Fisher Funds Growth Fund vs Harbour Income Fund

The most material structural difference between these two diversified funds is their allocation to growth assets: Fisher Funds Growth Fund holds 78.34% in growth assets against Harbour Income Fund's 52.35%, a gap of roughly 26 percentage points. That difference is directly reflected in their risk indicators — Fisher sits at 4, Harbour at 3 on the FMA's standard 1–7 scale — meaning Fisher is positioned to absorb greater short-term volatility in pursuit of capital growth, while Harbour's heavier income-asset weighting implies a comparatively smoother return profile over time.

The fee difference is also substantial. Fisher Funds Growth Fund discloses an annual fund charge of 1.46%, more than double Harbour Income Fund's 0.66%. Over a multi-year holding period, that 0.80 percentage point spread compounds meaningfully against net returns. On the five-year return figures available in each fund's latest Quarterly Fund Update, Fisher returned 4.95% per annum versus Harbour's 3.76% — a 1.19 percentage point gap that partly, though not entirely, offsets the fee differential in gross terms.

Both funds sit close in size: Fisher at approximately NZD 347.9 million, Harbour at approximately NZD 309.7 million. Portfolio construction differs in character: Fisher's top holdings skew toward listed equities including Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Microsoft, and Xero, while Harbour's are anchored by NZ Government bonds and inflation-linked stock, consistent with its lower growth-asset weighting. Infratil appears in both portfolios. Neither fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account.

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