text:
Podcast - subscribe here
Economic calendar Major Auckland projects How the OCR is set TPPA explainer series Key bank metrics Budget 2019 - Spending plan Budget 2019 - Tax revenue New Govt. benchmarks Become a Supporter Podcast - subscribe here Sign up for emails (free) Banking newsletter subscription
Residential auction results Commercial property sales Farms sold 'Sprawl' visualisations Home loan affordability Median multiples Mortgage calculator Break fee calculator Rental yield indicator Rent ratio Commercial property for sale Lifestyle blocks for sale
Mortgage rates - Mortgage calculator - Break fee calculator Revolving credit Car loans Credit cards Personal loans Business loan rates Fix or Float calculator Rent or Buy ?
Savings accounts Bonus savings accounts Term deposits < 1 yr Term deposits 1 - 5 years Term PIEs Deposit calculator Interest codes Credit ratings explained Alternative assets Bank leverage Deep Freeze list Porridge list
Find your fund Compare fund categories Calculators KiwiSaver news Questions and Answers
Bank leverage Credit ratings explained Key bank metrics How the OCR is set How money is created How OBR will work Business overdraft calculator Mortgage interest rates Term deposit interest rates Scams - how to protect yourself Subscribe to industry newsletter
Car insurance - 2018 House cover Climate change Industry stats Andrew Hooker columns
Mortgage interest rates Term deposit interest rates Credit cards Calculators Alternative assets KiwiSaver Gold & silver prices - Gold coin prices - Gold bar prices - Precious metal scrap prices Protection from scams
Bull prices Steer & heifer prices Beef local trade prices Cow prices Lamb prices Local trade lamb prices Wool prices Dairy payout history Logs Farms for sale All other rural links to data
Live rates for buying fx Live rates to sell TT fx Currency fees Rate pricing Spot transactions Forward transactions Currency swaps How to do currency deals Directory - where to buy/sell Daily fx rate sheet email
Commodities Confidence Debt (Credit) Economy Exchange rates Interest rates Population Prices Real estate Rural Full list of all charts
Deposit calculator Mortgage calculator Break fee calculator Fix or float calculator Saving for a house deposit Credit card real cost Buying foreign currency Compare NZ and AU income Business overdraft calculator All our calculators
Current prices How to use our bonds resource How to buy bonds Bond types Glossary NZ Govt bond rates US Treasury bond rates
Business borrowing rates Business overdraft calculator Understanding China - by Professor Ang and guests TPPA explainer series How to guides: - Achieving financial success - The realities of growth Success stories
KiwiSaver provider ANZ Wealth calls for end to permanent default funds, suggests a lifestages fund that adjusts for age and risk
19th Jan 12, 10:49am
by Amanda Morrall
New Zealanders languishing in conservative KiwiSaver funds, the least risky and traditionally lowest returning portfolios, could be costing themselves NZ$72,000 in savings over a lifetime of investing creating a potential NZ$14 billion national savings shortfall collectively, the country's largest provider by funds under management suggests.
Calling the situation a NZ$14 billion time bomb, ANZ New Zealand today called on financial regulators to adjust the national savings scheme so that members put into default funds would be transitioned into so-called life-stages funds that adjusted for age and risk.
ANZ, with about NZ$2.3 billion under management among its KiwiSaver schemes, estimates that 191,000 New Zealanders are at risk of a self-imposed savings deficit. The figure is based on the total number of 15-24 year olds in Statistics New Zealand's data base (638,000) multiplied by the estimated 30% of KiwiSavers' who are presently in default funds.
John Body, managing director of ANZ's Wealth, said the magnitude of the problem would likely grow worse over time as enrolments grew. He also described the situation as "a major problem" and a discussion that has been missed through all the debate over KiwiSaver.
"Our research demonstrates that over the long-term, investors are likely to be significantly better off through the life stages approach than with the current default conservative option," Body said.
"If we do nothing, it will cost New Zealand billions of dollars and seriously compromise the standard of living for a generation of retirees."
A lifestages fund differs from other categories of funds in that it automatically adjusts asset allocation accordingly to age whereas a conversation fund or a growth fund would more or less maintain its composition. A conservative fund is typically weighted 20/80 in terms of an equities to cash and fixed interest split whereas a growth funds is 80/20 in favour of shares, which are regarded as the riskier investment but higher return yielding investment long-term. (For more in lifestages fund see KiwiSaver Q&A story here).
Body said whilst conservative funds were appropriate for many investors, predominantly those closer to retirement and those saving for a first time home, younger KiwiSavers facing 20, 30 years in the workforce would likely be better off in alternative funds.
Over the medium to longer term – and this is what the vast majority of retirement savings plans are designed for - conservative funds can seriously disadvantage the saver."
Mr Body said this was a major problem that was missed during recent debates around retirement savings.
Investments Savings and Insurance Association CEO Peter Neilson said he welcomed the suggestion.
"Defaulting into conservative funds has done a good job in preserving capital in the most difficult investment environment in 100 years but it is not the best place to be long term.
"Younger KiwiSaver investors, as the ANZ report shows, will leave considerable "money on the table" if they don't have a more growth orientated investment strategy long term reverting back to a more conservative stance closer to retirement. As our population ages and we live a lot longer after reaching 65 we are going to need a bigger KiwiSaver retirement pot come 65."
The ANZ KiwiSaver Scheme and the National Bank KiwiSaver Scheme (which is part of ANZ's business) already use the life stages investment fund selection as the default setting for people who do not select their own investment fund when they enrol direclty with the provider. Individuals who do not actively select their own scheme provider when automatically enrolled through their employer are put into one of six default schemes run by AMP, AXA, Tower, Mercer, OnePath and ASB.
The change that ANZ is calling for would apply only to those default funds.
Body, at a press conference Thursday where the proposal was made public, said ANZ officials would be meeting with politicans today to make a case for lifestages funds replacing permanent default conservative funds.
It is estimated that approximately 30% of the 1.8 million KiwiSavers are in default funds.
While the proposed fund restructuring plan could make a substantial difference to retirement nesteggs, it would also benefit default providers themselves as there is a sliding scale of fees associated with funds based on their exposure to the equities market and other growth assets.
Simon Botherway, general manager of investment for ANZ, conceded default providers would benefit peripherally from a revamp in fund composition but said the fees, as least with respect to ANZ, were relatively modest across the board. At ANZ, conservative and growth fund fees were separated by an average of 20 basis points. The management expense ratio (MER) on a conservative fund in the ANZ scheme is .54% and .73% on a growth fund.
Body said ANZ factored in the fee creep, as well as taxes, in its projections on younger KiwiSavers coming out NZ$72,000 ahead if they were put into lifestages funds as opposed to conservative funds through their working life.
KiwiSaver case study: Conservative fund vs life stages investment funds supplied by ANZ
Jonathan is a 25 year old sales coordinator from Wellington who recently signed up for KiwiSaver and was placed into a default scheme. Jonathan earns the average wage, $36,000*, and pays the current minimum contribution of 2% of his salary until he retires, and his employer contributes 2% of his salary. In his current conservative fund, he stands to accumulate about $248,000 in his KiwiSaver account by the time he turns 65. But if he had been placed into a life stages option, which adjusts the mix of investment allocations according to his age, he would have accumulated around $320,000 – a difference of $72,000, according to median projected returns. Note: *based on Statistics NZ figures for average wage, calculation assumes wage increase based on inflation of 2.5% per annum over forty years and a "Wage Alpha" that increases someone"s pay as their skills increase over time . The proposed increase from 2% to 3% of salary has not been taken into account in this example.
Botherway, elaborating on the modelling, pointed out the fact that whilst the minimum returns that could be expected from a lifestages plan were in line with average returns of a conservative fund, the median returns were separated by $72,000.
The following are the forecast returns built into their projections:
Forecast returns Growth Balanced growth Balanced Conservative Balanced Conservative Cash
After fees and tax 5.98% 5.28% 4.59% 3.89% 3.19% 1.86%
ANZ did not have figures on the number of default fund invested KiwiSavers who have switched out of those funds after enrollment but said they were low.
For example, of more than 78,000 default fund KiwiSavers at ANZ alone, just over 100 had moved into a lifestages fund.
Both Body and Botherway expressed renewed concerns about low levels of financial literacy in New Zealand, speculating they were lowest among those who ended up in default funds.
Ironcially, over the past four years, average returns generated by default funds have beaten their peers, a trend that most in the industry have chalked up to dumb luck and circumstance.
*Updates with quotes and figures. Adds quote from ISI CEO
ANZOnePathANZ WealthInvestingVideoRetirementmanaged fundsSharesEquitieslifestagesportfoliofixed-interestJohn Body
Help interest.co.nz grow our coverage, independent as always. Why? Read this.
We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.
Comment Filter
Highlight new comments in the last - 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 hr(s).
by ngakonui gold | 19th Jan 12, 11:46am 1326926760
'kiwis could be costing themselves 72000k
'Thats possibly better than losing the lot with you guys (they who know better)
by Wolly | 19th Jan 12, 11:48am 1326926880
"... whereas a growth funds is 80/20 in favour of shares, which are regarded as the riskier investment but higher return yielding investment long-term"
This amounts to utter rubbish...the statement is meaningless drivel...
"regarded as"...by whom?....just the sort of bollocks the regulators ought to be ridding the financial sector of.
A little bit of simple research will show just how "successful" said investments over the last 40 years have been in the USA...or indeed in NZ.
Peasants need to understand it all comes down to when you invest and when you sell....
Don't take my word on it...go look at the investment pension returns in the UK....that should open your eyes.
by Ms de Meanour | 19th Jan 12, 3:12pm 1326939120
"A little bit of simple research will show just how "successful" said investments over the last 40 years have been in the USA...or indeed in NZ."
I'm genuinely interested to carry out this little bit of simple research, and puzzled as to why you and others are declining to point me to the data that will so easily prove your point.
by JB | 19th Jan 12, 12:22pm 1326928920
Wolly - we should remember the words one Warren Buffett:
What's good for the croupier is not always good for the gambler.
The assumption that equities will always return more than bonds is simply utter rubbish as any reasoned analysis of past investment returns will show over long time frames.
Yet everything these guru's do is predicted on that one flawed assumption.
ASB conservative can't even earn their own term deposit rates
Simpy sticking with good quality NZ bonds held to maturity over the last few years with no FX risk eg Mighty River, Vector, AK Airport, Contact, Genesis, Fletcher Building, Fonterra has and will deliver over 8 % pre-tax with very low risk.
No advisers required.
by Ms de Meanour | 19th Jan 12, 12:42pm 1326930120
"The assumption that equities will always return more than bonds is simply utter rubbish as any reasoned analysis of past investment returns will show over long time frames."
Where can we find the data, or any examples of such reasoned analysis? What returns have equities and bonds historically delivered in NZ? Amanda please?
by Wolly | 19th Jan 12, 12:50pm 1326930600
Plenty of data to see that the claim is rubbish without the rider that it all depends on when you buy and when you sell...which kind of turns to mush when you are one tiny account inside a monster fund...which is the discovery being made by many a Pom who has seen his/her payout slashed with bigger cuts to come. Same will be true for Kiwi suckers.
As I have said before, peasants would do better to make their own investments...buy their own shares...their own gold....their own whatever...at least they can then withdraw what they want whenever without sucking up to some sodding fund manager....or indeed paying for the fund bosses fabulous lifestyle.
I'm sure that there is plenty of data, I am just asking to be pointed to it. Something like a chart showing the returns on bonds and equities in New Zealand each year for as many years as there are records of it.
Gross Set for Record Book as Manager of Biggest Fund in History
By Charles Stein
Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Pimco Total Return Fund, run by Bill Gross since its inception in 1987, is set to become the biggest mutual fund in the industry's history as individual investors mostly sit out the 2009 stock rally for the safety of bonds.
Based on the pace of current inflows, Gross's bond fund this month may surpass the record $202.3 billion reached byGrowth Fund of America in 2007, according to researcher Morningstar Inc. Total Return managed $199 billion at Nov. 30, while Growth Fund, which buys stocks, had $153 billion.
Total Return took in $42 billion of new cash this year through October, four times more than any other U.S. mutual fund, Morningstar data show. The growth underscores the reluctance of individuals to invest in equities even after U.S. stocks surged 61 percent from a 12 1/2-year low in March, and the appeal of Gross's returns, which beat all but four similar funds in the past decade.
"Last year was a time when many funds got burned, but the biggest fund of all did fine," Russel Kinnel, director of mutual-fund research at Chicago-based Morningstar, said in a phone interview.
Gross, co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, returned 4.8 percent last year while the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, a benchmark for the largest U.S. equities, lost 37 percent including dividends.
Investors added a net $297 billion to bond funds in the first 10 months of 2009, compared with $12 billion for stock funds, according to Morningstar.
Return Since Inception
Total Return climbed an average of 8.5 percent annually including dividends from its opening in May 1987 through Dec. 4.
That compares with the gain of 7.4 percent by the Barcap U.S. Aggregate Total Return Index. The Pimco fund has returned 14 percent this year.
The size of Gross's fund, already the largest based on current assets, could pose problems because many investments may be too small to have a meaningful impact on performance, said T.J. Marta, chief market strategist at Marta On The Markets LLC, a financial-research firm in Scotch Plains, New Jersey.
"You can't cherry-pick the best investments because you don't get enough return for your buck," Marta said.
Bond markets are sufficiently large and liquid to accommodate a $200 billion fund without hurting returns or restricting selection, Jeff Tjornehoj, senior research analyst at Lipper in Denver, said in a telephone interview. The U.S. bond market had $34.3 trillion of debt outstanding in the second quarter, according to data fromthe Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a New York-based trade group.
Advantage of Heft
Gross said size would be a legitimate issue if the fund underperformed the market for several years. "For over 20 years now, it has not been," he wrote in an e-mail.
The fund's heft creates advantages, including better access to the issuers of debt and the ability to receive more "attractive new-issue allocations," Gross said.
The fund can hold derivatives, which are securities whose value is derived from an underlying asset such as debt, stocks or commodities. Derivatives can expand the universe of investments for a fund.
Gross increased his holdings of government-related debt in October to 63 percent of the fund's assets, the highest in five years, according to the most recent data available on Pimco's Web site.
The "systemic risk" of new asset bubbles is rising as the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates at record lows, Gross wrote in a commentary published last month.
Under what Pimco has termed the "new normal," investors should be prepared for lower-than-average historical returns with heightened government regulation, lower consumption, slower growth and a shrinking global role for the U.S. economy.
Mortgage Holdings Fall
Total Return's holdings of mortgage debt fell to 16 percent of the portfolio by market weight from 22 percent in September, matching their smallest percentage of the assets since May 2004. Investment-grade corporate securities rose to 18 percent of the fund from 17 percent, while high-yield bonds fell to 1 percent from 2 percent, according to the firm's Web site.
Total Return rose 7.7 percent annually in the 10 years ended Nov. 30, according to Morningstar. The four comparable funds with better gains are: the $9.3 billionNatixis Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Bond Fund, which returned 9 percent; the $5.8 billion Delaware Diversified Income Fund, up 8.8 percent; the $403 million Frontegra Columbus Core Plus Fund, which increased 8 percent; and the $11.9 billion TCW Total Return Bond Fund, which returned 7.9 percent.
'Rare Trait'
Pimco Total Return started the decade with $28 billion in assets. As the fund grew, Gross shifted from picking individual bonds to placing bets on specific categories such as mortgage, corporate and government bonds, said Eric Jacobson, director of fixed-income research at Morningstar, which gives the fund its highest rating of five stars.
"It's a rare trait to manage at that level," he said.
Gross's comments on the economy, interest rates and the bond market, made on Pimco's Web site as well as on television and radio, are closely followed by investors.
In an October 2005 investment commentary, Gross predicted a "slam-dunk" scenario in which housing prices would cool, leading to a decline in "funny-money" lending practices and home equity, a weakening of the U.S. economy and a reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve.
"If real housing prices decline in the U.S. in 2006 and 2007, a recession is nearly inevitable," Gross wrote. A recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Little Junk
