Fund managers moving out of cash

[tpr2]

Here you go guys, some news about what the fund managers are doing.
It's not too hard to see why they are bullish considerng where the market is in Australia at the moment.

I would say the NZ fund managers will probably be following suit.

Fund managers moving out of cash
by Gabriel Lacroix | Thursday, 4 December 2008
After months of falling asset prices and defensive attitudes, fund managers are finally moving away from the safety of cash towards growth assets, according to Russell Investments' latest survey of Australian-based fund managers.
The latest quarterly Investment Manager Outlook (IMO) found that only 13% of managers are bullish on the outlook for Australian cash in this fourth quarter, compared to 50% in the second quarter of 2008.
The move from cash into equities reflects managers' growing optimism, with 54% bullish towards Australian equities this quarter compared to 32% last quarter. International equities were also viewed more positively this quarter with 49% of managers bullish.
The survey also found that the proportion of mangers who view the market as undervalued rose to 56% this quarter, an increase from 11% since this time last year.
This was also reflected in the increasingly bullish attitude towards the Australian dollar versus the US dollar, with bullish views increasing to 45% up from 11% last quarter.
Materials / Energy – The large correction in this sector has seen managers become more positive on the metal and mining dominated material sector and on the energy sector.
Healthcare – Managers showed a clear preference to this sector with 47% of respondents bullish in outlook versus 8% bearish.
Australian listed property trusts – Despite 45% of managers bearish towards the sector, another 40% of managers are now bullish.
Financials – Again, opinions amongst managers are divided with 42% bearish and 44% bullish on the sector, most likely taking into consideration the potential value to be found after devaluations, along with the effects of central bank interventions.
The IMO surveys Australian fund managers each quarter on their sentiment across a variety of instruments. Forty one managers responded to the survey.
© 2008 financialalert Limited.

[Perry]

<sigh> My lady's conservative kiwisaver
is still loosing money (for her, not the
fund managers, of course!)

$NZ1020 paid in, just in 2008. It's present-
day 'value' is just 897.80. I.e. $122.20 gone
to the "I eat first" fund manager in less than
one year.

Inflation Whazzat?

[Badger]

Could be a good time to re-establish some old positions...

[tpr2]

it's not the kiwisaver though Perry. Remember that kiwisaver is just a vehicle.

[Perry]

it's not the kiwisaver though Perry. Remember that kiwisaver is just a vehicle.

So that $122 hasn't gone walkabout, you say

[tpr2]

It's gone walkabout that's for sure, but it's the funds under management not kiwisaver.

It would be like putting a dud property into an LAQC and then saying it was the LAQC's fault that the property lost value.

[Perry]

Well, golly-gosh, it went up $2 in value, yesterday.

Wow.

Terry
Kiwisaver got the investment funds to the manager
The value of the funds under management went down

So, as kiwisaver is the conduit to the cause of the loss,
how does that make kiwisaver somehow a good thing
and blameless?

[CJ]

So, as kiwisaver is the conduit to the cause of the loss,
how does that make kiwisaver somehow a good thing and blameless?

It was your choice to enter kiwisaver or not. Therefore it is your fault.

Kiwisaver actaully saved your ar$e as your $1020 contribution probably came from the government not you (or if it did come from you it would have been matched by the government).

Plus Kiwisaver is a long term investment. If you measure it on short term performance you are making a mistake.

[outspoken]

Maybe look at it this way: Yesterday morning I bought the GBP against the NZD. Now yesterday afternoon it had tanked and I was down $70, it wasn't Latitudefx's fault that it went down, they still got their spread.
But hello, I wake up this morning and it's rocketed back up again and I lock in my profit at $145.

Kiwisaver is the same thing only with managed funds, not curriencies.

I get what Perry is saying though, why can't the fund managers buy the lows and sell the highs? they are professionals right? well, unfortunately it aint that simple, if it was we'd all be managing our own fund portfolios.

[Perry]

My interim opinion is that kiwisaver is a claytons.
Dean is supposedly sleuthing out some data to
corroborate some prediction that general trends
indicate that a kiwisaver contribution over 40
years by an 'average' wage-earner will buy 17
weeks groceries @ maturity.

Yes, the tax-payer contribution is nice. The new
government is meddling, so that the employer
subsidy will be reduced, tax breaks reduced and
so on. By then, it wont be a clayton's it'll be
just an empty glass.

That's why CF+ passive income from property
is what gets most people here. Me included.

[Perry]

Here's a little cheerless something from Stuff . . .

ING investors 'not happy'
By Marta Steeman - The Press | Thursday, 11 December 2008

A couple who have invested more than $400,000 in two funds frozen by fund manager ING are unimpressed with ING's latest offer.
ING announced yesterday that the two funds would borrow $100 million to pay out some money to 8000 investors owed more than $500 million.
Marion and Alan Beard, of Christchurch, are pinning their hopes on their case with the Banking Ombudsman Liz Brown after they were persuaded by an ANZ financial adviser to invest in the two funds.
ANZ Bank owns half of ING.
Told about the $100 million yesterday, Marion Beard said "It doesn't sound very hopeful we will get a whole lot. I'm not very happy at all."
Mrs Beard said she and her husband Alan had hoped to retire but he was now working.

[BTDT]

ING Funds

IMO, quite a few of the investors in the ING funds should have some recourse through the ANZ bank or the banking ombudsman.

The reason- -- it would appear that many of the ANZ advisers were selling this fund as a "safe" investment, because it appeared to be in cash type instruments. I seem to recall one article quoting an ANZ adviser as saying the money was "as safe as money in the bank".

Again IMO the advisers did not fully understand what they were selling, or did not understand the potential dangers behind investing in CDOs. And surely that goes further up the line in the ANZ because the senior management should have fully investigated the products and understood the upsides and downsides before allowing them to be sold by their advisers.

I believe ANZ have already settled one case where the investor proved that the adviser had given assurances that the investment was as safe as a cash investment.

[Perry]

Could be. I have 2 acquaintances who'd been
with ING for a number of years. At the first
hint of trouble, I advised them to bail out, just
as fast as they could. Both did so - I suspect
to their benefit.

(They don't always heed my suggestions
though! I've lost count of the number of
times I've counselled that they get into
some real property. <sigh> One can lead
nags to water, eh . . . . ? )

[BTDT]

Hope they shout you a drink or three for your advice Perry!!!

[tpr2]

It certainly highlights the need for better education of financial advisors in Nz and better legislation.

There are only two possible reasons those ANZ advisors would have made those investments whilst making those statements.

1. They didn't know, in other words not a good enough education nor research.
2. They only had those products available to sell and had budgets that forced them to sell them.