CQuest Forestry Fund vs Norfolk Mortgage Trust Fund
Side-by-side facts extracted from manager-published IM/PDS/SIPO documents. 0 fields match, 0 differ, 0 disclosed by only one fund.
Why these differ
Generated 2026-05-20 from the structured facts below. Verify against the source IM/PDS before relying on this summary for investment decisions.
The most material structural difference is asset class and return profile: CQuest Forestry Fund invests in forestry assets targeting "9-12% p.a. IRR (target internal rate of return over the investment's lifetime)," while Norfolk Mortgage Trust Fund deploys capital into first-mortgage private credit, targeting returns that "exceed the Six-month term deposit rate (published by the RBNZ) by 1.4% per annum (after the deduction of fees and expenses)" — a floating, benchmark-relative target versus a fixed IRR range.
Liquidity and structure differ substantially. CQuest is a Limited Partnership with redemption described as at-exit, implying capital is locked away until the forestry investment matures. Norfolk is a Trust with monthly distributions, though investors face a 183-day redemption notice period and gate provisions: the manager may suspend redemptions if requests exceed 5% of units within three months, or 20% triggers a mandatory investor meeting.
Norfolk is a PIE fund with PIR eligibility, offering potential tax efficiency for qualifying investors. CQuest's IM does not indicate PIE status. Norfolk also discloses an LVR cap of 75% on its first-mortgage security and carries a 2.5% management fee; CQuest's IM does not specify an equivalent credit metric or management fee percentage. Norfolk has operated since 2006 and is supervised by Public Trust; CQuest launched in 2025 with no comparable track record disclosed.
Access differs too: Norfolk's $5,000 minimum opens it to a broader wholesale audience, whereas CQuest requires $50,000 and is wholesale-only.
Always verify these details against each fund's current source IM or PDS before making any investment decision.
Fact-by-fact comparison
Source documents
Methodology
Facts extracted via Claude Sonnet 4.6 from manager-published IM/PDS/SIPO PDFs. Confidence tiers: ●verified (all required keys populated), ◐inferred (some required keys null), ○not on file. Where IM and SIPO/PDS disclose the same fact, verified takes precedence over inferred.
The “Why these differ” summary above is generated once per pair by Sonnet from the structured facts in this table and cached as JSON. It is regenerated when either fund’s facts change.
Wholesale-only — for eligible investors per FMCA Schedule 1. Not financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Verify each fact against the source IM/PDS before relying on it for investment decisions.