He's also known for avoiding high-yield, or junk, bonds. The average credit rating of bonds in the fund is AA, the third highest on Standard & Poor's scale, with 4 percent of assets in junk, according to the fund's Web site.
Gross, 65, is a stamp collector and has said he turned $200 into $10,000 while playing blackjack for four months in Las Vegas after college. He was born in the Ohio steel-company town of Middletown.
A graduate of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, with a psychology degree in 1966, he spent three years in the Navy and served in Vietnam. Gross joined Pimco after earning a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of California in Los Angeles in 1971.
He began using yoga more than a decade ago and credits his meditation sessions with clearing his head and helping him absorb unexpected news, such as a Fed half-point interest rate cut in January 2001. The news caught him in the middle of a "sun salutation," which softened the blow, he said at the time.
Total Return attracted $115 billion since the start of the decade, the most of any mutual fund. Growth Fund of America, run by Los Angeles-based Capital Group Cos., was second with $99 billion. Pimco, a unit of Munich-based insurer Allianz SE, managed $940 billion in assets as of Sept. 30.
"They've got a well-known visible manager, a great brand and they've been successful," Tjornehoj said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Charles Stein in Boston atcstein4@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 9, 2009 00:01 EST
No, sorry, that is a report about how one fund in the US has performed. What I thought it would be easy enough to show would be a data series showing how bonds and equities have done overall/pn average in New Zealand.
by Kimble | 21st Jan 12, 1:06am 1327061160
If it helps, I think the earth shattering data they are referring to is that for a period recentkly the 40 year return of bonds exceed that of shares, by a small amount. Google 40 year bonds equities, and you should be able to find it.
Of course, the 40 year bond returns included a drop in yields from around 8% to below 2% (or something like that). So, unless you expect that to happen again...
-6% yields anyone?
by Wolly | 19th Jan 12, 1:01pm 1326931260
The sick aspect of this Mist42nz is that with a little bit of real effort by Labour they could have working a system that provided peasants with guidance and help for a small fee to encourage Kiwi to DIY their savings....Those who decided to hand their loot to a fund boss could still do so....
This didn't happen because it was never Labours intention to help Kiwi families climb out of poverty traps and ignorance. The finance company farce clearly displayed labours uselessness.
Then along came National and the KS scheme made them very happy...a steady flow of capital for friends and it cost no more than a promise about the future.
Kiwisaver is a Ponzi scheme.
Nope you hit the crap on the head....
"- pays mature "investors" from new investors premiums"
KiwiSaver pays mature investors from those investors savings. 0/1
- has no real deliverables
Through KiwiSaver you are buying shares or debt in companies that produce real things. The value of your investment is derived from the perceptions of the current value of all the future profits from producing those real things. 0/2
- has significant operations/operator fees that because of previous line aren't risk or performance based.
Given the previous line was debunked, this one shouldnt count either. But I wont dismiss it so easily. I will dismiss it by pointing out that payment for most services arent performance based. 0/3
- promises higher than reasonable predictable profits or bonus
10%pa doesnt seem out of line. And thats about as high as it gets. Certainly nothing like the 25%pa, or the 100%pa predictions we normally associate with ponzi schemes. Even if you think 10% is too high, it would be hard to say that it would exceed a reasonable prediction by more than 3%. 0/4
- ignores real risk
Who ignores risk? Certainly not the people making predictions of average market returns. The ups and downs of the market are accepted, understood, and addressed by real financial professionals. That is why they stress long-term investing; to reduce the impact of large short-term fluctuations. 0/5
- requires significant "up front" commitment
There is no up front commitment at all. KiwiSaver does not require any initial payment from investors. You can have a KiwiSaver account with as little as $1000. 0/6
- managed by untouchable senior or "management level" individuals
And you think because the investments are managed by people called "investment managers" that this somehow satisfies this condition? 0/7
- offers no bonus or advantage beyond membership
And you think that because KiwiSaver schemes have members that this somehow satisfies this condition? There are undeniable bonuses, and significant advantages beyond mere "membership".
0/8 and I am being generous. I could just as easily have given you -8/8 for all the errors you made. Did you miss anything? Yes. You missed every single one.
by Wolly | 21st Jan 12, 6:34am 1327080840
Good try Mr English... oops kimble...but no prize for you..
Kiwisaver stinks. It smells of a taxpayer slice of pork without which most suckers would not have joined....the suckers and all other taxpayers have to fund the pork....
The fund managers enjoy an endless stream of wealth for doing sweet FU. They are being paid fees for investing that pork..believe it or not!
Those in KS see no reason to learn to invest, and resort to believing the BS that they are being looked after.
Key has held on to Clark's vote buying KS scheme because he and National recognise it as a vote winner for them if they keep it going.....their decision is not about what is best for Kiwi families, evidenced by their continued landlord subsidy that distorts property prices...evidenced by property remaining seriously unaffordable for Kiwi families...evidence by the govts determination to protect the bankers property bubbles at all cost....evidenced by the govts direction to Bollard that the RBNZ do everything possible to keep the game going regardless of LVR levels or bank leverage risk.
by Kimble | 21st Jan 12, 11:15am 1327097700
So other tax payers are funding them? Not other investors? So not like a ponzi scheme?
Those in KS may choose not to learn to invest, but why should they? They are paying someone else to invest for them.
Are you arguing that because the fund managers dont do their work for free that this makes KS a ponzi scheme? Or is it that anyone hires a fund manager at all?
Your last paragraph actually has nothing to do with KS at all. It is a rambling mess.
Not a single feature of a ponzi scheme checks out for KiwiSaver.There are valid criticisms of KiwiSaver, but that it is a ponzi scheme is not one of them.
by moa man | 21st Jan 12, 7:36pm 1327127760
Here is a valid criticism of Kiwi Saver.
It involves taking my tax money, to pay retards - who can't be bothered looking after thier own finances , to employ some shiny suit , who in turn, generates a negative return for said retard.
A lose/lose situation for all involved - apart from the shiny suit guy.
by Gummy Bear Hero | 21st Jan 12, 7:59pm 1327129140
I agree with your synopsis , up to one point : Retards ! ...
....KiwiSaver doesn't just reward the undeserving retards , it's not only the politicians in KiwiSaver , some of the public signed up too ........
Yeah, perhaps calling them retards was a bit strong. But what is the correct term for a person who uses this thing called money, every day of their life, to pay for bread, milk, rent,mortgage or whatever, and can't be arsed to think about what will happen when they retire?
by Money Man | 22nd Jan 12, 10:10pm 1327223400
Kimble,
I agree that Kiwisaver has some faults but those who belive it is ponzi scheme have no idea or just choice not to believe.
I and my family are all in Kiwsaver and I have been in Staff Super schemes in the past. My employer pays me an extra 2% which goes into my KS scheme. If I wasn't a member then I woudl get thta 2%.
My dad was in the State Servents Super Scheme and I am sure he is happy with his $2,000 per month direct credit into his account. He contributed to the scheme for many years and now gets his return. Despite being a reasonally bright person he didn't have the time or knowledge to do the DYI investing.He found it more rewarding to be involved in community and voluntary work in his spare time than counting the pennys.
Now Mum and Dad live in reasonable comfort and don't have a bitter and twisted view of the word.
by Roger Witherspoon | 19th Jan 12, 1:27pm 1326932820
"Kiwisaver is a Ponzi scheme."
Stewth Wolly you are on fire these days. Another stunning summary in five words.
Sadly, the primary purpose of regulation is to protect the incumbents from new competitors..
It's very important that our most excellent corporate executives, politicians, bureaucrats and financial intermediaries can continue to award themselves generous compensation on the basis of their most excellent skill levels which are truly a wonder to behold. Your suggestion that they are justs pigs at the trough is totally out of order. I mean, who are you to judge your betters?
Shame on me....
by skudiv | 19th Jan 12, 1:36pm 1326933360
Obviously ANZ hasn't seen the latest Kiwisaver performance, low risk funds PWNT everything (except gold). Probably right that most Kiwis have no idea what is going on with anything.
These big banks could set up a loan product, that uses your kiwisaver funds to offset the interest on debt. Which would yield far higher then most funds, and would be very easy to manage and require very low fees. But that wouldnt exactly boost profits would it?
The only way to make a real return is from the govt tax reduction, and the employer contribution, which is why most people say "join, it's free money." Not realising that nothing is free, and the fund managers are rubbing their hands together, greedy for more.
by Waripori | 19th Jan 12, 3:22pm 1326939720
Some of the comment on here is just plain silly.
Kiwisaver is just a framework that makes it easy and advantageous for individuals to save for retirement. I suppose it is possible for one fund or another to be a Ponzi scheme but lumping them all together betrays either a complete lack of understanding or a nasty pain in the gut that only be soothed by expelling lots of bile.
The only one of the 8 characteristics of a Ponzi scheme that might fit some Kiwisaver schemes is number three relating to fees but the default providers in particular have signed up to a fairly low fee regime.
I have had my own modest investment in a defensive fund since inception and it has done OK but when interest rates do start to rise internationally we are going to see a collapse in bond valuations. The time to move to equities may not be far away.
by Justice | 20th Jan 12, 2:13pm 1327021980
On a lighter note: Can we have the microphone moved please? ;-)
by Gummy Bear Hero | 20th Jan 12, 2:35pm 1327023300
Yeah , we couldn't hear John clearly enough ....... and it blocked " the view " ...
"The assumption that equities will always return more than bonds is simply utter rubbish..."
Which is why nobody makes that assumption other than know-it-alls who bravely defend us from fierce and ferocious strawmen.
"Yet everything these guru's do is predicted on that one flawed assumption."
Except it isnt. You dont know what you are talking about. The most charitable thing I can say about your statements would be that they show you have misunderstood a simplified explanation and then assumed yourself an expert.
If there is any assumption that may come remotely close to the one you falsely accuse others of making, it is that equities are expected to out-perform bonds over a greater number of long time periods than those in which bonds out-perform equities.
Nothing about "always return more". Observations of bonds sometimes beating shares prove nothing.
by Black Celebration | 22nd Jan 12, 2:24pm 1327195440
This is just greed. There will be many people that will never, ever, look at their returns - this suggestion seems to want to take advantage of this. All the more reason to keep their money safe. The money belongs to *them*, not you - Mr Provider. Leave it alone.
There is nothing wrong with KiwiSaver members being defaulted into a conservative option and then moving more into shares if they choose to. They can do that now, very easily - when they're ready. Those that stay conservative may do so for a load of reasons. I know this beggars belief to the readers of sites like this but not everyone is after the highest returns.
Fund management charges for equities is (generally) higher - let's say 50 basis points. I think this is the "missed opportunity" that providers like this are referring to.
Calling it a "debate" is an attempt to make the idea sound less greedy than it is.
by Kimble | 22nd Jan 12, 7:15pm 1327212900
There IS something wrong with investors being put into low risk investments without any consideration of their time to retirement. And that is, that it reduces their expected return. You say that some people are fine with this, and I agree. But those people are at least aware of the trade-off. Others arent.
It isnt particularly brave to assume that there would be more people regretting the lower return than appreciating the lower risk at retirement. (And you must consider risk over decades, not months to truly appreciate the issue.)
by Black Celebration | 22nd Jan 12, 10:30pm 1327224600
I don't agree that a KiwiSaver member who is automatically enrolled should be defaulted into the most expensive and risky environment for their own long-term good.
There are billions of dollars in bank term deposits that might be served better elsewhere over the long term. But they remain in term deposits until the investor says otherwise. Which is how it should be.
There are graphs that tell us share markets have outperformed cash, bonds and property over the long term historically - yet these always assume a before tax and fees position (they can't be done any other way, to be fair).
We always tell people that they shouldn't look at historical performance to base their future investment decisions, yet this proposal is doing exactly that.
by Kimble | 23rd Jan 12, 10:41am 1327268460
Historical returns generally arent used in forecasts. At least not in the rudimentary way you imply (that future returns are assumed to be the same as the past). The charts showing historical returns simply show that what is expected in the future (equities generally out-performing bonds) is not unreasonable. It must be in the realm of possibility, because it is in the realm of experience.
I read what AMP is saying above as meaning that a person would be given an asset allocation depending on their age / time to retirement. So to be clear, we are not discussing putting a 55 year old employee into a leveraged emerging market equity fund. When the person gets closer to retirement, the allocation changes to more bonds and cash. The chances of someone near retirement suffering a massive loss is reduced.
Imagine you are talking to every KiwiSaver investor at retirement. Which do you think you would be most likely to hear. "I didnt pay attention to my KiwiSaver until now, I got put into a default fund and stayed there..."
A) ", it was all cash, which has meant that my savings havent even kept pace with inflation. I missed out on tens of thousands of dollars! The government should do something to make up for their poor decision!"
B) ", it was in mostly equities. It suffered a lot of ups and downs, but I wasnt paying attention so I didnt even notice. Still, I am annoyed that the government put my money into something volatile that, if I had been paying attention, I would have chosen not to be in!"
by Black Celebration | 23rd Jan 12, 12:14pm 1327274040
Yes, AMP's Lifesteps does gradually reduce the risk as one gets older - the funds are switched at certain birthdays. It does have a ring of logic to it - but I do maintain that people should agree to this kind of thing rather than having it thrust upon them.
To continue your theme, I would suggest additional words -
A) ...but then again, my contributions were doubled by my employer and enhanced by significant additional crown contributions - so overall I am well ahead, even though I was in a low risk fund. When sharemarkets suffered downturns, my capital was protected and this was good because I may have needed that money to help buy my first home. It turns out, in hindsight, I should have transferred to a growth fund on date X and date Y. That's my fault. I can't blame the Government because I had every opportunity to switch. But there are no guarantees and I noted that the providers all have warnings along those lines. I need this KiwiSaver money. I tend to be more adventurous with money that I can afford to lose.
B) ...I had no idea I was in such a volatile and expensive fund in the early years. They tell me that I have ended up with more money in my fund than I would have if I had stayed in a conservative default fund, which is great. But how much more have I got? 5%, 10%, 50% ? I don't know. I'll have to work it out myself. I hope that once I factor in the much higher management fees that I have been rewarded for the risks I have unwittingly taken. Was switching out of equities on my significant birthdays the best time to do it? For example, if I was 50 in late 2008, that would have been a bad time to cash up my equities holding - but my fund would have done that, regardless
In summary, the B) person may be happy if it turns out that he ends up with more money, but I sense he will be less happy when he does the mathematics.
by Kimble | 23rd Jan 12, 1:26pm 1327278360
A1) Buying a new home does add a wrinkle to the changing asset allocation structure. But it is debateable whether you should be able to use your KiwiSavings for investing in the property market in the first place.
A2) Relying on individuals taking personal responsiibility for the misallocation is just wishful thinking. It would be the least likely response.
A3) People are not likely to view the extra amount they got from their employer as an enhancement. It immediately becomes their money, and they would treat it as such. Thought experiment: what would people say if the government passed a law allowing the employer contributions to be reclaimed upon justified immediate dismissal? Also, people are correct to assume that money is theirs from the outset. Employers have very quickly changed their sums to include KiwiSaver in their costs of employment. So it is already considered part of someones remuneration. This has an effect on non-KiwiSaver salary.
B1) Investors could easily see how much they have gotten. As long as it is more than cash, they would be fine with it. If a person is only looking at their KiwiSaver at retirement, then it is only that value at retirement that they will care about. Their ride to the final destination wont matter to them, because they were asleep for the entire journey.
B2) The fees would be accounted for in their final balance, so are not a factor. Is anyone going to say, "If I was in cash I would have made much less money, but I would prefer that as I also wouldnt have had to pay a lot of fees!"
