Don't Let Your Adviser's Retirement Disrupt Yours

If you're planning your retirement with a financial adviser who's anywhere near retirement age themselves, you might be setting yourself up for a nasty surprise.

Recent industry data indicates only 10-20% of financial advisers have a documented succession plan, despite many advisers being in their mid-50s and planning to retire within the next decade. Meanwhile, 83% of people with advisers worry about what happens when their adviser retires, and more than half fear they won't receive any warning at all.

That's not just a statistic. It's a wake-up call for Kiwi investors.

You'll Likely Outlive Your Adviser's Career

If you retire at 65, you're likely to live another 25-30 years. According to Stats NZ, life expectancy for a 65-year-old New Zealander is currently 20.6 years for men and 23.2 years for women – and those figures continue to improve over time. Many Kiwis will live well into their 90s, with centenarians becoming increasingly common.

Now consider this: if your 60-year-old adviser plans to work until they're 70, that gives you just 5-10 years of their guidance during a retirement that could span three decades. You'll almost certainly outlive their working life, and quite possibly outlive them entirely.

The mismatch is stark. You need financial guidance for 25-30+ years, but your peer-age adviser might only be around for a third of that journey. Without a proper succession plan, you're facing two decades of uncertainty at precisely the time you need stability most.

The Hidden Risk in Your Financial Plan

Think about the irony for a moment. You hire a financial adviser to help you plan for decades of retirement, ensuring you'll never run out of money or face unexpected disruptions… Yet the person guiding you through this process often hasn't done the same planning for their own practice.

When an adviser retires without a proper succession plan, clients typically get assigned to someone new. Often, it’s someone they've never met.

The investment philosophy might change. The service style could be completely different. It's a bit like when your GP retires without warning and you're left scrambling to find someone new who understands your goals and history.

If you're pre-retirement (around 55 or 60) and working with an adviser who's 65 with no succession plan, you're practically guaranteeing yourself a disruptive transition right as you enter retirement. Even if that adviser works until 70 or 75, you'll still need another 15-20 years of advice after they're gone.

Why Advisers Avoid This Conversation

The reluctance to plan succession isn't malicious; it's deeply human. Creating a proper succession plan requires advisers to share their revenue with younger team members, invest significant time in training and mentoring, and confront their own career endings.

Many simply prefer to coast into semi-retirement rather than undertake this difficult work.

But their comfort shouldn't come at your expense, especially when you're planning for a retirement that could easily span three decades.

What a Proper Succession Looks Like

A well-executed succession plan doesn't happen overnight. The best transitions span multiple years, giving you time to build relationships with next-generation advisers while your current adviser gradually steps back.

You should see:

• Early introductions to the advisers who will eventually manage your portfolio

• Gradual transitions where new advisers take on increasing responsibility over 3-7 years

• Consistent philosophy ensuring your investment approach doesn't change with personnel

• Clear communication about the timeline and process

• Demonstrated commitment such as ownership stakes for next-generation advisers

• Age diversity on the advisory team to ensure continuity

Again, think of it like shopping for a family doctor. You don't want someone in their late 60s or 70s; you want someone who can look after you for multiple decades into the future. The same logic applies to your financial adviser, perhaps even more so given the 25-30 year timeframe you're planning for.

An adviser in their 30s or 40s can realistically serve you throughout your entire retirement. An adviser in their 60s simply cannot, no matter how skilled or dedicated they are.

This doesn’t mean you can’t get advice from an adviser in this age bracket – simply that you need to ask questions about the future.

7 Questions to Ask About Adviser Succession

Don't wait for your adviser to bring it up. Take control by asking:

1. Do you have a documented succession plan?

2. Who will work with my family when you retire?

3. Have I already met this person, or are they yet to be hired?

4. What's the age range of your advisory team?

5. How will you ensure my investment approach, services, and fees remain consistent?

6. What's the timeline for this transition?

7. Given I might need advice for another 25-30 years, how does your firm plan to serve me throughout my entire retirement?

If your adviser seems uncomfortable or unprepared to answer these questions, that tells you everything you need to know.

Building Succession Into Your Planning

Smart financial planning means thinking holistically about risk. You diversify your investments through KiwiSaver and other portfolios, maintain emergency funds, and plan for healthcare costs. Adviser succession should be part of that same risk management framework.

If you're in your 40s, you might have more flexibility, but you should still favour advisers with clear succession plans. If you're approaching retirement, this becomes non-negotiable. You need an advisory team that can serve you for the next 30 years, not just the next five.

Look for firms that have already made the hard choices – those that have hired and trained next-generation advisers, documented processes and consistent philosophies, and made those younger advisers actual owners in the business. This isn't just good planning; it's a commitment to their clients' long-term wellbeing.

The Bottom Line

Your financial security is too important to leave to chance. The adviser helping you plan for decades of retirement should have spent at least as much time planning for their own succession.

The actuarial reality is clear: at 65, you're looking at potentially 25-30 years of retirement. Your peer-age adviser simply won't be working that long. The question isn't whether succession will happen – it's whether it will happen with planning and care, or chaos and disruption.

Ask the hard questions now. If the answers don't satisfy you, it might be time to find an adviser who's as committed to your future as you are.

Nick Stewart
(Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāti Māmoe, Ngāti Waitaha)

Financial Adviser and CEO at Stewart Group

• Stewart Group is a Hawke's Bay and Wellington based CEFEX & BCorp certified financial planning and advisory firm providing personal fiduciary services, Wealth Management, Risk Insurance & KiwiSaver scheme solutions.

• The information provided, or any opinions expressed in this article, are of a general nature only and should not be construed or relied on as a recommendation to invest in a financial product or class of financial products. You should seek financial advice specific to your circumstances from a Financial Adviser before making any financial decisions. A disclosure statement can be obtained free of charge by calling 0800 878 961 or visit our website, www.stewartgroup.co.nz

• Article no. 434

---

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Keith Matthews of Tulett Matthews and Associates for exploring this critical topic on the Empowered Investor Podcast and highlighting the importance of adviser succession planning for investors approaching retirement.

