Are Expensive Funds Delivering Better Results?

A recent RNZ headline claimed all active fund managers underperformed over the last year — a bold statement that sparked plenty of debate across the investment world. But how accurate is that headline, and what does the underlying data actually show? 

In this episode, Tim Ellis and Brodie Haggerty unpack the latest SPIVA report, break down the difference between active and passive investing, and explore why so many fund managers struggle to consistently beat the market over the long term. They also discuss survivorship bias, the impact of fees, why “top-performing funds” can be misleading, and what investors should really be paying attention to when reviewing their KiwiSaver or investment portfolio. 

Whether you’re invested through a bank, adviser, or KiwiSaver provider, this episode is a practical look at the evidence behind one of investing’s biggest ongoing debates. 

If you have a question, suggestions, or a topic you would like us to cover, please send an email to: podcast@foxplan.nz

For More Dollars & Sense Content: Click Here

Listen to all The Dollars & Sense Podcasts: Click Here

The information shared on The Dollars & Sense Podcast is general in nature and does not consider your individual circumstances. Dollars & Sense exists purely for educational purposes and should not be relied upon to make an investment or financial decision. Tim Ellis (FSP778196) and Brodie Haggerty (FSP778174) are both Financial Advisers providing advice on behalf of FoxPlan Ltd. FoxPlan Ltd (FSP39630) is a licensed Financial Advice Provider. Important information can be found at www.foxplan.nz/disclosure 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

All active fund managers underperform over the last year. That was the title of a report that has recently come across my desk. It's a big call. It's a bold call. Is it true? Is that worrying? Should investors be doing something about that? What's behind such a title? Welcome back to another episode of the Dollars and Cents podcast. Very excited to announce that this week you're listening to myself, which is Tim Alice, but sitting right next to me. Welcome back to the show, Brody Haggerty. Good to be back, Tim. It's great to have you here. What do you reckon the first question might be?

SPEAKER_03 0:38

Where have I been?

SPEAKER_00 0:40

No. I think I know the answer to that. Not sure. Would you do the honors? Uh, of course. Compliance. Yes, I've been sitting in the compliance seat for the last seven years. I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_03 0:52

I'm not sure I can even remember how it goes. Give it a twirl. So everything we talk about today is general of nature and not intended to be personalized financial advice. Uh seek the relevant professionals before taking any action. It's like you never left.

SPEAKER_00 1:05

It's about right, isn't it? I I feel it must be because you've been listening to the show uh so closely while you've been away. I didn't even listen to the show when I was on it.

unknown 1:13

It's a bit tough.

SPEAKER_00 1:16

All right. Well, with the bickering out of the way, this week's episode, we're going to be talking through a report that uh it came out, uh, an article uh released by RNZ uh that was titled, I'll read the title again. All active fund managers underperform over the last year. As I said in the intro, that is a big, big statement. Uh Brody, I obviously I take it you you've you've read the report. Have you got some thoughts on this? Because we're going to be going through this report and understanding where that title's actually come from, what the true facts really are, and what listeners can take away from that kind of information.

SPEAKER_03 1:52

Yeah, I I feel like it it gets brushed past every time one of these articles comes out, though, because people keep giving them money. And I just I just can't believe that active fund managers are still out there doing their thing when there's this much data that shows that they underperform.

SPEAKER_00 2:08

Because this isn't the first time that's come out. No, no, it comes out every single year, funny enough. The speaver.

SPEAKER_03 2:15

Mm-hmm. Hmm.

unknown 2:16

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 2:17

Tells a simil similar story every time?

SPEAKER_00 2:19

There's a bit of a pattern. I've actually gone back and looked at previous year speavers to see that pattern, and I'll I'll be happy to share the data on that as well. But I think we before we get uh underway with with with pulling apart the report and getting into that, um, just for for listeners, uh, most will already be aware, but uh for clarity, what we're getting at here is active fund managers being compared against an index. So uh essentially there's uh two different types of fund managers um that are out there. There's active fund managers and passive fund managers. Active fund managers will look at all of the companies in an index, choose which companies they think are going to do well and buy them. If they hold companies they think are gonna do poorly, their job is to sell them before they do poorly. The whole purpose of active management is to try and do better than what would happen if you just bought them all and hold on to them all, which is essentially what measuring an index is. Passive fund managers simply buy a whole index, don't do the buying and selling, and just track whichever companies are in the index and hold.

