Fund-vs-fund · Australasian Equities
Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund vs Salt Long Short 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 fee arrangement. The Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund charges an annual fund charge of 1.05%, while the Salt Long Short Fund charges 3.21% — more than three times as much. That fee gap is significant and will compound meaningfully over time regardless of which direction returns move.
Both funds sit in the Australasian Equities category, carry an identical risk indicator of 4 (on a scale of 1–7), and report growth assets at exactly 53.15%. Fund size is comparable: Milford at approximately NZ$174.2 million, Salt at NZ$178.0 million. Over the five-year period captured in each fund's Quarterly Fund Update, Salt Long Short returned 13.56% per annum against Milford's 5.63% — a material gap, though past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns, and Salt's higher gross return must be weighed against its substantially higher fee drag.
Portfolio construction differs visibly. Milford's top positions are spread across multi-currency cash accounts and large-cap names such as BHP Group and Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Salt's portfolio is dominated by cash and a Macquarie collateral account (together nearly 48%), with smaller positions in GDI Property Group, IPH Limited, and DUG Technology — a profile consistent with a long-short strategy requiring collateral buffers. A PDS URL for the Salt Long Short Fund was not present in our data snapshot; Milford's PDS is linked above.
Verify all figures against each fund's current Product Disclosure Statement 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
- Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund charges 2.16% lower in annual fund charges (1.05% vs 3.21%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
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
Milford
1.05%
Upper half of cohort
Salt
3.21%
Highest 1% of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Milford
5.63%
Upper half over 5 years
Salt
13.56%
Top 3% over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Milford
NZ$174m
Largest 23% in cohort
Salt
NZ$178m
Largest 22% in cohort
| Metric | Milford | Salt | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.05% | 3.21% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 4 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 5.63% | 13.56% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$174m | NZ$178m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 53% / 47% | 53% / 47% | 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 | No | 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
3
of each fund's top 10
Milford weight in shared
22.0%
of Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund top 10 is shared
Salt weight in shared
72.6%
of Salt Long Short Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Milford | Salt |
|---|---|---|
| $ USD Cash Current Account (HSBC) US | 9.39% | 24.21% |
| $ AUD Cash Current Account (HSBC) AU | 8.68% | 24.21% |
| $ NZD Cash Current Account (HSBC) NZ | 3.92% | 24.21% |
"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
Milford
Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund
The Fund targets an absolute return with an annualised return objective of 5% above the New Zealand Official Cash Rate while seeking to protect capital after the base fund fee but before tax and before the performance fee, over rolling three year periods. It is a diversified fund that primarily invests in Australasian equities, complemented by selective exposure to international equities and cash.Full Milford Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund profile →
Salt
Salt Long Short Fund
The Fund aims to deliver positive absolute returns in all market environments. In addition to holding long-only New Zealand and Australian securities, the Fund may, at our discretion short sell securities, hold cash, lever its assets and utilise active currency management to generate returns (although generally will be fully hedged). The investment objective is to outperform the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Official Cash Rate +5% p.A. On a rolling three year basis.Full Salt Salt Long Short Fund profile →
Common questions
What's the difference between the Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund and the Salt Long Short Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund or Salt Long Short Fund?
How do the 5-year returns compare?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
