Don’t kill the Cullen Fund

46 comments on “Don’t kill the Cullen Fund ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pat 1

   24 February 2009 at 9:55 am

   Dollar Cost Averaging is the term you are looking for, SP.

   Despite the principle behind Dollar Cost Averaging, I wonder if holding off the contribution this year might be a good idea when all indications are that world markets are going to fall further.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   24 February 2009 at 10:03 am

   gets pretty tricky if you’re trying to play intra-cycle games with a long-term fund. and there’s the political element too – once you’ve stopped for one year, will you really restart the next?
3. Billy 3

   24 February 2009 at 10:53 am

   Will you personally be borrowing to speculate in the share market, Steve?
4. BLiP 4

   24 February 2009 at 11:25 am

   Goober John Key and his big business mates have always had their eye on the Cullen Fund . They have taken their lesson’s from the Robert Maxwell School of Business and have been slavering over the fund since its inception.

   The fund belongs to all New Zealanders equally, not the National Party and its big business masters. If they are not prepared to borrow to fund it, then they should just leave it alone and not plunder it.

   hahahahaha – captcha = suited con !!
5. Jasper 5

   24 February 2009 at 11:59 am

   Billy – If we borrowed to speculate in the SM, at least the interest on borrowed loans is tax deductible.

   Furthermore, if we borrowed 2b this year, who’s to say that in 3 years time when the SM turns around, that $2b borrowed won’t be worth double, or even triple. History has shown that when SM hits a (new) low point, the resulting bounceback typically takes it above the previous high point over a 3 – 5 year period.

   In this case, the Cullen Fund is a perfect example of long term thinking, and this year and the next are the years where funds should definitely be borrowed to invest. The long term prognosis is good. Not to mention that if Nactional go ahead with using 40% of the Cullen Fund in NZ, then the resulting profits end up coming back into the Cullen Fund via dividends and what have you. Why have Sky TV, but no shares in Sky TV… you’re effectively getting repaid what you pay Sky through dividends.
6. djp 6

   24 February 2009 at 1:09 pm

   Steve you are assuming we are at the bottom of the valley… we could be teetering at the edge of a cliff for all you know.

   As others have hinted at, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for others to gamble on the stockmarket?
7. ieuan 7

   24 February 2009 at 1:34 pm

   Steve, your post misses the point of most of the objections to the government putting money into the Cullen fund. As the government will be running deficits for the foreseeable future then the government will have to borrow the money it feeds into the fund.

   So the question that has to be answered is ‘Does it make sense for the government to borrow money to put into a retirement fund’?

   As Billy has already asked ‘Steve is that something that you would do yourself’?

   Personally I feel that the government should not borrow to feed the fund, they should temporarily freeze contributions but as soon as the economy picks up they should start paying back into the fund.

   Also, looking at your graph, have you factored in the cost of borrowing the money? If the government is paying 5% for the money but only achieving 3% growth how does the graph look then?
8. higherstandard 8

   24 February 2009 at 1:56 pm

   For those that are arguing the point with SP it’s worth contemplating where we would be now if Rob hadn’t scuppered Norm Kirk’s super fund plan.

   Covered here very well.
9. Matthew Pilott 9

   24 February 2009 at 1:59 pm

   I’m investing in a super scheme because the units are very cheap and if I can get them at 2/3 the cost of a year ago, and small growth will have a fairly solid impact on the overall portfolio.

   That’s what I was thinking about when I heard this guy talk about not investing – surely any decent advisor will be telling you to look out for bargains at the moment (but be wary, of course, of the shakier investments).

   To sort-of answer Billy’s question, and address ieuan, I have debts that are servicable, and could be cleared faster if I stopped those super contributions. So in effect I’m borrowing to invest on the sharemarket. Hopefully works out well in five or ten years.

   If you think you’ll get a better return on the money you’re borrowing then do so to invest by all means. Just as long as you’re borrowing for something very worthwhile (like avoiding future pain from retiring baby-boomers…)
10. Matthew Pilott 10

    24 February 2009 at 2:03 pm

    HS, cheers for the link. Check out the NZ/Aus comparison:

    “New Zealand would have led the world in terms of savings. Based on the $240 billion projection each worker would have $111,200 of superannuation assets compared with $6300 at present and A$74,400 ($86,821) in Australia.”

