“Over ten years and 15 years, 100% of global funds underperformed, or 95% over 10 years among hedged funds” - hmmmm I’d suggest fact checking that statement (or face the inevitable consequences from those managers who can demonstrate consistent outperformance over the timeframes)

Well done for raising this Anthony - as some industry participants continue to spin misinformation to support self interest. Looking forward to seeing the appropriate reaction by the regulator

I always find this debale along with the one about Value ir Growth rather silly. As a portfolio manager your job is to build the portfolio with the highest probability of achieving the clients stated goals with the least amount of 'risk' necessary to do so. That means using the full toolkit of avaikable asset classes, strategies and instruments including active, passive, value, growth, alternative, physical, real, ethical, trend etc Purely passive index type funds give you roughly the same return as their underlying benchmark less a few to 50 basus points in fee drag. For many simple portfolios or where fees are a major consideration they are a good option for providing the cheap Beta that drives most equity markets. For those who need a higher rate of return to meet their targets active management offers that potential providing the manager can demonstrate ongoing good selection skill. Slide 35 of this recent presentation inicates that the returns of the average Balanced Kiwisaver's actual asset class weights have beaten the average policy weighted benchmark by around 43 basis points before fees when measured using a common set of asset class return proxies - in this case the SMART ETF's. See: https://lnkd.in/p/egiKwMNH

The FID Business lost its identify post Miton Jennings exit - as a Business it was always different to other participants in the market - less Corporate and more Kiwi - very sad to see this diminish from the business over the recent decade.

The good news compared to what we have seen in history, is that with Japanese ownership, we can look forward to the parent company wanting growth. History with both AMP and AIA was that both companies in New Zealand were failing so they tried to buy their way out of trouble! AMP bought AXA but maintained their failed model then collapsed totally. AIA purchased Sovereign as their model was failing in New Zealand and like AMP, they continue with that failed model where we are seeing a slower death to AIA. I do not believe that a Japanese model would support a Nil Service model as we saw with AMP and AIA now. That in itself shows promise that New Zealanders will be able to protect themselves with creditable insurers into the future - we hope. Milton wanted a quality offering for New Zealanders. Hopefully Japanese companies can do just that!!