MOAT has good amount of turnover and I do not recall it ever having a cap gain distribution
The implication being that significant turnover such as that caused by a change in index being tracked does not necessarily result in an ETF recognizing cap gains. It is true that ETFs can handle large periodic portfolio rebalancings (e.g. due to index reconstitution) as described below. But changing indexes is not a periodic, routine event.
If the OEF/ETF structure of VIGI were a cause of the large cap gain distribution in 2021, then would one not expect some cap gains, however small, to have been realized in the other nine years the fund has been around? Further, the probability that the sole year any cap gains were recognized would randomly coincide with the sole year that the index fund was changed is just 10%.
What does turnover even mean for an ETF? Probably not what one thinks. It's certainly not what I would have thought - the value of portfolio shares sold (or bought) divided by the average AUM. Rather, turnover counts only those shares bought or sold for cash.

Turnover rate excludes the value of portfolio securities received or delivered as a result of in-kind purchases or redemptions of the fund’s capital shares, including Vanguard ETF Creation Units.

https://institutional.vanguard.com/investments/product-details/fund/4415
So we may be comparing apples and oranges in saying that MOAT and VIGI turnovers are comparable. Though the real issue is not the turnover rate per se, but the anomalously high rate that VIGI experienced in 2021 (1.5x - 3x its normal rate).
ETFs put a "heartbeat" mechanism in place to handle routine changes in portfolio composition (rebalancings). Even the large quarterly reconstitutions that MOAT has to deal with.
In a "heartbeat" trade, the APs buy the securities that the ETF must discard (due to rebalancing). A couple of days later they sell the new securities that the ETF needs. All done with in-kind trades, using ETF shares as "currency".
The audacity of these maneuvers is so great that Elisabeth Kashner used MOAT as a case study when she coined the term "heartbeat" trades for ETFs in 2017.
https://insight.factset.com/the-heartbeat-of-etf-tax-efficiency
One might ask what's in it for the APs. It turns out that they can make a nice, reliable profit for this service (on the order of 24 basis pts/year). At the (hidden) expense of the shareholders.
https://insight.factset.com/the-heartbeat-of-etf-tax-efficiency-part-three-trade-forensics
One might ask why the SEC lets ETFs get away with this sort of blatant tax manipulation.

Recognizing the potential benefits to ETFs and their shareholders of employing custom baskets, but also being cognizant of the potential for abuses, the SEC now permits virtually unfettered use of custom baskets. However, ETFs using these custom baskets must adopt and implement detailed written procedures that “set forth detailed parameters for the construction and acceptance of custom baskets that are in the best interest of the [ETF] and its shareholders . . . .” These written procedures are internal, non-public documents. Rule 6c-11 also permits ETFs to do heartbeat trades with non-APs on the day of a reorganization, merger, conversion, or liquidation.

Jeffrey M Colon, Unplugging Heartbeat Trades and Reforming the Taxation of ETFs, University of Chicago Business Law Review, Vol 2.1 (2022?), Section VII.
https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/unplugging-heartbeat-trades-and-reforming-taxation-etfs#heading-6
In short, evidence that OEF/ETF structure causes cap gains is lacking (virtually no gains recognized across decades and scores of funds), ETF turnover isn't what one thinks so use is judiciously, and ETFs work with APs to handle periodic portfolio rebalancings (including reconstitutions).

As with Fidelity, you'll get less than full value from the card if you don't redeem points into a Robinhood account (or spend the points at Robinhood). Not a big deal if you're a Gold member already.
I also tend to discount the value of points earned/redeemed through proprietary travel "portals". I've usually been able to do significantly better with other travel sites. The one exception to worse pricing at "portals" I'm aware of is Capital One. That is because they price match.
On paper at least, the Robinhood credit card looks good. The brokerage, not so good, at least for me since I use mutual funds and Robinhood doesn't. YMMV.
https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/investments-you-can-make-on-robinhood/

If this Bogleheads post is credible, that ETF likely was VIGI / VIAAX.