B3) Switching out on their birthdays (probably a specific date for all investors, to make things easier) is arbitrary, and may have resulted in a lower return. But the allocation to equities decreases over time, so it will only be opportunities they would have missed that would cause regret. That is, they will regret not being in a more aggressive fund. This undermines your other argument. B may have earned more, and they may regret this. But isnt your argument that people ought to earn even less in the cash-like default fund?
Your best argument would be that investors in the default funds are yet to make an active decision, but they are likely to do so in the near future. Keeping their funds temporarily in cash, protects the capital for their use when they come to make a proper decision. But even then I would argue, that it may be a couple of decades before the majority of people end up making that decision, and when they do, they are probably going to select a conservative fund because they are unaware of all the issues.
by Black Celebration | 23rd Jan 12, 4:43pm 1327290180
Kimble, I must say I admire your tenacity and I am enjoying this exchange (even if no-one else may be!).
From the top -
A1) Using KS to help buy a first home is a great thing to do for lots of people. It's not investing in the property market, it's buying a home for the first time.
A2) It is a person's own responsibility as to where the KS money is invested. If they decide not to think about it, then the money should be held somewhere nice and safe until they do. Imagine the "KiwiSaver rip-off" headlines that would have happened following the GFC if young people had defaulted to a 80% share allocation from October 2007! I really think it would have strangled KiwiSaver at birth.
A3) The Employer KS contribution is seen as remuneration if the employee has agreed in good faith that this is how it's going to work. For the majority of employees, the only way you can get that extra 2% from the employer is by joining KiwiSaver. If you don't, you miss out. Employers don't tend to give you that 2% in your paypacket if you decide not to join KS (it really is too hard to do that). If you invest 2% of your pay into a unit trust, that's how much goes in. If you invest 2% of your pay into KS, that amount is at least doubled by the employer and the crown contributions. Ergo, the employer money into KS is extra money that would not have been available any other way.
B1) Not true. They won't easily see how much they would have accumulated. Only by having a twin, investing the same amounts in a conservative fund at exactly the same times, will they be able to see the $ difference. It can be worked out, but it will be a mission and no-one will do it for them. What about the returns published in the paper and online? They only ever look at lump sums invested - not regular contributions, buying units. Fees are never satisfactorily handled either.
B2) Really? I would only be happy if the extra return was worth the risk. And I will only know that if I perform calculations like that described in B1 above. I once met a man who had bet his family's life savings on the All Blacks winning all the games in the Lions tour. He hadn't told his wife. Turns out he was right - and well done him. Despite this happy outcome, would his wife think that he did a good thing there? Hell, no! (as he readily admitted). But at least he did it on purpose, assessing the risk and knowing the exact reward. You don't get that luxury with long term investments.
If too much of my extra return was swallowed up in fees, then I would be unhappy that I had taken all the risk but had not been rewarded fairly.
B3) My argument is that the provider has no right to gamble KiwiSaver investors' money on unknown future outcomes without the full knowledge and permission of the investor. The theoretical flaw in Lifesteps that I discussed does not undermine anything else I have said.
A1) Buying a home at any time is making an investment. Your first home isnt necessarily the same one you will retire to, and many people consider "down-sizing" the residence as part of their retirement plan. I expect it would be fairly common that people would sell their house to fund their retirement.
A2) I agree it is a persons own responsibility where their KiwiSavings are invested. Ideally everyone would make an active decision (taking into account all relevant information, and not succumbing to undue fear), but that isnt the world we live in. The question we have to ask is, which option would end up being worse; someone foregoing retirement income, or someone being upset that their account encountered variance while they werent looking?
A3) You are right, employers cannot be assumed to give non-KS investing employees an extra 2%. But that wasnt my point. My point was that we can expect (overall, and on average) that non-KS remuneration in the future would be lower than it normally would be due to the extra KS costs. The type of remuneration has changed, not the total. Consider a requirement by government that every employee must be given a new car every 5 years from their employer. What would that do to wages? Would the employer just wear the extra amount, or would they change salaries?
B1) I wouldnt be too sure of no-one doing it for them. The variation in the cash rate is low enough that approximations of cashflows would be sufficient to get a good estimate of total "alternative" returns.
B2) You should complain about fees, it is your right as a consumer. What I am saying is that between the two options, cash fund and glide fund, if the glide fund ends up earning more even after fees, you would prefer that over the cash fund. Imagine a situation where a gnome walks up to you and says, "hey that money you lost down the back of the couch, I used it to invest in socks. Made a $100 profit too. Here is your initial amount, plus the $5 cash rate, plus another $1 for your troubles." You might think it unfair that he took so much, but would you then wish sock trading gnomes never existed?
B3) Even the default funds have risk. So what you are objecting to is the degree of the gamble, not the gambling itself. Again, which outcome is worse? Somebody being left with too little money at retirement, or that their sense of propriety is tweaked? Again, it would be nice if everyone did make a decision, but assuming they dont which option would cause more harm? AMP thinks that it could be $72k per person bad.
That's the thing, you see. ANZ (not AMP, BTW) reckon/think/estimate that the person would be $72K worse off. But they don't *know*, do they? What if they're wrong? In the mid 1980s in swingin' London, the Great and the Good (including the regulators) thought that 13% p.a. return for a shares fund over the next 30 years was a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.
Yes, I am making a case for the retention of the present conservative default portfolio, not cash. Why? Because they have proved to be relatively safe funds, the fees are low and there is a smigin of diversity in there - showing the value that can be added by spreading risk across asset sectors. The degree of the gamble is important, yes - especially when it is someone else's money and they are trusting you not to blow it.
I love the idea of sock-trading gnomes, but your scenario reminds me more of the shady character who says "don't ask too many questions love, buy yourself something nice", while stuffing a wad of cash down my bra.
by Kimble | 24th Jan 12, 12:26pm 1327361160
Oops, my mistake on the ANZ/AMP mix up.
Sure they dont "know", nobody does. Then again, you dont know that the cash return will be positive either. It is a safer bet, but we are just talking about differing levels of certainty. You ask, what if they are wrong? I would say that they are almost certainly wrong. The chances of the difference being $72k is near infinitely small.
Their estimate is the difference in the median expected ending values. The difference could be much much greater, or it might be smaller. The thing is, the life cycle model has a $72k buffer.The expected median for the cash fund is $248k, while the median for life-cycle is $320k. I wonder what the variance is around those figures. IN any case, it would be smaller for the cash fund.
The average allocation over time of the life-cycle fund may end up just a little more aggressive than the default funds anyway. In any case, the risk being taken would be greatest at the point in time when the investor is safest being exposed to it.
The detail I thought particularly interesting was that the minimum returns from a conservative and a life stages fund were expected to be about the same. Can it really be the case that a life stages approach cannot deliver a worse outcome than a conservative one?
by Kimble | 24th Jan 12, 4:54pm 1327377240
I reckon you would find that the "minimum" return was not the absolute minimum. Theoretically, all minimum returns are -100%. That is, there is always a non-zero chance of losing the lot in any investment, its just that that non-zero chance is smaller for some investments than others.
The minimum could have been the bottom of a range that contained 95 or 99 percent of expected outcomes.
What you see in the relative minimums probably has to do with the magic of long-term investment forcasts. Over a longer and longer period, the range of probable returns gets smaller and smaller. Extend the time period to infinity and the range around the expected returns becomes infinitely small. It will always be the case that at some time period between one second and infinity, the lower end of the expected return range of a more aggressive (higher earning) investment will overtake that of a conservative one.
Of course, it matters how wide the range was to begin with. 99% is a lot wider than 50% :)
by Black Celebration | 24th Jan 12, 4:42pm 1327376520
Yes, exactly. We are talking about different levels of certainty. Nothing wrong with that. When you have got someone else's money to invest, and they haven't given you any guidance on what they want you to do with it, then I think there is a responsibility to do your very best not to blow it. It's not a green light to take a bit of a punt and charge higher fees.
Having it just in cash is a little bit too cautious. But the asset spread of a default conservative fund is about right, I think.
If the investor eventually grumbles about the fact that they could have, in hindsight, achieved a better return by switching, then pull up a chair and sit alongside every investor that has ever lived. They could have done something, but they didn't.
1) The level of certainty relates to the time period. Roughly speaking, over a longer time period, the greater the certainty of an investment return. The conservative fund is good at the moment because you could be having someone with a short time frame investing in them. The issue ANZ raises is that many of those invested actually have a very very long time frame.
2) Other investors who have regreted their missed opportunities wont demand that other tax payers compensate them.
1) I don't buy that argument, for reasons I have explained at some length above.
2) They can demand all they like, but taxpayers won't compensate them.
1) Can you repeat the specific reasons why time horizon isnt a factor?
2) They are taxpayers.
1) Comparing the historical growth of "property", "shares", "fixed interest" and "cash" indexes will definitely deliver the results you describe. Absolutely right. But there's far more to it than that. Before we all stampede towards equities, consider what the additional cost is to the investor is for doing that. Can we say for sure that the risk is worth the reward?
2) So what?
2) Taxpayers who vote. To whom politicians will pander.
1) The results I describe? I was talking about the range of expected outcomes, not some final result. That range is moved up or down by difference in the fee level, but the reduction in variance over longer periods is independent of fees.
Obviously additional fees of 25% would make any product change idiotic, while equal fees would make fees a non-issue in the switch. So the level of fees matters as to whether the it is a relevant issue on the new product. But I havent seen anywhere above any mention of the actual fee difference, which is why I reckoned it wasnt your objection. Are you just assuming that the fees will be unacceptable?
In any case, ANZ was talking about final account balance, so their results would appear to be net of fees (and tax). But that is beside the point. The risk of equities to someone investing over 40 years is less than the risk for someone investing for just 1 month.
by Black Celebration | 24th Jan 12, 10:29pm 1327397340
I thought I had been clear that my objection was based on the increased risk and higher fees charged to people, without their permission.
This release has come from a provider who will stand to benefit financially from such a change. At least allow your eyebrow to raise just a little bit?
Of course ANZ will charge more for the life cycle product, it is a higher value product. I am not going to assume that because someone gets paid for something, that the benefits of that service dont exist. If they are wrong, point out their error.
I dont think you have really addressed the increased risk issue. The longer time horizon reduces the risk.
by Black Celebration | 25th Jan 12, 7:53am 1327431180
Based on...the historical performance of the asset sectors. Absolutely no-one knows what the future holds and we are retiring in the future. Academic certainty isn't Certainty.
This is similar to the bloke in the casino that gives expert advice to the baffled newbie on the routlette table. As the punter loses everything, the expert says "Oh, now that's really weird...that has never happened before " And then walks away.
Remember, they haven't told us what they want - so we have to assume that the KiwiSaver member is relying on this money for retirement. We need to treat it with care and keep it safe.
by Kimble | 25th Jan 12, 11:35am 1327444500
No one knows what the future holds, which is why they look at ranges of future outcomes rather than just the medians. You are treating ANY risk as TOO MUCH risk for anyone without much consideration for the range of possible returns.
What I said was... "Having it just in cash is a little bit too cautious. But the asset spread of a default conservative fund is about right, I think."
Happy for you have the last word, go for it.
Dont give up, we are finally refining the opposing view points down to their fundamental components!
If you think the asset spread of the default funds is about right, what are your specific reasons? Why is 20% risky assets better than 40%? And why doesnt investment time frame matter in that difference?
Oh, go on then.
You seem to have corralled the exchange to make it look like a debate about investment theory (which gives the issue far more credence than it deserves).
Testing an investor's attitude to risk and what they want to do may well result in offering the kind of investment mix that you describe. Quite right. No arguments there.
In this case, we don't know who they are, what their health is like, whether they want to buy a first home, whether they are planning to stay in NZ for the long term, if they have dependants, if they have a job, if they have a mortgage, if they have insurance, if they have massive debt, if they are already millionaires, whether they are likely to even make it to age 65 - or are they se to inherit a fortune. Once you know all those things (and many more) you can recommend a long-term financial retirement plan and, if appropriate, suggest growth funds as a suitable long term berth for this money.
Conversely, it shouldn't just be put under a mattress. I suggest the conservative mix because those are low cost and have weathered the GFC storm pretty well - which is KiwiSaver's first exposure to volatility. Opportunities are there to make the most of volatility over the long-term, sure, but that should be done with the knowledge and permission of the investor. The money belongs to them.
Ignoring the 'home purchase' issue, all those other things would be relevant for whether someone should be in KiwiSaver at all. None of them are relevant to someone already in KiwiSaver. You cant take your money out until retirement (unless you need it due to extreme hardship, which is going to be rare).
Over 40 years, almost all KiwiSaver funds will have weathered the GFC storm. None went broke, and the earning potential of those that suffered the most is generally higher than those who suffered the least.
Why is it that we must get permission from the investor to invest in some assets, but not others? The fact that the money is theirs doesnt have any relevance to this discussion. The question is, what should we do given that the money is theirs and they havent told us what to do with it?
Chaps, you may or may not be gratified to know that you retain at least one loyal follower who is finding the conversation much more edifying and informative than is the normal standard round here. But I would like to lob in the thought that this is not about the investment strategy that is most likely to suit most people - it is about the extent and nature of the Government's duty towards those who can't help themselves.
This is limited, partly of course by public cost and resources, but also because of the risk of the unintended side effect - encouraging apathy amongst those who won't help themselves.
The better the default option, the less the downside of non-engagement and of bad decision-making; and the less the incentive for people to put thought into their long term financial decision making for themselves. Is that good or bad?
We have made a decision as a society, to look after those that cant do so for themselves. People who end up in retirement with no savings will be looked after as long as we dont reverse that decision.
Given that, we are in a situation of having to deal with those future costs of government. KiwiSaver is a way to reduce that future public liability, paid for through taxation, and replace at least part of it with peoples own savings. In this respect, it doesnt help us much to reduce the amount of peoples savings, as we will end up having to make up the difference anyway.
I dont think it is the role of government to reduce the expected value of a persons savings, simply to teach them a lesson. Especially when we know they arent even attending the class.
Thanks MdeM.
The reason why I talk about health is that KiwiSaver acts as a possible death benefit too, which is something often overlooked. If the member's dad and grandad died in their 50s - making it all the way to 65 may be touch-and-go ( 20% of maori and pacific island men are not expected to reach age 65 according to Statistics NZ mortality tables).
Kimble, your final paragraph is worded very well indeed. And yet I do remain of the view that the KiwiSaver money that comes from the enigmatic default source is ours to look after and keep in the garage under a tarp. By all means, give it a runaround every now and then to keep things ticking over, but preserve it's value - because you never know when the owner will want to use it.
Find your fund
Compare fund categories
Offer for readers
Follow auction results in our searchable database, even passed-ins
The smart & simple way to send money overseas at better rates than banks
Subscribe to our daily Banking & Finance email for senior finance professionals
Property >
Borrowing >
Saving >
Kiwisaver >
Banking >
Insurance >
Personal >
Rural >
Currencies >
Charts >
Calculators >
Bonds >
About Contact us Sitemap Terms and Conditions Privacy Advertise
© 2019 interest.co.nz