SPEAKER_03 3:26

I think it's important to note though that passive fund managers also don't outperform the index.

SPEAKER_00 3:34

Well, if they tracked the index with no error, uh tracked it 100% perfectly, are they gonna do that for free?

SPEAKER_03 3:42

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 3:43

They have to charge fees, of course. So it's the index minus fees is is their return. Is that that's what they're aiming for, right? Sure. And for the investor minus tax on top of that as well.

SPEAKER_03 3:53

Correct. Hmm.

SPEAKER_00 3:54

But what we're gonna be getting at today is uh going through this uh the this article that came out and the the speaver that it was based off and actually taking a closer look at uh these active fund managers, they charge fees to try and beat the index. How often do they actually do better than the index? Knowing in and very well that they charge fees every single year. Surely if you're paying fees, you should be able to get something better than just in investing in the whole index and leaving it, right? Sure. Before we get into the data and the details, is there anything else you want to add here? I'd be surprised if not.

SPEAKER_03 4:34

Uh well I mean, I've got opinions, but I'm sure they'll come out with as we go along.

SPEAKER_00 4:42

Okay. Well, I think I've heard you personally, Brody Haggerty, absolutely bag the media for spinning on things from a negative point of view. Negativity, sales clicks, sales advertising. Yep. I'd say that's what they're doing there. It is I I would 100% agree. Look at the title. But just because this is an agenda that we can get behind, I don't think that we should stray away from being a little bit critical of spinning things and um using negativity to sell pieces. I think uh we should be above that and be a bit more uh unbiased to things, really, because this title said all active fund managers underperform over the last year. If you look at the fourth paragraph in that article, 75% or something like that, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03 5:35

So it contradicted itself in the in in the fourth. Yeah, I don't know if that was meant to be misleading or if it's just poor writing, but yeah. I didn't notice it as well. But they have underperformed over the 10 to 15 year period, all of them. Sure.

SPEAKER_00 5:50

But not the last few words of this title was over the last year. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 5:56

Well, that's just media female, sloppy.

SPEAKER_00 5:59

It is. Yeah. They got the clicks, so you clicked it. Yes. Okay. Job achieved. Maybe we'll make the title of this episode All Active Fund Managers Underperformed Over the Last Year. See if we can get clicks that way. But be a little bit hypocritical from the stance we've had before on uh relying on evidence and data to actually back an argument.

SPEAKER_03 6:20

I agree with that.

SPEAKER_00 6:22

So, with nothing else to uh complain about, should we get into this report?

SPEAKER_03 6:27

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 6:27

What report are you referring to? The the Speaver? Okay, yeah. So uh the the article itself uh was was um referencing the Speaver report that just came out. Yep. For listeners, uh the Speaver report, it comes out annually. It's the Standard and Pause Index versus Active report, where they take a look at all active uh fund managers. Uh this was the the New Zealand Speaver, so we're focusing to New Zealand active fund managers, but it's uh it's also got data of active fund managers uh across the world. What the most recent Speaver said or or uh uncovered was that uh as of last year, 74% of active fund managers underperformed when investing in global equities. When active fund managers were investing in New Zealand equities, 65% of the active fund managers underperformed. When investing in just bonds, 79% of active fund managers underperformed investing in bonds when compared to their benchmark. Now, admittedly, the whole bonds one was New Zealand's dollar hasn't been doing quite so well over the last 12 months. So um a bit difficult. So what that says to me though, and I'll I'll ask you what it says to you, but that actually says to me that uh uh about 21 to 35% of the time, active management did work. It outperformed.

SPEAKER_03 7:54

Yeah, I mean, from face value, but then you've got to consider were they the same 30% or whatever this year as last year? And the answer is probably no, right? So one year BNZ might do well, the next year Milford might do well.

SPEAKER_01 8:09

Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER_03 8:12

Who knows? Like are you gonna move your funds every year to the fund manager that you think is going to be in that 30%? Tough job. Pretty hard to do that. And what do that and be right? And most people are invested for a long term, right? So they they don't want to they're in it for longer than a year.

