People
TOWER moves all asset managers to Auckland
Thursday 16th of September 2010
TOWER investments chief executive Sam Stubbs says there has been a split asset management team between Wellington and Auckland for over two and a half years.
"The board has decided to move all asset managers to the head office in Auckland because it's the same team managing both shareholder funds and client money."
He says because the change requires moving cities, the Wellington asset manager positions have been disestablished.
"So we need to advertise both internally and externally and it's unknown as to how many asset managers will move.
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.
Latest News
3 min read
3 min read
2 min read
4 min read
Latest Comments
The Devil’s Advocate may be an adviser’s best friend
Ha, good one Philip!
2 days ago Steve Wright
KiwiSaver fees cheaper than Australian super, research suggests
I haven't seen the report prepared by ChatGPT, for Deloitte, for Generate, but I took the time to prepare my own.
Prompt = Write a report comparing Generate's Focused Growth Fund, with a fee of 1.25%, to a total world index fund with a low expense ratio. The report should be written in a style consistent with its title, "How I learned to stop worrying about the price of discovery and love VT."
Based on my report, I think the days of chanting the "net return after fees" mantra are numbered. Apparently, what looks like outperformance is more likely a head-start advantage; once the low cost index and passive funds start entering the 10-Year columns in the Morningstar report, game on.
3 days ago Paul Flood
SPIVA says active funds still struggling
I wrote this on LinkedIn, but it is worth repeating here:
I must be stupid, because when I read a blog S&P just published........ I think it says that it is right to judge a broad collection of active global share funds against a single benchmark that absolutely none of them use, yet you should only judge the performance of passive funds against its own specific benchmark. No one could be this stupid right, so I must be stupid for reading it incorrectly.
Actually - here it is, so judge for yourself and call me stupid: "For active funds, a key question is whether the fund outperformed a relevant benchmark. For passive funds, the focus is typically on tracking difference and tracking error, which measure how closely a fund follows its benchmark. A passive fund that follows benchmark performance, less fees, would generally be considered to have fulfilled its objective. Applying an analytical framework designed for active funds to passive funds would therefore not address the objective that passive funds are designed to achieve."
4 days ago Anthony Edmonds
SIFA puts quality ahead of growth
Great to hear the SIFA culture lives on!
5 days ago Ross Sheerin
What's driving adviser-led KiwiSaver switches?
Wow consumers want to use the services of an Adviser that actively looks at their situation and get paid over the life of the product. Not everyone can afford the thousands upfront that they have to spend in Australia I guess. Where regulations along with commission bans have halfed the number of advisers. It's now up to $5k to get a financial plan in Australia.
5 days ago Hamish Patel