Devon Alpha Fund (Wholesale) 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 2026-05-19 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 return profile. Devon Alpha Fund invests in Australasian equities targeting "Official Cash Rate (OCR) +5%" with a 12% hurdle rate before performance fees apply, 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)." Devon Alpha carries equity market risk; Norfolk carries credit and property-secured lending risk with an LVR cap of 75% — a figure Devon's IM does not specify, given its equity mandate.
Liquidity terms differ meaningfully. Devon Alpha processes redemptions on request but may suspend or defer them without a defined threshold trigger. Norfolk imposes a 183-day redemption notice period and suspends redemptions if requests exceed 5% of units within three months, with a mandatory investor meeting required if requests breach 20% of units on issue.
Management fees diverge sharply: Devon Alpha charges 0.87% versus Norfolk's 2.5%. Distribution frequency also differs — Devon Alpha pays semi-annually; Norfolk pays monthly. Both are PIE structures eligible for PIR taxation and are supervised (Devon by NZ Guardian Trust; Norfolk by Public Trust). Both are domiciled in Auckland. Minimum investment is lower for Norfolk ($5,000) than Devon Alpha ($10,000). Norfolk discloses an inception date of 2006; Devon's IM does not specify one. Norfolk is not wholesale-only; Devon Alpha is positioned as a wholesale fund.
Verify all 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.