References

1. Investment Planning Council (IPC) survey of 1,500+ Canadians with financial advisers, cited in Tulett Matthews & Associates, "Empowered Investor Podcast Episode 120: Don't Let Your Adviser's Retirement Disrupt Yours" (October 2024)

2. Stats NZ, "National and subnational period life tables: 2017–2019" - Life expectancy data for 65-year-olds in New Zealand

3. Industry research on adviser succession planning cited in Tulett Matthews & Associates podcast, showing 10-20% of advisers have documented succession plans, with average adviser age of 54 years

The 12-Month Tax Gambit: Labour's Calculated Risk

Announcing a major tax policy a year before an election isn't just unusual; it's almost unheard of.

Conventional political wisdom dictates you either implement unpopular measures early in your term, or promise them after securing victory. Labour's decision to foreground a 28% capital gains tax ‘CGT’ a full year out from polling day demands examination, particularly through the lens of economist Arthur Laffer. His insight cuts straight through political calculation: speeding fines are a tax. Governments use taxes to stop people doing things they don't want them to do. So why would you tax investment when the country desperately needs more of it?¹

The timing becomes immediately suspect. Labour sits in opposition facing a National-led government, and historically, opposition parties campaign on aspiration rather than taxation. Helen Clark's 2005 Labour government actively campaigned against CGT proposals, recognising the electoral toxicity.² Yet here we are in late 2025, with Labour essentially writing National's attack ads 12 months in advance.

The Political Theatre

The political play is obvious: announce now, let the controversy "settle," and by election day the CGT feels like old news rather than shocking revelation. Labour hopes voters will be desensitised to what might otherwise be campaign-ending policy. It's political inoculation through extended exposure, with the policy carefully designed as "CGT light" (exempting family homes, farms, KiwiSaver and shares) to avoid the comprehensive wealth taxation that spooked voters in previous attempts.²

Yet as business commentator Damien Grant observes, the policy amounts to "a marketing plan sketched on the back of a napkin that had been used to wipe the lipstick off a chardonnay glass after drinks at a Fabian Society soiree."⁶ The policy amounts to a few pages in a glossy press release with less substance than a frozen coke.

If you own property in July 2027 and sell it after that date, you pay 28% of any increase in value, with no allowance for inflation. Family homes are exempt. That's essentially it—the rest is left to imagination and future consultation.

Recent polling shows Labour's framing is working – 43% support versus 36% opposition.² The 12-month runway allows this narrative to solidify. Labour bets that sustained messaging about "fairness" will ultimately land better than National's "tax on ambition" counter-narrative.

Laffer Curve | Source: Norway's Wealth Tax Unchains a Capital Exodus

The Fine Fallacy

Laffer's analogy cuts through the fluff. When government fines speeding, fewer people speed – that's the point. When government taxes cigarettes heavily, fewer people smoke – that's the objective. These are taxes deliberately designed to discourage the behaviour.

Applied to investment taxes, the logic is inescapable. When government taxes investment gains at 28%, fewer people invest. Yet that's meant to be revenue-neutral economic policy rather than deliberate discouragement? You cannot fine an activity and simultaneously expect more of it.

The contradiction becomes starker considering New Zealand's actual needs. Treasury warns that 52% of total tax comes from personal income tax, and the group paying this tax is shrinking due to an ageing population.⁴

The country desperately needs productive investment in commercial property, business expansion, and capital formation. Yet Labour proposes taxing precisely these activities, at rates designed to be punitive enough to raise revenue.

This is the economic equivalent of installing speed cameras on the motorway while simultaneously complaining that traffic isn't moving fast enough. You cannot discourage and encourage the same behaviour simultaneously.

The Implementation Damage

The July 2027 implementation date provides convenient political distance: win in November 2026, govern for eight months, then introduce legislation.²

But here's where political cleverness creates economic damage - the announcement effect begins immediately. Why would a developer start a commercial property project in 2026 knowing that any gains realised in 2028 or 2029 will face 28% taxation? Investment decisions from now until 2027 will be distorted by anticipated future taxes, locking capital out of productive uses or sending it offshore.³

The economic damage begins not when the tax takes effect, but when it's announced. We're living through that damage period now. The speeding camera has been installed, and the signs are up; don't be surprised when drivers slow down.

The British Warning

Laffer's analysis of Gordon Brown's decision to raise Britain's top rate from 40% to 50% provides the cautionary tale. The UK Treasury's own "Laffer section" showed the increase "not only did not get more revenue, it got you a lot less prosperity. People left the country, people used tax shelters, dodges, loopholes, all that."¹ As Laffer emphasised, this wasn't his opinion imposing American economics on Britain—"This was Britain doing the Laffer curve."¹

As Laffer notes from decades of US tax data: "Every time we've raised the highest tax rate on the top 1% of income earners, three things have happened. The economy has underperformed, tax revenues from the rich have gone down, and the poor have been hammered."¹

Conversely: "Every single time we've lowered tax rates on the rich, the economy has outperformed. Tax revenues from the rich have gone up and the poor have had opportunities to earn a living, to live a better life."¹

The Practical Nightmares

The practical problems compound the economic ones. Grant notes that inflation has already created havoc in Australia, where properties often can't be sold “because almost all of the price is considered a capital gain. This will be worse on the Hipkins plan because there is no indexation.”⁶

Consider a property bought in 2015 for $500,000 is now worth $800,000. Under Labour's plan, the entire $300,000 gain faces 28% taxation – that’s $84,000. But how much of that gain is real appreciation versus inflation? Without indexation, investors pay tax on phantom gains that merely reflect currency debasement.

Meanwhile, definitional nightmares await. Australia's capital gains tax guide runs to 339 pages, with court judgements adding hundreds more.⁶ Is replacing a kitchen a capital improvement or maintenance? What about landscaping? A 2028 Fisher and Paykel dishwasher replacing a 1980s Westinghouse: expense, or capital upgrade? As Grant notes drily: "Tax lawyers and accountants will be kept busy."⁶

The Chartered Accountants Institute supports Labour's proposal – hardly surprising, given it guarantees full employment for their profession dealing with compliance complexity.

The Fiscal Illusion

Even Chartered Accountants acknowledge that CGTs "do not generate significant revenue in the short or even medium terms. Long term, however, they typically provide a steady revenue stream… Using them to cover a specific policy expense is unusual."⁴ Yet Labour wants to use this non-existent revenue immediately to subsidise doctor visits.

