AMP Balanced Managed Fund vs Fisher Funds Balanced Strategy 40/60 Fund

The most material difference in this comparison is data availability: Fisher Funds Balanced Strategy 40/60 Fund discloses no fee, risk indicator, fund size, growth asset allocation, or top holdings in our current snapshot, making a substantive side-by-side analysis heavily one-sided. Readers should treat the Fisher Funds figures as pending until verified against the fund's latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose.

On the AMP side, the AMP Balanced Managed Fund carries an annual fund charge of 0.81% and a risk indicator of 4 out of 7, placing it in the middle of the risk spectrum. The fund holds NZD 44.6 million in assets and allocates 53.15% to growth assets, positioning it broadly in line with a conventional balanced mandate. Its five-year return figure is not disclosed in our snapshot. Top disclosed holdings include Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited (2.01%), two New Zealand Government inflation-linked bonds maturing in 2035 and 2040 (1.94% and 1.29% respectively), NVIDIA Corp (1.67%), and Apple Inc (1.47%), suggesting a blend of domestic equities, international equities, and inflation-linked fixed income. The fund's Product Disclosure Statement is available on FMA Disclose, and the fund is also listed on Sorted's Smart Investor tool.

The name of the Fisher Funds fund — referencing a 40/60 split — implies a 40% growth and 60% income orientation, which if accurate would represent a more conservative allocation than AMP's 53.15% growth weighting, but this cannot be confirmed from available data.

Always verify fees, returns, and allocations against each fund's current PDS and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on any figures here.