    That’s outrageous. I think the Cullen fund needs every cent it can get.

    Incidentally the pro-Kiwisaver article has a ‘disclosure of interest’ at teh end about the author, but the one in questionin this thread does not.
11. vto 11

    24 February 2009 at 2:12 pm

    All these people who think they are experts at money and markets and business (Littlewood, Pierson, Oram, Morgan, etc)…

    I have always said that the only ones worth listening to seriously on these subjects are those who have made some money themselves. Otherwise quite frankly they don’t know squat about the harsh reality.

    Has Littlewood made lotsa money on the markets etc?
    Has Pierson made lotsa money on the markets etc?
    Has Oram made lotsa money on the markets etc?
    Has Morgan made lotsa money on the markets etc?

    It is usually only a small number who are worth listening to.
12. Matthew Pilott 12

    24 February 2009 at 2:15 pm

    vto – what if they are successful at analysing the markets and passing on their analysis?

    Do you only even listen to a sports commentator if they were world #1 at that sport? You might find that they’re actually rubbish compared to people who are good at commentating – I think the analogy fits well here.
13. Felix 13

    24 February 2009 at 2:19 pm

    “it’s worth contemplating where we would be now if Rob hadn’t scuppered Norm Kirk’s super fund plan.”

    And isn’t Muldoon Key’s hero?
14. higherstandard 14

    24 February 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Felix bit of a long bow, try here

    What’s more telling was his views on HC and MC prior to the electioneering starting last year where he said that MC’s greatest contribution, which would be remembered long after he was gone, was getting the Cullen fund and super saving up and running in NZ.
15. ieuan 15

    24 February 2009 at 2:39 pm

    From the Gaynor article: ‘The 1975 scheme would have taken 16 years to reach the first $50 billion, five years to reach the next $50 billion and then six years and two years to reach $150 billion and $200 billion respectively.’

    Gaynor’s growth predictions read like the prospective for a get rich quick scheme, if it takes only 2 years to add another $50 billion how many years before there is so much money in the fund that no one in New Zealand has to actually work anymore?

    Something doesn’t add up, can’t put my finger on it…………that’s right, there is no such thing as infinite growth, that is why we are in the mess we are currently in.
16. vto 16

    24 February 2009 at 2:41 pm

    MP, there is some comparison of course, and analytical types probably do have a role. I just always find that so many ‘analysts’ overstate their position. Human nature I suppose. But seriously, its like getting advice on how to make money from your accountant or lawyer – how many of them have made a ton of dosh?

    I guess my point is that people’s expertise is often highly specific and its important to understand where that expertise is overstepped, when evaluating the worth of the commentary.
17. Quoth the Raven 17

    24 February 2009 at 2:46 pm

    vto – I ought to have asked Madoff or Stanford for advice last year then.
18. vto 18

    24 February 2009 at 2:50 pm

    QtR you egg. They clearly have not made money have they. They have stolen it – quite a difference from what I said ya?
19. higherstandard 19

    24 February 2009 at 2:52 pm

    Iuean

    An interesting analysis which I haven’t got the link for …… with an initial purchase of 10k shares – if any broker had made the correct bets on shares for a period of 50 years – only buying shares that were to go up and only selling shares that were to go down (poorly worded but you get my drift) they would amass more money than is currently in circulation on the planet.
20. Quoth the Raven 20

    24 February 2009 at 2:54 pm

    vto – I was being facetious, but I think the point stands that making a lot of money does not mean you have greater knowledge to impart. We’ve seen the masters of the universe the big swinging dicks fall flat on their faces in recent times I wouldn’t go running to them for advice.
21. Chess Player 21

    24 February 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Ok, QTR, so who then would you reckon could advise us on making money?

    Please enlighten us all.
22. ieuan 22

    24 February 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Come on Chess Player, it’s obvious – Steve Pierson
23. Pat 23

    24 February 2009 at 4:19 pm

    HS – one of the best returns I have read about was in Sam Walton’s biography. When Walmart listed on the US stock exchange in 1970 each share cost US$16.50.

