News

KiwiSaver fees under the spotlight

Thursday 14th of August 2014

Currently there is $21.4 billion invested by 2.3 million members in KiwiSaver and because of its size and importance to financial markets is getting more attention from the regulator.

FMA head of supervision Kirsty Campbell says that 66% of members are in bank run schemes and these schemes are seeing strong growth in funds under management and in membership, especially compared to non-bank schemes.

She can "see why there are concerns about switching practices."

The regulator's analysis of the March quarterly disclosure documents show that investment management fees have been rising and this may be because of performance fees, however overall fees have shown a slight fall.

[Article continues below]

KiwiSaver management fees increasing

 

Campbell says the FMA has done some analysis of fees and the following two graphs show there are some outliers. (The circles are coloured to illustrate fund risk profile and each circle's size represents the size of the fund).

"Some are being followed up to see if there is a reasonable explanation (why fees are high)," she says.

GRAPH: Fees and five year returns

GRAPH: Fees and 12 month returns

Comments (8)
Clayton Coplestone
You get what you pay for...
0 0
10 years ago

John Berry
actually Pragmatic if you look at the graphs I think you will find they show the opposite of the tired old "get what you pay for" mantra. At every return point over 1 and 5 years there is a fee variation of between 50 bps and 150 bps. You can pay lower fees and get the same or often better returns. Higher fees do not mean better investor outcomes.
0 0
10 years ago

Brent Sheather
Good work by the FMA !
0 0
10 years ago

Brent Sheather
Re: Pragmatics’ comment that “you get what you pay for” … the reality is that you actually don’t get what you pay for because what you pay goes to somebody else. Research by various academics shows that the higher the fee the lower the return. This relates to standard fees, not performance fees obviously. Incidentally in the last 12 months, the Financial Times reports, that low cost funds ie ETF’s have attracted huge amounts of new funds which used to go to higher cost funds. Investors are waking up. I think Philip Coggan in his Buttonwood column in the Economist touched on this recently too. Best practice is to have some active managers and some passive. Regards Brent
0 0
10 years ago

Dai Eveleigh
Is there a link to the FMA review please?
0 0
10 years ago

The Editor
@Dai. The presentation didn't have much information attached with it. We have asked for more information but are still waiting for a response.
0 0
10 years ago

John Berry
Andrew you are right that the highest performing aggressive fund is ahead by "a smidgen" and charges the highest fees. That is also true of the highest performing growth and moderate (but not balanced or conservative) funds. However not every investor is in the top performing fund so rather than picking an extreme example I'd prefer to look at the overall picture. If higher fees deliver higher returns then you'd expect the distribution to resemble an upward sloping line for each risk grouping, which it doesn't.
0 0
10 years ago

Clayton Coplestone
Apologies John Berry - I should have been more exact with my previous statement You do get what you pay for - although to be fair there is an aweful lot of "noise" out there. Part of the solution is having a screen/research/ability in place to filter out those capabilities that simply don't justify their fees Specifically: too many advisors are being lured into passive/quasi-passive strategies & being charged active fees. I tend to agree with the likes of Brent Sheather, whereby the defining argument for investing in passive strategies continues to be the price you pay
0 0
10 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.