On October 23 (October 24 in New Zealand), Stuff money editor Damien Venuto’s column asked whether savers should “bet” their KiwiSaver on the next stock to turn $10k into $1.25m. Its second paragraph names Nvidia and 10 years, and the column then lists stocks that wiped out the same stake. The headline gives you a number and a door. The number, $1.25m, has no stock, no years and no losers beside it. The door is a question placed over a retirement fund. A few lines down, the column names Nvidia and 10 years, then lists Peloton, Under Armour, Sears, JCPenney and Bed Bath & Beyond, where the same $10,000 was wiped out. The headline keeps the winner and leaves the graveyard lower on the page. The habit it rides: one vivid case stands in for how often it happens, what investors call ignoring the base rate. The base is in the column itself: Hendrik Bessembinder’s study of 64,000 stocks over 100 years found only a tiny percentage delivered long-term value. The device is the question that asserts. “Should you bet” sounds open, yet it hands you the $1.25m saver as the person you could be, and casts the cautious saver as the one who missed out. Savers already lean further into risk: the FMA says high-volatility funds went from around 10% of KiwiSaver in 2021 to more than 40% in 2024, partly because default accounts moved to balanced funds. Fisher Funds calls the rise “a good thing for investors”. The column says ads now invite members to pick their own companies, and providers cap those picks. It names no provider, platform or fee. The tell to carry: a winner shown without the count of the losers.
