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 investment approach and cost. The Salt Long Short Fund employs a long-short strategy, as its name signals, with nearly half its disclosed top holdings sitting in collateral and cash accounts — consistent with the margining requirements of short positions. The Milford Australian Absolute Growth Fund, by contrast, holds a mix of multi-currency cash and direct equity positions such as BHP Group Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, reflecting a more conventional long-biased absolute-return mandate. Despite this strategic divergence, both funds report identical growth asset allocations of 52.35% and share the same risk indicator of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7).
Fee levels differ sharply. Milford discloses an annual fund charge of 1.05%; Salt discloses 3.21% — a gap of 216 basis points that will compound materially over time. Salt's five-year return of 15.88% per annum compares with Milford's 5.63% over the same period, though past returns are not a reliable indicator of future performance and the long-short structure means those return figures are generated under meaningfully different risk dynamics. Fund sizes are broadly comparable: Milford at approximately NZD 174.2 million and Salt at approximately NZD 170.7 million. A PDS URL was not available in our snapshot for the Salt Long Short Fund; investors should locate the current Salt document directly. Verify all figures against each fund's source PDS and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on any of this information.
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
- 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?
