-
06-01-2019, 11:25 AM
#1731
BP
Facts - that FMA report you linked says KiwiSaver assets invested is $40.8 billion (not $34 billion you mentioned)
“ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”
-
06-01-2019, 11:31 AM
#1732
Originally Posted by winner69
BP
Facts - that FMA report you linked says KiwiSaver assets invested is $40.8 billion (not $34 billion you mentioned)
You are right. I took the starting balance on page 17, but this is obviously the savings total at end of 2016!
Mea culpa ... Kiwis saving that fast that I can't keep track :
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
07-01-2019, 07:15 AM
#1733
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
Why let a good story be spoiled by the facts?
New Zealands averge annual household income is sitting on place 24 out of 79 ranked countries according to https://www.worlddata.info/average-income.php (i.e. well above the median);
Hi tech and high wage countries like e.g. France, Israel and South Korea do have a lower annual income like New Zealand. Actually the expensive UK has an average income of just 4% above NZ. Nobody calls these other countries "low wage". New Zealand a low wage country? Maybe time to remove the ideological blinkers?
"To the relatively minor extent that households have super/KiwiSaver funds":
End of 2017 we had in NZ nearly $34b in Kiwi saver funds. That's roughly $10,000 for every grown up New Zealander. Given that the schema is not yet that long around would I think this is a quite substantial sum.
https://fma.govt.nz/assets/Reports/F...eport-2017.pdf
Obviously - many poeople (like me and I suppose you and most of the other posters here) do have substantially more shares outside of their Kiwi saver account than inside. Do these invetments not count?
Is this what you call "to a relative minor extent"?
NZ still has a relatively small amount in superannuation because it was late in introducing KiwiSaver. Also KiwiSaver has a capped incentive, which given current tax settings will have limited appeal in enticing higher earners away from real estate investment. The incentive to sign up to KiwiSaver, the lack of compulsion and the ability to withdraw money for home purchases and hardship, make it a weak superannuation scheme.
Investments outside KiwiSaver do count....but in actual terms and as a proportion of household wealth we have much less invested in share market assets compared to Australia, the UK and many other OECD members.
The low-wage economy is not limited to NZ. We should also look to see who owns the nations assets, trends in after-tax income distribution, how the wealth of a nation is shared and what the trends in ownership are. R&D funding and Under-investment and Productivity issues are not limited to NZ.
What ideology do you think blinkers me? Last election I indeed party-voted TOP (a party which got up many noses I know) and several elections ago I supported ACT. I have also voted Nats and Lab. I also make mistakes and have changed opinion when circumstances change or when I realise I was wrong. Don’t you?
Last edited by Bjauck; 07-01-2019 at 07:48 AM.
-
07-01-2019, 09:11 AM
#1734
Originally Posted by Bjauck
NZ still has a relatively small amount in superannuation because it was late in introducing KiwiSaver. Also KiwiSaver has a capped incentive, which given current tax settings will have limited appeal in enticing higher earners away from real estate investment. The incentive to sign up to KiwiSaver, the lack of compulsion and the ability to withdraw money for home purchases and hardship, make it a weak superannuation scheme.
Well, yes. Other countries do have different superannuation saving schemes. They all do have drawbacks as well as benefits compared to our scheme. Whether they are "stronger" is a question of definition and personal preferrence.
While there is no schema which could not be improved by tweaking - I think that the NZ system is a good compromise.
It certainly was progress compared to having no KiwiSaver.
Originally Posted by Bjauck
Investments outside KiwiSaver do count....but in actual terms and as a proportion of household wealth we have much less invested in share market assets compared to Australia, the UK and many other OECD members.
Sure ... I was only surprised by your original choice of attributes ...
Originally Posted by Bjauck
The low-wage economy is not limited to NZ. We should also look to see who owns the nations assets, trends in after-tax income distribution, how the wealth of a nation is shared and what the trends in ownership are. R&D funding and Under-investment and Productivity issues are not limited to NZ.
So - given that NZ is somewhere in the top 30 percent in terms in income in the list of countires I referred to (but looking into all countries probably more in the top 10% - are you saying all or nearly all countries are "low-wage"? Before we continue this discussion, maybe you should define what you mean with a fair or high wage economy, where it exists and how the respective countries fare ...
Originally Posted by Bjauck
What ideology do you think blinkers me?
Calling a country "low-wage" which is in comparison to other countries in the upper third with its income levels is clearly misleading. I assumed it might be ideology (the fairy tale of poor workers, bad employers and greedy corporates) misleading you, but if its not ideology - tell us, what else is blinkering you to make this statement?
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
07-01-2019, 10:09 AM
#1735
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
While there is no schema which could not be improved by tweaking - I think that the NZ system is a good compromise.
