaking to countless of financial advisors in NZ when they could not tell me a clear cut example WITHOUT the advice of a SEPARATE TAX advisor? I questioned on tax minimisation and efficiency of the investments and they could not comment directly about taxation (regarding rules about FIF and FDR etc). Where I studied, attaining a CFA designation always accounts for taxation (meaning the person not only has to know accounting, but also taxation). It's a complete joke that the NZ advisor would charge out a fee for their service + another fee for a tax advisor. Just utter rubbish to think an investment advice does not include tax advice.

    Anyways, coming from the Buffet and Munger side of investing, i'm not convinced the 3% matching will cover the fees in Kiwi Saver on a "cumulative basis" over say 10 or 20 years. Buffet has won his wager bet last year that no hedge (or actively managed) fund could beat the market index (S&P500) and he presented this at his Berkshire annual meeting last year. What purpose does a Kiwi managed fund service when they just buy the low cost Vanguard ETF? Sounds like the bureaucracy that NZ investors would be subjected to under the FDR/FIF if they bought Vanguard funds directly.

    The $521 tax credit? That's called a bribe in my books.

    There is a real reason why share investing isn't a hot topic for NZ. The reason is that you have an asset class (real estate) where the capital gains can be untaxed. Now recent news says the Labour Gov't will introduce a CGT to address this issue but the opposing National Party may remove it if they win the next election. Either way, when you talk about the realm of investing, one CAN'T speak without the issue of tax minimisation and my crystal ball think the NZ equity market pales in comparison to the US equity market (from a risk reward point of view). But what am I to judge? We have high paying 'actively manged' Kiwi Saver funds that would tell Buffet and Munger is wrong.
    $521 tax credit, bribe or incentive call it what you will. Probably not huge in the greater scheme of things.

    I would strongly disagree with your statement "i'm not convinced the 3% matching will cover the fees in Kiwi Saver on a "cumulative basis" over say 10 or 20 years."

    My thought processes might be wrong but the only way you could be worse off is if fees were more than 100% of invested funds. I think they are probably around 2%.

    Maybe you could give an example of your reasoning behind this statement as I must have missed something.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    $521 tax credit, bribe or incentive call it what you will. Probably not huge in the greater scheme of things.

    I would strongly disagree with your statement "i'm not convinced the 3% matching will cover the fees in Kiwi Saver on a "cumulative basis" over say 10 or 20 years."

    My thought processes might be wrong but the only way you could be worse off is if fees were more than 100% of invested funds. I think they are probably around 2%.

    Maybe you could give an example of your reasoning behind this statement as I must have missed something.
    You're not quite right - the 100% return only applies year 1, but then that money is nibbled at by fees potentially for 40 years. If you're paying too much, you could easily see the initial doubling being eaten away at. For example, if I invest $100 a year for 40 years and receive a net 7% return after tax/fees I end up with something like $20k. If I contribute $200 a year (employer doubling) for 40 years and receive a net 4% return, I only end up with $19k despite contributing twice as much. That said, this represents a 3% fee which is much higher than I've seen for Kiwisaver funds.

    My Kiwisaver approach is to put in my 3%, I get 3% from my employer and $521 from the government. This goes into the cheapest general share fund I can find. If I could stick it straight into Vanguard or some other cheap index fund I would, as it is I currently pay Simplicity 0.3% to do this for me. Not ideal, but I'm happy the fee is low enough that the matched contribution + government addition will leave me significantly richer than investing in a similar but cheaper fund outside Kiwisaver.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Since i'm my findings point more towards US equities and their rates of return, I would be interested to see how various Kiwi Saver funds have performed since they started 10 years ago? Also, i'm very weary of published data from NZ sources and would only take what the Kiwi Saver funds published rate with a grain of salt. Use a MER ? figure? How is that audited?

    I grew up in Canada and saw the whole mutual (managed) fund industry be turned upsidedown when RRSP (equivalent Kiwi Saver) was introduced. You had all sorts of funds claiming to have consistent returns 'claiming' they've beat the S&P500 index etc. but those were gross figures not counting the ACTUAL returns and initially, they would never ever disclose the fee structure of these managed funds. Eitherway, I would be interested to see what Kiwi Saver funds have done and if there was a way to measure it on a cumulative 10 years basis. Because we all know all those managers of these funds need to get paid in times when the markets goes negative.

    The 3% figure is too small despite the employer matching it. When I was in Canada they went through all these contribution issues and the results was it's way too small to generate ANY sizeable retirement fund UNLESS you were a HIGH income earner (but the savings and retirement pushed by the gov't was aimed at those on the low income ; high income earners or the rich don't need to save). Also there was a general view that employers would only contribute the minimum despite the employee could contribute a lot more. The tax dept in Canada allows up to 18% of a person's annual income as contributions and any unused limits can be carried forward with no penalty, but even still ; these efforts to encourage those on the low income did nothing but benefit the rich high income earners and because of that, I don't see the Kiwi Saver scheme being any different.

