@WABAC: the “wide-moat” approach taken by the Van Eck MOAT considers other factors besides the existence of a narrow or a wide moat. In addition to deciding if a firm has a moat, M* establishes a fair value for the stock, expressed in stars 1 to 5, and tries to determine how far above or below that value the stock is trading. From my understanding, the fund selects 4 and 5-star for inclusion in the fund, runs some sort of screen to determine the financial strength of the company, and then, quarterly, reviews 40 of the 80 fund holdings for continued inclusion or for exclusion. A stock might be dropped for “valuation” meaning it rose enough in price to no longer be an attractive holding or it could be dropped if some material change took place. It’s also possible that more attractive candidates replace existing holdings. When MOAT came to market it had but 40 stocks, all up for review quarterly, and at one point the fund became massively overweight energy due to the PMs slavishly following the original rules. Performance suffered badly. Doubling the size of the fund and rebalancing only half of the portfolio quarterly seems to have fixed those early glitches. So, a company may have a wide moat, but it won’t become part of the fund unless it’s a “good” buy. I like my long-term mileage.

CEFs But where do the perpetual type derive their value? (I’ve read the prospectuses on several and have owned both types.) If the assets will never be marketed (ie held into perpetuity) how can you or I know what our shares are really worth? It is, of course, common for CEFs to trade above or below their NAV. But in the case of “limited term” CEFs there is the assurance those assets will be put on the market some day. A perpetual CEF could in theory go on for 100 years just trading on some market determined value which might have little resemblance to the worth of its underlying assets. Nuts on the surface.
Maybe it’s the same as with common stocks. One does not “plan” for a company to be broken up and sold off in pieces. However, there is often a breakup value or book value to help support the share price. Is that the part I’m missing with perpetual CEFs?

These CEFs with special term-structures have evolved over 2-3 years. In about 12.0-13.5 years after inception, these CEFs will liquidate, but smaller residual CEFs may continue AFTER all shareholders who want to redeem have been redeemed. Prices will be whatever they are at the time of liquidation, but premiums/discounts should disappear. But in the recent bond selloff, these have been sold indiscriminately along with others. One problem is that many think of them as new CEFs, but they have much older perpetual CEF cousins, often run by the same managers.
Many firms have both - perpetual and special term CEFs. Several examples of CEFs with special term-structures:
Pimco PDO, PAXS
Nuveen NDMO, NMCO, NPFD
Thornburg TBLD
More info
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/22/funds-series?page=1&scrollTo=436
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/515/cefs-newer-term-structures-nuveen?page=1&scrollTo=1214

Having trouble getting my head around how the intrinsic “value” (now or in the future) to shareholders of perpetual CEFs works. In recent years there’s been a number of limited term CEFs opened (purely by way of example): Blackrock’s BCAT. The prospectus for this type of CEF sets a “liquidation date” in the future (perhaps 10 years) when the fund’s assets will be sold off and the shareholders paid based on NAV at that time. Usually there’s language to the effect that the board of directors / shareholders may at such time decide to extend the date of fund’s liquidation a number of years.
OK - That all makes sense to me. No matter how far above or below NAV the CEF is trading at any given time, shareholders know that if they hang on until the liquidation date they will receive the actual NAV of shares owned. But what about the other (perpetual) type? Is there any intrinsic value in the asset base / shares outstanding that is transferable to shareholders, or is it a game of charades? I’m sure someone smarter than me can answer that. Also, perhaps voice a preference for one type CEF or the other.
Thanks!

A brief story on QLTY and active etf's at CNBC that is not behind a paywall.

According to GMO’s website, as of November 17th, the ETF’s top holdings include Microsoft, UnitedHealth and Johnson & Johnson
″[These companies] can do things competitors can’t. Moats around their business. They have strong balance sheets,” he said. “These are battleship companies that are going to remain relevant and important going forward.”
Yet, the stocks’ performance is mixed so far this year. Microsoft is up almost 54% so far this year. Shares of UnitedHealth are virtually flat while Johnson & Johnson is down more than 15%.

Random thoughts generated:
Anybody that looks at M* could understandably feel moated out.
However, MOAT doesn't actually own any of those three in its top ten. Surprised me.
And this from the same article:

ETF Store President Nate Geraci sees active ETFs as natural evolution in the industry.
“If you think of an active manager attempting to generate after tax alpha, the ETF wrapper helps lower that hurdle. It offers a better chance at outperformance,” Geraci said.
He adds ETFs can give active managers a better chance at long-term success.

Random question springs to mind:
Has buying the cap-weighted market lost it's luster? Since January 2000 the CAGR for VFINX has been 6.37, if I have set this up correctly.
I know I haven't done better than that, but I like cash. OTOH, it's paying off now since we aren't liquidating assets to finance our lifestyle in retirement.
DODGX, for one, has done better, with a CAGR of 8.93%. And they only charge a penny more than QLTY.
VFINX did win the fin de siecle of the 20th century. It was a lot easier to make money in the market in those days.
YMMV
BTW,my amateur interest in naval history prompts me to add that battleships have not been relevant for a very long time.

