A month out from the Budget, the government is facing a legacy-defining choice about the Superannuation Fund. Do you think it should continue its contributions, or suspend them?
Bill English, and the entire National Cabinet, face some decisions in the next few weeks that just five months into their term of government will go some way to determining the legacy of the Key administration. The recession will make some decisions for them, but others will require the wisdom of Solomon.
Any government in power now will later be judged in large part by how it managed the worst recession in more than half a century. I've written about fiscal stimulus and tax cuts, but there's another difficult decision that will have a major impact on us, our children and grandchildren, and the best choice is by no means clear cut.
The Budget – a month today – will reveal what the government has decided to do about its allocations to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or Cullen Fund. The Fund began investing in 2003 with $2.4 billion, its intention being to help support New Zealand's retirees as the population ages.
While Super currently costs us about 3.5% of GDP, by 2050 it's expected to cost us 6.6%. In dollar terms, that could be as much as $50 billion per annum. The question is how to prepare for that given the current recession.
It's a tough choice, and the advocates for each position don't just divide along left-right lines. The Greens, for example, have always been against the Fund, joining many on the right. Like Paris picking between the three goddesses on Mt Ida, each option looks pretty good. But choose unwisely, and we could end up with something nearly as bad as the Trojan war.
With the Fund taking some big hits in the past year, losing money on its share portfolio, the voices of the 'stop contributions' crowd have grown louder, urging the government to suspend payments.
Most who take this view ask us to imagine the Super Fund was our own personal savings account. If our investments were losing value and we were spending more than we were bringing in, surely we'd cut our savings so that we could live within our means. You don't save when you haven't got enough to put food on the table now, they say. That makes no sense. You certainly don't borrow to keep saving. That's irrational. And borrow to invest in the most volatile market ever? That's just nuts.
They make a strong case. It's tough enough to get by now, why make it harder? Follow that logic and you'd assume that Bill English will suspend payments to the Fund next month.
But what about the case for continuing payments. For a start, let me make one point I feel strongly about. Comparing the Super Fund to my or your personal savings is plain dumb. It's fuzzy logic. What's good sense for an individual is not necessarily good sense for a country.(For one example, check out Brian Easton on the Paradox of Thrift).
Businesses, for example, do borrow to invest. Earlier in the year I spoke to a clump of CEOs about surviving the recession for a piece in Management.To a man and woman they said the smart thing is to invest in opportunities during a downturn, not just cut costs.
The other point I feel strongly about is that the Fund's recent losses are irrelevant to the government's decision. This is a long-term investment fund. It will rise and it will fall. No serious long-term investor panics and sells as soon as the market dips (or, in this case, dives). The famous analogy is playing with a yoyo as you climb up stairs. Your investment will go up and down like a yoyo, but over time you can expect your investment's value to climb... if you hold your nerve.
The argument made by those who want the government to continue funding is based around the old market adage, 'buy low, sell high'. Well, the market's low so if the Fund wants to recoup its losses and do some nice business for New Zealand come 2050, there are some bargains to be had. The return on every dollar invested now will be much better than usual. Don't forget, when stockmarkets recover they recover quickly and the big money is made early on. To use another old adage, 'you've got to be in to win'.
Interest rates are also low, so if you can borrow long-term at a few percent confident that over the same time you'll make more than that few percent back, it's got to be worth considering, right?
Two points often get missed in this debate. First, the Fund is a great counterweight to the embarrassment that is the individual debt carried by New Zealanders, which is one of the highest in the world. The credit rating agencies are looking at downgrading us in large part because of that debt; those Super Fund payments might be the very things that save us. Second, there's no free lunch here. As English has said on Q+A, "the way it [The Fund] works is if you don’t pay in this year or next year then you have to make higher payments later". Either that or collapse the Fund altogether. And while some see the recession as a great cover for this administration to undermine the Fund to the point where it has to be wound up, I get the impression English doesn't want to be the man history holds responsible for that.
The last major point in favour of continuing payments is that the Fund is not just saving for the sake of saving. It's saving for a massive bill that is coming, like it or not. Someone has to pay that $50 billion in 30-odd years time and I'd rather it wasn't all on my newborn son, who I hope by 2040 will be saving for a mortgage of his own.
As I run through these pros and cons, I'm leaning towards the 'keep paying' side of the argument. But I'm far from certain. So perhaps you can chip in your thoughts and advice and we can think this through as a community...
Comments (8)
Is there a need to keep paying cash? That is, borrowing cash from someone somewhere and giving it to the guardians to invest (in - as you point out - a volatile market)?
Couldn't the government provide government bonds instead? The government's overall debt position would be the same, but it effectively borrows from the superfund, rather than in international markets (the superfund would be able to sell that debt if it wished). The government still has debt obligations in the future, and its obligations to increase payments in future to make up for the shortfall are more clearcut.