As Grant observes: "There is a cash shortfall on Labour's own analysis in the early years which, like everything else in this policy, the resolution is left to the imagination."⁶ Here's the speeding fine logic again: if you install cameras to generate revenue from fines, you're simultaneously reducing the very behaviour that generates the revenue.

Successful speed cameras mean less speeding, and therefore less revenue. A capital gains tax that successfully deters property speculation means less property investment, and again, less revenue.

The Historical Pattern

This is Labour's seventh CGT attempt since 1973.² Norman Kirk's first attempt taxed gains at up to 90%, a rate so confiscatory it was quickly abandoned. Phil Goff's 2011 version, David Cunliffe's 2014 proposal, and Jacinda Ardern's 2019 attempt all failed politically.

Each previous effort proved politically costly and economically counterproductive. Voters instinctively understand Laffer's speeding fine logic, even if they can't articulate the economics by name. They recognise taxing investment reduces investment, just as fining speeding reduces speeding. Winston Churchill’s timeless observation perfectly captures the impossibility of taxing your way to prosperity – you cannot stand in a bucket and lift yourself up by the handles.⁵

The Alternative Vision

Laffer's prescription for struggling economies is brutally simple: "You want a low-rate, broad-based flat tax, spending restraint, sound money, minimal regulations, and free trade. And then get the hell out of the way."¹ Labour offers the opposite with new taxes on capital, sketchy implementation details, and revenue projections that don't add up.

As Laffer puts it: "Poor people don't work to pay taxes. They work to get what they can after tax. It's that very personal and very private incentive that motivates them to work, to quit one job and go to another job, to get the education they need to do it."¹ Replace "poor people" with "investors" and the logic remains - capital seeks returns. Tax those returns heavily enough, and capital goes elsewhere.

Perhaps most revealing: if this policy were genuinely beneficial for economic growth, why the elaborate political choreography? The answer lies in Laffer's observation about lottery tickets: "Everyone—tall, short, skinny, fat, old, young—they all want to be rich. Why does your government then turn around and tax the living hell out of the rich?"¹

New Zealanders don't want to punish success; they want pathways to achieve it themselves. They buy lottery tickets hoping to strike it rich. The government encourages dreams of wealth while simultaneously taxing the achievement of wealth.

The Verdict

The election will shortly reveal whether Labour's calculated 12-month strategy succeeds politically. By announcing early, they've given the policy time to settle, given themselves something concrete to campaign on, and satisfied membership demands for action on wealth taxation.

But both Laffer's economic analysis and Grant's practical critique suggest that regardless of electoral outcome, the policy itself represents strategic error. It's economic theory ignored in favour of political positioning.

New Zealand has better options. Genuine broadening of the tax base, reform of property taxation to encourage productive use, addressing infrastructure bottlenecks, and creating conditions for productivity growth would all contribute more to long-term prosperity than taxing capital gains at 28%. But those approaches require the hard work of reform rather than the easy politics of taxing "wealthy property investors."

Is Labour's CGT announcement politically canny, or economically catastrophic? When you deliberately discourage an activity through taxation, you can’t be surprised when you get less of it.

Labour has installed the camera; investment will slow accordingly. Whether that's clever politics or economic self-harm depends entirely on whether you're focused on winning the next election or building the next generation's prosperity.

As Laffer would note, you cannot tax an economy into prosperity. And you most certainly cannot stand in a bucket and lift yourself up by the handles.

Nick Stewart
(Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāti Māmoe, Ngāti Waitaha)

Financial Adviser and CEO at Stewart Group

• Stewart Group is a Hawke's Bay and Wellington based CEFEX & BCorp certified financial planning and advisory firm providing personal fiduciary services, Wealth Management, Risk Insurance & KiwiSaver scheme solutions.

• The information provided, or any opinions expressed in this article, are of a general nature only and should not be construed or relied on as a recommendation to invest in a financial product or class of financial products. You should seek financial advice specific to your circumstances from a Financial Adviser before making any financial decisions. A disclosure statement can be obtained free of charge by calling 0800 878 961 or visit our website, www.stewartgroup.co.nz

• Article no. 433

---

References

1. Simmons, M. (2024). Reality Check: Interview with Arthur Laffer. Times Radio.

2. Opes Partners (2025). 'Does New Zealand Have a Capital Gains Tax? [2025]'. Available at: https://www.opespartners.co.nz/tax/capital-gains-tax-nz

3. RNZ (2025). 'What you need to know: Seven questions about a capital gains tax'. Available at: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/577065/what-you-need-to-know-seven-questions-about-a-capital-gains-tax

4. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (2025). 'Capital gains tax must be considered as part of tax reform'.

5. Churchill, W.S. (1906). For Free Trade. London: Arthur Humphreys.

6. Grant, D. (2025). 'Hipkins' capital gains tax policy leaves more questions than answers'. Stuff. Available at: https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360878756/damien-grant-hipkins-capital-gains-tax-policy-leaves-more-questions-answers

When Ideology Replaces Analysis: The Sparrow Lesson for Investors

It's fairly well known that Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) ended in one of history's deadliest famines: tens of millions died, villages emptied by hunger, fields stripped bare. What's less well known is how a war on sparrows helped set the catastrophe in motion.  [1]

‘Ed Brown’ by Michael Parekowhai, 2000 - A favourite of Nick’s that hangs on the wall at home.

In 1958, Mao launched the Four Pests Campaign, targeting rats, flies, mosquitoes… and sparrows. The tiny birds, he decreed, were "enemies of the people" for daring to eat the people's grain.  [2]

And so, an entire civilisation mobilised against the feathered menace. Schoolchildren banged pots and pans in the streets, peasants drummed on washbasins, and factory sirens screamed for hours to keep the birds in flight until they fell dead from exhaustion. Nests were torn down, eggs smashed, and chicks stomped into the earth.

The results were biblical. In Beijing alone, more than a million sparrows were killed in a matter of weeks. Rural communes competed to see who could pile the highest mountain of avian corpses, a kind of grotesque festival of progress.

