sharetrader
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 111
  1. #41
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Why am I not surprised no refernce had been made to this: http://www.morningstar.co.nz/s/docum...rvey130122.pdf

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Does anyone have a view on how this new Kiwisaver provider Generate will go? http://www.generatekiwisaver.co.nz/

    They invest only in hedge funds. Just an excuse to charge higher fees or could they be onto something?

  3. #43
    Update Ready To Install
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    8,968

    Default

    Well its been great to read all these threads. Progress report , i still havn't signed up with any one; but right now am enjoying the effects of a single gin and tonic. Wasn't long ago i could not drink at all due to Gerd symptons so just one is having the effect of half a bottle. Im 58 so prob would pay to participate. Anywhichway my bro sent me this;"Dark matter is love and, love matters.

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
    Does anyone have a view on how this new Kiwisaver provider Generate will go? http://www.generatekiwisaver.co.nz/

    They invest only in hedge funds. Just an excuse to charge higher fees or could they be onto something?
    There fees seem very high for what they are doing. They take a 1% management fee and they are not directly managing your money. They are investing with other managers who will be charging fees as well.
    You make your own luck.

  5. #45
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by turmeric View Post
    Hi there, firstly thanks everyone for the helpful advice. Secondly, re the Morningstar report minimoke, Ive read these a few times before, just checking though, is Morningstar's report typically the best out there in profiliing all the providers and their returns? Cheers.
    I don't know about the best, but as far as I'm aware its pretty much the only one that attempts to compare apples with apples. There are so may providers with so many different fee structures with a variety of investment options and fund sizes its not an easy task. As they always say with these types of reports (an the individual provider reports) "past performance is no guarantee of future performance"

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    145

    Default

    2012 Superlife NZ shares made 37% after fees. Probably similar to Milford if you think milford is not 100% nz shares. Superlife did well with their PEB though so may be a one off.

    http://www.superlife.co.nz/superlife...uary-2013.html

    Quote Originally Posted by absolut-advance View Post
    http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/performance-ranking

    I use Milford Active Growth and recommend them.

    Milford Active
    Growth KiwiSaver has also easily been the top-performing
    overall KiwiSaver fund over the past five years - Morningstar

    http://milfordkiwisaver.co.nz/perfor.../fund-updates/

    AA

  7. #47
    One Fearsome Feline winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    27,347

    Default

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10893099

    So not Kiwibank/Gareth Morgan

    Methinks it is the one that the has had previous 'disgreements' with the regulators ..... and one that many are more than satisified with on this thread

  8. #48
    Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,164

    Default

    Bremner said it was unfortunate the recent announcements had created "a game of guess who?" in the industry and amongst investors.

    "But it's unfortunate that a minor matter has been played out in the press in the manner that it has." The FMA has declined to name the two providers and has said its problems in the offer documents were "at the compliance end" of its regulatory scale.
    What an arse - he makes the situation worse by ruling their funds out as if everyone did it, only the 2 'guilty' funds would be left without an announcement.
    Free delivery worldwide with Book Depository http://www.bookdepository.co.uk

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    41

    Default

    I've recently been looking into this, im 35 and noted the fee calculator today on https://www.sorted.org.nz/calculators/kiwisaver-fees
    does anyone know about the Mercer Super Trust KiwiSaver scheme ??? says they have 0% fees.. seems too good to be true?

    can anyone offer any advice?

  10. #50
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alz99 View Post
    I've recently been looking into this, im 35 and noted the fee calculator today on https://www.sorted.org.nz/calculators/kiwisaver-fees
    does anyone know about the Mercer Super Trust KiwiSaver scheme ??? says they have 0% fees.. seems too good to be true?

    can anyone offer any advice?
    very difficult to give advice these days and stay within the law without the right qualifications , disclosures , and research on client .
    Have a look at http://www.morningstar.com.au/s/docu...rvey2015Q4.pdf

    This will show you over the last 5 years who has a good track record. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. However the guys/girls in the top 3 on the active growth must be doing something right when you compare them to some of the lower performing funds ..... Don't get too caught up in the free fees .. I'd rather be making 14 % PA and paying a reasonable fee, than paying nothing and only getting 6 % .
    Think of your fund manager as a sports team ...who would you back to win the World Cup , NZ or Tonga .