The last major point in favour of continuing payments is that the Fund is not just saving for the sake of saving. It's saving for a massive bill that is coming, like it or not.
Unfortunately, borrowing to fund the superfund won't help the massive bill coming, like it or not ... it just means that instead of the major bill being one for superannuation, it will be a more major bill that is partly superannuation, and partly debt servicing costs.
It's a no brainer.
Borrowing to pay into the Cullen fund will tip the credit rating agencies over the brink. A downgrade would be disaster. The big picture must prevail over the petty academic arguments in favour of a pathetic political plaything.
It doesn’t immediately strike me as a “no brainer”, Adolf, but - as Tim says - finely balanced. Although my impression of the overall weight of argument leans in the "stop paying" direction.
Since the payment obligation doesn’t cease, and surpluses aren’t projected to return any time soon, it’s not hard to imagine this would end up undermining the continued existence of the Fund. Bill English wouldn’t be the man responsible; the world’s just changed. (Tim said “the man history holds responsible”, which is a different thing …)
I hope Labour (ie, Phil Goff) will be honest enough to acknowledge the Fund was predicated on what were thought to be structural surpluses, and give the government political room to have this discussion in the national interest. I don’t seriously expect it - the Opposition does seem to like opposing everything - but I might be more likely to vote Labour next time if it would demonstrate that sort of maturity.
A couple of aspects of your “pros”, Tim, I thought didn’t quite work, which others have touched on above.
Like Adolf, Michael Littlewood also said it was a “no brainer” to stop contributions and abolish the Fund last night on TV7. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/academics-worried-borrowing-super-3-50-2684778/video
It was a deeply unsatisfactory interview - he said all sorts of incomprehensible interesting possibly myth-busting things, but wasn’t invited to expand on them.
He said because this issue is too politically difficult to discuss, that needs to happen outside the political arena. Like here, one presumes, or on the Retirement Policy and Research Centre website. http://www.business.auckland.ac.nz/Home/Research/Researchcentres/RetirementPolicyandResearchCentre/tabid/1148/Default.aspx
I went looking there for some answers this morning, in vain. So perhaps if Mr Littlewood is a Pundit reader, he’d like to comment, or write a “counter column”, so that even this economically illiterate voter might understand his argument.
Sorry it's taken me so long to come back into this discussion... Graeme, it's interesting to suggest other ways the government could put some finances/assets away for that rainy day. I don't know enough about the financial instruments at the government's disposal. Suggestions anyone?
Point taken about another type of bill coming... but the analysis is that if we think we can borrow for a relatively low rate and make more than that from the resulting recovery (eventually), is that worthwhile and responsible investing? If we can, the debt bill could be lower than the super bill...
Claire, we'd welcome Littlewood's thoughts, but from what I understand he's been anti the pre-funding model for years, so his opposition isn't based on the issues of the times.
English spoke about suspending contributions yesterday... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10569568
He did at least argue that the Fund was sustainable either way, which offers a little reassurance, perhaps.
His reasons are still relevant, surely, and it's not inconceivable that his opposition was indeed based on the issues of the times, if he foresaw the possibility.
Anyway, I found what I wanted - a fuller articulation of his thinking - here if anyone else is interested: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/michael_littlewood
I can never find the references to this "predication on surpluses" that is referred to. The Act that gave birth to the Cullen Fund doesn't reference net Government position at all - rather the required annual contribution is based directly on paying out the appropriate percentage of GDP to cover the costs of entitlement (predicated over a 40 year timeline). That cost of entitlement exists regardless of overall Government fiscal position.
Pre-funding is partly based on Tim's comment around the relatively cost of super now (as a percentage of GDP) compared to future estimates. We are specifically paying more now to smooth down the cost that would otherwise rise rapidly in about 10 years time. Currently, it is expected that the Crown accounts will MAKE money from the fund within 13 years and cease contributions altogether in 17.
None of that, of course, absolutely enforces an annual contribution while ignoring all other Government fiscal pressures - but it has established a clear and defendable medium-term goal. I believe it puts significant onus on the Finance Minister to point out very serious alternative consequences if he his to contribute at less than the legislated required amount (and the law requires him to do so)
You're right Gareth, the consequences of stopping, or pausing, are serious and he should explain. But if he chooses to opt out, then the Budget gives him political cover. It will get lost in the other news. There will be so much else to talk about, I'm afraid he won't get asked in any depth.
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
Agree with you. On the other hand This website design is fantastic. I have created a Web page design that I have particularly proud of 70-553 . But how could I show off to the world in a better form? I have seen different web design from other About.com readers to enhance my capabilities but I must say in this regard this site is unique and informative. I want to be a web designer and is going to clear the concept related to the testking 70-431 and as well as an other important term exam 70-432 dumps .These are consider the land mark in the field of IT. I hope there will be a separate portion for the 70-536 dumps and the other terms related to IT.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.