    If you bought 100 shares in 1970, by 1990 they were worth US$3M. There had been nine 2-for-1 splits in that 20 year period.

    As company shares were a common part of staff remuneration, many long-serving Walmart staff retired as millionaries, simply by not selling their shares.
24. vto 24

    24 February 2009 at 4:39 pm

    QtR, sure, a point of sorts. But again, if you consider the ‘masters’ in detail you will find that the vast majority are still loaded to the hilt. It is only some that have crashed and burned.

    And I do in fact consider that those who have made a load of money do have a greater knowledge to impart – on money and market and business matters. By way of example, you could consider Oram vs Morgan. I dont know what Oram has made but my guess is probably not much. And in my opinion that comes across in his opinion. Compared to Morgan

    Aren’t opinions great …
25. Matthew Pilott 25

    24 February 2009 at 5:55 pm

    “Gaynor’s growth predictions read like the prospective for a get rich quick scheme, if it takes only 2 years to add another $50 billion how many years before there is so much money in the fund that no one in New Zealand has to actually work anymore?”

    Three years after we’ve nationalised everything, made a classless society and disbanded the armed forces for a People’s Militia.

    In Soviet New Zealand, money works for you!
26. RedLogix 26

    24 February 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Gaynor’s growth predictions read like the prospective for a get rich quick scheme,

    Australia’s Super scheme has over a trillion dollars in it; Norway invested huge amounts of it’s oil wealth, and so on. Gaynor stated that his estimates were deliberately conservative, but however you want to add the numbers up, New Zealand would have been hugely better off than the many billions in debt than it is now. Hell we might even still own one of our major banks.

    Rob’s decision to scupper that pioneering scheme has cost this country very, very dearly. It was a mistake we have all been paying for all our lives, and if Key repeats it, so will our children and grandchildren.
27. Ed 27

    24 February 2009 at 8:12 pm

    I think you have confused two different people both called Michael Littlewood. Only one of them thinks he is an expert on superannuation, and I would be horrified if that one was teaching law.

    Regarding contributions to the scheme, I thought it was anticipated that higher contributions would be made in a situation of surpluses than when the government was running a deficit – and that if the government wants to it can forgo contributions altogether. See Clause 44 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 No 84 (as at 10 September 2008). If lower contributions are made the government does need to explain to the country what it is doing and the implications – that may not be palatable to the current government.

    The ‘superannuation’ Michael Littlewood has always been totally against any incentives for long terms savings – indeed for any savings at all – and since the removal of the (limited) tax deductions for superannuation contributions we have seen New Zealand savings drop consistently. I believe that the impact of small incentives has always produced a volume of savings that provides much larger benefits to the country than the cost of the incentives – Australia is a country that went directly contrary to the extreme right views of Michael Littlewood and has had a much better domestic source of capital than New Zealand – it shows our high percentage of overseas owned companies operating here.

    Given that National have committed to maintaining National Superannuation on its current basis it is important that we be sure that those commitments can be met as the number receiving them increases over the next 15 years or so. That might not be as newsworthy as Michael Littlewood’s extreme solutions, but it is important to many New Zealanders who now have little opportunity to save more for retirement.
28. pk 28

    24 February 2009 at 8:25 pm

    It’s interesting that no-one is actually talking numbers and harking back
    to Steve’s comment that it’s all about long term results

    The government borrows – this costs whatever the current Treasury rates are at the time – checking a couple of sites it’s about 6.5 % at the moment (and that’s a fairly typical rate) – it’s like the mortgage, pay it off and it’s a guaranteed return – so we can have a guaranteed return of 6.5% by paying off debt.

    The Cullen fund needs to beat this return – in order to make up for taking some risk it needs to beat it by a couple of percent – so it needs to return almost 10% – that’s a big return – Warren Buffet – arguably the world’s best investor has done about 13% compound p.a. (from memory, I’m too lazy to check the figures).

    So, the Cullen fund in good times is a bad idea!! As we always have debt, returns in booms generally return to the average (as per Steve’s graph) and frankly, getting such great returns on a long term basis is the exception, especially with such large amounts of money.