But victory, when it came, was short-lived. The sparrows, it turned out, had been eating more insects than grain. Within a year, the skies were empty, and the earth was crawling. Locusts rose like living clouds, devouring fields from horizon to horizon. Peasants watched in horror as the crops disappeared into the mandibles of an unstoppable plague of their own making.

Rather than admit his mistake, Mao doubled down on absurdities. He replaced the sparrows with imported Soviet "science" – the theories of Trofim Lysenko, an agronomist who believed that crops could be re-educated through hard labour. Genetics was bourgeois nonsense, Lysenko said; what mattered was enthusiasm. If you ploughed deeper, planted closer, and shouted revolutionary slogans loudly enough, the harvest would multiply.

So, fields were churned to depths that eviscerated the biome, seedlings were planted shoulder to shoulder until none could breathe, and bureaucrats inflated yields to impossible heights. Mountains of fake grain were reported; much of the real grain was exported to show socialist success.

By 1960, China was starving. Whole provinces were dying in silence. Still, the propaganda blared: "The people's communes are good!"

A survivor later put it simply: "We killed the birds, and then the insects ate everything else."

New Zealand's Sacred Cow

We have our own version of Lysenko's ideology. You've heard it at every barbecue, every family gathering, every pub conversation about money:

• "You can't go wrong with bricks and mortar."

• "Buy land – God's not making any more of it."

• "Rent money is dead money."

• "Safe as houses."

• "Property always goes up."

For two decades, these mantras proved prophetic. House prices in Auckland rose 500% between 2000 and 2021. Kiwi households saw their home become their retirement plan, their children's inheritance, their ticket to prosperity. Property investment became a religion, complete with its own prophets (real estate agents), its own evangelists (property coaches), and its own scripture (Rich Dad Poor Dad).

The scriptures were simple: leverage to the hilt, buy multiple rentals, negative gear against your income, and watch the capital gains roll in. Interest rates were at historic lows (and surely they'd stay there forever). The government needed house prices to keep rising; from pensioners to banks, the entire economy seemed to float on residential property values.

Alas - ideology, no matter how many believers it has, eventually meets mathematical reality.

When the Locusts Arrived

When the Reserve Bank lifted the Official Cash Rate from 0.25% to 5.5% between 2021 and 2023, the proverbial locusts began to swarm and feast.  [3]

Investors who'd stretched to buy rental properties on interest-only loans at 2.5% suddenly faced repayments double what they'd planned for. Those who'd bought at the peak in 2021, with the assumption that prices would continue relentlessly marching upward, now watched their equity disappear into the maw of change.

The median house price in New Zealand has fallen 18% from its 2021 peak according to CoreLogic, with steeper declines in some regions. In Wellington, prices dropped over 20%.  [5], [4]

Investors who bought at the top, banking on endless capital gains to compensate for negative cash flow, are now holding properties worth less than their mortgages. Negative equity isn't just an American problem from the 2008 crisis anymore; it's arrived in Epsom and Island Bay, in Christchurch and Hamilton. [5]

Mortgage stress has become a daily reality for thousands of New Zealand families. What was affordable at 2.5% is crushing at 7%. Property gambles that made sense when you could lock in cheap debt for years, now bleed money every month.

The Property Value Fundamentals We Ignored

Like Mao's bureaucrats ignoring the ecology of pest control, New Zealand ignored the fundamentals that underpin property values:

1.     Debt serviceability

We convinced ourselves record-low interest rates were the new normal; a pleasantly permanent feature of the economic landscape.

They weren't. They were weather, not climate.

Anyone who'd stress-tested their mortgage at 7% rates had a good idea what this would look like, but most didn't bother. After all, the Reserve Bank had signalled rates would stay low until 2024, hadn't they? (They had. They were wrong.)

2.     Yield vs. cost

Rental properties returning 3% gross yield while mortgages cost 7% represents what economist Hyman Minsky termed "Ponzi finance"—where income flows cover neither principal nor interest charges, requiring continuous new debt or capital appreciation to survive [6]. When prices stopped rising, the mathematics became unavoidable. You can't lose money every month and call it investing just because you hope the asset will appreciate.

3.      Supply and demand

Yes, God's not making more land. But man is making more zoning laws, more construction, and more high-density housing. Auckland's recent upzoning has added the potential for tens of thousands of new dwellings. National's push for urban intensification is changing the supply equation.

Supply does respond to price eventually. The assumption that demand would endlessly outstrip supply was ideology, not analysis.

4.     Demographic and economic shifts

Net migration swings wildly:

• We saw massive outflows to Australia when its economy boomed.

• Birth rates are falling.

• Working from home changed where people want to live, making provincial cities more attractive.

How to Avoid Being the Sparrow Killer

No investment is exempt from fundamental analysis – not even the quarter-acre Kiwi dream. Here’s what you need to do:

Test your assumptions first

Before buying property (or any investment), ask the hard questions: Can I afford this if interest rates hit 8%? What if the property stays vacant for three months? What if it needs a $30,000 roof replacement? What if prices don't rise for a decade—can I still hold on? If your investment only works under best-case scenarios, you're not investing—you're gambling with borrowed money.

Recognise ideology masquerading as wisdom

When someone says "you can't go wrong with property”: ask them about Japan, where house prices fell for fifteen consecutive years after 1991 with Tokyo property losing 60% of its value. Or Ireland, where property crashed 50% in 2008-2012. Or Detroit, where homes now sell for less than second-hand cars. [6]

The phrase "you can't go wrong" is the most dangerous in investing. You absolutely can go wrong with property, shares, bonds, or any other asset – when you pay too much, borrow too heavily, or ignore the fundamentals.

Understand that all assets are priced relative to alternatives

When term deposits paid 0.5%, property's 3% gross yield looked attractive by comparison. At 5.5% risk-free rates from the bank, suddenly that leveraged rental property earning 3% gross (maybe 1% after rates, insurance, maintenance, and management) looks substantially less clever. Capital always flows to its best risk-adjusted return. When safe returns become attractive again, risky assets must reprice.

Seek Wise Counsel

Honest, professional financial advice isn’t just valuable in these situations; it’s essential.

Not the mate at the barbecue repeating what worked in 2015. Not the property spruiker selling $5,000 weekend seminars on wealth creation. Not the Instagram influencer with a Lamborghini, a course to sell, and a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands.

