I'm comparing private CRE partnerships(LP role) to publicly traded MLP's where one is an individual investor. I suppose there are partnerships that invest in energy/pipelines but to my knowledge these are far less in number than partnerships focussed on real estate.
1031 exchange within a RE partnership is messy and complicated I agree but it is available as an option vs. not being available at all to an individual investor holding publicly traded MLP's(to the best of my knowledge).
Here are a few articles(pre-Covid days so some of the ground reality has certainly changed) comparing REIT's and MLP's. The last link is a compare between public and private REIT's.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/reits-vs-mlps-assessing-the-better-high-yield-play-50484675
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4244108-reits-vs-mlps-which-is-better-investment REITs Vs. MLPs: Which Is The Better Investment?
https://aspenfunds.us/articles/breakdown-reits-private-reits/

The ability of LP's in a real estate private LLC to get the benefits of depreciation that shields most of the tax impacts of the distributions is massive.
I think you're talking about the LLC members who are not managing members. For clarity it might be simpler to call the companies partnerships, and the owners LPs and GPs. Especially since for federal tax purposes LLCs don't exist.

A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a business structure allowed by state statute. ... Owners of an LLC are called members.
...
Depending on elections made by the LLC and the number of members, the IRS will treat an LLC as either a corporation, partnership, or [a sole proprietorship].

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc
A real estate private partnership (LLC) is able to get depreciation benefits, but so is a public partnership (LLC) such as an MLP. The key differentiator is taxation as a partnership vs. taxation as a corporation. As you wrote, getting a K1 is key.
Another lever available to LP's in real estate LLC's is the ability to pair passive losses against passive income (known as the PIGS/PAL strategy) to basically shield even more of the cash flow from taxes.
That's been available "forever". The JOBS Act did not introduce this. Rather, the limitation of writing off of passive loss against only passive income was introduced by the 1986 TRA. Prior to that, an investor could write off passive losses against active income as well as passive income.
Reiterating what I wrote before, the amount of depreciation (and thus the amount of passive loss) also used to be larger (front loaded and with shorter depreciation schedules).
Perhaps this 1986 Washington Post article will help to clarify. It is titled "Try a PIG or a PAL"

... Beginning Jan. 1, Americans who have sunk dollars into limited partnerships, rental condominiums, duplexes and other forms of real estate investment will find new restrictions on their ability to write off losses.
They will be stuck with a surfeit of unanticipated PALs, and be in dire need of some really fat PIGs.
...
The most controversial section of the 1986 tax legislation classified virtually all real estate investments [other than first and second homes] as "passive," no matter how active they may be in reality.
...
PALs, the economic and paper losses produced by so-called passive real estate, no longer can be used to offset income generated by salaries, dividends, bank accounts and other "nonpassive" income sources.
...
Many real estate-partnership investors, however, own no rental homes. But, fortunately for them, an entire new subsector of American real estate investment is rising from the ashes of tax revision.
Good old-fashioned Yankee ingenuity is creating a bumper crop of PIG partnerships -- real estate investments designed to make money passively. ... So-called master limited partnerships (MLPs) are currently in [this] category.
...
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, MLPs are bona fide limited partnerships. More than 25 MLPs, worth upwards of $ 4 billion, have either come to market since the summer or have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most are real estate related.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/realestate/1986/12/06/try-a-pig-or-a-pal/c9364c54-3251-4477-9e07-331a3dfe8af6/
In short, looking strictly at tax rules, prior to 1987 one could front load depreciation of real estate in partnerships (or LLCs); so much so that one could have paper losses exceeding income generated. One could apply this massive paper loss against W2 income, 1099 income, etc. After TRA, one could not. This obviously made private real estate partnerships (LLC) less valuable and precipitated the crash in values that sma3 mentioned.
There was a fairly recent tax change favoring real estate, but that came in 2017 after the JOBS Act. It's the Section 199A deduction.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/qualified-business-income-deduction

I should have been more specific. The article's claim of private LLC's dying isn't true in today's world, most certainly not after the passage of the JOBS Act.
The ability of LP's in a real estate private LLC to get the benefits of depreciation that shields most of the tax impacts of the distributions is massive. I didn't fully realize the magnitude of this impact until I personally saw it on my tax returns. Easily 80%+ of cash flow is not subject to yearly tax due to depreciation and distributions from these partnerships are in general much higher than public REIT's -ranging from 6 - 12%.
Another lever available to LP's in real estate LLC's is the ability to pair passive losses against passive income (known as the PIGS/PAL strategy) to basically shield even more of the cash flow from taxes.
Investors in public REIT's do not directly get the benefits of depreciation. 1031 exchange(I have not done any) is another lever to execute a strategy colloquially referred to as defer, defer and die.
I'm not condoning the system (it is what it is, individual investors have no control on tax policy) but tax rules imo are ridiculously stacked in favor of property investors. Same applies for carried interest, a tax benefit that is today entirely disproportionate vs. the benefits to society.
The most public example of the benefits of tax rules to property investors is Trump -- New York Times has extensively covered how Trump got away(legally) with declaring massive (paper) losses on property that shielded his real cash flow income for many years(more than 15 if I recall correctly). At much smaller scales, LP's and GP's in real estate LLC's are basically doing the same thing.
Investors in Fidelity CRE would not(my guess) get the benefits of 1031 exchanges but the benefits of depreciation should flow directly to the LP's in the fund **assuming** the fund is structured similar to how private funds in general work(getting a K1 is key).
Fidelity in general as an org is a sharp cookie and they run a fairly large business as a custodian of private LLC's so they have a front row and insider view of the economics, consumer interest and ROI(to Fidelity). I'm speculating of course but I can't imagine that Fidelity is launching this fund on a whim.
EDIT
I see on the term sheet that tax reporting is 1099-DIV so what I stated above mostly won't apply to this particular fund but notwithstanding that, I stand by my other comments on the disproportionate advantages of being an LP in a real estate LLC.
I don't get what advantage accredited investors will get from this fund without a K1 that provides depreciation benefit but perhaps Fidelity's target is the mass affluent market that does not want to spend time scouring for reliable sponsors and trust in the Fidelity brand. Fidelity looks to be somewhat replicating the wildly successful BREIT fund.