text:
BRETT YORMARK TO LEAD NEWLY ESTABLISHED ADVISORY BOARD OF HAYMON SPORTS, LLC
Premier Boxing Champions
7 months ago FightBookMMA
LAS VEGAS– Brett Yormark, Chief Executive Officer of BSE Global (BSE), has been tapped to lead the newly established Advisory Board for Haymon Sports, LLC, the creator of boxing's preeminent brand, the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC).
Yormark leads BSE, which manages and controls Barclays Center, NYCB LIVE, home of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, the Brooklyn Nets, the New York Islanders and other New York venues. The Haymon Sports Advisory Board will help to fuel the direction for Haymon Sports by advising its leadership team on branding strategy, cross-licensing opportunities, commercialization, and future growth initiatives for PBC. Yormark will be identifying leaders in the sports, entertainment, and brand space, and a complete list of members will be announced in early 2019.
"I am looking forward to working with Haymon Sports, Al Haymon, and the PBC to lead the Advisory Board," said Yormark. "The sport of boxing is a great passion of mine, and working with Haymon Sports and the PBC to bring the most exciting fights to Barclays Center has been incredibly rewarding. I am looking forward to working with them to find new ways to grow the profile of the sport in Brooklyn and beyond."
"We're excited that Brett will be assisting us with the continued growth of the PBC. He has done a remarkable job as CEO of BSE Global and he brings global experience and talents to this advisory role," said Tim Smith, Vice President of Communications for Haymon Boxing.
Under Yormark's leadership BSE has secured first-class programming for its venues. Through BROOKLYN BOXING, Barclays Center has hosted more than 200 fights and dozens of world championship bouts, involving some of the biggest stars in the sport today.
Yormark was instrumental in securing the rights of Barclays Center being named the east coast home of PBC Boxing. Under that agreement, which was announced in September, Barclays Center will host a minimum of eight PBC shows per year. Yormark also serves on the WBC Supreme Council.
In making Barclays Center a destination stop for college basketball, Yormark secured agreements to host the First and Second Rounds of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament in 2016, the ACC Men's Basketball Tournament in 2017, 2018 and 2022, and the upcoming NCAA Men's Basketball Regional in 2021. The venue also hosted the Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Championship for four consecutive years, which returns to the venue in 2019, 2020, and 2021.
In addition to sports programming, Yormark oversees the BROOKLYN SHOW and LONG ISLAND SHOW platforms, which brings the biggest names in music to Barclays Center and NYCB LIVE, home of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, including JAY-Z, Beyoncé, Barbra Streisand, Bruce Springsteen and more.
Yormark is a member of the Board of Advisory Directors for both the Brooklyn Nets and Barclays Center. In addition to co-founding the BSE Advisory Board, Yormark is also on the board of the City Parks Foundation, the TJ Martell Foundation and NYC & Company.
Tags: Advisory Board, boxing, BRETT YORMARK, HAYMON SPORTS LLC, LEAD, NEWLY ESTABLISHED
Previous Greg Cohen Promotions Signs New York Prospects Zachary Ochoa and Oscar Moreno to Exclusive Promotional Contracts
Next Undefeated Abraham Nova Returns Tonight in Belgium

