|
| Comment | Total | Positive | Negative | Name |
| Age based funds would be a start, but lets keep it simple: Prevent schemes from investing in related party products (i.e banks cant use Kiwibank funding to acquire bank deposits or bonds).Have fixed annual costs, unrelated to balances. The costs dont actually increase just because your balance does. Promote low cost broad based index funds. In fact, make this the default. Fees matter. 90% of managers do not outperform the market. The 10% that do will not be the same 10% next year, or any other year. There are no âguruâ managers. Every $1 âmadeâ by a manager has been lost by another manager. It is a zero sum game therefore buy the market (the index) and do so as cheaply as possible. Over a 50 year period, a fund manager will on average take 61% of your returns in fees. You will get 39%. Do the math. Low cost index funds. End of story. | 2 | 3 | 1 | Tau Sagittarii |
| surely a couple of simple questions could solve which fund you should go into.
How old are you? Will you use your Kiwisaver to help buy your first home? | 1 | 1 | 0 | BTfromWB |
And lets go to the other end of the spectum... allow self managed investments in registered retirement fund institutions, and cut out the middleman and associated costs. That is, manage your own investment portfolio, within a range of registered investment institutions such as banks, stock markets, and investment companies. This is an option provided by Canadas Resigistered Retirement Savings Plan.
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Forty2 |
This really should have been sorted years ago, its obvious to all money-minded people that default funds are temporary and part of the learning curve for all youngsters (as even budgeting is not taught at schools) and those 450,000 (the financial uneducated masses still in default funds);and inaction from politicians just pushes the buck on to the default fund managers who many see as big brother anyway.
| 0 | 1 | 1 | Found out again |
| Ironical isnt it? The ones that really need the benefit of long term compounding are in the default conservative funds. I stopped reading after the word âgambleâ which showed a typical lack of understanding of long term investment by the writer | 0 | 1 | 1 | TheBigPicture |
| Did anyone stop to consider it might not be entirely by mistake that people still have their funds in a default fund? The more potential for money to be made is linked to higher risks; which considering we havent learnt the lessons of the last global financial crisis and the volatile global economy with a Trump presidency able to plummet Boeing stock on a single tweet about Air Force One, low risk may be astute. | 0 | 1 | 1 | BadEnglandUse |
| Well in fairness to the author he was referring to politicians gambling with their political capital trying to change Kiwisaver, not investors gambling with their actual capital in equities. | 0 | 0 | 0 | Art Vandelay |
| Have different funds for different age bands - it cant be that difficult? | 0 | 0 | 0 | Lay |
| The reasons that it would be politically risky to change the defaults structure: (a) many people are apathetic (b) many people are risk adverse. Probably too much so IMO.
Sure, the fund providers could do more. But writing letters and emails will only do so much. In the end, most of these people wont authorise a change to their fund.
In the end, investors need to care enough to do enough research to make good decisions, and then act. You cant force people to care.
| -1 | 1 | 2 | Imthefirestarta |
answers. need more?
