MyFarm KiwiFruit Fund 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 2026-05-20 from the structured facts below. Verify against the source IM/PDS before relying on this summary for investment decisions.
The most material structural difference is investor eligibility and regulatory framework. MyFarm KiwiFruit Fund is wholesale-only, restricting access to eligible wholesale investors under the Financial Markets Conduct Act, while Norfolk Mortgage Trust Fund is open to retail and wholesale investors alike, structured as a PIE trust supervised by Public Trust, with PIR-eligible returns — a meaningful tax distinction that MyFarm's IM does not address.
Return objectives differ substantially in nature. MyFarm targets a "long-term total return, including cash distributions and capital growth, of 10% p.a.," blending income and appreciation from kiwifruit orchards — classified as property rather than credit. Norfolk's objective is narrower and explicitly benchmarked: "to exceed the Six-month term deposit rate (published by the RBNZ) by 1.4% per annum (after the deduction of fees and expenses)," reflecting its private-credit, first-mortgage strategy with a disclosed LVR cap of 75%. MyFarm's IM does not specify an LVR limit or security type.
Liquidity terms also diverge. MyFarm offers quarterly redemptions with quarterly distributions. Norfolk distributes monthly but requires 183 days' redemption notice and operates on an at-exit basis, with gate provisions triggered if requests exceed 5% of units in any three-month window, or a mandatory investor meeting if requests exceed 20%. MyFarm's IM discloses no equivalent gate mechanism.
Norfolk discloses a 2.5% management fee and a $5,000 minimum investment and has operated since 2006; MyFarm discloses neither fee nor minimum, and its AUM is inferred at NZD 210 million rather than verified from its IM.
Verify all details against each fund's current 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.