Find an adviser who'll tell you hard truths instead of comfortable lies. Someone who'll stress-test your assumptions, challenge your thinking, and ask the questions you don’t want to acknowledge:

• What if you're wrong?

• What if rates stay high for five years?

• What if prices don't recover for a decade?

• What does your portfolio look like if this happens?

 The best financial advice often sounds boring. That’s because it is boring: it involves diversification across asset classes, appropriate leverage you can service in bad times, understanding what you own and why, and planning for scenarios you hope won't happen.

It's not a catchy slogan you can repeat at a dinner party. It's certainly not exciting enough to build a social media following around.

Instead, it's mathematics, discipline, humility, and the wisdom to know that "everyone's doing it" has never – not once in the history of markets – been a sound investment strategy. Quite the opposite; when everyone's doing it, that’s usually a good moment to step back and ask why.

Mao surrounded himself with yes-men who told him what he wanted to hear. The sparrows paid the price. Then the insects thrived. Then the people paid the price. The echo chamber produced catastrophe because ideology replaced observation, and enthusiasm replaced analysis.

The Bottom Line for Kiwi Investors

Don't let your financial future be decided by mantras. Don't let social ‘proof’ substitute for due diligence. And crucially, don't assume what has worked for the past twenty years will work for the next twenty.

Instead, seek counsel that respects the complexity of markets, acknowledges uncertainty honestly, understands risk as well as reward, and helps you build wealth on foundations stronger than popular sentiment or revolutionary enthusiasm.

The fundamentals always win. Always. The only question is whether you'll be positioned to weather the fallout, or whether you’ll be left exposed in the fields.

The locusts are always waiting.

Nick Stewart
(Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāti Māmoe, Ngāti Waitaha)

Financial Adviser and CEO at Stewart Group

• Stewart Group is a Hawke's Bay and Wellington based CEFEX & BCorp certified financial planning and advisory firm providing personal fiduciary services, Wealth Management, Risk Insurance & KiwiSaver scheme solutions.

• The information provided, or any opinions expressed in this article, are of a general nature only and should not be construed or relied on as a recommendation to invest in a financial product or class of financial products. You should seek financial advice specific to your circumstances from a Financial Adviser before making any financial decisions. A disclosure statement can be obtained free of charge by calling 0800 878 961 or visit our website, www.stewartgroup.co.nz

• Article no. 432

---

References

[1] F. Dikötter, *Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–-1962*.. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010.

[2] J. Shapiro, *Mao's War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China*.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[3] Reserve Bank of New Zealand, “Official Cash Rate decisions and historical data,”, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz

[4] Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ), “Historical house price data and market statistics,”, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.reinz.co.nz

[5] CoreLogic New Zealand, “House price indices and market analysis reports,”, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.corelogic.co.nz

[6] H. P. Minsky, “The Financial Instability Hypothesis,”, The Jerome Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 74, 1992.

NZ's Economic Costume: Why Kiwis Feel Poor Despite Being "Rich"

Tonight is Halloween - a celebration of masks, illusions, and things that appear frightening but aren't real. How fitting, then, to discuss New Zealand's latest economic costume: the world's fifth-wealthiest country per capita, according to Allianz's latest Global Wealth Report.[1]

Each Kiwi is apparently worth $617,000 on average. Pop the champagne, right? Not quite.

The mask of prosperity doesn't quite match the face underneath. Most New Zealanders are too busy checking their bank balances and wincing at grocery receipts to celebrate this dubious honour.

At a recent conference abroad, colleagues from other nations questioned why New Zealanders exhibit such a "small dog complex" about our economy and stock market when we rank so highly in global wealth tables. "You must be a very wealthy nation," they observed, puzzled by our apparent lack of confidence. Their bewilderment was understandable—on paper, we look remarkably prosperous.

But the disconnect between this glowing statistic and daily financial reality reveals something troubling about how we measure prosperity - and exposes an uncomfortable truth about New Zealand's economic decline. Our "complex" isn't insecurity. It's realism.

A Nation of Landlords

Napoleon famously dismissed Britain as "a nation of shopkeepers"; a merchant class focused on trade rather than grand imperial pursuits.

If the French Emperor were observing New Zealand today, he might call us "a nation of residential landlords." We've become obsessed with buying and selling houses to one another. We treat property as our primary investment vehicle and wealth-creation strategy.

That impressive $617,000 wealth figure is overwhelmingly driven by this fixation: property values.[2] Housing represents approximately 50-58% of New Zealand household wealth.[3] Yet curiously, when the Herald reports that stripping out real estate sees us drop only to eighth place in net financial assets, something doesn't add up. If more than half our wealth is property, removing it should see us plummet far further down the rankings.

This data inconsistency itself reveals the problem: international wealth comparisons struggle to accurately capture economies where asset bubbles distort the picture. Regardless of the exact ranking, the core truth remains – housing wealth is fundamentally different from productive wealth.

If you own a $1.2 million house in Auckland, congratulations on being wealthy on paper. But alas, you can't pay for petrol with housing equity. That "wealth" is locked away, inaccessible unless you sell and move somewhere cheaper (which increasingly means moving south or to Australia[4]). Meanwhile, you're servicing a massive mortgage at interest rates that peaked above 7%.

For those who don't own property, the inflated housing market represents the opposite of wealth. It's a barrier that pushes homeownership further out of reach with each passing year.

We've become experts at shuffling residential properties between ourselves while creating little new productive value. The resulting "wealth" is a mirage. It makes the statistics look good while leaving people feeling financially squeezed.

The GDP Reality Check

Here's where the wealth ranking crumbles entirely. New Zealand's GDP per capita tells a completely different story. In the 1950s, New Zealand ranked third globally in GDP per capita. Today? We've plummeted to 37th.[5]

GDP per capita – which measures actual economic output and productivity – sits more than 20% below the OECD average. The Productivity Commission noted we should be 20% above that average given our policy settings, but we're achieving the exact opposite. As one economist bluntly put it: "We may be punching above our weight, but that's only because we are in the wrong weight division."[6]

In 2024's economic performance rankings, New Zealand placed 33rd out of 37 OECD countries.[7] We beat only Finland, Latvia, Turkey, and Estonia. Per capita output has been declining since December 2022.[5]

These are not the statistics of a wealthy, thriving nation.

