Fund-vs-fund · Australasian Equities
Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund vs Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund
Both are Australasian Equities funds available to NZ retail investors. Numbers below are sourced from the FMA Disclose register via Sorted Smart Investor and reflect the latest published quarterly fund updates.
Why these two differ
The most material structural difference between these two funds is their risk profile. Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund carries a risk indicator of 5, while Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund sits at 4 — both on the standard 1–7 scale used by FMA Disclose. This single-step difference signals that Castle Point's portfolio has historically exhibited greater return volatility, a meaningful consideration for investors with shorter time horizons or lower tolerance for drawdowns.
Both funds allocate virtually identical proportions to growth assets (98.31% each), so the divergence in risk indicator likely reflects differences in portfolio concentration rather than asset-class composition. Castle Point's top five holdings are noticeably more concentrated — Fisher & Paykel Healthcare alone accounts for 16.03%, compared with 8.98% in the Pathfinder fund — and its top holding, Infratil, and Auckland International Airport together represent nearly 20% of the portfolio. Pathfinder's equivalent positions are materially smaller and spread across a broader mix including Australian names such as National Australia Bank.
On fees, Castle Point charges 1.08% annually versus Pathfinder's 1.00%. Over the latest disclosed five-year period, Pathfinder returned 1.73% per annum against Castle Point's 0.91%, though past performance does not indicate future performance. Fund sizes are comparable: Pathfinder at NZD 13.3 million and Castle Point at NZD 12.0 million. Pathfinder explicitly applies an ethical screen; Castle Point's latest QFU does not describe an equivalent exclusion framework in this snapshot.
Verify all figures against each fund's current PDS and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on this summary.
Cached comparison generated 2026-05-21 from each fund's latest FMA Disclose QFU. Regenerated when the underlying facts change.
What's different at a glance
- Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund charges 0.08% lower in annual fund charges (1.00% vs 1.08%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
- Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. The other fund does not.
Where each fund sits in its cohort
Percentile rank vs all 58 australasian equities funds we've matched on Sorted Smart Investor. Mechanical only — no opinion, no forward-looking view.
Annual fund charge
Lower is better
Castle Point
1.08%
Upper half of cohort
Pathfinder
1.00%
Lower half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Castle Point
0.91%
Lower half over 5 years
Pathfinder
0.45%
Lower half over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Castle Point
NZ$12m
Smallest 9% in cohort
Pathfinder
NZ$12m
Smallest 11% in cohort
| Metric | Castle Point | Pathfinder | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.08% | 1.00% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 0.91% | 0.45% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$12m | NZ$12m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 98% / 2% | 98% / 2% | More growth = higher long-run return + volatility |
| NZ tax structure | PIE (PIR-capped) | PIE (PIR-capped) | PIE = simpler. FIF = annual return. |
| Currency hedging | — | — | Hedged smooths NZD/foreign FX moves at a small cost. |
| Responsible investment screening | No | Yes | Specific exclusions live in each fund's SIPO. |
| Available via | Direct | Direct | Platforms accepting retail subscriptions. |
Portfolio overlap
How many top-10 positions both funds hold, and at what weight. Computed from each fund's most recently disclosed top-10 holdings — exact-name matched (Microsoft Corp. = Microsoft Corporation), with a Cash / Cash & Equivalents collapse rule.
Matching holdings
5
of each fund's top 10
Castle Point weight in shared
46.7%
of Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund top 10 is shared
Pathfinder weight in shared
26.9%
of Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Castle Point | Pathfinder |
|---|---|---|
 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd NZ | 16.03% | 9.40% |
 Infratil Ltd NZ | 9.92% | 4.97% |
 Auckland International Airport Ltd NZ | 9.71% | 4.60% |
 Contact Energy Ltd NZ | 8.03% | 3.87% |
 Ebos Group Ltd NZ | 2.97% | 4.01% |
"Min weight" = the smaller of the two weights — a conservative read of how much exposure you'd have to that position if you held both funds.
What each fund says it does
Castle Point
Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund
The Fund invests in New Zealand and Australian Listed Companies and is benchmarked to the S&P/NZX 50 Index (incl Imputation Credits). The performance objective of the Fund is to outperform the benchmark over rolling five-year periods after all fees (and other expenses) but before tax.Full Castle Point Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund profile →
Pathfinder
Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund
The Fund invests in Australasian equities, listed property companies and other assets that satisfy Pathfinder’s ethical investment criteria. This is a high-conviction fund of top investment ideas. The Fund may achieve this by investing in Pathfinders Wholesale Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund.Full Pathfinder Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Castle Point
Pathfinder
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
- Supporting document490 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document5160 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document6356 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document11086 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document13994 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document11709 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- + 9 more on the fund page
Common questions
What's the difference between the Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund and the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund or Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
How do the 5-year returns compare?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Does either fund apply responsible-investment screening?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