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


To add up the hype, the festival has added three more artists to the already stellar 2019 festival line-up featuring sensational Kiwi pop singer Robinson, award-winning alt-indie Sydney rockers Middle Kids and talented indie synth-pop act Daffodils.
Unfortunately, electro-pop songstress Billie Eilish will no longer perform at the Auckland Laneway next year due international scheduling conflicts. She may have cancelled her concert slot, the three additional acts are a superb enhancement to the line-up of one of the most talked festivals of 2019!
Laneway Festival fans can gain access to pre-sale tickets by using Visa Checkout. Register now at visacheckout.co.nz and add any major payment card (debit or credit). Advance tickets will be available from Thursday 20th September at 9am (local time).


+ The inside with the Venza can also be very rated. It is extremely at ease and roomy. In addition to this it provides exciting new storage characteristics. It easily seats 5 grownups, with seat precise local weather control. It has a six disk Compact disk changer along with a power driver's seat. A rearseat DVD system is likewise optional. The cargo is the most impressive element, with more than 30 cubic ft of room when most of the seats are increasingly being used, and an awesome seventy cubic toes while using the rear seats folded down. Storage for the smaller sized objects is easy, with double cup holders which are illuminated. The rear seats are certainly simply modified with foldflat levers.
+ The driving knowledge of a Toyota Venza is enjoyable and responsible for day to day use. Numerous reviewers have deemed it the ideal midsized crossover during this selling price vary. It has led several reviewers to claim which the standard activity utility motor vehicle has become old information. As Toyota automobiles go, this is certainly among the list of best from the course.
+ There are many sport shirts readily available in the marketplace that use bamboo carbon odor control to avoid smelliness. Furthermore, these shirts are designed with an ultraviolet protection component of fifty. The individuals who generate bamboo carbon declare the material will maintain everything from meals to feet smelling contemporary for times. Possibly there's one thing to these claims mainly because immediately after are fish for 2 times in hot weather conditions, then you can certainly explain to this shirt smells rather new. These shirts are also worked for a light-weight windbreaker. Having said that, with its slender collar and oddly formed breast pockets, the shirt seems to be an excess of like, properly, a fishing shirt. If it resembled a casual gown shirt, then you definitely would nevertheless dress in it everywhere you go.
+ Not a book from the true feeling of the phrase, but like I reported over, extra a group of Jillian's tough, nononsense, hard and distinct style of preserve healthy. I usually do not know if you own Jillian Michaels prime book Creating The Slash but these whole on exercising exercise session circuits are drawn from that fantastic ebook. Acquiring these along with you is going to be like obtaining Jillian alongside side, inspiring you to finally hit your goal excess weight and hold it there.
+ 14. I exploit the bottom of DRANZER, excess fat disk of DRIGOR, and assault ring of DRACIEL. It offers me excellent stamina, plus a powerful attack electrical power though keeping my opponent absent alongside one another while using the spikes round the attack ring.
+ Very well picture for just a second how effortless it might be once you wherever able to acquire all individuals preserving suit solutions along with you. Not a great deal as inside the form of one's e-book, as this wouldn't be functional, but as fifty mix and match up, particular cards which might be gentle, small, portable which allow it to become combined and matched to generate your very own special exercises. Enter Jillian Michaels ebook come card set Incredibly hot Bod Within a Box.
+ The simple component of the diet regime program is making ready the foods aspect of these, in reality your eating prepare is actually shut when you are organizing your meals. The complicated piece is every time you journey to the sports middle, having to recall all of the different routines, routines and preserving match essential details you could have uncovered out of your newest diet book is usually fairly tricky, over ever inside the hustle and bustle with the gymnasium atmosphere  I've been there and it's possibly appropriate to mention the most effective part of other folks also have.
+ In addition there are some longsleeve crew shirts which might be created with from a vapor wick material, which the manufactures claims will attract perspiration to your external, where it evaporates quickly. The material does this by way of the usage of numerous "hydrophobic" fibers. These shirts are lightweight and work very well like a initial layer below a jacket or windbreaker, but might be too thin to become worn on it's own on cold, windy times. About the good side, the fabric won't come to feel slick and cold like other artificial material. In actual fact, it virtually feels like cotton.


