Fisher Funds is folding its KiwiSaver Scheme into its KiwiSaver Plan, with the FMA approving the transfer and completion expected by 6 October. The pitch is simplification, and Fisher’s marketing told members “your fees will remain the same or lower”. RNZ reporting shows that is not true for everyone.
The increases are small. That is the problem. A fraction of a percentage point, charged every year on a growing balance for decades, is one of the most expensive things a young saver can quietly accept.
Two groups are paying for the tidy-up
The first group is former Fisher Funds Two growth fund members, moved into the KiwiSaver Plan in June. Their old fund’s fee rose from 1.06% to 1.14% in June 2025 when private equity was added, and the destination fund charged 1.13% at transfer. The second, larger concern is GlidePath investors under 46, where a 30-year-old’s fee rises from 1.13% to 1.21%.
Jody Kaye, Fisher Funds’ chief product and strategy officer, told RNZ the Plan’s GlidePath “incorporates more funds” and “offers a more complete solution”, so clients under 46 “will pay slightly higher fees”. That is an honest explanation. It is also a direct contradiction of “same or lower”.
The regulator’s test lets this through
The more important detail is why the FMA approved it. Clare Bolingford, the FMA’s executive director of licensing and conduct supervision, told RNZ the regulator consents to a transfer if the new terms are “no less favourable to members” and the move is “otherwise reasonable”. Crucially, “fees are not considered in isolation” but assessed alongside investment strategy, asset allocation and expected member outcomes.
Read plainly, that bar tolerates higher fees for a subset of members as long as the overall package is judged reasonable. More funds inside a GlidePath is treated as a potential offset. Whether it actually delivers a better after-fee outcome for a 30-year-old is a forecast, not a fact.
Complexity rarely pays for itself
The evidence on that forecast is not encouraging. Shamubeel Eaqub, chief economist at Simplicity, found that over the past decade higher fees have not correlated with higher after-fee returns. “Once you take away the fees, the punters are no better off,” he says. “What are you buying?” He calculates a 1.05% fee fund collects about $53,000 more than a 0.25% fund over a 40-year working life on median full-time wages. Morningstar’s Greg Bunkall agrees fees are one of the few variables investors control.
Fisher was not a budget provider to begin with. The 2025 MJW KiwiSaver Market Review found that in the year to March 2025 the Fisher Funds scheme charged $342 per member, or 0.98% of assets, against market averages of $258 and 0.74%. Nudging a younger cohort higher from that base compounds an already premium price.
Academic work has long made the structural point that KiwiSaver fees tend to rise in step with assets, meaning scale has not reliably produced savings for members. A merger is exactly the moment scale benefits should show up. Here, for some members, they have gone the other way.
Built by acquisition, consolidated at the member’s expense
This merger was years in the making. Fisher assembled a three-scheme KiwiSaver suite by buying Tower’s investment book and later Kiwi Wealth, then signalled it would rationalise the range. Running three overlapping schemes is costly, and consolidation makes commercial sense for Fisher. Nobody should object to a provider cutting its own overheads. The objection is to members absorbing a higher fee while being told the opposite.
The timing sharpens it. Government contributions were halved from July 2025, leaving members more reliant on returns and fees. And the FMA’s latest annual report says the regulator will research recent trends in provider fees. It is odd to launch that work while approving a merger that lifts fees for some members.
What employers and advisers should do now
For employers, the lesson is that a provider-level decision can change staff outcomes without any employee lifting a finger. If Fisher is your nominated scheme, tell staff, particularly younger ones, and point them to their fund’s fee disclosure. Advisers recommending GlidePath to clients under 46 should flag the step-up in writing and justify it.
Fisher is unlikely to be the last multi-scheme provider to consolidate. The FMA’s “not in isolation” test means the next one can raise fees for a slice of members too, provided the story around it sounds reasonable. Until the regulator’s fee research produces something firmer, the only reliable check is members reading the numbers themselves, because “same or lower” clearly cannot be taken on trust.
Sources
- RNZ: Fee questions for Fisher Funds KiwiSaver members (2026-09-30)
- RNZ: KiwiSaver, do you get what you pay for? (2026-08-31)
- MJW: KiwiSaver Market Review 2025 (2025-10)
- Business Daily Media: How New Zealanders miss out on hundreds of thousands in retirement savings
- Investment News NZ: Fisher signals scheme consolidation in KiwiSaver realignment
- FMA: KiwiSaver Annual Report 2026
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.