And you commented that although it was lower than if it had been kept in property, the value was probably reasonable.
There is still a dispute between myself and the final administrator of the trust, who I believe should have made a claim against my father's and uncle's estates.
I wonder if you could tell me where to find the information that would allow me to make an objective assessment of what value the trust should have realised in 1997, since this is at the root of the problem.
Two ultimate beneficiaries of the trust stood to gain under my uncle's will and four under my father's.
My cousin was the final administrator, and she has commented that we all inherited under our respective father's wills, so what's the point?
In my case, though, my father's will left a trust, hence no cash. Also there is the point that the one will was potentially shared two ways, the other four.
I would further comment that I am comfortably off. I may sound money-grubbing, but I can manage quite nicely without the extra money. It is more a matter of principle.
Any help you can give would be gratefully received.
A. Oh dear, oh dear. A presumably kindly old woman leaves wealth to her family and it ends up causing more unhappiness than happiness.
First, it might help you to realise that, like the previous letter writer, you haven't done too badly.
If £10,000 grows to £140,000 in 32 years, the annual return is about 8.5 per cent.
Admittedly, that isn't all that high, given that inflation was roaring away for some of that period. But it's also not peanuts.
Your father and uncle may have felt it was too risky to leave the money invested in real estate, and gone into lower-risk, lower-return investments.
What's more, under the terms of the trust, Dad and uncle may have been entitled to take some money for themselves over the years.
To get a good assessment of what the trust should have been worth in 1997, you would need to hire a lawyer with expertise in this area to peruse the documents and the investments.
Secondly, when you do the maths, there's not all that much in it.
Let's say, for simplicity, that a judge decides the trust should have been worth £96,000 more in 1997 if your Dad and uncle had handled it better.
That means £48,000 goes from each man's estate into the trust. So you and each of your three siblings inherit £12,000 less.
The £96,000 added to the trust is then split six ways, among you four and your two cousins. You each get £16,000. You've benefited by £4000. Is it worth it?
Even if twice as much money is involved, £8000 is not a life-changing sum for somebody who is already comfortably off.
More importantly, though, do you really want to keep pursuing this?
A friend of mine in America was fired from her job as a lawyer because she kept talking people out of suing.
She saw too many families hurt and relationships broken up by lawsuits. Even the winners, she said, were often absorbed for years by the case and the bitterness it caused.
Fighting for principles can be joyless. Life is too short.
I suggest you accept the fact that your dad and uncle may not have done as well as they should have with the trust.
As a result, your cousins probably ended up with some money that should have been yours.
Then again, they grew up in just a two-kid family. You probably had more fun with four. And there are sure to be other ways in which you are better off.
Raise a glass to your cousins and tell them you hope they are enjoying that extra money. And get on with enjoying what you've got.
Q. You mentioned that it is far harder to know when to sell shares in practice than in theory.
Selling shares obviously takes place each trading day. There has to be some reason to sell these shares. It is easy to understand the need for cash to buy a new car, for instance, but not for other reasons.
If a share is sold for a capital gain of, say, 10 per cent after holding it for a few months, this could be construed as great.
But the big question is what to do with the resultant cash.
The "sold" share may appreciate a further 10 per cent next month. Another share would then have to rise at a faster rate over the same time to be a better buy.
If this process is repeated the exercise becomes highly problematical.
Placing the money in a term deposit is an option, but at the expense of any future dividends.
Would you please offer any thoughts on what to do with the profit, or whether the share should even have been sold in the first place.
A. Plenty of people sell shares and buy others on a regular basis. Not nearly as many profit by doing it.
If there was a reliable way to tell which shares were going to do well and which poorly, frequent trading would, of course, work well. But there isn't.
And every time you buy one share and sell another, you have to pay brokerage and possibly other costs.
Also, if you trade often, Inland Revenue is likely to take an interest, and you will end up paying taxes on your capital gains.
Because shares tend to trend upwards over time, many traders gain something over the years despite costs and taxes.
But a large proportion of them would have done even better if they had bought and held.
The best way to invest in shares is to buy many different ones, or invest in a share fund that holds many shares.
Then stick with your holdings, through thick and thin, for at least seven or eight years, preferably longer.
If you are likely to need the money sooner, it's better to put it into term deposits or other fixed interest investments.
As you point out, you won't get dividends. Nor will you usually get capital gain (although you can sometimes on some corporate bonds).
But you won't lose money, which is quite possible in shares.
Q. After procrastinating for years, we have recently been presented with an excellent opportunity to start on our journey toward some degree of financial security in our old age. Better late than never, I hear you say.
I have recently joined a company with an extremely generous superannuation scheme, which I am keen to join.
The company will contribute $1.50 (gross) for every $1 I contribute. Hence I have opted for the maximum contribution (6 per cent for me, 9 per cent gross for my employer).
As I understand is usual, the contributions can be invested in a range of funds - cash, stable, diversified and equity.
My initial thoughts are to spread our investment across the equity, diversified and stable funds, but more heavily weighted at the higher risk end. However, this is on the assumption that equities are nearing their low point.
Do you feel this is a sensible move, or should I adopt a more conservative stance at this point and exercise my option for a "free" switch later in the year if the market turns (at the risk of missing some potential gains)?
A. I got to your note at the end, that says you are in your late 30s, I thought you were much older.
While, of course, it would be great to start retirement savings in your 20s, you're still doing better than most. There's no need to be so apologetic.
And you're making the most of a great opportunity. Your work scheme is, indeed, generous.
Your choice of funds is good, too. You're going for a mixture, which gives you diversification, but you're also putting most in the equity fund.
At your age, with decades to go before retirement, you've got plenty of time to ride out the down markets. And over the long term, the equity fund should grow more than the others.
So far, so good. But suddenly, you're asking about market timing. Is the market at its bottom now? Should you wait until it turns upward?
I don't know, and nor does anybody else.
I do know, though, that those who try to time markets do worse than those who buy when it suits them and then hold, regardless of market performance.
When the share market first starts to climb, nobody knows if it's a blip or the start of a trend. By the time the trend is apparent, those who are out of the market have often missed out on big gains.
Research shows that somebody who invested in US shares (as shown by the S&P500 index) for the whole 10 years ending May 2002 would have got returns averaging 10 per cent a year.
But if they had been a market timer, and happened to be out of the market for just the five days of biggest gains, their returns would have dropped to 7.5 per cent a year.
And if they had missed the 30 best days, out of more than 2500 trading days, their returns would average just 1 per cent a year. Yikes!
It's hard to imagine anybody being that unlucky, but still the message is there.
Need more convincing? Let's say you invested $5000 in a range of New Zealand shares in each of the last 30 years. Your total investment is $150,000.
If you were extraordinarily unlucky, and it turned out that you bought on the highest-priced day each year, after 30 years you would have $650,000.
On the other hand, if you had bought on the lowest-priced day each year, you would have $850,000.
It's a surprisingly small difference. Growth over a long period is far more important than the date you go in.
You're talking about an investment that will probably last many years. Stop worrying about short-term changes and get in now.
* Mary Holm is a freelance journalist and author of Investing Made Simple.
* * *
Email us your question about money
Or post it to:
Money Matters
Business Herald
PO Box 32, Auckland
