Hunter Diversified Private Credit Fund vs PG New Zealand Bond 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 exposure and return objective. The Hunter Diversified Private Credit Fund targets private credit — illiquid, bilateral lending arrangements — with a stated return of "4% per annum higher than the New Zealand Official Cash Rate over a rolling 3-year period." The PG New Zealand Bond Fund invests in New Zealand fixed interest (exchange-traded and publicly issued bonds); no equivalent target return string is disclosed in its IM.
This illiquidity contrast flows directly into liquidity terms. Hunter operates monthly redemptions with broad suspension powers: redemptions may be deferred for up to six months, and partial or zero redemptions are explicitly permitted if liquidity is insufficient. PG offers redemption on request, processed within ten business days, subject only to a $10 million per-investor cap per rolling four weeks — a more mechanical, less discretionary gate.
Fee structures differ: Hunter's management fee is 0.83% versus PG's 0.65%. Minimum investment diverges sharply — Hunter requires NZD 100,000 (consistent with wholesale positioning), while PG's minimum is NZD 1,000, and PG's IM explicitly flags it is not wholesale-only. Both are PIE-structured unit/trusts, both are PIR-eligible, and both share the same supervisor, The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited. Hunter's inception date is December 2016; PG's IM does not specify an inception date. Distribution frequency differs — Hunter pays quarterly, PG monthly.
Always verify all details against each fund's current source IM or PDS before making any investment decision.
Fact-by-fact comparison
Source documents
Hunter Diversified Private Credit Fund
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.
