AMP Balanced Managed Fund vs Fisher Funds Aggressive Fund

The most material structural difference in this comparison is the near-complete absence of disclosed data for the Fisher Funds Aggressive Fund: its fee, risk indicator, fund size, growth asset allocation, five-year return, and top holdings are all absent from our current snapshot, making a substantive side-by-side analysis impossible on most dimensions. The AMP Balanced Managed Fund, by contrast, discloses an annual fund charge of 0.81%, a risk indicator of 4 (on the standard 1–7 scale), a fund size of approximately NZD 44.6 million, and a growth asset allocation of 53.15%, placing it in balanced rather than aggressive territory.

That allocation difference is worth noting even with limited data: the Fisher Funds Aggressive Fund's name signals a meaningfully higher growth asset weighting than AMP's 53.15%, which would typically correspond to a higher risk indicator than AMP's 4 — though without Fisher Funds' disclosed figures this cannot be confirmed. AMP's top five holdings include Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited (2.01%), two New Zealand Government inflation-linked bonds (1.94% and 1.29% respectively), NVIDIA Corp (1.67%), and Apple Inc (1.47%), reflecting a mixed domestic-international and growth-income composition. No equivalent holdings data is available for Fisher Funds Aggressive Fund in this snapshot.

Five-year return figures are absent for both funds in the current data set, so no performance comparison is possible here.

Verify all figures against each fund's current Product Disclosure Statement and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on any of this information.