SPEAKER_00 8:32

Yeah, of course. So, well, let's look at that then. Let's look at uh at five years, because when the active fund managers in this article were asked for a response, uh a response to the question being, um, you know, how come you've you've you've underperformed the index so much? Their response was defensive in nature, of course, but it was along the lines of uh you're not looking at a full cycle. Why don't you go back and look at five years? Now fair, because investing is long term, so it's a fair, fair shout. I I I I agree. The fact is that particular fund manager, and I'm not going down names just yet, but that particular fund manager um three and four years ago had very good outperformance years, which can happen as evident. Last year, 21% of them got it right. Yeah. But if they have a good enough outperformance year, then that can, if you stretch it over five years, say that they've outperformed over five years off the back of one or two good ones within that five year period. Yeah. Well, I understand uh I think that was a smart response to be fair, because if you looked at that particular fund over five years, you would find that it did outperform because of those good years. I I I went a little step further than just five years.

SPEAKER_03 9:47

Of course. Of course, because we're not investing for five years. Yeah, I mean, I'd say 90% of my clients are invested for a lot longer than that.

SPEAKER_00 9:56

Yeah. So I'll I'll share uh in a won uh uh in a moment the data on 15 years instead. Let's take a look at that data and see what those numbers have to say. So just before we get into the uh the the long-term data, that really paints a picture and makes things pretty darn clear. Um, I think something that was not referenced in this RNZ article that is always part of the Spiva report. That's super, super important. I I don't know why it would have been left out, but uh fund survivorship rates. That's a big one too. It's huge. Again, for listeners not uh familiar, a fund survivorship rate is uh how many of the funds that were measured maybe 20 years ago are still in existence today versus how many did not survive because they were either merged or liquidated?

SPEAKER_03 10:47

Yeah, and that percentage is shocking from memory. When I've looked at it in the past, it is quite shocking how many actually survive. It's eye-opening.

SPEAKER_00 10:57

Now, the reason for failure uh differs between active and and passive funds, of course. In fact, there's a number of different reasons, but typically a fund will either be merged or liquidated um due to poor performance. And so when a fund is liquidated, all the assets within that fund are sold, turned into cash, and returned to investors. Essentially, if that happens due to poor performance, it means they're selling shares that have just taken a massive drop in value, crystallizing those loss, taking money out of the market and putting it in a bank account where investors now need to choose a new fund to invest in. And if they don't, that's money completely out of the market. Emerger, not as devastating, but a merger is uh all the the units within the fund will be sold at the value of the assets within those units and then reinvested at the same time into a new fund. Quite often it'll be a fund issued by the same institution. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's like that's quite common, isn't it? That that that version of events. Yes. Yeah, of course. Save reputation, keep money in the market. Now, passive fund managers are not exempt from fund failure, though. It does happen. So if we're gonna go back to the start of this episode where we're gonna be unbiased and use evidence and data rather than driving an agenda, uh, I think we need to be open about the fact that passive fund management uh is not a be all and end all answer, and some of those funds do fail. Uh yeah, okay. Not for the same reason. I mean, yeah, it's pretty hard to have poor performance. If you're tracking an index and you're measured against that index, the only way you could have poor performance is by bad tracking error and being on the wrong side of that bad tracking error. Yep. Or the company itself just stops performing. The company itself? Exactly right. If they don't have enough uh investors in the fund, let's say you had a passive fund that had ten million dollars across all the investors invested, and they were charging a 1% fee, which would be a very high fee for a passive fund. That means that that whole fund is only really generating$100,000 a year in revenue. What if we have two people full-time working on that fund? Office, internet, resources. Is$100,000 a year going to be enough to actually make financial sense to keep that fund open?

SPEAKER_03 13:29

No.

SPEAKER_00 13:29

No. So we will liquidate it or merge it into a bigger fund that has more investors that generates higher revenue.

SPEAKER_03 13:37

Yep.

SPEAKER_00 13:39

Should we get into the stats on survivorship rates?

SPEAKER_03 13:42

Sure.

SPEAKER_00 13:42

Okay. So I I presume I'm taking the stat guy position in this podcast now that you're back.

