GoodReturns
976498767
Save Story
Mortgage Rates Commentary

Kiwibank goes under 5%

Thursday 17th of November 2011

Kiwibank is offering a limited time six-month home loan rate of 4.99%.  

The six-month special rate requires a property owner to a have a minimum of 30% equity in the property, otherwise the bank's standard six-month rate  of 5.65% applies.

More details and sorted table here

Want to read the full article?

Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.

You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.

Sign in
Previous Article Next Article
Latest News
FMA wants clearer fees
FMA wants clearer fees
5 min read
[Weekly Wrap] Research shows KiwiSaver is a key issue in the election; GRTV Special looks at what's on offer.
[Weekly Wrap] Research shows KiwiSaver is a key issue in the election; GRTV Special looks at what's on offer.
3 min read
Milford helps advisers tackle performance questions
Milford helps advisers tackle performance questions
3 min read
FMA settles with departed chief executive, will pay out remainder of contract
FMA settles with departed chief executive, will pay out remainder of contract
2 min read
Mortgage Rates Commentary
More Read
How to get financial advice to more people
How to get financial advice to more people
1 min read
Floating rates rising post OCR increase; What the changing housing market means for prices
Floating rates rising post OCR increase; What the changing housing market means for prices
1 min read
[Breaking News] RBNZ pulls the trigger
[Breaking News] RBNZ pulls the trigger
1 min read
FMA finally takes over CCCFA; Meet CFML's two new BDMs
FMA finally takes over CCCFA; Meet CFML's two new BDMs
1 min read
Latest Comments
FMA wants clearer fees
@first time caller - I can see the complexity you highlight, but as above, investors should be able to see what they are paying without having to reference multiple documents. Investment admin can track and report deductions for tax, withdrawals, fees et al, would be /should be straightforward to aggregate advice fees into costs at member level... at least I hope so.
1 day ago Goldcard
FMA wants clearer fees
@goldcard - how would you propose that a fund manager calculates the TER to include adviser fees given not all clients pay them and different advisers charge different fees, not to mention some advisors charge different fees to different clients? The advice fee gets disclosed in the adviser's disclosure statement and the statement of advice, so the client can add that to the published TER of the fund they are invested in to see how much they are paying overall.
1 day ago First time caller
FMA wants clearer fees
Schedule 4 of the FMCA regs 2014, particularly clauses 2(1) and 53(3) provide the basis for excluding individually charged advice fees from the statutory TER. This was introduced with the best of intentions, but now it is little more than an invisibility cloak for deductions from member accounts.
2 days ago Goldcard
Ideas for reforming KiwiSaver
@Ross The evidence is pretty clear on that. When advisers work in the best interests of their customers, as opposed to putting their customers into the products that pay them the most, outcomes are improved. (Makes sense doesn't it? Financial advisers go from sales people for fund companies to client fiduciaries.) It might reduce access, but does someone with $50K in a KiwiSaver really need investment 'advice'? A risk profile questionnaire or similar is a much better way to help consumers get into the right fund, i.e. move from a Balanced Fund to a Growth Fund. Why have more developed investment markets, e.g. US, UK, Canada, Aus, Netherlands etc. have banned adviser commissions from fund providers? I'd also add that there is a large group of KiwiSaver customers that are paying someone an advice fee without getting anything beyond a cursory email once a year in exchange. As @Paul says, it's 'easy money' for advisers...
5 days ago Market Commentator
Financial advice complaints down, but still some concerns, FSCL says
Aside from other questions I have on the inheritance/trustee case, what was the trustee company 'guilty' of to make them liable for the loss? Was it negligence, breach of contract (presumably not), was the trust in breach of its fiduciary duty? Where is the evidence? What is the justification? My understanding is Trusts and Trustees must act prudently and soberly in protecting a beneficiary's interests and does not extend to taking undue investment risk. How can 'advice' or investment decision be condemned simply on the outcome and with the benefit of hindsight? The benefit of hindsight can never be the determining factor in liability for inherently uncertain and unforeseeable outcomes, such as investment returns. If the trustee company had put her money in a growth fund and that had suffered losses over the period compared to a balanced or conservative fund, I have no doubt the trustee company would have been found to have taken too much risk and would again be making good the 'losses'. This cannot be fair, reasonable or just, it condemns advisers to being 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'.
6 days ago Steve Wright