When you lay bare these numbers, Kiwis' so-called "small nation complex" makes perfect sense. We're not suffering from false modesty; we're experiencing economic reality the wealth rankings fail to capture.

The Debt Burden

The wealth figures also conveniently ignore what we owe. New Zealand and Australia have seen their debt ratios surge by 15.2 percentage points to reach 113% of GDP.[1] High asset values paired with equally high debt levels mean many households are drowning in mortgage payments, leaving little for savings or discretionary spending.

The Reserve Bank was among the world's most aggressive in raising interest rates, and the economy has faltered accordingly.[5] Per capita output has contracted while unemployment climbs. Firms are downsizing. This is the lived experience behind the statistics—and it bears no resemblance to the fifth-wealthiest nation on earth.

Sixty Years of Relative Decline

The long view is sobering. New Zealand has been growing significantly slower than other OECD countries for six decades.[6] We've dropped from elite economic status to below-average performer. Our isolation, small market size, and weak productivity growth have compounded into structural disadvantages that successive governments have failed to overcome.

The wealth ranking actually highlights our problem. We've substituted asset appreciation for genuine economic growth. Rather than building productive capacity, improving wages, or fostering innovation, we've watched house prices soar and called it prosperity.

Napoleon's shopkeepers at least sold goods to customers beyond their own shores. Our landlords primarily rent to each other.

The Need for Fiduciary Advice

For individuals navigating this challenging economic landscape, the disconnect between headline wealth and financial reality makes professional guidance more critical than ever. Understanding the difference between illiquid property wealth and accessible financial assets, managing debt strategically in a high-interest environment, and building genuine financial resilience requires expertise beyond newspaper headlines.

Working with a qualified financial adviser who operates under fiduciary duty – i.e. is legally obligated to act in your best interests – can help cut through the noise. Whether you're trying to balance mortgage stress with retirement savings, questioning if your "wealth" is working effectively, or simply wondering why the statistics don't match your bank account, professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances is invaluable.

The gap between perception and reality has never been wider. Kiwis understand what the statistics obscure: you can't eat your house equity, and paper wealth means nothing when your purchasing power is eroding. What my international colleagues mistook for a national inferiority complex is actually clear-eyed recognition of our economic challenges. In uncertain times, sage financial counsel from a trusted fiduciary adviser isn't a luxury. It's essential for turning illusion into genuine security.

Nick Stewart
(Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāti Māmoe, Ngāti Waitaha)

Financial Adviser and CEO at Stewart Group

• Stewart Group is a Hawke's Bay and Wellington based CEFEX & BCorp certified financial planning and advisory firm providing personal fiduciary services, Wealth Management, Risk Insurance & KiwiSaver scheme solutions.

• The information provided, or any opinions expressed in this article, are of a general nature only and should not be construed or relied on as a recommendation to invest in a financial product or class of financial products. You should seek financial advice specific to your circumstances from a Financial Adviser before making any financial decisions. A disclosure statement can be obtained free of charge by calling 0800 878 961 or visit our website, www.stewartgroup.co.nz

• Article no. 431

---

References

[1] Allianz Global Wealth Report 2025. Available at: https://www.allianz.com/en/economic_research/publications/specials_fmo/global-wealth-report.html

[2] New Zealand Herald (October 2024). "New Zealand ranks among world's top five wealthiest countries per capita in rich list report." Available at: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new-zealand-ranks-among-worlds-top-five-wealthiest-countries-per-capita-in-rich-list-report/MX2QDDZWXFBBNF3NT5734XTW3E/

[3] New Zealand Treasury (2023). "Estimating the Distribution of Wealth in New Zealand." Working Paper 23/01. Available at: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-04/twp23-01.pdf

[4] Statistics New Zealand (July 2025). "Net migration loss to Australia in 2024." New Zealand recorded a net migration loss of 30,000 people to Australia in 2024, the largest calendar-year loss since 2012. The South Island's population grew at 1.4% annually (faster than the North Island's 1.3%), with Canterbury's Selwyn District and Queenstown-Lakes experiencing the fastest growth rates. Available at: https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/net-migration-loss-to-australia-in-2024/

[5] RNZ News (December 18, 2024). "NZ ranks low in global economic comparison for 2024." Available at: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/537075/nz-ranks-low-in-global-economic-comparison-for-2024

[6] New Zealand Productivity Commission. "Economic Performance and Productivity Analysis." Referenced in Economy of New Zealand, Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand

[7] The Economist (December 2024). "OECD Economic Performance Rankings 2024."

The Price of Wisdom: What Financial Advice Is Really Worth

Russell Investments has done something rather brave: it has attempted to reduce the value of financial advice to a single number. That number, for 2025, is 4.52%.

The precision is almost comical. Not 4.5%, not "around 4 or 5%", but 4.52% – calculated to two decimal places, as if this were physics rather than the messy business of helping people not wreck their retirements. But even if the decimal places are a bit of theatre, the exercise forces an uncomfortable question into the open: what exactly are financial advisers selling, and is it worth the fee?

Investment Lessons from 1987 and 2021

New Zealanders have long memories when it comes to financial disasters. However, we seem doomed to repeat them in different asset classes.

The 1987 sharemarket crash created a generation-long aversion to equities that arguably cost Kiwi investors more than the crash itself. Those who fled shares and never returned missed decades of recovery and growth. Fast forward to the 2020s, and the only real change was the flavour of asset class in question. Property replaced shares as the "safe" investment – the thing that "always goes up." Except… it didn't.

The residential property market's dramatic decline from its 2021 peak caught out a generation of leveraged investors who'd been assured that bricks and mortar were different. Investors who'd borrowed heavily to accumulate multiple properties found themselves drowning as interest rates climbed and property values plummeted.

Russell's data shows that investors who stayed invested in the New Zealand sharemarket over the past decade outperformed those who missed just the 10 best trading days by 3.57% annually. Miss the 40 best days, and you're 60% worse off.

The expensive lesson: panic is usually more costly than the crisis that triggered it. As is the herd mentality that drives people into overvalued assets for fear of missing out.

What You're Actually Paying for with Professional Advice

The Russell report is admirably blunt about what advisers actually do.