SPEAKER_03 13:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 13:47

I'm compliance guy, you're stat guy. Yeah, okay. Well, let's get into some stats. I've come prepared. Nice. So uh when we're looking at global equity managers, over a 15-year period, only 40% of funds survived that 15-year period. Yep. I mean 60% of all of the funds 15 years ago don't exist today. If we look at New Zealand active uh equity managers, only 53% of funds 15 years ago still exist today.

SPEAKER_03 14:19

It's scary, isn't it? I I just I don't understand why they still have such a big market share. Active fund managers? Yeah. Well, because we are not not me personally, but as a country, we are paying them to underperform. Firstly. Their fees are extravagant always.

SPEAKER_01 14:42

Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER_03 14:43

And so are their fees going to performance? No. They go into their marketing, right? And the reason why they have such a big market share, if we think about banks, we think about, you know, the the the big private um active managers in New Zealand. Your Melfids, yeah, they slam marketing, right? You see them on the back of buses, you see them on the six o'clock news. Haven't watched six o'clock news in about five years, but I'm sure I'm sure they're on there. Um they they spend a lot of money on marketing.

SPEAKER_00 15:16

Of course.

SPEAKER_03 15:17

And that's why they have a big share. But then the these stats are out there for everyone to consume, but no one does anything about it, right? So is it going to continue that way?

SPEAKER_00 15:28

Correct. Well, let's look at if you took a hundred people and asked them why are you with the KiwiSaver fund that you're with? Most common answers? Uh, that was who I was with when I started working.

SPEAKER_03 15:41

Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER_00 15:42

That's where my that's where I bank.

unknown 15:45

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 15:45

So I went in there to get a new F Boss card and I walked out with an F Boss card and my KiwiSaver there. They told me I could see it in the same app? Yep. I wanted to see it on my online banking.

SPEAKER_03 15:55

Yeah, it's fair. I mean, I mean, for people like us, we're in finance, we think about this every day. But for a lot of people, they just don't care, don't want to know about it. Their life doesn't revolve around finance as much as ours do.

SPEAKER_00 16:10

Well, considering active fund managers still in New Zealand currently have the lion's share of the market, that means the lion's share last year, 74% of them underperformed their the just investing in the index and paid extravagant fees for that too.

SPEAKER_03 16:28

Yep. Yeah. I mean part of the underperformance is because of the fees, of course. Yes. Um I don't know, it's hard to it's hard to justify. I guess that's why our philosophy is so much different to that, right? Because we can't justify it. We can't justify active management.

SPEAKER_00 16:51

Yes, of course. Because if I have uh a client that comes in and says, Hey, um Tim, you you told me to invest in this fund, and boy, it's gone backwards by quite a bit compared to I was having a beer with my mate the other day and uh he showed me his one and it's it's doing this. Why is the one that you recommended doing this? If it was due to active management, my my answer would have to be, well, you know how I told you there was people with MBAs from Harvard that were doing all the stock picking. Sometimes they get it wrong, sorry, mate. They they've got it wrong on this occasion.

SPEAKER_03 17:21

We had a change in the investment team and the uh chief investment officer here resigned and we got a new one.

SPEAKER_00 17:26

So it's just been a bit tumultuous in the last few years. Oh, that just only raises the question. Well, is it going to continue to be that way? Are they gonna continue to make different changes and bad changes or bad picks?

SPEAKER_03 17:38

Yeah, well, if you talk to active fund managers or people that advise on active funds, they will always have reasons for why they've underperformed, right? To be, oh, we've we've overinvested in this area, but this area should really come to fruition next year. They've always got a plan for that.

SPEAKER_00 17:56

Um, in this article, they were asked for that response. There was two, they both gave the same two responses. You need to look over a full cycle. Do you want to dive into that one now or do you want to know what their other defense was? What was the other defense? Their defense was sure. Um we we might have some bad years, but um our good years were that puts us in the top ten because of our good years. Top ten fund managers are all active.

SPEAKER_03 18:26

Okay. Which are which underperformed over ten to fifteen years?