As an illustration of how well ETFs can avoid capital gains, Vanguard has had only three years in which its diversified stock ETFs distributed a gain.
Vanguard FTSE All-World Ex-US Small-Cap distributed small capital gains in 2009-2010, its first two years. It started near the 2009 market bottom and doubled in its first year, so it didn't have many stocks with losses to sell to meet index changes.
Vanguard International Dividend Achievers Index distributed a 6% capital gain in 2021, when it changed indexes and was thus forced to sell a lot of stock.
Among sector funds, Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF distributed a gain in 2004, its first year, and REIT Index has frequently distributed gains.

https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=404611
There's always the risk of a portfolio overhaul, whether an actively managed fund has a manager change or an index fund changes target indexes (or worse, its objective). The patented structure of VIGI is immaterial here. Outside of 2021, it has never made a cap gain distribution, long or short.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/investments/products/vigi/vanguard-international-dividend-appreciation-etf#priceanddistributions

"Long term performance between the two [ETF and the mutual fund classes] is very close."
In the spirit of sharing info (division of labor) -
It is not the performance tracking one is concerned about. Any cap gains triggered by either class is allocated to both classes, somewhat defeating the general ETF process that otherwise allows to minimize cap gain triggering.
I had unusual amount of cap gains distributed from my Vanguard patented ETF.

Vanguard’s patent is for index funds only, where the portfolio turnover is low. Long term performance between the two is very close.
Actively managed ETFs are quite different animals and post challenge to replicate the identical stock and bond holdings and their respective %. T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Premium Income ETF would be an interesting one to follow.

I may have misread your question (or your intent). I focused on intra-day price because it always bothered me that sites like M*, stockcharts, etc. provide total return figures that depend on assumed reinvestment prices for ETFs and stocks.
You're looking at a broader picture - not just the price on the day of trade, but which day the trade takes place. Fidelity may be a bit unusual in gradually buying shares starting one day before the pay date. The quote below (from a Fidelity moderator) says purchases start two days before pay date, but that was based on T+2.

For the Fidelity Plan, Fidelity will identify all owners of the security. Then, Fidelity Capital Market Services (FCMS) goes to the market for domestic securities to purchase securities for reinvestment two days before the payable date. Fidelity purchases as many shares as possible on a best-efforts basis, determines the average share prices, and then reallocates those shares proportionately to our clients. The reinvestment price is the average price of all shares purchased, which is determined by the market.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fidelityinvestments/comments/13y8iti/just_recently_noticed_that_on_dividend_pay_dates/
One hopes this is advantageous as the long term trend of the market is upward. However, since daily movements are nearly a coin flip, the advantage is not as clear as one might expect.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-daily-percent-move-of-the-stock-market/
Lots of posts but nothing authoritative I can find about Schwab's practice. FWIW, the posts typically complain (speculate) that Schwab reinvests divs a day after the pay date.

Think TRP is trying to sell more of their products via the ETFs route. My hesitation is their above average fees they charged comparing to those from Capital/American funds. I understand these are actively managed but this asset class is expanding quickly and TRP needs to be competitive.
A side note, the Capital Appreciation Premium Income has additional investment mandates including the use of derivatives and call option while the Capital Appreciation and Income fund does not. There are also 4 additional co-managers in addition to D. Giroux and F. Shuggi. So I think the ETF may differ.

T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Premium Income ETF
T. Rowe Price Hedged Equity ETF
I am guessing from a quick look at the registration doc, these two are potentially clones of the existing mutual funds.

Please check the JPM link; it's not working.
correct link - https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/americas/us/en/supplemental/news-and-fund-announcements/2024-mutua-funds-capital-gains-estimates.pdf

"Does GMO offer any funds that incorporate Grantham’s pessimistic views?"
Don't know if GMO has any such funds.
Several years ago an article stated investments in his foundation* did very well.
Edit/Add:
"Grantham's foundation is about 60% invested in early-stage venture capital.
His plan is to raise that share to 70% 'in a few years' and then place half of that pie in green undertakings.
The foundation has averaged a 19% compounded return over the last 20 years, he added."
Link
* Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment

