Cullen Fund loses 25%
January 13th, 2009 at 10:09 am by David FarrarThe NZ Superannuation Fund, known as the Cullen Fund, has lost 25% of its value in just a few months.
This $2.8 billion loss is more than $1,000 per household.
Of course all investment funds have done badly, but the Cullen Fund is compulsorily funded by taxpayers, which means you lose your choice of putting money in a bank instead of the Cullen Fund.
The Cullen Fund had some merit when NZ was producing large surpluses. Not a lot, but some.
Now that we are having to borrow billions of dollars, just so we can invest it into the Cullen Fund, it has almost no merit. Think about it – borrowing billions to invest in global sharemarkets.
We should wind up the Cullen Fund, and use it to give $6,000 to every household. That is the sort of fiscal stimulus that will help the economy.
Tags: NZ Super Fund
January 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Excuse my language but holy shit……..
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Cue the ill-informed, unintelligent ranting about the fund investing overseas and investing in shares. Aaaannnnnd…. GO!
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:48 am
damn foreign b@sta@rds, damn stock market shysters.
Although, can someone explain the borrowing part?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am
This is just sharemarket fluctuations. They do say, over the long term shares outperform other investments….
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:56 am
That makes sense and is therefore a bad idea.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:57 am
It’d be interesting to see that change excluding currency changes, I suspect it’s actually alot worse than 25% but the real performance is being masked by the depreciation of the NZ dollar relative to the US dollar & Yen.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am
This is shocking, watch the pinko media give this a wide berth.
Kullen should be pilloried by all and sundry for this, the Nat’s should explain what has happened, cancel the fund and give every working household the money.
Dole bludgers and DPB recipients should get nothing.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Look we can streamline this process and save a lot of money. Every household will now be required to flush $30/day down the toilet.
See we saved on admin!
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“This is just sharemarket fluctuations. They do say, over the long term shares outperform other investments….”
There is a lot of truth in that. I invest in the share market. However the number one rule when investing in the share market is not to invest with borrowed money.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
“We should wind up the Cullen Fund, and use it to give $6,000 to every household”
David, this sort of socialist thinking should not go uncommented. In fact the amount paid to each household should be in proportion to the tax that household paid.
[DPF: Would be a nightmare calculating average tax over five years per person. If I can even get an even share I'll be happy]
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
maybe the US can bail us out?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“This $2.8 billion loss is more than $1,000 per household.” $666 for every person
Can anyone name anything that Cullen touched that didn’t turn to shit?
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am
No no no beautox, it should be redistrubuted to those so disadvantaged they were unable to contribute as much as others!!!!
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Taxation Patrick. I think he perfected the art of taxing people as an industrial process.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Murray, that would depend on who it turned to shit for. Im talking about the taxpayers – not tax spenders
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
How about dividing it up between all Kiwisaver accounts open at a specified future date, and those over 65. Even if that is the only contribution, it should grow well over time. If folk choose not to open an account for themselves or their children, then so be it. Admittedly that disadvantages those unborn, but hey this is not their money anyway.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
artemisia Im subsidizing other peoples Kiwisaver accounts enough as it is without making it worse. Kiwisaver is worse for the economy as a whole than the Cullen fund is (not that either is a good thing).
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Look we can streamline this process and save a lot of money. Every household will now be required to flush $30/day down the toilet.”
And I’ll make a killing as a plumber going about unblocking these loos for a huge fee plus getting a bonus $30 bucks (albut a bit stinky) for myself…..;-)
Where theres muck theres brass!
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
beautox (73) Vote: 1 0 Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
(DPF)“We should wind up the Cullen Fund, and use it to give $6,000 to every household”
“David, this sort of socialist thinking should not go uncommented. In fact the amount paid to each household should be in proportion to the tax that household paid.”
[DPF: Would be a nightmare calculating average tax over five years per person. If I can even get an even share I'll be happy]
Alright, keep it simple by using the Kullen fund to fund a tax holiday for whatever period of time it would cover. That would probably be the best stimulus to the economy.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The best stimulus to the economy was to fire the toxic little toad. Who the hell wants to do business in NZ with Mr Nevercuttax at the financial helm of the Helentanic.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The Nat’s should ensure that they only refer to this find as the Cullen fund, Mikael Kullen was happy to have it named after him when it was doing well as were the pinko media happy to call it by the same name.
Now that it is tanking watch the bastards refer to it as the NZ superannuation fund.
The Nat’s need to ram it home to the people of NZ that once again Labour and Clark/Cullen fucked up.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“We should wind up the Cullen fund”, blasphemy, ungodly blasphemy, please say three hail Marys and an Our Father for good measure and speak of this no more.
I’m afraid anyone who was naive enough to believe the Cullen fund was going to keep them comfortable in their golden years wants their head read.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
This is why you don’t steal money off people and spend invest it for them =)
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
[DPF: Would be a nightmare calculating average tax over five years per person. If I can even get an even share I'll be happy]
Being a nightmare does not seem to deter the IRD from making IR3′s almost impossible to complete. If you are unlucky enough to directly hold overseas shares you are in trouble. Some accountancy firms won’t even deal with retail clients since the complexity is just too high.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Can the Cullen fund not be made a commercial operation, then privatised ?
Vote:You know just like the good old days when bastard politicians sold our( gave them away ) assets that we bloody owned.
