Devon Alpha Fund (Wholesale) vs Midlands Income Wholesale 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 2026-05-19 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 the risk-return profile that flows from it. Devon Alpha Fund invests in Australasian equities, targeting "Official Cash Rate (OCR) +5%" with a performance hurdle of 12%, while Midlands Income Wholesale Fund is a private credit fund secured by first mortgages (LVR capped at 75%), targeting "income return pre-tax (but after fees and expenses) at a level which exceeds the average 3 month term deposit rate advertised by all relevant New Zealand registered banks" — a considerably more modest and income-oriented benchmark.
Both are PIE-structured unit trusts eligible for PIR taxation, and both carry gate provisions, though the triggers differ materially. Devon's clause is broad and discretionary — redemptions may be suspended "in certain circumstances." Midlands applies a specific quantitative threshold: gate provisions activate only when withdrawal requests on the same holding exceed 5% of units on issue within any three-month window, with redemption then possible by instalments or at a manager-set date.
Minimum investment also diverges sharply: Devon requires NZD 10,000 versus Midlands' NZD 100,000. Devon distributes semi-annually; Midlands distributes quarterly with a 30-day redemption notice period. Management fees are disclosed for Devon at 0.87%; Midlands' IM does not specify a management fee percentage in the extracted data. Devon's supervisor is NZ Guardian Trust; Midlands uses Trustees Executors. Midlands discloses an inception date of July 2021; Devon's IM does not specify one. Midlands' FSP number is not on file.
Verify all details against the source IM or PDS before relying on this summary.
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.