Cliffwater LLC is an alternative asset manager with $115 billion AUM. Stephen Nesbitt is the CEO and he has written books, articles, done media interviews. It offers 3 interval-funds:
CCLFX, AUM $22.8 billion, 2019- , firm's fund
CELFX, AUM $4 bilion, 2021- , firm's fund
CPEFX, AUM $1.4 billion, 2024- ; advises for Cascade Capital
Interval-funds don't really trade. Barron's lists them (names, prices) with Exchange Z (i.e. none). Many don't have tickers - Barron's doesn't show tickers for any (even if they exist). This list has grown over the years. Barron's gets data from Lipper.
My guess is that Lipper has added more interval-funds to its database, so, MFO Premium suddenly finds Cliffwater Funds with $28.2 billion AUM that weren't noticed before.
Interval-funds are a subclass of CEFs, so borrowing costs are included in the ERs. The CEF ERs are high because of this, but Cliffwater funds are on the high end. Here is the fee breakdown for CCLFX fees from its prospectus:
Management Fees 1.00 %
Fees and Interest Payments on Borrowed Funds 1.51 %
Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses 0.35 %
Other Expenses 0.23 %
Total Annual Expenses 3.09 %
Morningstar also has data https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnas/cclfx/quote
Morningstar Podcast https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/blog/podcast/big-picture-in-practice/future-of-investing-alternative-assets
https://www.cliffwater.com/OurFirm
https://www.cliffwater.com/Biography?name=Stephen-Nesbitt
https://www.cliffwaterfunds.com/
https://www.barrons.com/market-data/closed-end-funds?mod=md_subnav
https://www.cliffwaterfunds.com/data/pdfs/literature/CCLF_Prospectus.pdf?v=1730115265804

Just posted all ratings and flows to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 25 October, reflecting risk and return metrics thru 3Q24, as applicable.
After updating the masternames file to reflect CPEFX as part of Cliffwater family, Ciffwater remains atop the MFO Family Scorecard for annual revenue per fund generated, out of about 900 hundred families.
Average revenue: $433M per year per fund.
Just three funds (thank you @stayCalm): Cliffwater Corporate Lending I (CCLFX), Cliffwater Enhanced Lending I (CELFX), Cliffwater Cascade Private Capital I (CPEFX).
CCLFX and CELFX are GOs. CPEFX likely will be when reaches 3-year mark.
Very high expense ratio: average ER 2.81%.
Family AUM of $28.2B.
Revenue per fund per year: $289M.
All CEFs.
All interval funds.
So far, it's delivered.

Anybody on the board know anything about the Advisor or strategies?
c

As a point, I own a few BDC's and have been quite happy with how they have performed for me so far. Never expected much in the way of capital gains but you need to be a buyer at the right time and market circumstances. I own them for the income - ARCC, BXSL, CSWC and HTGC. MAIN (don't own) is probably the most well known but it is currently selling at a hefty premium to it's NAV.

M* doesn't report a YTM for RPHIX (or for many other funds). Likewise, it doesn't report yields for many ETFs (e.g. VXUS).
The YTM field is not described in M*'s documentation for its fund portfolio page.
https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/indexes/mfportfolio.htm
However, elsewhere M* says that it gets this figure from the fund company; it does not calculate the number itself.
https://advisor.morningstar.com/Enterprise/VTC/FI_Survey_Guidelines_cashRevision_FINAL.PDF (2016)
https://advisor.morningstar.com/AWSOE/Training/WMCloud/FIEA/FIEAFAQ.pdf (2020)
While M* doesn't say when it omits SEC yields for funds, for ETFs it says that "When a dash appears, the yield available is more than 30 days old." (This is from mousing over the SEC yield field on any ETF Quote page.)

Nice find. It looks like you hit the sweet (or target) spot - high risk relative to ultra short bond funds (of which it is one based on duration), but low risk relative to short term bond funds.
A fund that's somewhat similar in performance and risk to WEFIX is FPNRX. FPA New Income focuses on preservation and then beating cash. I was happy to see it go no-load several years ago. More recently, it added this investor class so that it could be sold NTF. Unlike many NTF funds, New Income retail class adds only 10 basis points of expenses to its institutional class FPNIX. That may make it worth the cost if you buy frequently and/or in small amounts.
You'll find several funds with short durations and higher yields that invest primarily in ABSs. These look good on paper but come with risks that don't manifest too often. But sometimes they do. Check March 2020.
Almost everyone lost money then, but ABS funds tended to lose more. DHEAX is such a fund. Great three year volatility. Less great five year figure. Max drawdown (March-April 2020) was 9.74%. BBBMX was 4.07%, FPNRX was 4.24%, RPHIX was 1.09%. (All from M*)
It depends on what types of risks you're concerned with and how long you're willing to wait for recoveries.

