Skip to main content
ManagedFunds.nz

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 on the same FMA scale — a meaningful step down in stated volatility despite both funds allocating an identical 98.31% to growth assets. This divergence likely reflects Castle Point's notably concentrated top holdings: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare alone represents 16.03% of the portfolio, with the top five positions accounting for roughly 49.5% combined. Pathfinder's equivalent concentration is lower, with its largest holding (also Fisher & Paykel Healthcare) at 9.4% and the top five totalling approximately 27.7%, suggesting broader diversification within the same asset class. Pathfinder also applies an explicit ethical screen, which its name signals and which shapes its stock selection — National Australia Bank and Ebos Group appear in its top five, while Castle Point holds Contact Energy and A2 Milk in comparable slots.

On fees, Pathfinder charges 1.00% annually versus Castle Point's 1.08%. Fund sizes are comparable — NZD 12.37 million and NZD 11.99 million respectively. Over the five-year period disclosed, Castle Point returned 0.91% against Pathfinder's 0.45%, though both figures are modest in absolute terms and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Neither fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account product based on the data provided.

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

Comparison generated 2026-07-05 from each fund's FMA Disclose QFU facts as at that date. If the underlying facts change, this narrative is withheld until it is regenerated — the tables on this page always reflect the current data.

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 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd NZ
16.03% 9.40%
Infratil Ltd Infratil Ltd NZ
9.92% 4.97%
Auckland International Airport Ltd Auckland International Airport Ltd NZ
9.71% 4.60%
Contact Energy Ltd Contact Energy Ltd NZ
8.03% 3.87%
Ebos Group Ltd 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 →

Common questions

What's the difference between the Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund and the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Both are australasian equities funds available to NZ retail investors. Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund charges 0.08% lower in annual fund charges (1.00% vs 1.08%).
Which fund has lower fees, Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund or Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund has the lower annual fund charge (1.00% p.a. vs 1.08% p.a.). Source: each fund's most recent Quarterly Fund Update on the FMA Disclose register.
How do the 5-year returns compare?
Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund's 5-year return p.a. is 0.91% and Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund's is 0.45% (after fees, before tax). Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Yes. Both are NZ Portfolio Investment Entities (PIEs). Investor tax on the fund's income is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
Does either fund apply responsible-investment screening?
Yes — Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. Castle Point Trans-Tasman Fund does not. Specific exclusions and engagement policies are documented in each fund's Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO).
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
Both funds publish their Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), Statement of Investment Policy (SIPO) and Quarterly Fund Update (QFU) on the FMA Disclose register at disclose-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz. Always read the current PDS before investing.
FinanceAdvisers.co.nz logo
Not sure which fund is right for you?
Find a financial adviser on FinanceAdvisers.co.nz
Browse NZ-licensed financial advice providers and search by speciality, location and review.
Important: This comparison is general information only — not personalised financial advice. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. The right fund for you depends on your personal circumstances. Read each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and consider speaking to a licensed financial adviser.