sharetrader
Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 225
  1. #101
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    5,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heisenberg View Post
    How’s everyone going here with trying to time the bottom...?
    Pretty good I think, instead of converting to a ‘safe’ 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 don’t think KS is a trading tool, the delay to execute a portfolio change and a ‘trade’ 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
    Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,685

    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
    6,435

    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
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    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
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    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
    Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,685

    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 08:09 PM.

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    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
    5,292

    Default

    "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.”

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    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.

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
  •