Is selecting THOPX performance chasing and I am going against my original criteria-low risk?

I sold THOPX earlier in the month as the volatility began eating into my gains. At around the same time I sold WSHNX and WCPNX. But they were nice funds when rates were dropping. Pretty much depends on where you think rates are heading from here.
If you're interested in the David Sherman touch, I'ld look at his Crossing Bridge funds before RPHIX. I ended up buying CBLDX, and it has been touch and go. I Still have some cash that might go into CBUDX. Everything else went into VRIG, PULS, and USFR for the time being.
For my short-term bond fund watch list at M* I've added calendar years 2020 and 2022. These days I am ideally looking for positive returns for both years. I'm a nervous bond fund owner. :)

@MikeM - exactly what I was going to say! Along with FLRN there's also FLOT. They're not quite indistinguishable, but pretty close.
The knock against IG floating rate funds is that they don't do as well in falling interest rate environments. Or so I've read. And until this month (Oct) WCPNX was slightly outperforming them YTD, though not now.
A question is what you are looking for. RPHYX/RPHIX may be unique in how it invests. This results in after-expense returns that are extremely steady and IMHO worth the cost. Funds like FLRN and FLOT invest more traditionally and have slightly higher volatility and slightly lower returns. They are still well within the ultra-short duration and volatility ranges.
WCPNX is a traditional short term bond fund. As such, it can get jostled by market disruptions (see, e.g. 2022 and March 2020). The floating rate funds also got hit in March 2020, a market "blip" that affected pretty much everything. They held up nicely in 2022. Also, Schwab imposes a fee if you sell WCPNX within 90 days of purchase.
So WCPNX is a good fund if you're anticipating holding it for awhile (at least a year), but perhaps there are better choices if you are looking very short term.
Be advised that WCPNX changed name and strategy at the end of 2016. It had been Weitz Short-Intermediate Income Fund.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison - RPHIX (benchmark), WEFIX, FLRN, FLOT

For the past two months, I have been following two "Market Neutral" funds, QQMNX and VMNFX, which held up very well and provided some protection during recent market downturns. New managers have been at the helm of both funds since 2021.
As MikeM said: "I have to admit, QQMNX is a tempting alternative in this alternative field for a less bumpy ride and, so far, excellent returns."
..............QQMNX....VMNFX
YTD.........15.6%.......8.9%
3 YRS.......14.4........14.8
5 YRS.......10.3..........8.2
2022..........9.5.........13.5
Std. Dev....8.6%.......7.3%
As a retired investor who doesn't need a lot more money, preserving capital is more important to me than seeking sizeable returns on capital. While both funds have excellent risk/reward profiles, I have decided to add QQMNX to my portfolio at this time of fairly high equity valuations.

A couple other market neutral funds you can consider: BDMAX and JMNAX. BDMAX has outperformed QQMNX over the last 1 and 2 year trailing periods, and has a higher Sharpe ratio and lower standard deviation over the last 3 years according to Morningstar data. JMNAX has had lower returns, but has a smooth ride. I use a combination of BDMAX and JMNAX, but I might consider adding QQMNX. Thanks for bringing it up.

And thanks for bringing up BDMAX and JMNAX, much appreciated.
Unfortunately, BDMAX has a 5.25% load at my brokerage firm. But, another share class, BDMIX, may be available in an IRA with no minimum investment limit. Still checking it out.
However, JMNAX looks very promising and, as you said, it offers a "smooth ride" with a very low standard deviation of 4.35%. It's available NTF (No Transaction Fee) and offered load-waived.
I will continue to monitor both funds. I am currently fully invested, but some of my CDs are maturing early next year and will make some investable cash available.
Thanks again, Chinfist.

Latest MEMO from Howard Marks, Oaktree Capital, October 22, 2024
If you would rather LISTEN than read.