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    This will show you over the last 5 years who has a good track record. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. However the guys/girls in the top 3 on the active growth must be doing something right when you compare them to some of the lower performing funds ..... Don't get too caught up in the free fees .. I'd rather be making 14 % PA and paying a reasonable fee, than paying nothing and only getting 6 % .
    Think of your fund manager as a sports team ...who would you back to win the World Cup , NZ or Tonga .
    I won't pretend to have done a full literature search, but everything I've read on the subject agrees that past performance really is no guarantee of future performance (example http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1578808) and that on average actively managed funds perform worse than index investing (due essentially to increased costs, UK centred example https://www.institutional.vanguard.c...vesting-uk.pdf). So the average active fund does badly, and you can't tell which the above average funds will be.

    I don't have a kiwisaver just yet (not a full resident yet), but when I do I'm planning to build a Superlife index portfolio, mostly of overseas shares, as they're cheapest. Higher fees are the only thing I can be absolutely sure about that will impact on my returns. 1% versus 0.5% doesn't sound like a lot, but if you made 5% returns one year, the difference is 10% of your profit, which winds up being a huge amount of money over time. It's also worth pointing out I'm a huge hypocrite as I actively manage my own portfolio outside of kiwisaver but I only have myself to blame for what happens there, and although trading costs are significant I don't have to pay a %age just to hold what I already own.

    The Mercer example looks like it's a gremlin in the sorted system, they definitely quote fees on their website https://secure.superfacts.com/web/IW...tionsFlyer.pdf

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    41

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    very difficult to give advice these days and stay within the law without the right qualifications , disclosures , and research on client .
    Have a look at http://www.morningstar.com.au/s/docu...rvey2015Q4.pdf

    This will show you over the last 5 years who has a good track record. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. However the guys/girls in the top 3 on the active growth must be doing something right when you compare them to some of the lower performing funds ..... Don't get too caught up in the free fees .. I'd rather be making 14 % PA and paying a reasonable fee, than paying nothing and only getting 6 % .
    Think of your fund manager as a sports team ...who would you back to win the World Cup , NZ or Tonga .

    thanks .. love this site for info appreciate it.. @stoploss & @mfd

    seems like ill be changing over to superlife and bringing my partners super over from Australia

  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Superlife NZ and to some extent Aus shares, property is the most tax efficient as not paying tax on capital gains and getting imputation credits. That makes a difference too.

    Also thinking of trying to change my life insurance to them as they are NZ based, no commission and no broker hard sell.

  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Simplicity - the new low-cost, not-for-profit Kiwisaver provider (from Sam Stubbs) - 0.3% fund management fee for all funds (growth, balanced, conservative) + $30/year.
    All investments hedged to NZ dollar - hedging fee is extra but wont be much I think.

    I will consider switching!

  15. #55
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RRR View Post
    Simplicity - the new low-cost, not-for-profit Kiwisaver provider (from Sam Stubbs) - 0.3% fund management fee for all funds (growth, balanced, conservative) + $30/year.
    All investments hedged to NZ dollar - hedging fee is extra but wont be much I think.

    I will consider switching!
    Unless you are in conservative , this does not make sense to me .
    Surely the overall performance is of more importance . So I am happy to pay A bit more to get better performance .
    Compare the 5 year return of the top Growth funds vs the bottom ones . I have been happy with my Milford returns .