    Strangely though, for once it may be a good idea at this point in time as investing at the bottom of the market provides the best returns as Steve points out but ….

    – are we at the bottom of the market? No-one can predict the bottom
    – will we have a return of 10% or more?

    Though I think the Cullen fund was more of a political stunt than a decent investment approach I do think we “could’ lock in our losses if we close it off now. So, I’m not in favour of closing it off as a contrarian investment approach is very successful overall. But one can only take such a long term approach if one does not need the money now and that’s a big question do we need it now?

    My other concern about cashing in the savings and spending them right now is that this recession may have further to go keep the powder dry and something in reserve.

    FYI I’ve managed to invest, good job, frugal and all that, and up until the recent debacle was hitting about 15% p.a. returns easier with small amounts of money down to about 11% at the moment. I’ve even borrowed to invest and succeeded but it’s a very high risk strategy and only do it on <10% of my investments.

    Jasper loans being tax deductable is completely a red herring for the government as we then give up the tax revenue also doubling one’s money??? Extremely unlikely.
29. Quoth the Raven 29

    24 February 2009 at 8:25 pm

    Chess Player – Not Wall Street Analysts anyway. See here for why.

    vto – Has Morgan or Oram advised you on shares to buy lately have you made a bundle to snort cocaine off a model’s backside. I didn’t know Oram was an investment adviser now. Anyone here have their investments managed by Gareth Morgan’s company? Have you been making loads of cash the last few months? or are you holding out over the longterm? Point of this post.
30. vidiot 30

    25 February 2009 at 12:18 pm

    So I see both the Greens & ACT now both want to suspend payments to the Cullen fund. Never though I would ever seem those two agreeing on something.
31. Pat 31

    25 February 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Oh so confusing!

    Labour say keep making the contributions.
    Greens say stop them.
    United say keep them.
    ACT say stop them.
    National say they haven’t decided yet.
    Maori Party say they didn’t know the fund existed until yesterday, so they are gonna check out if they can put in a claim.
32. Jasper 32

    25 February 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Pk – I was responding to Billys point about “personally borrowing to invest in the sharemarket”

    Not saying that the government would claim tax back on interest – but we can if we borrow personally to invest in the sharemarket, as long as there is a taxable income stream, which there is through dividends and CGT on shares.

    Still, it’s complete idiocy to stop contributing. Regardless of how much further there is to fall, at best it’s probably another 10%, worst, 30%. Either way over a 15 year period, being the timeframe for the fund, returns will far outstrip any borrowings + interest on borrowings.
    • PK 32.1

      25 February 2009 at 3:44 pm

      Jasper – on the borrowing side – sorry read it differently as you said “if WE borrowed”

      Disagree on the returns outstripping borrowings though – because if it did then everybody would be doing it – it’s incredibly risky and exceedingly unlikely to happen over a 15 year period. Shares return on average 2% over inflation in the long term – rates to borrow are normally > 2% more than inflation.

      But go do it and I’ll watch 🙂
33. Rich 33

    25 February 2009 at 3:44 pm

    You are of course assuming that the sharemarket will recover as has always happened in the past.

    At current prices, one would have to have invested an awfully long time ago (15-20 years) before a stock market investment beats a bank deposit.

    Right now there is a total loss of confidence in the market, which seems to have eclipsed any value in the actual companies as investments. It may be that stocks will never recover and a new model of financing business will be needed.

    Perhaps Labour need to think of what will happen if we go into the next election with the Dow at 5000 (versus 8000 or so today and 14000 at its peak).
    • Ed 33.1

      25 February 2009 at 6:02 pm

      I believe that the investments of the fund should be left to the investment management team. Of far more importance than continuing contributions is not mucking about with the investments and for example using them to fund ‘think big’ favoured projects within New Zealand. I had thought that it was the response to such suggestions that initially at least led Phil Goff to ask the government that they be clear about their intentions for the Fund. Yes contributions are important, but at least some of the investmetns of the fund will be there for a long time – provided we realise that contributions not made this year need to be made up at some time int he future.