SPEAKER_00 18:31

Well, it it sounds compelling, but it's logically flawed, right? Correct. I mean, someone has to be at the top. Of of active managers. No, somebody has to be at the top of all managers. Yeah, of course. Right. Somebody has to be at the top. And if you look at how many fund managers are active fund managers versus passive fund managers, a passive fund manager's job is not to be at the top. They're not trying to outperform. They're never going to be the best. But guess what? They're also never going to be the worst. So you'll always find that the the top ten fund managers are active fund managers. Over a year period. Over a year period. Are they the same top 10 the next year, the next year, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that? Well, I've got the data on that and I'll tell you your chances of being right. I I think if we waffled through that one too much, let me be very clear about what I'm saying. If you ask uh active fund managers for a defense, they would be able to logically say, well, if you look at the top 10 fund managers in New Zealand this year, they're all active. Clearly, active works. I understand that that sounds pretty credible. But the fact is, if you are uh stock picking, somebody has to get it right and somebody will get it wrong. If you're just a passive fund manager, you're not going to be doing that, so you can't ever be the ones that were right and uh outperform by a landslide. But you just accept the middle every year, which evidence tells us has a far better long-term performance because when you're winning and losing, the losses start to outweigh the wins, especially when you get charged fees on top of the losses. That sums that one up clearly and argued that. Do you want to attack the uh what about the whole you need to look over a full cycle? A longer time period, because I've got the data on longer time periods.

SPEAKER_03 20:28

Yeah, but I mean we've we've established the fact that they that none of them have outperformed it in ten to fifteen years, right? And that's exactly the same bet that Warren Buffett, the greatest investor of all time, made to the fund managers in America, what was this, 20, 30 years ago? He said, none of you will outperform the index over a 10-year period. If any of you do, I'll give you a million dollars. Not one of them did. Correct. So it's not like this is a new thing. It's a 92-year-old man been been talking about that for his entire retirement.

SPEAKER_00 21:07

Okay, so I I feel like because this article was the 2025 Speaver, I would ignore the 2025 one because it might have been an anomaly year, and just started looking at the 2024 Speaver report, which is very easy to find, by the way. If you put in Google the 2024 New Zealand Speaver, you'll find it. So I use that year's data uh in case we had an anomaly year to be fair. Well, I didn't just look at New Zealand, I looked at 20 different countries that were measured. New Zealand, Australia, um, the United States, 17 other countries, comparing the exact same thing active fund managers versus the index, which is what the speaver report is. All countries combined. What percent of active fund managers in 2024 across all the countries do you think out our Well, that's a tough one. I'd say outperformed? Outperformed. Maybe forty-five percent? Not quite. That was a bit too generous. 35%.

SPEAKER_03 22:11

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 22:12

35% of active fund managers across these 20 countries outperformed.

SPEAKER_03 22:16

My my rationale there was I wasn't sure what countries, and if you had small countries with up-and-coming markets, there could be an edge there.

SPEAKER_00 22:24

That is exactly what happened. Yeah. So if you now start to look at every country individually, there was one country observed that had 97% of active fund managers outperformed their index. Now that is an anomaly. Yeah. A huge anomaly. Any guess as to which country that might be and how or why that occurred?

SPEAKER_03 22:48

It will have something to do with the concentration of their index. So it did, correct. So there there'd be one company that did really well from that country.

SPEAKER_00 22:58

Shot the lights out like crazy, been on the news a lot. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the United States. Obviously. Obviously. The country was Denmark, and you're right, it was a concentration thing. Um, so I I'm sure you you've you've heard of the drug Ozempik. Yes. Yeah. Created by uh a company called Novo Nordisk. Yep. Okay. The popularity of Ozempik. Yeah, pretty, pretty popular these days. Hmm. An easy way to lose weight. How's that not going to be popular? Yeah. Hmm. Not trying to make any suggestions for you at all, by the way. Um, but yeah, so that stock shooting the lights out so much. And how that has resulted in 97% of active fund managers outperforming the index, well, they were able to buy it at whatever weighting they wanted to buy it at when they wanted to buy it. Active fund managers. There was a lot of news about Ozempik being approved for a weight loss drug because it wasn't originally created for weight loss. And so opportunists were able to buy into that stock there and then. Passive fund managers, index tracking funds, were only allowed to buy it due to their weighting at the time. So as opportunists bought the stock and pushed the stock through the roof, and the company actually did go through the roof, passive fund managers needed to keep buying on the way up. And they couldn't sell. They were not allowed to sell, they weren't allowed to crystallize any any gains because they're only investing due to what the index says. Yep. And so they weren't allowed to sell any of that. Do you want to know what happened to Icemic shortly after? Well, after a after a rise usually comes a fall. Oh, but it was a big one. A massive one. The stock. So even today, if you bought at the top, two years on, even later, you still you're still at a loss. Yeah, yeah. What did it what did it tumble by? Uh 70%. Wow. Ouch. Yep. Big drop. And so that brings FOMO. FOMO. That is. So for one year, Denmark had 97% of active fund managers outperformed. Do you know uh how many outperformed the following year? It'd be three percent. Wow. Yep. There was another outlier in that uh that stat of 35%. I'll tell you why I've I'm talking about the outliers as well. Uh, but South Africa. Um, South Africa's uh national index has two stocks in the uh index that are essentially just a vehicle to investing in Chinese tech. Yeah, active fund managers don't need to buy that stock. They didn't bet on Chinese tech, they got that right. And so therefore, they actually outperformed the index not by picking well, but by avoiding a loser for two losers.