This represents the death that was associated with the second seal. In the quote on the previous page, Gibbon estimates that half of the Roman Empire died due to famine and disease in just a 15 year period between 250-265 A.D.
This seal represents the great persecution of Christians that took place from 303-313 A.D. under the rule of Emperor Diocletian. On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly built church in Nicomedia be destroyed, along with its scriptures. The next day, Diocletian published an edict which ordered the destruction of all places of Christian worship and scriptures in the Roman Empire. A few days later, part of the imperial palace was destroyed in a fire. Galerius, Diocletian's son-in-law, convinced Diocletian that the culprits were Christians, and several people were executed, although there was no evidence. This persecution continued until the Edict of Milan was released in 313. The Edict of Milan was signed by emperors Constantine I who ruled the west and Licinius who ruled the east. It returned churches back to Christians and legalized Christianity.
Next, Revelation mentions a "scroll rolling up." Before 360 A.D. people used scrolls instead of books. Therefore a "scroll rolling up" is the same as a "book closing." The heavenly book is the Bible. For the next thousand years, the Church stopped teaching the Bible to Christians. The Church claimed that only their leaders received revelation from God, so Christians had to trust their leaders to obtain salvation. In 663, Pope Vitalian of Rome even mandated that Church service be spoken in Latin only, depriving even more people from understanding God's true word.
In this passage, Revelation is talking about the rich and powerful pagans during the 4th century. They hid because paganism had been banned and now Christianity was the only legal religion. In 395 A.D., Emperor Theodosius I died and he divided the succession into east and west between his sons Arcadius and Honorius. This marks the end of the judgment on Rome, and the end of the sixth seal.


text:
\section{Introduction}
Despite intensive efforts in the last two decades understanding the nature of the pseudogap phase in cuprate high temperature
superconductors remains an open problem \cite{Norman:2005}. At zero hole doping, the insulating parent compounds of these systems are three-dimensional (3D) antiferromagnetic insulators.
As holes are introduced, the superconducting transition temperature ($T_c$) is finite above a critical doping, reaching a maximum at a hole concentration  known as optimal doping. The regime with hole doping less than optimal -- known as underdoped regime -- hosts the remarkable pseudogap phase. In this regime, the normal (non-superconducting) phase above $T_c$ has an anisotropic spectral gap of unknown origin (`pseudo'-gap), and behaves strikingly differently from a Fermi liquid. It is generally understood that the crux of the problem of $d$-wave pairing resides in the pseudogap phase, from which superconductivity develops at lower temperatures.

The idea that in the underdoped regime of the cuprates various charge, spin, or current ordered states compete with superconductivity has been apparent in the past few years~\cite{Varma:1997,Chakravarty:2001,Kivelson:2003,Hosur:2012,Orenstein:2012,Chakravarty:2013,Wu:2011,Wu:2013}.
A compelling evidence is provided in the class of materials YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ (YBCO), in which, upon suppression of superconductivity by a strong magnetic field, exquisite quantum oscillations of various electronic properties with the applied field point to the existence of Fermi surface pockets \cite{Doiron-Leyraud:2007,Sebastian:2008}. Since in the overdoped regime the Fermi surface is large and hole-like, the existence of Fermi pockets in the underdoped regime indicates a Fermi surface reconstruction near optical doping. A change in the topology of the Fermi surface from hole-like at higher doping to electron-like at low doping is also indicated by measurements of low temperature Hall and Seebeck coefficients which turn negative in the underdoped regime \cite{LeBoeuf:2007,Chang:2010,Laliberte:2011}.
Although various charge, spin, and current ordered states have been proposed to account for the Fermi surface reconstruction in YBCO \cite{Chakravarty-Kee,Millis-Norman}, none had so far been observed in bulk-sensitive probes until recently.

In recent X-ray diffraction experiments, two groups have independently discovered \cite{Chang:2012,Ghiringhelli:2012,Kivelson,Tranquada} strong evidence for an
incipient charge density wave (CDW) instability (with scattering peaks at wave vectors $Q_1=(q_1,0,0.5)$ and $Q_2=(0,q_2,0.5)$, with $q_1 \sim q_2 \sim 0.31$) competing with superconductivity in a range of doping in the underdoped regime of YBCO. Although not conclusively known if the peaks derive from equal distributions of domains with only uni-axial CDW correlations (i.e., with modulations given by only $Q_1=(q_1,0,0.5)$ or $Q_2=(0,q_2,0.5)$)  or a bi-axial CDW with both wave vectors co-existing, the lack of anisotropy in the scattering signals (intensities, widths) indicates a coupling between $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ and a bi-axial CDW order. The temperature ($T$) dependent correlation length above $T_c$ and only short ranged correlations perpendicular to the CuO$_2$ planes indicate that the observed charge order is only quasi-static. However, the near divergence of the correlation length as $T \rightarrow T_c$ (and that the scattering signals significantly increase on application of magnetic field below $T_c$) indicate that a true thermodynamic CDW transition at some critical temperature ($T_{CDW}<T_c$) is preempted by the superconducting transition at $T_c$. Evidence for a similar charge density wave transition in the underdoped regime has also been found in other recent experiments~\cite{LeBoeuf:2013,Hinton:2013,sebastian:2014,Fujita:2014,Comin:2014}.

In this paper we treat a two-dimensional (2D) bi-axial $Q_1=(2\pi/3,0)$ and $Q_2=(0,2\pi/3)$ CDW state in mean field theory (valid for temperatures $T<T_{CDW}$ and magnetic fields high enough to eliminate the superconductivity) and investigate the reconstructed Fermi surface and experimentally measured transport coefficients as functions of temperature and hole doping appropriate for the underdoped regime of the cuprates. Although the experimental evidence is that for a slight incommensuration in the CDW scattering vectors (i.e., $q_1 \sim q_2 \sim 0.31$) in this paper we work with a commensurate CDW for simplicity (i.e. we take $q_1=q_2=0.33$, corresponding to charge modulations with periodicity of three lattice vectors). We find that, below the CDW transition temperature and in the appropriate regime of hole doping, the Fermi surface topology changes from a large hole-like Fermi surface at higher doping to a few
electron and hole-like Fermi pockets in the CDW state.
A similar fermi surface reconstruction in terms of a different CDW state was recently assumed to explain the low frequency of quantum oscillations in the pseudogap phase of the cuprates~\cite{sebastian}.
An explanation of the Fermi pockets observed in the recent quantum oscillation experiment in Ref.~\cite{sebastian:2014} in terms of the bi-axial CDW state considered in the present work is left for future study.
We calculate the CDW Hall and Seebeck coefficients using the Kubo formula which reduces to the Boltzmann expressions in the experimentally appropriate limits. We show that, in the appropriate doping range where the low temperature phase (in the absence of superconductivity) is a bi-axial CDW, the Hall and Seebeck coefficients turn negative for $T<T_{CDW}$, as seen in the experiments. Our calculations establish that the recent observations of strong incipient CDW instability in YBCO \cite{Chang:2012,Ghiringhelli:2012} are broadly consistent with the other recent experimental surprises in underdoped regime, namely, the existence of Fermi surface pockets \cite{Doiron-Leyraud:2007,Sebastian:2008} and negative low temperature transport coefficients indicating Fermi surface reconstruction \cite{LeBoeuf:2007,Chang:2010,Laliberte:2011}.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{secii}, we calculate the Fermi surface in the presence of a bi-axial $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ CDW order parameter in mean-field theory. We present in Sec.~\ref{seciii} the temperature and doping dependent crossover in sign of the Hall and Seebeck coefficients using the Kubo formula. In Sec.~\ref{seciv}, we show that such sign changes in the coefficients does not occur in a uni-axial CDW state. We summarize and conclude in Sec.~\ref{secv}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = 1\linewidth]{fermi_surface_cdw.eps}
\caption{
(color online)
{(a) The CDW band structure from the eigenvalues $E_n( \mathbf{k} )$ of the matrix $H( \mathbf{k} )$, Eq.~(\ref{h_matrix}). The chemical potential, corresponding to hole doping $p=0.125$, is noted by a dashed line. Here, the CDW order parameter $W = 0.069$ eV at $T=0$.
(b) The Fermi surface for $p=0.125$ in the first Brillouin zone. The green dashed square in the middle represents the reduced Brillouin zone (RBZ) boundary determined by the CDW momenta $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. Note that the Fermi surface in the CDW state consists of two electron pockets in RBZ: one large electron pockets at the center $(0,0)$ and the corners $(\pi/3,\pi/3)$ of the RBZ (red) and two hole pockets at the boundary $(\pi/3,0)$ and $(0,\pi/3)$ (red).
}
}
\label{fermi_surface_cdw}
\end{figure}