      Yes the investments of the fund were initially invested in very volatile assets – and we can all hope that the exposure to the American dollar has been reduced, and that exposure to speculative investments has also reduced. The fall in values that has occurred was of course not anticipated, but that does not invalidate the decision to invest to make our ability to meet the commitments to National Superannuation more certain. At any given time, I have a belief that long term investment will add value – certainly I would be uncomfortable with political promises to continue National Super without some assets having been set aside.

      The example given of dollar averaging tells a lot of the story – but the point of the fund is confidence in the ability (and poltical willingness) of future governments to pay National Superannuation – I am happier with the money there than being used to avoid borrowing for short term stimulus policies.

      I notice that Kiwiblog is conveniently focussing on the contributions, and not the need for clarity regarding all aspects of the Fund. It may be inconvenient of the government to have to explain what they would do to make up for a short contribution holiday – a bigger concern would be if they started using the fund for other purposes – even they would not know the long term effect of that.
34. Roger 34

    25 February 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Lack of NZ capital has been one of the reasons for our high level of overseas borrowings and indebtedness. The funds established by Kirk and later by Cullen are useful steps towards a more self-reliant economy. The Australians learned this lesson many years ago. Small economies need to have the added strength of significant domestic savings to help ride out the booms and busts of the global economy. Let’s not keep repeating the same mistake. If the government really feels compelled to temporarily suspend contributions to the Fund then so be it. But for goodness sake let’s not spend the retirement income of the next generation. Leave the Cullen Fund alone.
35. Michael Littlewood 35

    26 February 2009 at 9:35 am

    For the record:

    1. I am not the other Michael Littlewood who is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Auckland. I am Co-director of the Retirement Policy and Research Centre at the Business School, having retired in 2008 from a career in financial services.

    2. I have not made a “career out of superannuation privatisation” though, until 1991, I did think that was a good idea. My 15 months on the first Todd Task Force convinced me that compulsory private provision was a bad idea and that tax incentives for private provision are an even worse idea. That, in each case, is because they don’t work.

    3. I think New Zealand Superannuation is one of the best Tier 1 schemes in the world but that we need to start a debate now as to whether it is the best way of delivering retirement incomes from, say, 2030 onwards. The fact that I am reasonably content to see something in excess of 6% of GDP go to pensioners from taxation scarcely makes me an “extreme right winger”.

    4. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund will not change the cost of New Zealand Superannuation by $1 but will slightly rearrange the incidence of that cost. What really matters is the future strength of the New Zealand economy. The NZSF is a relative sideshow in that regard, even if it reaches the expected $60 billion or so.

    5. If it’s a good idea to borrow $2 billion to put into the NZSF in 2009/10, why don’t we borrow $40 billion and really do a job on it? If that doesn’t sound sensible then perhaps we need to start thinking about the $2 billion for the coming year. Borrowing to invest in sharemarkets isn’t a sensible idea for savers – neither is it a great idea for governments.

    6. PensionReforms is not “an international organisation … dedicated to the privatisation of superannuation.” http://www.PensionReforms.com is in fact a web site run out of the University of Auckland and of which I am the principal editor. It is dedicated to the promotion of quality research on pension issues from around the world. If I had to sum up the lens through which PensionReforms looks at this research, it would be a generous, universal, non means-tested, Tier 1 pension, no compulsory private provision, no tax breaks for private provision and high quality information that will let citizens decide for themselves how to save further amounts for retirement. That doesn’t sound like the right wing conspiracy suggested by the author of that comment.

    7. What I really want is for New Zealand to start a research-based discussion on what both public and private provision (including KiwiSaver) might look like in 2020 and beyond. We have never had such a debate. Instead, we were rushed into both the NZSF and KiwiSaver by a government that thought it knew better what to do with my tax money than I did. I do not want to see that proposed discussion rushed; worse, I do not want to see the government make unilateral decisions. We should at least have learned that those kinds of decisions are unlikely to survive. On that, New Zealand probably has the best experience of any country.

