One thought on “Gaynor on default funds and focus on low fees. Part 2 of Gaynor’s views!”

1. I have a statement of possible conflict of interest to make: I have a significant holding in Gaynor’s Milford Asset Growth Fund. Since this fund is closed to new investors, I am not guilty of touting for it. I have read the comments on the main Herald article and they tend towards accusing Gaynor of self-serving, undisclosed costs and period-picking (you choose your favourite time interval and things look good or bad acccording to the time period you choose). We are talking exlcusively about the New Zealand market, certainly not the US market. There are gains that can be had by good analysis in New Zealand that are harder to make against in more mature markets.

   If you are not convinced, look at a variety of growth funds over whatever period (my fund started in 2007 I think-two years before the GFC). Look at the returns (usually stated after deduction of management fees but before tax) and notice Gaynor never said how exceptionally well his own fund operated (which it did). The other thing to note is when the index goes negative and your fund stays above the line. That gives me great reassurance….

   The final thing is Kiwi Saver schemes by the big banks seem to be just front doors (this is aslo true for the insurers they deal with). They partner with someone who does the work but your bank has no responsibility for investment performance at all. The returns reflect all of this

   Michael

   .

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.