    But we can talk differences until the cows run to the moon. The single factor that hurts all of us (and more particularly towards those on low incomes) is called "Inflation" and often at times if you simply don't have the $ to save, you're best to spend it on needs, or put it towards paying the house off faster. When I think about all this, it's probably a crime to believe what the gov't has done. People that needs $ the most, should not be coerced into a savings plan like Kiwi Saver when the end result is not much more than what the gov't could of done with their national pension plan by directly investing it into say the S&P500. There's a lot of inefficiencies involved by getting the public to invest ; just look at all those financial advisors fattening their back pockets, all those 'actively managed' funds in Kiwi Saver Funds (this is standard practice worldwide). While at the same time, when the National Party was in power they reduced or stopped investments into the NZ Super / Pension plan.

    Now the gov't wants to attack those property speculators and investors by imposing CGT. (Historically, Kiwis enjoyed retirement from their real estate investment portfolio).

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    and lookee here.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12194740

    "Independent research firm MoneyHub has accused Fisher of "ripping off" customers by charging high management fees.
    The 14 funds which have $289 million invested from around 20,000 people charge between 1.5 per cent and 6.83 per cent for management."


    This is the kind of behaviour I hate. How do you justify 6.83% pa for management fee? I also laugh at the response saying the take over of these funds is complicated. What are they exactly doing to warrant such high fees?

  8. #68
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfd View Post
    You're not quite right - the 100% return only applies year 1, but then that money is nibbled at by fees potentially for 40 years. If you're paying too much, you could easily see the initial doubling being eaten away at. For example, if I invest $100 a year for 40 years and receive a net 7% return after tax/fees I end up with something like $20k. If I contribute $200 a year (employer doubling) for 40 years and receive a net 4% return, I only end up with $19k despite contributing twice as much. That said, this represents a 3% fee which is much higher than I've seen for Kiwisaver funds.

    My Kiwisaver approach is to put in my 3%, I get 3% from my employer and $521 from the government. This goes into the cheapest general share fund I can find. If I could stick it straight into Vanguard or some other cheap index fund I would, as it is I currently pay Simplicity 0.3% to do this for me. Not ideal, but I'm happy the fee is low enough that the matched contribution + government addition will leave me significantly richer than investing in a similar but cheaper fund outside Kiwisaver.
    What I was thinking is if you don't join kiwisaver you don't get the 3% employer contribution. This is every year and is money you otherwise would not receive so fees would have to be more than 100% to negate this.

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    What I was thinking is if you don't join kiwisaver you don't get the 3% employer contribution. This is every year and is money you otherwise would not receive so fees would have to be more than 100% to negate this.
    The issue is, your money is only doubled once when it's put in. The fees apply for years, or even decades. The maths is compound interest in reverse, which we all know is a powerful effect when you give it time.

    Think of what happens in, say, year twenty. Your contributions are only maybe 2-3% of your total balance, so your employer contributions only add 2-3% to your balance. If you were paying 3% fees, this would totally counteract your employer matching.

    Luckily, high fees are optional. SBQ, no argument that some companies charge silly amounts, anything above 1% is very hard to justify. Fees are coming down as scale increases, I'm paying 0.3% now and hopefully this will come down further in the future. At that level, you'd be crazy not to snap up the perks by putting in minimum contributions. My savings above 3% are invested elsewhere.

    For long term returns I'd recommend interest.co.nz who publish comparisons every so often.

    https://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver...ket-volatility

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    I'll have to admit i'm not in a NZ position to invest in Kiwi Saver as my wife would be. Fortunately my father lives abroad where we can manage our investments jointly. So our NZ household savings take a different path ; which i've strongly advised the wife not to join Kiwi Saver. If there were prospecting shares (or managed funds) in NZ that would be attractive, we would of done so. But for the past 15+ years, we've pretty much done better by simply buying none other than "Berkshire Hathaway".

    Most people in NZ have never heard of the company. They don't even know who Warren Buffet is. But time and time again Buffet has said you're playing a fools game if you can time markets when to buy or sell or know when to be in cash or bonds (hence the behaviour actively managed funds practice). He says, "That's not how you get rich in this industry... you can't tell your clients to go put their $ in the index fund because how else would they (the financial advisors) get paid? .. That's not how the system works".

    For long term returns I'd recommend interest.co.nz who publish comparisons every so often.

    https://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver...ket-volatility
    From a performance point of view, tt's a shame that the default Kiwi Saver funds 'net of fees' isn't doing any better than what the banks pay in term deposit. Of course, interest income is taxed at marginal tax rates but on a cumulative basis it might be very comparable? I recall during the Hanover Finance era banks were paying over 9% on term deposits.

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
  •