    8. Finally, I do not call myself an “expert on superannuation”. Over the last 35 years or so, I have learned a few things and have changed my mind from time to time when new evidence convinces me I was wrong about something. I can’t stop other people from describing me as they choose.
36. Felix 36

    26 February 2009 at 9:49 am

    “5. If it’s a good idea to borrow $2 billion to put into the NZSF in 2009/10, why don’t we borrow $40 billion and really do a job on it? If that doesn’t sound sensible then perhaps we need to start thinking about the $2 billion for the coming year.”

    Sorry, fucking what??

    When I borrow money I have to calculate the amount I can afford to pay to service the debt. Is this not a factor in this case for some reason?
    • Felix 36.1

      26 February 2009 at 11:02 am

      Apologies for cursing in the morning. Most uncivil.
37. RedLogix 37

    26 February 2009 at 10:02 am

    Michael,

    Well done for posting here and attempting to back your ideas.

    Instead, we were rushed into both the NZSF and KiwiSaver by a government that thought it knew better what to do with my tax money than I did.

    Oops sounds like a classic right wing talking point, but I’ll take it on face value. The problem is that until very recently the savings rate in this country was appallingly low, we treated our homes like ATM machines, racked up hundreds of billions of debt, and spent about $1.13 for every $1 we earnt.

    Arguably Michael Cullen was merely trying to do the saving for us as a nation, that we had demonstrably failed to do for ourselves. Maybe he really DID know what to do with our tax money better than we do ourselves.

    That is the whole point of government when you think about it.

    Felix;

    Fair point, but manners…tsk tsk.
38. Matthew Pilott 38

    26 February 2009 at 10:05 am

    “7. What I really want is for New Zealand to start a research-based discussion on what both public and private provision (including KiwiSaver) might look like in 2020 and beyond. We have never had such a debate. Instead, we were rushed into both the NZSF and KiwiSaver by a government that thought it knew better what to do with my tax money than I did.

    Don’t take it so personally, Mr Littlewood, Kiwisaver wasn’t set up exclusively for you. It was actually set up for NZ as a whole, due to our awful savings culture. Seems to have turned it around nicely. The decision wasn’t made to benefit you, and individually and in the short term, it may have affected you negatively.

    That’s fairly inevitable when a government makes any decision. If it’s better for society in the long term (and let’s be clear – what has been done clearly falls into that category) then it will also probably be better for you in the long term, whether you continue to gripe about your short term loss or not.

    Redlogix – interesting we both saw the same in the same point there…
    • Michael Littlewood 38.1

      26 February 2009 at 4:50 pm

      Matthew

      Were you aware that most (about two thirds) of New Zealanders were saving enough or more than enough for retirement (before KiwiSaver)? If you go to http://www.PensionReforms.com, then to the Search & options tab and select “New Zealand” as the country, you will find several academic studies that back me up on that.

      I would therefore like to understand what your evidence is for “our awful savings culture”. You mustn’t cite the CAD in this regard (what Michael Cullen used to do) – it says nothing about New Zealanders’ retirement saving habits, something KiwiSaver is supposed to fix. Again, there is an NZIER report listed on PensionReforms that explains this point.

      You needn’t worry about me and KiwiSaver – I joined on day 1, not because I agree with the idea but because I know I will get more out of it than I put in, thanks in part to you. I just can’t resist the temptation of ‘free’ money but I still think it’s a bad piece of public policy – a ‘solution’ looking for a problem to solve.

      You say that KiwiSaver falls clearly into the category of being better for society. The best evidence we have so far is that about 81 cents of every dollar put into KiwiSaver is in fact savings shifted from another place, not ‘new’ money (once again, there is a report on PensionReforms about that). That’s what happens when a partcular savings behaviour is incentivised. Again, there is any amount of international evidence on that point – choose “Taxation” as the topic sort on PensionReforms to see that.

Links to post

1. What’s Bill planning? at The Standard: posted on 26 February 2009 at 9:20 am
2. Granny’s little fit at The Standard: posted on 28 February 2009 at 1:40 pm
3. You’ve got to know to understand (and be able to talk about it) at The Standard: posted on 1 March 2009 at 1:15 pm
4. OIA confirms: No reason to cut Cullen Fund contributions at The Standard: posted on 6 July 2009 at 12:03 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS