Milford Global Corporate Bond Fund vs Russell Investments Global Fixed Interest Fund

The most material structural difference between these two funds is their risk profile despite identical growth asset allocations. Both the Russell Investments Global Fixed Interest Fund and the Milford Global Corporate Bond Fund report 0.13% growth assets, yet they carry different FMA risk indicators — Russell sits at 4 (moderate) against Milford's 3 (low to moderate). This divergence likely reflects differences in underlying credit quality, duration, or currency exposure embedded within their fixed income portfolios rather than any difference in equity-style positioning.

On fees, Russell charges 0.58% per annum versus Milford's 0.85%, a 27 basis point gap that compounds meaningfully over time in a low-return asset class. Five-year returns — both modest, as expected for defensive fixed income through a rising-rate cycle — favour Milford at 1.26% against Russell's 0.56% annualised, though past returns do not indicate future performance.

Portfolio construction differs visibly. Russell's top disclosed holdings are dominated by cash and cash-equivalent positions (settled cash, broker cash, and TBA reductions accounting for roughly 9.8% combined), alongside sovereign debt including New Zealand Government bonds and what appears to be Colombian treasury securities (Titulos de Tesoreria). Milford's top five holdings are named corporate bonds with explicit issuers, coupons, and maturities — financials and corporates such as Bank of America and T-Mobile — suggesting a more concentrated, issuer-specific approach. Fund size is broadly comparable: Russell at NZD 580.7 million, Milford at NZD 406.9 million.

Verify all figures against each fund's current PDS and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on this summary for any investment decision.