\section{Mean-field Hamiltonian and CDW Fermi surface\label{secii}}
To calculate the Fermi surface and the normal-state quasiparticle Hall and Seebeck coefficients, we consider electrons on a two-dimensional square lattice of unit lattice constant, with a dispersion given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{dispersion}
\varepsilon_ \mathbf{k}
&=&
-2t \left( \cos k_x + \cos k_y  \right) +
4 t^\prime \cos k_x  \cos k_y
\nonumber\\
&&-2t^{\prime\prime} \left( \cos 2 k_x + \cos 2 k_y \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $t$ is a nearest-neighbor, $t^\prime$ is a next-nearest-neighbor, and $t^{\prime\prime}$ is a next-to-next-nearest-neighbor hopping integrals. For the Fermi surface of YBCO measured in photoemission experiments, we choose the parameters $t=0.3$ eV, $t^\prime = 0.32 t$, and $t^{\prime\prime} = 0.1 t^\prime$.
Within a mean-field picture, the Hamiltonian for the CDW state is described by the quasiparticles subject to a periodic modulation with wave vector $Q_1=(2\pi/3,0)$ and $Q_2=(0,2\pi/3)$,
\begin{equation}
H_{MF}
=\sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,\sigma} \left( \varepsilon_ \mathbf{k}  - \mu \right) c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma}^\dagger c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma}+
\sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,Q_i,\sigma} W_{Q_i} c_{ \mathbf{k} +Q,\sigma}^\dagger c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma} + H.c.,
\end{equation}
where $c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma}$ is the annihilation operator for an electron of spin $\sigma$ and momentum $ \mathbf{k} $, and
$
W_{Q_i} = U\sum_{ \mathbf{k} } \langle c_{ \mathbf{k} +Q_i, \sigma}^\dagger c_{ \mathbf{k} , \sigma} \rangle
$ is a CDW order parameter with on-site Coulomb repulsion $U$.
By taking $W_{Q_1} = W_{Q_2} =  W$, we can express the Hamiltonian in terms of a nine-component quasiparticle spinor $\psi_\sigma( \mathbf{k} )$ as
\begin{equation}
H_{MF} =
\sum_{ \mathbf{k}  \in \text{RBZ},\sigma}
\psi_\sigma^\dagger( \mathbf{k} ) H( \mathbf{k} ) \psi_\sigma( \mathbf{k} ),
\end{equation}
where the reduced Brillouin zone (RBZ) is given by $|k_x|, |k_y|\le \pi / 3$, and  $H( \mathbf{k} )$ is $9\times 9$ matrix
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\label{h_matrix}
H( \mathbf{k} ) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\xi_{ \mathbf{k} } & W & W & W & 0 & 0 & W & 0 & 0\\
W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} +Q_1} & W & 0 & W & 0 & 0 & W & 0\\
W & W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} -Q_1} & 0 & 0 & W & 0 & 0 & W\\
W & 0 & 0 & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} +Q_2} & W & W & W & 0 & 0\\
0 & W & 0 & W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} +Q_1+Q_2} & W & 0 & W & 0 \\
0 & 0 & W & W & W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} -Q_1+Q_2} & 0 & 0 & W \\
W & 0 & 0 & W & 0 & 0 & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} -Q_2} & W & W \\
0 & W & 0 & 0 & W & 0 & W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} +Q_1-Q_2} & W \\
0 & 0 & W & 0 & 0 & W & W & W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} -Q_1-Q_2}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
The energy spectrum $E_n( \mathbf{k} )$ and corresponding eigenoperators $\chi_n( \mathbf{k} )$ can be obtained by diagonalizing the matrix $H( \mathbf{k} )$.
Note that the chemical potential has to be adjusted for the value of $W$ to preserve the doping $p$.
The number of electrons per unit cell equals $2N$ due to spin degeneracy, and the doping of the cuprates is counted from half-filling, hence $p = 1 - 2N\,$, where $N$ is the occupied part of the Brillouin zone
\begin{equation}
N = \sum_{ \mathbf{k}  \in \text{RBZ},n} f(E_n( \mathbf{k} ))\,,
\end{equation}
where $f(x) = 1/(1+\exp (x/T)$ is a Fermi distribution function. We find that at $T=0$, $\mu = -0.6989 t$ corresponds to half-filled ($p=0$) and $\mu = -1.0027 t$ corresponds to $p = 0.125$. In Fig.~\ref{fermi_surface_cdw}, we plot the band structure and the Fermi surface corresponding to the CDW state from the eigenvalues $E_n( \mathbf{k} )$ for hole doping $p=0.125$ in the first Brillouin zone. We find that the Fermi surface consists of electron pockets as well as hole pockets in the reduced Brillouin zone given by the green dashed line. Note that there are two electron pockets in RBZ: one electron pocket at the center $(0,0)$ and the other at the corners $(\pi/3,\pi/3)$ of the RBZ (blue and red), and two hole pockets at the boundary $(\pi/3,0)$ and $(0,\pi/3)$ (red).  Since for higher doping, the free electron Fermi surface in the absence of CDW (given by $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ in Eq.~(\ref{dispersion}) set to the chemical potential) is large and hole-like, the electron pockets in Fig.~\ref{fermi_surface_cdw} at lower doping indicate a
doping-induced Fermi surface reconstruction.

\section{Hall and Seebeck Coefficients\label{seciii}}
In linear-response theory, three conductivity tensors $\hat \sigma$, $\hat \alpha$, and $\hat \kappa$ are related with charge current $\vec J$ and thermal current $\vec Q$ such as
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\vec J \\ \vec Q
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat \sigma & \hat \alpha \\
T \hat \alpha & \hat \kappa
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\vec E \\ - \vec \nabla T
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The electric field induced by a thermal gradient in the absence of an electric current $\vec J = 0$ is given by $\vec E = \hat \sigma^{-1} \hat \alpha \vec \nabla T$. Therefore, the Seebeck coefficient $S$, defined as the $E_x$ generated by a thermal gradient $\nabla_x T$, reads as, $S = \alpha_{xx}/\sigma_{xx}$.
The Hall coefficient, defined as the transverse $E_{y}$ generated by a magnetic field $B$, is given by $R_H = \sigma_{xy}/\sigma_{xx}^2$.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{temp_dep.eps}
\caption{
Temperature dependence of the Seebeck and Hall coefficients in the CDW state.
(a) Normal-state Seebeck coefficients $S/T$ at various doping concentrations $p$ are plotted as a function of temperature $T$.
The negative Seebeck coefficients at low temperature for $p=0.092$ and $0.125$ are ascribed to the electron pockets in the Fermi surface due to the CDW, while $S/T$ at $p=0.08$ ($W=0$) remains positive.
(b) Hall coefficients $R_H$ in arbitrary units for various $p$ are plotted as a function of $T$.
The sign of the Hall coefficient changes at lower temperature for $p=0.092$ and 0.125, while it remains positive at all temperatures for $p=0.08$.
}
\label{fig-temp_dep}
\end{figure}

We calculate the dc transport properties using the Kubo formula by applying perturbative electric and magnetic fields: $\vec E = E_0 \hat x \cos \omega t$, $\vec B = q \hat z A_0 \sin q y$.
Further, we assume that the scattering time $\tau(E, \mathbf{k} )$ is independent of the energy, but momentum dependent: $\tau(E, \mathbf{k} ) = \tau( \mathbf{k} )$.
Phenomenologically, we retain a possible momentum dependence of the scattering time because, as has been shown before, an assumption of a momentum independent $\tau$ results in a negative Seebeck coefficient in the normal state~\cite{hildebrand, kontani, storey} (i.e., above the CDW transition temperature), inconsistent with experiments. In this work we assume the scattering time $\tau( \mathbf{k} ) = ( 1 + \alpha  ( \cos k_x + \cos k_y ) )^2$ with $\alpha=0.4$. This form of $\tau(k)$ is purely phenomenological and designed to enhance the contribution of the free fermion hole pockets at high temperatures (i.e., above the CDW transition temperature) located near $(\pi,\pi)$ and symmetry related points in the first Brillouin zone. By enhancing the contribution of the hole pockets the high temperature ($W=0$) Seebeck coefficient is positive, in accordance with the experiments~\cite{Chang:2012,Ghiringhelli:2012}. The precise functional
form of $\tau(k)$ is unimportant, however, and any other momentum dependence of the scattering time that enhances the contribution of the high temperature hole pockets to the Seebeck coefficient works just as well. Let us also emphasize that the drop in the Seebeck and Hall coefficients with decreasing $T$ and the eventual negative sign at low temperatures (Fig.~\ref{fig-temp_dep}) are both robust features of the bi-axial CDW state and are immune to variations in the precise functional forms of the scattering time. In particular they continue to hold even with a $k$-independent $\tau$.

To lowest order in the applied fields $\vec{E},\vec{B}$,
the conductivity $\sigma_{xx}$ is given by the Fourier transform of the imaginary time-ordered current-current correlation function, $$\sigma_{xx} = \lim_{q\to 0} \frac{1}{\omega} \text{Im}\int^{1/T} d\tau e^{i(\omega+i\delta)\tau} \langle T_\tau J_x(q,\tau)J_x(q,\tau)\rangle,$$ and
$\sigma_{xy}$ is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{xy} &=& \lim_{q\to 0}\frac{B}{\omega q} \text{Re} \int_0^{1/T} d\tau d\tau^\prime e^{i(\omega+i\delta)\tau} \nonumber\\\nonumber
&\times &
\langle
T_\tau J_y(q,\tau) J_x(0,0) J_y(-q,\tau^\prime)
\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_i = e \sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,n} \chi_n^\dagger( \mathbf{k} ) \frac{\partial E_n( \mathbf{k} )}{\partial k_i} \chi_n( \mathbf{k} )$ is the electric current operator.
The thermal conductivity coefficient $\alpha_{xx}$ is given by the appropriate correlation function of the thermal current $\vec Q$ and the electric current $\vec{J}$, $$\alpha_{xx} = \lim_{q\to 0} \frac{1}{\omega} \text{Im}\int^{1/T} d\tau e^{i(\omega+i\delta)\tau} \langle T_\tau Q_x(q,\tau)j_x(q,\tau)\rangle,$$ where $Q_i =  \sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,n} \chi_n^\dagger( \mathbf{k} )  E_n( \mathbf{k} )\frac{\partial E_n( \mathbf{k} )}{\partial k_i} \chi_n( \mathbf{k} )$.
By taking $q \to 0$, $\omega \to 0$ and ignoring the inter-band contributions, we have the following results that are same as those obtained from the Boltzmann equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{conds}
&&
\alpha_{xx} =
-\frac{2e}{T}\sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,n}
\tau( \mathbf{k} )
(v_n^x)^2 E_n( \mathbf{k} ) \left( -\frac{\partial f(E_n( \mathbf{k} ))}{\partial E_n( \mathbf{k} )}\right),
\\
&&
\sigma_{xx} =
2e^2\sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,n}
\tau( \mathbf{k} )
(v_n^x)^2 \left( -\frac{\partial f(E_n( \mathbf{k} ))}{\partial E_n( \mathbf{k} )}\right),
\\
&&
\sigma_{xy} =
\frac{2e^3B}{\hbar c}\sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,n}
\tau^2( \mathbf{k} )
[ v_{n}^{x} v_{n}^{y} v_{n}^{xy} - (v_{n}^{x})^2 v_{n}^{yy}]\left( -\frac{\partial f(E_n( \mathbf{k} ))}{\partial E_n( \mathbf{k} )}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_{n}^x = \frac{\partial E_n( \mathbf{k} )}{\partial k_x}$ and
$v_{n}^{xy} = \frac{\partial^2 E_n( \mathbf{k} )}{\partial k_x \partial k_y}$.

For a given doping concentration $p$, the temperature dependence of the CDW order parameter $W(p,T)$ is assumed to scale with a mean-field exponent below the critical temperature $T_{CDW}(p)$ such that $W(p,T) =  W(p) \left\vert 1 - T/T_{CDW}(p) \right\vert^{1/2}$ for $T<T_{CDW}(p)$, whereas $W(p,T)=0$ for $T>T_{CDW}(p)$.
Here, we used the phenomenological form for $T_{CDW}(p) = 142.6 (\text{K}) \times (p-p_{CDW})^{0.3}$ (where $p_{CDW} = 0.085$), which, although arbitrary, gives a best fit to the experiment~\cite{Laliberte:2011}.
Further, we assume the doping dependence of the CDW order parameter $W(p)$ below the critical temperature $T_{CDW}(p)$ such that it disappears below (above) a lower (upper) critical doping, producing a CDW dome consistent with the experiments. On the lower doping side we take $W(p) = W \left\vert (p-p_{CDW})/(p_\text{max}-p_{CDW}) \right\vert^{1/2}$ for $p> p_{CDW}$, and $W(p) = 0$ for $p<p_{CDW}$, and similarly for the higher doping side. Here, we set $p_\text{max} = 0.125$, and $W=0.069$ eV.
Although we use these values in our numerical calculations, we emphasize that our results are robust to reasonable variations of these parameters in the underdoped regime.
We notice that as CDW disappears, the Fermi surface becomes the contour of the dispersion $\varepsilon_ \mathbf{k}  - \mu = 0$, which is closed around the corners of the Brillouin zone (the $M$ points), giving rise to the usual hole-like Fermi pockets.