Better than no savings scheme..probably. Although I think since KiwiSaver introduction a more tax efficient way to accumulate the nest egg has still been the traditional kiwi leveraged residential real estate and investor residential real estate for those who can afford it.
Calling a country "low-wage" which is in comparison to other countries in the upper third with its income levels is clearly misleading. I assumed it might be ideology (the fairy tale of poor workers, bad employers and greedy corporates) misleading you, but if its not ideology - tell us, what else is blinkering you to make this statement?
What are the definitions?
Can a country have a higher position as far as salaries are concerned but a lower position as far as wages are concerned? (Managers tending to earn salaries; junior staff tending to earn wages)
Ah statistics....Do we look at average income or median income? Do we look at income in usd at current fluctuating exchange rates or purchasing power parities taking into account what the after taxes income in USD actually buys (such as housing/rent/food) in the various countries? At what stage in each nation does family income have to be supplemented by benefits and welfare? Of course the amount of welfare provided is a political question. A complex area indeed.
If NZ is an above average income country (in USD terms) but it is also above average in cost of living (especially in accommodation costs) then in ppp terms the median wage-earner may be in a much worse position than simple average USD figures may otherwise indicate.
As for being “ideologically blinkered”, you were the one who made the claim. Unless it was just a general put-down, presumably you thought I was “blinkered” by a particular ideology. Which one or ones? I accept I am not an expert in economics or current statistics.
I own NZ shares so I am not averse to companies making profits. However my concern is that NZ equity is channeled more into real estate than into companies and businesses....to the extent that employee productivity is low and under-capitalised. Also the lack of priority for investment into business and company equities may mean we may be at risk of being unable to sustain a diversified stock exchange as companies relocate to the ASX or are taken over by overseas concerns?
Last edited by Bjauck; 07-01-2019 at 02:11 PM.
-
08-01-2019, 11:57 AM
#1736
my kiwisaver balance has just declined for the first time in 10 years
one step ahead of the herd
-
11-01-2019, 10:48 AM
#1737
Mine probably has a little as well, don't really keep much track of it, regular contributions going in from salary (so $ cost averaging) and still about 10 years to run so do not watch it closely at present. have thought about switching fund type, but by the time have thought about it probably most of the decline already happened, then miss a significant portion of the next leg up as well!
-
13-01-2019, 09:30 PM
#1738
Milford Kiwisaver fell in December quarter, see below. Still a good performer though. The Active Growth Fund has delivered a net benefit in excess of $30,000 for a typical investor on a seven-year basis. This is over 45% more return after fees and tax than the second-highest performing fund.
Conservative Fund
Balanced Fund
Active Growth Fund^ |
-0.80%
-5.3%
-7.1% |
-
13-01-2019, 09:32 PM
#1739
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12186232
This year is already shaping up to be a big one for New Zealand mergers and acquisitions, with $3.5 billion in value set to be wiped off the local sharemarket (subject to takeover approval), JBWere said. They estimate about $1.5 billion in value was wiped from the NZX following successful takeovers in 2018. The only listing over the year was QEX listing in February, which subsequently migrated to the Main Board in September.
JBWere said foreign ownership of New Zealand-listed stocks rose by 1 per cent to 39 per cent last year - the highest point since 2007. Foreign ownership of New Zealand equities has fluctuated from 44 per cent in 2005 to as low 2 2 per cent over 2014 and 2015. The aggregated offshore ownership level included Australian investors owning about 16 per cent of the total float of the S&P/NZX All Index.
-
14-01-2019, 03:59 PM
#1740
Originally Posted by moka
Milford Kiwisaver fell in December quarter, see below. Still a good performer though. The Active Growth Fund has delivered a net benefit in excess of $30,000 for a typical investor on a seven-year basis. This is over 45% more return after fees and tax than the second-highest performing fund.
Conservative Fund
Balanced Fund
Active Growth Fund^ |
-0.80%
-5.3%
-7.1% |
I left Milford's KS and their so called "active growth fund" after it started looking less "active" with some of the top 5 holdings simply being ETFs. That and the fact the FMA caught one of their traders manipulating share prices. After repeated correspondence Milford refused to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had occurred despite paying a $1.5m fine. The trader is still a shareholder. A pity as I had been a big fan in part because they invest in NZ and advocated for better NZ corporate governance.
I moved to Superlife whose fees are less than half of Milford's and allows you to select what ETFs you want directly. Split my funds:
50% to NZ mid cap ETF
25% to APAC ETF
25% to Emerging markets ETF
So far am about even for the last 11 months but would have done better in the US 500 ETF or Total World ETF. Early days still and always nice to have some overseas exposure to balance the NZ assets.
Always been a firm believer too that Kiwisaver exists in part to invest in NZ, build NZ capital markets, companies and NZ Inc's wealth.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks