Devon Sustainability 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 mechanism. Devon Sustainability Fund invests in Australasian equities, meaning returns are driven by share price movements and dividends, with no stated return target. Norfolk Mortgage Trust Fund deploys capital into private credit secured by first mortgages, with an explicit target "to exceed the Six-month term deposit rate (published by the RBNZ) by 1.4% per annum (after the deduction of fees and expenses)" — a yield-oriented, benchmark-relative objective. Norfolk discloses a maximum LVR of 75% on its mortgage security; Devon's IM contains no equivalent lending constraint, as none is applicable to an equities fund.
Liquidity terms differ significantly. Devon offers daily redemptions, subject to a broadly worded suspension power. Norfolk operates on an at-exit basis with 183 days' redemption notice; its gate provisions are more precisely defined — suspension triggers if requests exceed 5% of units within three months, with a mandatory investor meeting if requests exceed 20%.
Management fees diverge sharply: Devon charges 0.87% versus Norfolk's 2.5%. Both are PIE structures eligible for PIR taxation and are supervised — Devon by NZ Guardian Trust, Norfolk by Public Trust. Norfolk has been operating since 2006 and discloses a $5,000 minimum investment; Devon requires $10,000. Norfolk is not wholesale-only; Devon is. Distributions are monthly for Norfolk and semi-annual for Devon.
Both funds are Auckland-based. Always verify current terms against each fund's source IM or PDS before relying on any of this information.
Fact-by-fact comparison
Source documents
Devon Sustainability Fund (Wholesale)
No documents ingested yet.
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.