With the conductivities given in Eqs.~(7,8,9), and the $T$ and $p$ dependences of CDW in hand, we calculate the Seebeck and Hall coefficients ($S = \alpha_{xx}/\sigma_{xx}$ and $R_H = \sigma_{xy}/\sigma_{xx}^2$, respectively) in the underdoped regime.
Fig.~\ref{fig-temp_dep} shows the Seebeck coefficient normalized by temperature, $S/T$, and the Hall coefficient $R_H$ as a function of $T$ for various doping concentrations $p$. As the temperature lowers, in the presence of CDW, the signs change from positive to negative in both Seebeck and Hall coefficients, while those for $p=0.08$ ($p<p_{CDW}$) remain positive. This indicates that the emergence of the electron-like pockets due to presence of the CDW gives rise to the negative Seebeck and Hall coefficients at low temperatures.

\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{dop_dep.eps}
\caption{
Doping dependences of Seebeck and Hall coefficients in the bi-axial CDW state with $Q_1=(2\pi/3,0)$ and $Q_2=(0,2\pi/3)$.
(a) With increasing doping concentration $p$, Seebeck coefficients $S/T$ for $T=20$ K and $30$ K change the sign from positive to negative, while $S/T$ at $T=60$ K ($W=0$) remains positive throughout.
(b) Hall coefficients $R_H$ vs. $p$ show the similar behavior as the doping dependence of Seebeck coefficient $S/T$.}
\label{fig-dop_dep}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~\ref{fig-dop_dep} we show the doping dependence of the Seebeck and Hall coefficients near the lower critical doping in the CDW phase (analogous results, not shown here, are found also near the higher critical doping).
Fig.~\ref{fig-dop_dep}a (\ref{fig-dop_dep}b) shows $S/T$ ($R_H$) as a function of doping concentration $p$ for various temperatures $T$. For a given temperature $T < T_{CDW}$, the positive Seebeck and Hall coefficients for $p<p_{CDW}$ ($W(p)=0$ for $p$ below the lower critical doping) becomes negative on crossing the critical doping concentration $p_{CDW}$, where the electron-like pockets emerge due to the CDW. When temperature is above the CDW critical temperature $T_{CDW}$, the Seebeck and Hall coefficients remain positive due to the hole-like Fermi surface around the $M$ points in the first Brillouin zone. Such temperature and doping dependences in the Seebeck and Hall coefficients (specifically, the sign changes at low temperatures in the presence of a bi-axial CDW) are qualitatively consistent with the experiments.

\section{Uni-axial CDW with $Q=(2\pi/3,0)$ or $(0,2\pi/3)$\label{seciv}}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width = 1\linewidth]{fermi_surface_stripe.eps}
\caption{
(color online)
(a) The CDW band structure from the eigenvalues $E_n( \mathbf{k} )$ of the $3\times 3$ matrix in Eq.~(\ref{ham_stripe}). The chemical potential, corresponding to hole doping $p=0.125$, is displayed by a dashed line ($\mu = -1.0027 t$ for $W = 0.2267 t$ at $T=0$).
(b) The Fermi surface in the first Brillouin zone is depicted.
In this case, the reduced Brillouin zone (RBZ) boundary is determined by the CDW momentum $Q=(2\pi/3,0)$. Note that the Fermi surface in the RBZ consists of a hole pocket centered at $(\pi/3,\pi)$ depicted in red.
}
\label{fermi_surface_stripe}
\end{figure}
In this section, we show that a uni-axial CDW state with $Q=(2\pi/3,0)$ or $(0,2\pi/3)$ cannot produce such temperature or doping dependent crossover in sign of the Seebeck and Hall coefficients. This result is a consequence of the fact that reconstructed Fermi surface of uni-axial CDW with $Q=(2\pi/3,0)$ or $(0,2\pi/3)$ consists of only hole pockets and thus the Hall and Seebeck coefficients remain positive even at low temperatures.

To calculate the Fermi surface and the normal-state quasiparticle Hall and Seebeck coefficients in a uni-axial CDW with $ \mathbf{Q} =(2\pi/3,0)$ or $(0,2\pi/3)$, we use a 2D square lattice tight-binding dispersion, Eq.~(\ref{dispersion}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{coeffs_stripe.eps}
\caption{
Temperature and doping dependences of the Seebeck and Hall coefficients in the uni-directional $Q = (2\pi/3,0)$ CDW state.
(a) and (b) the temperature dependence for $p=0.08$, 0.092, and 0.125.
(c) and (d) the doping dependence for $T=20$ K, 30 K, and 60 K.
}
\label{fig:coeff}
\end{figure}
Then, a uni-axial CDW with $ \mathbf{Q} =(2\pi/3,0)$ or $(0,2\pi/3)$ is given by a periodic density modulation  $\delta \rho (\mathbf{r}) = W\cos (\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{r})$, where $\mathbf{r} = (x,y)$.
In the reciprocal momentum space the Fourier transform $W_ \mathbf{q} $ can be expressed as
$
W_ \mathbf{q}  = W \delta_{ \mathbf{q} ,\mathbf{Q}}.
\label{h_stripe}
$
The mean-field Hamiltonian can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{MF}
&=&
\sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,\sigma} \left( \varepsilon_ \mathbf{k}  - \mu \right) c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma}^\dagger c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma}+
W \sum_{ \mathbf{k} ,\sigma}  c_{ \mathbf{k} + \mathbf{Q} ,\sigma}^\dagger c_{ \mathbf{k} \sigma} + H.c.
\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{ \mathbf{k}  \in RBZ}
\psi_ \mathbf{k} ^\dagger
\begin{pmatrix}
\xi_{ \mathbf{k} -\mathbf{Q}} & W & W \\
W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} } & W \\
W & W & \xi_{ \mathbf{k} +\mathbf{Q}}
\end{pmatrix}
\psi_{ \mathbf{k} },
\label{ham_stripe}
\end{eqnarray}
where $RBZ$ is $|k_x|\le \frac{\pi}{3}, |k_y|\le \pi$ and  $\psi_{ \mathbf{k} }^\dagger = [ c_{ \mathbf{k} -\mathbf{Q}} , c_{ \mathbf{k} }, c_{ \mathbf{k} +\mathbf{Q}} ]$.
Fig.~\ref{fermi_surface_stripe} illustrates (a) band structure and (b) Fermi surface in the 1st Brillouin zone at $p=0.125$ and $T=0$.

We calculate the Hall and Seebeck coefficients in the presence of a uni-axial CDW with $ \mathbf{Q} =(2\pi/3,0)$ as functions of temperature $T$ and doping $p$ in the underdoped regime (Fig.~\ref{fig:coeff}) with the same parameters as in the previous sections:$p_{CDW}=0.085$, $p_{\text{max}}=0.125$, $W=0.069$ eV, and $T_{CDW}(p) = 142.6 (\text{K}) \times (p-p_{CDW})^{0.3}$.
Due to the unidirectional feature of stripe CDW, the Seebeck $S$ and Hall coefficients $R_H$ depend upon the directions of the applied thermal gradient and transverse electric field generated by the magnetic field: When parallel to $Q=(2\pi/3,0)$, or perpendicular to $Q$.
Contrary to the bi-axial with $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ CDW state, in both cases, the sign change with onset of CDW order parameter in  the coefficients $S$ and $R_H$ does not occur. Positive $S$ and $R_H$ at high temperatures or $p<p_{CDW}$ ($W=0$) remain positive even in the presence of this uni-axial CDW order parameter. It can be explained by the presence of the hole pockets in the Fermi surface in the uni-axial CDW state with $ \mathbf{Q} =(2\pi/3,0)$ or $(0,2\pi/3)$.

\section{Conclusion\label{secv}}
Motivated by strong experimental evidence of an incipient charge density wave instability in the underdoped regime of high-$T_c$ cuprates, we calculate the Fermi surface topology and the resulting Hall and Seebeck coefficients for a mean field $Q_1=(2\pi/3,0)$ and $Q_2=(0,2\pi/3)$ bi-axial CDW state. We show that, in the appropriate doping ranges in which the low temperature state (in the absence of superconductivity) is a bi-axial CDW, the Fermi surface consists of electron and hole pockets, resulting in the Hall and Seebeck coefficients becoming negative at low temperatures. Our calculated temperature and doping dependences of the transport coefficients, specifically a change of sign at low temperatures in a restricted range of hole-doping, are qualitatively consistent with experiments.
In addition to explaining the temperature dependent crossover of the magneto-transport coefficients in the underdoped regime of cuprates in terms of the recently observed CDW state, our results also show that the uni-axial CDW state is inconsistent with the phenomenology of transport coefficients in the cuprates at high magnetic fields.

\begin{acknowledgments}
{\it This work is supported by
NSF-PHY (1104527), and AFOSR (FA9550-13-1-0045).}
\end{acknowledgments}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Starring: Jason Bateman, Rachel McAdams, Billy Magnussen, Sharon Horgan, Lamorne Morris, Kylie Bunbury, Jesse Plemons.
Genre: Drama, Mystery, Comedy, Crime.
Incoming search terms : download movie Game Night now, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free 123movie, download full film Game Night, watch Game Night movie online now, Game Night streaming, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free netflix, watch Game Night 2018 movie now, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Putlocker, watch full film Game Night 2018, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Megashare, watch Game Night 2018 film online now, Watch Game Night 2018 Online 123movies, Streaming Game Night 2018 For Free Online, watch full movie Game Night 2018 online, Game Night 2018 Watch Online, watch Game Night film now, Game Night film, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free, Game Night 2018 live streaming film, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free hulu, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free megashare, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free Viooz, Game Night movie download, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Viooz, download full movie Game Night, Watch Game Night 2018 For Free online, streaming Game Night 2018 film, Streaming Game Night 2018 Online Free Megashare, Watch Game Night 2018 Online 123movie, Watch Game Night 2018 Online Free Putlocker, film Game Night online streaming, Game Night 2018 movie, movie Game Night 2018 streaming, watch full film Game Night online.


Chinese-based SF Motors recently unveiled two new electric vehicles they hope to have on the market by 2019. The SF5 and SF7 each features proprietary battery technology with a claimed range over 300 miles.
Think EVs are a passing fancy?
The folks at Volvo apparently disagree. The Chinese-owned carmaker announced ambitious plans to electrify their entire lineup by model year 2019.
In January an unknown company debuted an electric scooter. But they didn't travel to Milan or Frankfort— they rolled it out at CES, the Consumer Electronic Show.