Strip away the corporate language about "behavioural coaching" and the message is clear: advisers are worth paying primarily because they stop you from doing something catastrophic – whether that's panic-selling during downturns or panic-buying during manias.

That 4.52% breaks down like this:

• 3.57% comes from preventing fear-based or greed-based decisions

• 0.2% from helping choose appropriate risk levels

• 0.75% from customising wealth plans.

The rest – the "emotional and technical expertise" of seasoned advisers – is declared "priceless."

What you're paying for isn't genius stock-picking or property market timing. You're paying someone to tell you uncomfortable truths – like that property yields in 2021 didn't justify the prices, that borrowing heavily into an overheated market was dangerous, and that diversification matters even when one asset class seems invincible.

What Russell Misses Entirely

But here's what Russell's tidy arithmetic utterly fails to capture: the value of comprehensive financial planning that extends well beyond investment returns.

1.Tax efficiency

This alone can dwarf that 4.52% in any given year. The difference between holding investments in the wrong structure versus the right one – PIE funds versus direct holdings, trusts versus personal ownership, the timing of realisations – can mean tens of thousands of dollars in a single tax year for even moderately wealthy families.

2. Asset protection

What's the percentage value of having your wealth properly structured so that a lawsuit, business failure, or relationship breakdown doesn't wipe out everything you've built? If disaster occurs, the value is effectively infinite.

3. Succession planning

This is even harder to reduce to basis points. What's it worth to ensure your estate passes efficiently to your children rather than being carved up by lawyers and the IRD? What's it worth to avoid family disputes over inheritances or ensure your business survives your death?

4. Risk management

Risk management extends beyond investment volatility. Adequate insurance coverage, appropriate policy structures, regular reviews as circumstances change – the value becomes apparent only in catastrophe but is no less real.

Support for The Goals That Matter

Perhaps most importantly, Russell's framework completely ignores what might be the highest value proposition: helping clients achieve what they really want from their wealth.

Financial plans aren't spreadsheet exercises. They're roadmaps to specific life goals – retiring early, funding children's education without debt, buying that bach, leaving a meaningful legacy, or achieving financial independence that allows career changes.

Consider these two real examples:

Example 1: Diversifying Portfolios for Property Accumulators

A professional couple in their early fifties came to us convinced they'd need to work until 65. They'd accumulated three rental properties during the boom years – two still carrying significant mortgages. They were stressed and beginning to resent the properties that were supposed to secure their future.

After comprehensive analysis, we restructured their affairs entirely. We helped them sell two properties, eliminated all personal debt, and repositioned their investments into a properly diversified portfolio with appropriate tax efficiency. The result? They retired at 58 with more financial security and significantly less stress. The value wasn't in the 4.52% – it was in getting seven extra years of freedom.

Example 2: Strategic Phased Retirement with Increased Tax Efficiency

A business owner approaching a potential sale came to us six months before signing a term sheet. Through careful structuring involving family trusts, timing of the sale, and strategic use of tax vehicles, we reduced his tax liability by over $300,000 – money that remained with his family rather than going to the IRD. More importantly, we helped him structure the proceeds to support a phased retirement that included funding his children's business ventures and establishing a charitable legacy.

These kinds of results don't show up in Russell's investment-centric quantification. But they're often what clients value most.

The Fiduciary Difference in Financial Advice

This is where the fee-only, fiduciary model becomes essential. When your adviser is paid solely by you – not by product commissions, not by mortgage brokers' referral fees, not by insurance kickbacks – all of these dimensions of advice become trustworthy.

Consider the property boom of the late 2010s and early 2020s. How many advisers benefited indirectly from encouraging clients toward leveraged property investment? A fee-only fiduciary has no such conflicts. Their only incentive is your long-term financial health.

A fiduciary investment adviser operating under frameworks like CEFEX certification isn't only preventing you from panic-selling equities; they're providing the disciplined portfolio construction and advice that can prevent over-concentration of one asset class in the first place.

The leveraged property investors of 2021 needed someone to tell them they were being greedy and foolish. Most didn't have that person. Or worse, they had advisers whose business models depended on encouraging behaviours that would later prove ruinous.

Investors need someone – a real person, with your best interest at heart – in their corner. An algorithm can rebalance a portfolio, but it can't talk someone out of borrowing a million dollars to buy their third rental property when yields don't justify prices. It certainly can't design a comprehensive wealth structure that addresses tax, protection, succession, and life goals simultaneously while adapting to changing circumstances over decades.

What Advice is Really Worth

The real value of fee-only fiduciary advice encompasses dimensions Russell doesn't even attempt to measure.

Behavioural coaching has genuine value. But reducing comprehensive financial advice to a single percentage derived from mainly investment considerations is like judging a surgeon's worth solely by their suturing speed rather than successful procedures.

The real value isn't in any spreadsheet. It's in the confidence of knowing someone is watching your back without any hidden agenda, the relief of having comprehensive planning that addresses tax, protection, and succession alongside investments, and the profound satisfaction of achieving what you set out to do with strategic wealth management.

It’s Time for a Different Conversation

If you're tired of product pitches masquerading as advice, or if you've outgrown the traditional model of financial guidance, perhaps it's time to try a different conversation – and we’re always happy to talk.

As a fee-only, CEFEX-certified fiduciary adviser, Stewart Group is legally and ethically bound to put your interests first – always. We don't receive investment commissions, referral fees, or any form of conflicted remuneration. Our only incentive is your success across all dimensions of your financial life.

Whether you're navigating a business sale, restructuring an investment portfolio that's grown unwieldy, planning for retirement that's closer than you'd like to admit, or simply wondering if there's a better way to structure your wealth – comprehensive fiduciary advice might serve you well.

The first conversation costs nothing but time. Why not contact us today, to arrange a confidential discussion about your financial circumstances and goals.

Nick Stewart
(Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa, Ngāti Māmoe, Ngāti Waitaha)

Financial Adviser and CEO at Stewart Group

• Stewart Group is a Hawke's Bay and Wellington based CEFEX & BCorp certified financial planning and advisory firm providing personal fiduciary services, Wealth Management, Risk Insurance & KiwiSaver scheme solutions.

