Fund-vs-fund · Australasian Equities
Harbour Long Short 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 how they actually deploy capital into equities. The Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund holds 98.31% in growth assets, with its top five positions all being recognisable Trans-Tasman listed companies — Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Infratil, National Australia Bank, Auckland International Airport, and Ebos Group. The Harbour Long Short Fund, despite its Australasian Equities classification, holds only 23.37% in growth assets; its three largest positions are cash or cash-equivalent holdings (Macquarie Margin Cash at 38.23%, JPM AUD Cash at 16.03%, and ANZ NZD Cash at 13.68%), reflecting its long-short strategy where margin cash collateralises short positions. Investors treating these as equivalent equity exposure would be comparing materially different portfolio constructions.
Both funds carry a risk indicator of 4 on the FMA's seven-point scale. Harbour charges a 1.23% annual fund charge against Pathfinder's 1.00%. On five-year returns, Harbour returned 1.76% per annum versus Pathfinder's 0.45% per annum, though the long-short structure means these figures are not straightforwardly comparable to a conventional equity fund. Harbour's fund is considerably smaller at NZD 5.27 million versus Pathfinder's NZD 12.37 million. Pathfinder's mandate explicitly incorporates ethical screening, which Harbour's does not disclose in this snapshot. 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 0.23% lower in annual fund charges (1.00% vs 1.23%).
- 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.
- Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund is roughly 2.3× the size of the other fund.
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
Harbour
1.23%
Highest 18% of cohort
Pathfinder
1.00%
Lower half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Harbour
1.76%
Upper half over 5 years
Pathfinder
0.45%
Lower half over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Harbour
NZ$5m
Smallest 6% in cohort
Pathfinder
NZ$12m
Smallest 11% in cohort
| Metric | Harbour | Pathfinder | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.23% | 1.00% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 4 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 1.76% | 0.45% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$5m | NZ$12m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 23% / 77% | 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
2
of each fund's top 10
Harbour weight in shared
7.2%
of Harbour Long Short Fund top 10 is shared
Pathfinder weight in shared
8.8%
of Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Harbour | Pathfinder |
|---|---|---|
 Contact Energy NZ | 3.62% | 3.87% |
 Infratil NZ | 3.54% | 4.97% |
"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
Harbour
Harbour Long Short Fund
The Fund is an actively managed, high conviction portfolio investing principally in long and short listed Australasian equities. The focus is on delivering positive returns through the market cycle by investing in long and short sold equity positions with no particular attention to an equity benchmark. The Fund is expected to have lower volatility than equity benchmarks. We can actively allocate investments between Australasian listed equities, fixed interest and cash. The Fund may also use derivatives to hedge currency and equity risk.Full Harbour Harbour Long Short 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 →
Harbour
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
Pathfinder
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
Common questions
What's the difference between the Harbour Long Short Fund and the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Harbour Long Short 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?