A couple of the AQR funds will make distributions of 10% or more.

Conestoga Mutual Funds
Conestoga Funds Distributions:
At this time, we are expecting a long-term capital gains distribution in the Conestoga Small Cap Fund of $0.615220/share, payable to shareholders with a record date of December 1, 2023, with a payable/ex-dividend date of December 4, 2023. Currently, we are not expecting to have capital gains distributions in the Conestoga SMid Cap, Micro Cap, or Mid Cap Funds.
For complete information, go to https://www.conestogafunds.com/mutual-funds

Heard a bit about AMICA for insurance. Comments?

Amica has been rated by Consumer Report as the best insurance for decades now. I tried them several times. We have 3 insurance products auto, home, and umbrella and I need one company to handle all of them.
We had State Farm for 10+ years but they wanted to triple our auto insurance when the kids started to drive. I changed to Liberty for "only" 50% increase. My kids had several accidents and 3 totals, and Liberty was great. Liberty raised my auto insurance only once for 6 months. Every 3-5 years my agent was able to keep it low by writing a new auto policy, but Liberty got rid of the local agents and I had to fight myself.
Earlier this year, Liberty wanted to increase our auto insurance by 50%, after about 20 years I changed to Allstate at only a 20% increase.
Every time I called Amica, they could match only the Umbrella(which is the simplest) but not the auto + home insurance (at least double +).

@stillers, you got to the right place. Invesco/VZ is a leader in the equal-weight fund space and has a whole bunch of them. Most are ETFs, but some OEFs also. For the fund you found, there are multiple classes with varying availabilities.
VADAX, Investor class, ER 0.53% (high), no-load/NTF at Fido and Schwab. May have front-load elsewhere.
VADDX, Institutional class, ER 0.28% (so-so), min only $1K. It seems that Invesco has restricted access and that may be why Fido and Schwab don't offer it on their platform.
VADFX, Retirement R6 class, ER 0.19% (lowest). Restricted to large plans.
AUM in all classes $6.1 billion.
But there is a huge ETF version RSP, ER 0.20%, AUM $41.2 billion. That seems like the best deal for retail investors as the general choice is VADAX or RSP.

Donuts & doughnuts I like them both ! Crash +1

"Go-anywhere moderately-aggressive-allocation (70-90% equity) EKBAX"
is a worthy OEF in its category.
But...with an over 52% Tech allocation and a relatively paltry 14% YTD TR, we'll instead use FSELX (63% YTD), FBGRX (50%) and/or FSPTX (46%) for our hi-flying exposures.
@yogibearbull: Sorry if a bit off-topic. We're looking for an SP, equal-weighted index OEF. So far researching VADAX. Are there other OEFs like it to consider?

A deductible is the amount you have to pay before any insurance kicks in. The highest deductible a Part D plan is allowed to have is $545; some may have lower deductibles.
https://www.medicare.gov/drug-coverage-part-d/costs-for-medicare-drug-coverage/yearly-deductible-for-drug-plans
After you pay the deductible, then you are charged copay (fixed dollar amount) or coinsurance (percentage of the negotiated cost). This is called the "initial phase". Once you've paid $5030 for drugs (including the deductible) you enter the "gap coverage phase" aka the "donut hole".
https://www.medicare.gov/drug-coverage-part-d/costs-for-medicare-drug-coverage/copaymentcoinsurance-in-drug-plans
These are all 2024 figures. 2023 figures are a bit lower.
Here's an inexpensive (50¢/mo premium) Part D plan in Honolulu. It has a $545 deductible; after that it charges 50% for non-preferred brand name drugs. Assuming you've met your deductible, then for a non-preferred brand name drug that cost $800, you'd pay $400 and the insurer would pay the rest.
Wellcare Value Script S4802-164-0
Another plan might have a $100/mo copay for non-preferred brand name drugs. In such a plan, once you met the deductible, you'd pay $300 for a 90 day supply of the drug.
Is this extortion? That's an economic, a business, and a political question. If you have investments in pharmaceutical companies, you are getting some benefit from this system. Not nearly as much as it is costing you on the consumer side, but this is the system that was set up in 2003.

In a poll taken in the week that President Bush signed the new Medicare law, 47 percent of senior citizens opposed the changes, and only 26 percent voiced their approval. Among people of all ages who said they were closely following the Medicare debate, 56 percent said they disapproved of the legislation, and 39 percent supported it (ABC News/Washington Post Poll 2003).
...
Pharmaceutical manufacturers could now expect a higher demand from their best customers, and they prevailed on all three of their priority issues: no direct administration of benefits by the federal government, no explicit cost control measures, and no legalization of drug reimportation.

A Political History of Medicare and Prescription Drug Coverage, 2004.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690175/
Only now, 20 years later, are we beginning to see changes. The $2K out of pocket cap doesn't become effective until 2025.