• The information provided, or any opinions expressed in this article, are of a general nature only and should not be construed or relied on as a recommendation to invest in a financial product or class of financial products. You should seek financial advice specific to your circumstances from a Financial Adviser before making any financial decisions. A disclosure statement can be obtained free of charge by calling 0800 878 961 or visit our website, www.stewartgroup.co.nz

• Article no. 430

---

References

• Russell Investments (2025). The Value of an Adviser: New Zealand Edition. Russell Investments.

• Brokers Ireland (2025). The Value of Advice: A Whitepaper. Brokers Ireland.

• Chaplin, D. (2025, October 14). "The value of financial advice (to two decimal points)". BusinessDesk.

Get Sorted: KiwiSaver deadline is end of June

As published in NZ Herald, Hawke's Bay Today.

Deadlines can bring out our best work. Why is that? There's something about being under the pump that makes us rise to the occasion and simply get it done.

We just find a way somehow.

This time of year - before June runs out - is the deadline to get the annual $521 from the government into our KiwiSaver accounts. It would be great if we could all look at our situations - and consider those around us who may be missing out on the practically free money. If they're over 18, we might even help them top up their accounts so they get the most they can.

So many of us get the full amount that it's a shame for anyone to miss out what's due to them. And over the life of someone's experience in KiwiSaver, we calculated the government payments could be worth as much as $36,000. Now there's a chunk of change for you.

How to get your government money this year

The trick is to make sure that we've contributed at least $1,043 into our KiwiSaver account over the past year. (If you joined part-way through or turned 18 during the year, you'll be eligible for some portion of the $521, based on when you did. Everyone else can get the full five hundy.)

If you're an employee and earned at least $34,762 and contributed the minimum of 3%, you'll automatically get it. If you're self-employed and have already put in more than $1,043, you will too. No worries.

But if you haven't yet reached $1,043 this year, now's the time. Before the end of June, you can top up your contributions to that amount so you get the government boost. Simply contact your scheme provider and make it happen. Just in time to make the deadline.

And typically by the middle of August, we'll all see that extra $521 hit our accounts. Sweet.

How to make sure you'll get it next year

If you miss this deadline and don't manage to put in the full amount, you'll still get 50 cents for every dollar you did put in. That's worth something. But let's look ahead to next year.

The KiwiSaver year runs from July to June, so this coming July is a chance to reset our finances to make sure we're on track to for next time. If we set things up right, we can easily be on the money in June 2018.

Over a year, putting in $1,043 works out to slightly more than $20 per week, which is far more manageable than having to come up with the whole amount just before the deadline.

Automatic payments directly into our KiwiSaver accounts are our best friends here, allowing us to forget all about it and let it run on autopilot. Contact your provider to make this happen.

Out of sight, out of mind. And when next year's deadline rolls around, we'll all be ready.

• Source: New Zealand Herald

A Question of Balance

We, humans, tend to prefer avoiding losses than securing gains. That's why volatile financial markets make us feel so anxious. Helping us to find a balance amid these natural emotions is the mark of a good advisor.

To understand the value of good advice, it helps to reflect on the cost of bad advice. And that has been evident in recent years as millions of people were pushed into strategies incompatible with their needs and risk appetites.

Bad advice means pandering to human emotions by exploiting greed and fear. It means pursuing high returns in the good times with little attention to risk and fleeing from risk in the bad times with no regard for return.

Good advice means taking the emotions out of the equation and showing us what we can and can't control. We can't control the ups and downs of financial markets. We can control the risk in our portfolios through broad diversification, astute asset allocation, and regular rebalancing.

Just having a detailed plan designed for our own risk appetites, lifestyle needs and long-term goals goes a long way to remove the anxiety from the investment process. During volatile markets, knowing that we have a diversified portfolio helps manage our personal tolerance for risk.

Bad advice panders to the view that the best way to invest is to attempt to time our entry and exit points. We are either in or out of the market. Getting that decision right, however, is notoriously difficult — even more so these past two years when risk assets undertook a complete u-turn.

By contrast, good advice stresses the virtues of discipline and patience. And that doesn't mean blindly sticking to a buy-and-hold strategy.

Regular portfolio rebalancing actually gives investors control over the risk in their portfolios. After a run-up in riskier assets, they can legitimately sell down the stronger performing asset classes and rotate into the poorer performers to bring their own intended asset allocation back on track.

Another way of looking at this rebalancing process is that the investor is selling high and buying low. This isn't a timing strategy, by the way, but a means of managing portfolio risk so the investor sticks to the original plan.

The absence of regular rebalancing was evident during the financial crisis when many investors found their portfolios had drifted out to the frontiers of risk without their knowledge or consent. The consequences for their long-term wealth in many cases were disastrous.

But just as a lack of rebalancing can throw a portfolio out of whack and undermine the targets of the original financial plan, too frequent rebalancing can be costly. These costs include fixed costs such as administrative charges and potential platform costs, alongside proportional costs such as buy/sell spreads, broker commissions, and capital gains taxes.

So the decision for advisors about when to rebalance often comes down to a question of balancing the benefits of keeping the portfolio within the investor's risk profile against the costs of changing the asset allocation. This decision is as much an art as a science. As such, there is no one 'right' answer, and the issue often can be dealt with by creating a 'hold' range within the portfolio.

The example in this graphic uses a balanced portfolio with a target ratio of 60% equities. In this case, the advisor has decided to allow a 5% buffer either side of this target to achieve a practical equilibrium between the need to maintain the broad asset allocation while minimising costs.

Jim Parkers' Balance graph

Aside from setting a non-trading region, another consideration in rebalancing is to use natural cash flows from regular contributions by the investor and cash distributions. That way the advisor reduces the need to sell securities, thus avoiding some of the costs of rebalancing.

Unlike the actual movement of markets, all these decisions are within the control of advisors and their clients. The result is the maintenance of a financial plan that the investor can live within the best of times, the worst of times and all the bits in between.

Markets are unpredictable. We can't change that. But we can build an asset allocation that successfully builds a bridge between our tolerance for volatility and our long-term investment goals.

With occasionally rebalancing to ensure the asset allocation continues to match our risk profiles, we can sleep better at night.

That is the value of good advice.

• Source: Jim Parker, Outside the Flags