Author and expert investor Gareth Morgan deserves credit for his advice to "keep on saving", in face of the "retirement tsunami" ahead of us, and despite the numerous risks he identifies.
But why does he almost contradict himself and confuse the reader by quoting and not refuting a study by some treasury economists with the conclusion, that our collective savings rate is "more or less adequate"?
This treasury study - possibly designed to save face of those professionals who not so long ago saw savings as a by-product of wealth, and not as its creator, without which wealth, security reserves, and higher income potential beyond a primitive hand-to-mouth existence just would not exist!
It includes the misleading assumption, that our PAYGO universal super can be thought of as savings, when in demonstrable fact it is consumption on credit, exactly what Gareth and all economists warn us against!
The said study also meaninglessly states, that our savings rate has been adequate for us to be where we are, when in fact any savings rate is adequate for any economic situation, because without savings there just would not be anything created by humans at all.
It totally ignores that - not least in view of the "retirement tsunami" - we actually desire a higher economic growth rate than what we have under the status quo.
With this in mind - and ignoring Gareth's unsubstantiated derogatory hints on the "Cullen Fund" - let's give him credit for what he has done right in an easy to read way! - Jens.