I do not remember getting any bloody share certificates when the silver was being given away.
But there must be some private foreign company whose need for our dosh is greater than giving it back to the peasants.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
hori
You mean “assets” such as NZ rail which was losing a million dollars a day?
When Prebble asked the various managers what it would take for them to be profitable each and every one of the fools told him they needed more money.
Nothing that Sir Roger got rid of could in anyway be described as an asset, anyway, govt has no right or need to be in business, I want the bastards having as little as possible to do with the business world.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Wouldn’t it be stupid to wind it up now the market has hit the bottom, why not a few years time when the market has recovered somewhat, it seems to be taking a very short term view of things.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
big bruv
Assets such as bloody Telecom which was given away for a bloody song.
Vote:And I do not remember any share certificates being posted out before it was sold.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
So we should have kept it?
Were you happy waiting four weeks for a phone line?.
If it had not been sold it would still be like it was back then, hell we might all still be on dial up.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I think what Hori is saying is that since it was owned by the people of this country then it shouldn’t have been sold in the manner it was, we should have been given shares when it was privatized so that the the true owners could decide on what was best.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
The Kullen fund was flawed from the start and it’s sad that the Nats backed off from scrapping it as part of their policy. So many reasons why we should get rid of it……
Expat asks about the borrowing bit – simple if I have debt that costs me X% p.a and I have an investment that returns Y% and if Y is less then X then I am financially better off paying off the debt and getting rid of the investment – that’s why you’re always advised to pay the mortgage off 1st
Which is why the Mrs Cullen fund was always flawed – our government borrows on our behalf at about 7% p.a. We have government (our) debt. Paying this off provides the equivalent of a risk free return of 7%. The risk free return bit is dead important as if I was to borrow to invest then I would want at least a couple of per cent premium over any risk free return to invest in something with risks eg shares. So the Cullen fund needs to return about 10% p.a. forever to be worth doing. That’s a b***dy amazing return in the long term.
The Cullen fund has returned a little under 4% p.a. – so it’s actually cost us about 3% p.a. to borrow the money to invest (as we (the government on our behalf) already have debt). So Cullen has cost us a further ~ $900m dollars being the difference between the return and the cost of debt
Taking money out an economy eg tax slows that economy down – the Kullen fund has taken ~ 12 billion dollars (well actually 13 as it cost us a further $900 million to fund it). From memory we have a GDP of about $115 billion – so over about 4 years we took out about 2% p.a. extra n taxes to fund the Cullen fund. The OECD has some pretty good research that says every 1% in Government spending as a proportion of GDP causes a .1% decrease in the growth of the economy – so we have had a .2% reduction in growth p.a. for about 5 years – which means our economy is now a whole 1 per cent smaller – which over 5 years (and roughly adjusted) cost us a further $2.5 billion (approx)
We then add to this that it’s a well known fact that <30% of fund managers beat the market then they had to pick the few fund managers who will beat the market – of course I have faith in the commercially oriented labour government to do this – I mean the rail investment was so wonderful
Government investment in proper infrastructure generally has large returns as it improves the efficiency of large elements of the economy but Labour did not do that as they had to pay for the Cullen fund
We then add to this that 18 months ago it was pretty obvious that a bubble ‘pop’ was coming so any investment portfolio should start adjusting to cash, to take advantage of the over valued NZ$ vs the US$ and as there would be some sort of crash move in to infrastructure and gold (or similar). I did that and made much better returns (actually smaller losses) than the Cullen fund.
Finally, Cullen thought of it.
So the fund has cost NZ ~$3.5 billion dollars and is likely to cost us more – it also took a further $12 billion out of the economy – of course get rid of the f***ker. it’s a no brainer
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
the simple version – is no-one scared that we took the equivalent of 13% of our annual GDP out of the economy – are we surprised we were 1st in to the recession???
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Sjimbal,
An excellent lesson in basic economics for those on the retarded Left. Thank you.
You also need to account for the lost productivity from workers who never got jobs, patients who didn’t get treated and crime that didn’t get solved because money was diverted to financing the Cullen fund.
So far as I have been able to work out, the Right understand two things that the Left don’t:
1. Incentives are vital. They are the only thing that separates the First world from the Third (or even the bronze age).
2. Everything involves a tradeoff. Money taken from Peter to pay Paul means that Peter won’t be able to invest in that new business venture, thereby leaving Mary, Bob and Sue out of work, who then have to be paid by the government to be unemployed.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
It’s so damn easy to be wiser after the facts. It’s so damn easy to be wiser after November, 2008. Oh so easy.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Heh, and how many people on the Right supported the Cullen fund at its inception? none.
Vote:January 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Haemorrhoids-man – this is not hindsight – the arguments were good prior to the inception of Cullen’s Folly – but now we have history to show they are correct
You don’t take huge gobs of money out of an economy and expect it to perform well (or even perform)
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
If Michael Cullen had not created this fund, what would Labour have done with the money instead? (Pause for thought) So maybe this was a good idea after all?
As for the rate of return, wreck1080 is right: over the long term shares do better, and the current figure is a blip. Actually now is probably a really good time to be buying.
Vote:January 14th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“If Michael Cullen had not created this fund, what would Labour have done with the money instead”
Not taken it from us in the 1st place?
Vote:January 15th, 2009 at 8:27 am
slijmbal – excellent posts. thank you.
Vote: