Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@BaluBalu for small caps I have been doing OK with RWJ, depending on when it was purchased of course.
Over time I have arrived at the impression that some of the Invesco strategies work better in some cap areas than others. So I would lean to XMHQ over RWK, RWJ over RWK or RWL, and so on.
But then, I also have to keep track of Invesco switching strategies and tickers, because M* does not as far as I can tell. GRPM was until recently, and equal-weight 400 fund.
XMHQ will remain in the IRA for the foreseeable future. And I'll be adding it to the taxable in January or February.
Inker's thoughts seem fatuous to me, but truly puzzling is no mention by anyone here of JQUA, which (for 3y anyway) outperforms those mentioned (I think) and with lower UI.
Yes, JQUA is an outstanding fund and I could be wrong but I do not think posters were attempting to figure out which are the better Quality funds but were more focused on discrediting Inker's thoughts. I think JQUA was previously mentioned in this forum with positive comments. The original thread about QLTY (GMO U.S. Quality ETF in Registration) also mentioned JQUA.
It may be too soon but QLTY has underperformed JQUA since QLTY inception on 11/13/2023. Both in this thread and in that original thread, several posters predicted QLTY's underperformance and were apprehensive about GMO marketing. 7-8 weeks after the launch, notwithstanding their marketing, the fund only has inflows of approx $50M. QLTY already has a OEF cousin in GQETX, with AUM of $10B. What is wild is during every year since inception of QUAL (and JQUA), GQETX has had steady outflows, except for a three month period in 2016. May be that is what prompted GMO to launch an ETF.
There was an argument in M* that moat is better than quality. And indeed, MOAT beats FUQIX, QUAL since its inception, though FUQIX is better during last 5 years, and especially during the last year: MOAT does not contain any of Mag 7 companies.
Statement of additional information. Usually an addendum to a prospectus or report.
That would make the fund's name Fidelity Statement of Additional Information U.S. Quality Index. Well. Maybe . . .
@BaluBalu. I didn't know it was restricted like that. It showed up in one of my screens that didn't control for a situation like that. Thanks for the info. I'll keep it in the watch list as a weather gauge
From the FUQIX prospectus: "Fidelity ® SAI is a product name of Fidelity ® funds dedicated to certain programs affiliated with Strategic Advisers" so this looks like it's Strategic Advisers Investments (or Inc. or something). https://www.strategicad.com
As SAI (Statement of Additional Information) already had a meaning, the SEC shouldn't have allowed Fidelity to use SAI for another purpose (really, made up, because it doesn't even follow from Strategic Advisors LLC).
BTW, over the years, some info that used to be in prospectus is now relegated to SAI. And some firms like Price/TROW have a combined SAI for most of its funds and that SAI is several hundred pages (most firms SAIs are for multiple funds, but TROW over did that).
am a GMO philosophy fan, but not of their expensive offerings. here is what didn't happen : 45 years ago, GMO had only one fund based on their quality metrics, and never needed to offer anything else.
Comments
Over time I have arrived at the impression that some of the Invesco strategies work better in some cap areas than others. So I would lean to XMHQ over RWK, RWJ over RWK or RWL, and so on.
But then, I also have to keep track of Invesco switching strategies and tickers, because M* does not as far as I can tell. GRPM was until recently, and equal-weight 400 fund.
XMHQ will remain in the IRA for the foreseeable future. And I'll be adding it to the taxable in January or February.
It may be too soon but QLTY has underperformed JQUA since QLTY inception on 11/13/2023. Both in this thread and in that original thread, several posters predicted QLTY's underperformance and were apprehensive about GMO marketing. 7-8 weeks after the launch, notwithstanding their marketing, the fund only has inflows of approx $50M. QLTY already has a OEF cousin in GQETX, with AUM of $10B. What is wild is during every year since inception of QUAL (and JQUA), GQETX has had steady outflows, except for a three month period in 2016. May be that is what prompted GMO to launch an ETF.
fundsETFs & SPY YTDFYI - FUQIX, "This fund is only available to clients enrolled in Fidelity® Wealth Services."
If anyone here subscribes to these Services, please share your experience, including costs.
@BaluBalu. I didn't know it was restricted like that. It showed up in one of my screens that didn't control for a situation like that. Thanks for the info. I'll keep it in the watch list as a weather gauge
BTW, over the years, some info that used to be in prospectus is now relegated to SAI. And some firms like Price/TROW have a combined SAI for most of its funds and that SAI is several hundred pages (most firms SAIs are for multiple funds, but TROW over did that).
Agree that now it forces us to read both prospectus and SAI - at least look at the table of contents.
The Quality Anomoly (Ben Inker)
https://www.gmo.com/globalassets/articles/quarterly-letter/2023/gmo-quarterly-letter_4q-2023.pdf
The Quality Spectrum (Tom Hancock & Lucas White)
https://www.gmo.com/globalassets/articles/quarterly-letter/2023/gmo-quarterly-letter_1q-2023.pdf
here is what didn't happen :
45 years ago, GMO had only one fund based on their quality metrics, and never needed to offer anything else.
Not much difference.