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    Unless you are in conservative , this does not make sense to me .
    Surely the overall performance is of more importance . So I am happy to pay A bit more to get better performance .
    Compare the 5 year return of the top Growth funds vs the bottom ones . I have been happy with my Milford returns .
    I'd be interested to see the evidence that recent good performance predicts future performance. I know it's intuitive but that doesn't mean it's true. Here's some suggesting low fees are the best predictor of future performance

    http://news.morningstar.com/articlen...aspx?id=347327

    "Expense ratios are strong predictors of performance. In every asset class over every time period, the cheapest quintile produced higher total returns than the most expensive quintile"

    Here's another interesting article:

    http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/choosing-funds-low-costs-or-high-past-performance/

    "picking funds based on superior past performance proved to be less successful than picking randomly"

  17. #57
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfd View Post
    I'd be interested to see the evidence that recent good performance predicts future performance. I know it's intuitive but that doesn't mean it's true. Here's some suggesting low fees are the best predictor of future performance

    http://news.morningstar.com/articlen...aspx?id=347327

    "Expense ratios are strong predictors of performance. In every asset class over every time period, the cheapest quintile produced higher total returns than the most expensive quintile"

    Here's another interesting article:

    http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/choosing-funds-low-costs-or-high-past-performance/

    "picking funds based on superior past performance proved to be less successful than picking randomly"
    I should have put that disclaimer in there about past performance . I look at it in a sporting way maybe Milford have the financial equivalent of the All Blacks working for them and some of the bottom ranked funds ( comparing like funds) the Wellington Lions ....
    I note that article is 2010 , say I have 100 K in my Kiwisaver, what would the opportunity cost have been with some of the cheaper providers over the past 6 years .

    https://milfordasset.com/milford-top...isaver-survey/

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    I should have put that disclaimer in there about past performance . I look at it in a sporting way maybe Milford have the financial equivalent of the All Blacks working for them and some of the bottom ranked funds ( comparing like funds) the Wellington Lions ....
    I note that article is 2010 , say I have 100 K in my Kiwisaver, what would the opportunity cost have been with some of the cheaper providers over the past 6 years .

    https://milfordasset.com/milford-top...isaver-survey/
    No argument, the best fund to have been in for the last 5 years is the fund that performed the best. The trouble is there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence to be able to extrapolate that into the future. It's a leap of faith. The second article I posted had an interesting section that really poor performance probably predicts future poor performance, but once you get out of the dross I think they're all essentially monkeys throwing darts at a list of stocks.

    We all make our own decisions, I'll be taking a close look at simplicity as it's looking cheaper than my current superlife mix and ends up invested in the same Vanguard funds at the end of the day. Of course as they're index funds they'll never be top of the tables, but they also won't be able to drop any major clangers, and on average can be expected to perform better than the average actively managed fund (due to lower fees).

  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Low cost index fund would surely beat the majority of managed funds especially in developed (discovered) markets. Active management is costly. The difference would be profound esp in bear markets - you lose 1-2% (active management fees) vs 0.3-0.5 for index fund.

    Fiona McKenzie of NZ super fund is also a big fan of index funds - according to her keep the expense as low a possible and that would make a big difference in the long term. Only a small proportion of NZ super fund is actively managed.

  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RRR View Post
    Simplicity - the new low-cost, not-for-profit Kiwisaver provider (from Sam Stubbs) - 0.3% fund management fee for all funds (growth, balanced, conservative) + $30/year.
    All investments hedged to NZ dollar - hedging fee is extra but wont be much I think.

    I will consider switching!
    I think any provider offering international equities exposure at low cost is on the right track. The website is fresh and I hope they do well.

    From their Product Disclosure Statement:

    While we have a policy of hedging overseas investments 100% to the NZ dollar, on a before tax basis,
    there may be fluctuations in value, and the actual percentage may vary. There may also be additional
    requirements to pay for the cost of hedging if the NZD is more volatile than predicted.
    This is the only thing missing however. Save yourselves money and offer clients the higher reward/higher risk option of no hedging - unhedged portfolios will outperform any of the other current Kiwisaver portfolios long term.

    The annual fund charges exclude transaction costs incurred by the funds in which the Scheme invests, and any hedging costs.
    You're already superior to Smartshares with your international equities/low cost offering. Now you could beat KiwiWealth/Gareth Morgan (who benchmark 50% hedged/50% unhedged of their 85% international equity exposure) by offering 0% hedged.

    Even better would be a service that let the client choose level of hedging...

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
  •