MyFarm KiwiFruit Fund vs MyFarm Solar 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 between these two MyFarm Investments funds is their underlying asset class and associated risk-return profile: the KiwiFruit Fund holds agricultural property — horticultural land and orchards — while the Solar Fund invests in renewable energy infrastructure, specifically solar assets. This distinction drives meaningfully different return mechanics. The KiwiFruit Fund targets "long-term total return, including cash distributions and capital growth, of 10% p.a.," blending income and appreciation. The Solar Fund targets "forecast cash distributions of 10-12% p.a., paid quarterly," and layers in a tax-efficiency argument — "with depreciation benefits, estimated to be the equivalent of an average 15% p.a. return on a fully taxable investment, from years two to ten, assuming a tax rate of 33%" — making the gross-equivalent comparison between funds non-trivial.
Scale differs substantially: the KiwiFruit Fund reports AUM of approximately NZD 210 million against the Solar Fund's NZD 13.9 million, which launched in June 2025 and carries the track-record limitations of a newer vehicle. The Solar Fund discloses a maximum LVR of 35%; the KiwiFruit Fund's IM does not specify an LVR cap. The KiwiFruit Fund discloses quarterly redemptions; the Solar Fund's IM does not specify a redemption mechanism. The Solar Fund states a minimum investment of NZD 50,000; the KiwiFruit Fund does not disclose a minimum in the extracted facts. Both funds are wholesale-only, AIP-eligible, distribute quarterly, and share the same manager and FSP registration.
Verify all details against the source IM or PDS before relying on any of this comparison.
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.
