Norfolk Mortgage Trust 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 investment strategy and underlying collateral. Norfolk Mortgage Trust Fund deploys capital exclusively into first-mortgage-secured private credit loans, with a verified LVR cap of 75% and a target return "to exceed the Six-month term deposit rate (published by the RBNZ) by 1.4% per annum (after the deduction of fees and expenses)." PG New Zealand Bond Fund invests in New Zealand fixed interest securities; its IM does not specify an LVR cap or collateral structure, reflecting a different risk and return profile by design.
Liquidity terms differ materially. Norfolk requires 183 days' notice for redemptions and the manager may suspend withdrawals if requests exceed 5% of units within a three-month period, with a mandatory investor meeting triggered above 20%. PG offers redemptions at request, processed within 10 business days, subject to a $10 million per-account rolling four-week cap — a meaningfully shorter and more defined liquidity window.
Fee structures diverge sharply: Norfolk charges a verified management fee of 2.50% per annum versus PG's inferred 0.65%. Both are PIE-eligible, trust-structured, open to retail and wholesale investors, and distribute monthly. Minimum investment is $5,000 for Norfolk and $1,000 for PG. Norfolk has a verified inception date of 2006; PG's inception date is not on file. Norfolk's supervisor is Public Trust; PG's is The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited. PG's FSP number is not on file, whereas Norfolk is registered as FSP31523.
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.