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-will-the-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act-affect-medicare-beneficiaries/

Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site through October using Refinitiv's data drop dated 17 November.
First time the update made same day Lipper drops data, early today Saturday. Soon, the updates will be same morning.
Month To Date (MTD) numbers, through 17 November, looking good! Helping offset a terrible October.

Traditional Medicare lets me sleep nights and I have to chase down no eligible doctors and hospitals.
There are some (an admittedly small number) of providers who have opted out of Medicare entirely. In this sense, Medicare too has a network, it's just a very large network.
https://data.cms.gov/tools/provider-opt-out-affidavits-look-up-tool
Medicare PPOs cover all providers who have not opted out of Medicare. PPOs typically do not require referrals. The claim that MA restricts you to networks while Original Medicare does not is close to a canard. The only network that Medicare PPOs restrict you to is the Medicare network.
IMHO the key differences between MA and Original Medicare are: MA plans require preapprovals for some procedures; and costs differ. MA plans come with built in (max out of pocket) caps and often fixed dollar co-pays (as opposed to Medicare's uncapped 20% coinsurance). Though it does cost more to go out of network than stay in network with a PPO.
Medicare Supplemental plans that contain costs and cover coinsurance are not cheap. They often cost more than Medicare Part B itself. One doesn't need, and cannot buy, a Medicare Supplemental plan with a MA plan. However, a MA plan will tend to have higher out of pocket costs compared to Original Medicare plus Medigap.
Cost differences between MA and Original Medicare could explain why MA participants tend to be poorer than Original Medicare participants.
2024 MAPD plans in each Hawaii county (from Medicare.gov):
Hawaii: 6 plans, 4 are PPOs
Maui: 9 plans, 7 are PPOs
Kauai: 11 plans, 10 are PPOs
Honolulu: 17 plans, 13 are PPOs
Kalawao: 2 plans, both are PPOs
Sample plans (not saying these are especially good, just providing examples):
Humana Choice PPO H5216-233-1, $0 premium, $0 drug deductible is available in Honolulu county.
Humana Choice PPO H5216-233-2, $0 premium, $0 drug deductible is available in Maui and Kauai counties.
HMSA Akamai Advantage Standard PPO H3832-007-0, $0 premium, $400 drug deductible is available in Hawaii, Kalawao, Kauai, and Maui counties.
Most standalone Part D plans have substantial drug deductibles, often the $545 legal max.

+1. Two minor surgeries at two different hospitals this year. Traditional Medicare lets me sleep nights and I have to chase down no eligible doctors and hospitals. Note: I was in the doc's office the other day, and a woman was there from the Big Island. She was referred from over where she lives, in Hilo. That's a big, expensive doctor's visit for her!!! No ferries here. Gotta FLY.

$259K federal debt per US taxpayer. IMHO the debt issue discussion will be here for keeps. 20 year auction on 11/20 and 30 year auction on 12/12. I am watching to see if this slowly develops into a simple supply/demand issue disregarding other macro events. Most equities on US exchanges are priced in dollars.

@Crash - Who you gonna believe? Your own eyes … or a report by the NHSTA? :)
Gotcha. Some federal agency had way too much money to burn. Next, they can compute the risk of me walking outside of the painted bars in the crosswalk. JAYZUZ.
The 2011 study by the National Highway Safety Transportation Authority was follow up to an earlier 2009 study which reached similar conclusions.
From page 19 of study:
”Overall, the odds ratios indicate that the odds of an HE vehicle being in either a pedestrian or bicycle crash are greater than the odds of an ICE vehicle being in a similar crash. The odds ratio for an HE versus an ICE vehicle involved in a pedestrian crash was 1.35, and the odds ratio for an HE versus an ICE vehicle involved in a bicycle crash was 1.57.”
(HE - Hybrid & Electric motor vehicles / ICE - Internal combustion vehicles)
The Study: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811526

Nov 18th Episode...Part two:

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending November 17, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. SpaceX uses the term 'unscheduled disassembly' when a destructive event occurs during any stage of a pre-orbit launch. With about 6 weeks of equity/bond markets trading remaining for the year, our house is hoping there will not be any Unscheduled Portfolio Disassembly. Fingers crossed for no UPD, as numerous investment areas will have decent year ending performance.
Remain curious,
Catch

@Crash - Who you gonna believe? Your own eyes … or a report by the NHSTA? :)
The 2011 study by the National Highway Safety Transportation Authority was follow up to an earlier 2009 study which reached similar conclusions.
From page 19 of study:
”Overall, the odds ratios indicate that the odds of an HE vehicle being in either a pedestrian or bicycle crash are greater than the odds of an ICE vehicle being in a similar crash. The odds ratio for an HE versus an ICE vehicle involved in a pedestrian crash was 1.35, and the odds ratio for an HE versus an ICE vehicle involved in a bicycle crash was 1.57.”
(HE - Hybrid & Electric motor vehicles / ICE - Internal combustion vehicles)
The Study: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811526