Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

Forums › Off topic › Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1614332 19-Aug-2016 13:01

I don't think the government should alter which funds the default providers are allowed to invest in, but I don't think its unreasonable for the government to ask the default providers (which are by default more linked to the government) to state clearly whether the funds does invest in arms etc so that the individual can decide themselves.

If its government policy for ACC and government departments to not invest in such things, to me it doesn't seems unreasonable that related organisations make it plain whether they do.

I have no idea whether my providers do invest in such things, but I must admit to some curiosity as to whether they do....

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1614338 19-Aug-2016 13:08

I think that the Greens are missing the wood for the trees.

The Greens are concerned that people are being channelled towards poorer performing default providers. That is admirable but the only factor they are addressing is the ethical issue.

Given an objective to maximise retirement savings then what about considering the provider performance including fees and actual returns to the savers. As at least one post has pointed out, people are being directed to the worst of the default providers. Shouldn't we be stopping that first?

P.S. I'm really enjoying this thread full of impassioned posts.

If we took any one of these "seeds" to their extreme then the resulting instability could produce a great threat to the value of our retirement savings.

e.g. hyperinflation

dickytim:

Since when have the Green's ever had a reasonable policy?

Geektastic:

I hate socialists.

frankv:

It's the business of the Govt to make unethical things illegal. And ethical things legal.

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1614346 19-Aug-2016 13:40

I think the Greens are a secret attachment to all government departments paid to release "alternative ideas" so that when the Government actually does something, people can go "well, it could be worse, look what else is being proposed"........

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7820

Lifetime subscriber

#1614350 19-Aug-2016 14:04

I think it is reasonable at the least to have some kind of ethical guidelines or indicator consistent with the health and international treaty obligations of the government.

I think we will find that some providers will be reviewing/developing their own policies on this as a result of the disclosures.

Imo most people will expect their retirement funds are not being used for these purposes and this expectation will be influential.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1614352 19-Aug-2016 14:10

There needs to be a law against political correctness.

My Kiwisaver provider could be run by North Korea or ISIL for all I care as long as it returns a decent profit.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1614359 19-Aug-2016 14:15

Lias:

There needs to be a law against political correctness.

My Kiwisaver provider could be run by North Korea or ISIL for all I care as long as it returns a decent profit.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1614361 19-Aug-2016 14:18

afe66:

I don't think the government should alter which funds the default providers are allowed to invest in, but I don't think its unreasonable for the government to ask the default providers (which are by default more linked to the government) to state clearly whether the funds does invest in arms etc so that the individual can decide themselves.

If its government policy for ACC and government departments to not invest in such things, to me it doesn't seems unreasonable that related organisations make it plain whether they do.

I have no idea whether my providers do invest in such things, but I must admit to some curiosity as to whether they do....

A.

It's odd that so few people seem to know what their funds invest in. I have an online-visible list of the shares/cash/funds my provider holds and the value of my holdings in each one.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1614365 19-Aug-2016 14:19

dickytim:

^^^^ So true.

I really do wish the Green Party would get back to doing what they should be doing and being a disruptive opposition party, that is where, in my opinion they can do the most good.

Maybe they could show us how to make a canoe in the Womble style, from bits the rest of us leave behind, then show us how an entire political party can work collaboratively to sail it around the world...!

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#1614370 19-Aug-2016 14:29

Although just to put some perpective around this, least anyone think that your Kiwsaver fund is the majority owner of "Stark industries"

From the Herald:

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11696300

"A Herald investigation into KiwiSaver funds has found pervasive holdings - totalling more than $100 million - by members of the public in companies considered so controversial the government-owned New Zealand Superannuation Fund has blacklisted them.

The exclusions range from companies involved in tobacco industry, to those breaching international agreements New Zealand has signed banning nuclear and cluster weapons and landmines, and mining companies guilty of gross human rights abuses."

So the total value is at most less than $200 million

The analysis shows most New Zealanders with KiwiSaver accounts - more than 2.6 million people have accounts in the retirement savings scheme worth $32.5b - are exposed to controversial companies.

For instance, more than two million New Zealanders are found to have collectively - and likely unwittingly - invested $102m into tobacco companies.

But $100 mllion of this is tobacco, (which last time I looked is not illegal)

So this means the actual amount in "Evil defence companies TM" is less than $100 million, and I'm guessing that because they don'tactually list the figure ( which they will know) it is *much* less than $100 million, but no bother,

Now given Kiwisaver has $33 billion in it, that means less than 0.3% of your Kiwisaver fund in invested in these companies, and then when you see the companies the names are fairly large conglomerates, so cluster munitions etc will likely make up well less than 1% of their total business, so (based on a $12,750 average balance) You are likely to have 40 cents invested in the really bad things that are in the headlines.....

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1614372 19-Aug-2016 14:32

I can never understand why the desire to protect the future of our home attracts ridicule and insult.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1614377 19-Aug-2016 14:40

Lias:

There needs to be a law against political correctness.

My Kiwisaver provider could be run by North Korea or ISIL for all I care as long as it returns a decent profit.

Putting the words "decent" and "profit" together in this context is oxymoronic.

It's not about political correctness... it's about acting ethically. About treating other people (even those you'll never meet) with respect.

Whether you do it directly by holding a gun to someone's head, or indirectly by paying money to someone who holds guns to people's heads is irrelevant; you're saying you're happy to enrich yourself on the back of repression, slavery, child labour, and robbery. I'm not. And, what's more, I'm not happy that you (or anyone else) should be allowed to.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1614380 19-Aug-2016 14:42

Lias:

There needs to be a law against political correctness.

My Kiwisaver provider could be run by North Korea or ISIL for all I care as long as it returns a decent profit.

charming

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1614381 19-Aug-2016 14:44

wellygary:

Now given Kiwisaver has $33 billion in it, that means less than 0.3% of your Kiwisaver fund in invested in these companies...

So it's not going to make a huge difference to Kiwisaver or the investors if those investments are shifted to somewhere ethical.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1614391 19-Aug-2016 15:07

Geektastic:

Lias:

There needs to be a law against political correctness.

My Kiwisaver provider could be run by North Korea or ISIL for all I care as long as it returns a decent profit.

+1

Wow. Predictable - but wow anyway.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1614393 19-Aug-2016 15:12

frankv:

wellygary:

Now given Kiwisaver has $33 billion in it, that means less than 0.3% of your Kiwisaver fund in invested in these companies...

So it's not going to make a huge difference to Kiwisaver or the investors if those investments are shifted to somewhere ethical.

As a one off no. But then it's small a step to ban other investments someone thinks are unethical - petroleum, mining, diary fishing, what ever the green don't like. Or they extend the policy from default providers to all providers and funds. Ethical is subjective term and vulnerable to political manipulation

It's a potential slippery slope, the initiative is purely politically motivated and therefore I oppose it at the first stage.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12