SPEAKER_03 25:44

It's interesting.

SPEAKER_00 25:45

So the reason I am bringing up those two anomalies, though, is if you take those two anomalies out of the picture, you drop that 35% down to 20%. 20% of active fund managers across these 20 countries outperformed their index, meaning 80% of them did not. And what time period was that, sorry? Just 2024. Oh, right. Yeah, so it's even bleaker than well yeah, if you want to zoom out further, which I said I did, sorry, apologies, I'll get to that. Over a 10-year time period, um, that goes down to 13%. Wow. So a 13% chance that paying your fees has paid off. Now, if you're investing for more than 10 years, that doesn't mean that if you were in the right 13%, that you're gonna be in the right thirteen percent for the next 10 years either. So with all this being said, I mean this isn't news to me. Um I'm I'm glad that RNZ put the report out. I I'm I'm I hope that it it raised eyebrows and made people more aware. But from your perspective, what what do you want listeners taking out of this or taking away from it?

SPEAKER_03 26:56

Well, firstly, I don't think it's going to have that much of a difference because people would see that and say they'll look at it and be like, oh, the markets are underperforming again. Scroll past. Yeah, yeah, I guess you're right. Most people are just gonna see that if they see it on the algorithm and just go on. Yep. So I don't think it's gonna have a major effect. I think if anyone is listening to this that is thinking about that line of thinking, then question everything. If you're at the bank and your KB says with the bank, question it. Why are you paying these fees? Even if you're paying an advisor, question why you're paying the fees, question their philosophy. Um I'm not saying go and run away from active fund managers if that's what you want to do, then so be it. Power to you. Power to power to you, but question question why you're paying the fees, because fees erode performance in the long term. Hugely erode performance. And you can you can jump on any online software tool to see how how fees erode your investment return over 10, 20, 30 years. So if you're paying for a fee, what value are you getting with that? So if if you are using an active manager, is there an advisor that's doing planning with you as part of that? Or are you just literally paying someone to pick stocks for you and they're underperforming? So are you getting any value? That would that would be the question I'd ask. Sure.

SPEAKER_00 28:22

Well, I I just hope that now is KiwiSaver balances are are creeping up there and getting a little bit more uh, you know, turning into more meaningful sums of money that people are starting to pay a little bit more attention. Two two-thirds of US hedge funds are passively managed.

SPEAKER_03 28:38

Wow.

SPEAKER_00 28:40

That brings us back to our other argument, what happens when everyone's passive. Yeah, I look forward to re uh visiting that argument because it's it's it's come up. In fact, that was a hot topic. That was some of the comments that came off the back of this RNZ article. It was exactly what they were. Perhaps we need to revisit our episode. I think because I remember you being quite uh forceful in that one. Yeah, well, because it's it doesn't work. Okay. Well, let's not turn this into a double episode week, but uh I look forward to getting back behind the mic and chatting through that one. Yeah. If any of our listeners have enjoyed this chat and want to actually uh find out a wee bit more about whether the funds that they're invested in are actively managed or passively managed, how many fees they're paying or what the previous performance has been like, feel free to get in touch at podcast at foxplan.nz. As for this week, that's it.