What? You havent left yet...still trying to remake the NZ financial systems into the "SBQ" model? Pointless exercise of course but must be frustrating for you to know that you have all the answers and everybody here is too stupid to listen to you. I feel for you but remember Canada has so much more to offer and would probably, no actually, would certainly appreciate your intellectual acumen if you made the move. I would even be happy to start a "give a little" fund to help out with all the expenses.
Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
@justakiwi: I'm afraid I must of hit a soft spot? What i'm getting at is the crux of the whole investment system in NZ. The FMA regulations is suppose to make investing in NZ shares on an equal playing field but instead, it's done nothing to education the very customers that put up 100% of the money and is exposed to 100% of the risk. Here's what Jack Bogle had to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4lwJ5aQGlI

and he's only working on an assumed 7% market return but the actively managed fund takes 2%. The difference compounded over multiple decades prove that the investor only gets back 1/3rd of the total returns. Yes and if you think that 2% is a killer, consider how IRD's FIF using the FDR method creams 5% off on the paper gain TOTAL on a portfolio that invests in US shares (assuming the paper gains in a year exceed 5%). Then that 5% of 'taxable income' goes all the way back to the investor and is taxed at RWT rates. Remember, this is excluding active management fees so when you add it all up, you're not getting much in return at the end.

Is it not a surprise to those that were able to save and borrow mortgage on more houses were the ones that really won in NZ? How could you miss when you hold a house for more than 10 years, and all it's capital gains are 100% tax free, and the bank is rubbing it's hands too with ultra low interest rates (leverage). It does seem that Kiwi Saver was nothing but leftover crumbs for the working class of NZ.