Manager claims verified · 2026 Q2
Fisher Funds Australian Growth — we recomputed the BusinessDesk claim
BusinessDesk's article We need to talk about Fisher Funds reported the Australian Growth Fund as a "$500k mistake" on a $1M investment, citing a 1.46% management fee and 3.9% 5-year return. We pulled the FMA Disclose-mirrored numbers from Sorted Smart Investor and recomputed the math. This is mechanical comparison, not financial advice.
The published claim
"Paying for Underperformance: Fisher Funds' Australian Growth Fund charges a 1.46% management fee (plus performance fees) only to deliver a measly 3.9% annualised return over five years. The $500k Mistake: If you had invested $1,000,000 in this fund five years ago, you'd have…"
— BusinessDesk, "We need to talk about Fisher Funds", as quoted in r/PersonalFinanceNZ thread (109↑)
The numbers, recomputed from FMA Disclose
| Metric | Fisher Funds Australian Growth | Peer-average (same category) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 0.87% | 0.91% | Sorted Smart Investor |
| 5-year return p.a. (after fees + tax) | 1.31% | 4.91% | Sorted Smart Investor |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | — | Sorted Smart Investor |
| Fund size | NZ$76.73M | — | Sorted Smart Investor |
Peer-average = same FMA-defined category (Australasian equity active). Fisher Funds Australian Growth had a return ~3.60% per year below the peer average over the period reported.
$1,000,000 invested for 5 years — what compounding the published returns gives us
Starting value
$1,000,000
Fisher Funds Australian Growth — final
NZ$1,067,239
Compounded at 1.31% p.a. over 5 years
Peer average — final
NZ$1,270,821
Compounded at 4.91% p.a. over 5 years
Gap vs peer average: NZ$203,582 over 5 years on a $1M investment. BusinessDesk reported $500K — the difference is which benchmark each comparison uses (peer-average active fund vs a passive index). The direction is the same.
Methodology — why our numbers differ from BusinessDesk's
- BusinessDesk cited "1.46% management fee plus performance fees". The FMA-mandated annual fund charge on Sorted is 0.87% — this is the standardised total cost ratio that goes in every Quarterly Fund Update, gross of investor-platform rebates and net of any fee-cap mechanism.
- BusinessDesk's 3.9% 5-year return is likely before tax. The Sorted-reported 1.31% is after fees and after tax at the highest PIR (28%).
- The peer-average in our table is the FMA-defined cohort of Australasian active-equity managed funds, mirrored on Sorted. BusinessDesk may have compared to a different benchmark (an index, a low-cost passive AU fund, etc.) — both are valid; they just measure different things.
- "$1M for 5 years" is a mechanical compounding calculation, not a guarantee of future performance.
Important: This is a mechanical recompute of published numbers, presented for transparency. ManagedFundsNZ is not a Financial Advice Provider (FAP) and does not give personalised advice. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Read the current Product Disclosure Statement on the FMA Disclose register and consider speaking to a licensed financial adviser before deciding what to do.
Common questions
What did the BusinessDesk article claim?
The BusinessDesk article "We need to talk about Fisher Funds" stated the Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund charges a 1.46% management fee plus performance fees and delivered a 3.9% annualised return over five years. It framed this as a "$500k mistake" on a $1M invested 5 years ago.
What does FMA Disclose data say?
As mirrored on Sorted Smart Investor (which sources from the FMA Disclose register), the Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund's annual fund charge is 0.87% p.a. and its 5-year return after fees and tax is 1.31%. The peer-average annual fund charge is 0.91% and peer 5-year return is 4.91%.
Why do the BusinessDesk numbers differ from the FMA Disclose numbers?
They measure different things. The BusinessDesk 1.46% likely includes performance fees and base management charges before any rebates. The FMA Disclose-mirrored 0.87% is the "annual fund charge" — the standardised total cost ratio used in Quarterly Fund Updates. Returns: BusinessDesk's 3.9% may be a before-tax pre-fee figure; Sorted reports after-fees and after-tax at the highest PIR. Always read each headline number with its methodology footnote.
What would $1M have grown to in this fund vs the peer average over 5 years?
Compounding the FMA Disclose-mirrored 5-year returns: $1,000,000 in the Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund grew to NZ$1,067,239, vs the peer-average growth to NZ$1,270,821. That's a gap of NZ$203,582 — roughly 204K over 5 years on a $1M investment. (This is mechanical math against published returns, not advice.)
Is this a recommendation to avoid the fund?
No. ManagedFundsNZ does not provide financial advice and is not licensed to make recommendations. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. The fund's strategy may suit different investor goals than its peer average. Read the current Product Disclosure Statement and consider speaking to a licensed financial adviser.