I've lost tract of when that was @hank. Definitely Fund Alarm days. I think I started watching FA around 2006-7 or so so probably around that time. PMs and Asia EM were the hot sectors. Harry Brown's permanent portfolio was also talked about a lot. (rono might have called the consistent post 'asia and the metals' now that I think about it).

“Asia and the Metals “ was a morning staple on F/A. Already running when I came there sometime around 2000. But @rono may have posted it on an earlier board before F/A. Asia was a different animal geopolitically 25 years ago. Folks who then complained that Asian workers were taking away U.S. jobs now complain that the cheap items they bought at KMart / Walmart in those days cost a lot more today.
Unfortunately, I cleared out my trading records back to about 10-15 years. Otherwise I’d have a better reference to say when I first tuned in to F/A. Was around the time I moved out of American Century funds. Posted a question re that matter to which Maurice responded. (Never throw anything away.) :)

The Journal of Accountancy article from 1997 isn't relevant in today's world especially after the rise of crowdfunded CRE following the JOBS Act in the 2010's
That article discussed the alteration of tax benefits (notably pass through of losses) in 1986. Could you speak to the tax benefits that have since been restored or otherwise replaced that make the article irrelevant today?
If it's the date of the article that's bothering you, here's a 2020 Tax Foundation piece bemoaning how the TRA extended depreciation periods (MACRS) and restricted the use of declining balance depreciation.

Lessons for Today
...
Long asset lives (for example, 27.5 years for residential buildings and 39 years for nonresidential buildings) in which deductions are spread over many decades mean that companies cannot deduct anywhere near the full value of their investments in structures, as inflation and the time value of money chip away at the value of those deductions. Shortening depreciation schedules to 15 or even 20 years, roughly where they were before TRA86, would lessen the magnitude of this problem, but it would not be the ideal policy.
The current system of depreciation creates a bias against businesses that heavily invest in structures, as the effective marginal tax rates on investments in nonresidential and residential structures are much higher than those on equipment, software, and intellectual property.

https://taxfoundation.org/1980s-tax-reform-cost-recovery-and-the-real-estate-industry-lessons-for-today/
With respect to crowdfunding, that's a completely separate matter. It deals with who can invest, not how the investments are taxed. Whatever Regs A+ and CF and Rule 506(c) facilitate, they don't apply to the Fidelity offering. As stated in the Form D that yogi cited, Fidelity's offering gets its SEC exemption from Rule 506(b).

Treasury ladder doesn't have the issue of credit research needed for bond ladder.
BTW, mid/late-month is a good time to jump start T-Bill ladders when 13-wk (next 4/17/23), 26-wk (next 4/17/23), 52-wk (next 4/18/23) T-Bills are sold.
As posted elsewhere, ultra-short-term funds FCNVX, ICSH, etc may also serve as substitutes for rolling T-Bills.

Funds mentioned GSIMX, GQGIX.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1149456/a-growth-fund-without-tech-stocks
More at GQG Website https://gqgpartners.com/

Dollar remains key for PMs.
https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=GDX&compare=GDXJ,UUP,GLD,SLV&id=p49896375419

@Sven and @LouisBraham - Thanks for your knowledgeable comments. I agree with you both to the point of saying that absolutist views on financial matters can be counterproductive and destructive of wealth and that they may blind one to potential opportunities. I really shouldn’t have cited what amounted to an “off-the-cuff” remark taken out of context from another forum. In that form it sheds no real light on the subject. My bad.
My intent was to augment @Old_Joe’s stated aversion to bond funds by extending his argument to an extreme absolutist viewpoint and thereby add a touch of good humor to the discussion. Anyone who reads my posts knows that I find a role for bond funds in a diversified portfolio and that I do not conform to or endorse the position a brief snipped pulled out of context elsewhere appears to support.
While we’re on the subject of bond funds: (1) One really shouldn’t throw all bond funds into one hopper and treat them the same. These vary in duration from ultra-short all the way out to long term treasuries. Credit quality and geographic location also vary greatly. (2) I suspect that some who disparage bond funds today are viewing them through a near-term distorted lens. Had you looked at performance charts prior to 2022 the 10-15 year returns would have looked much better.

Howdy folks,
The pm's have been breaking out. Gold passed $2,000 and silver not only blew through $25 but just now $26. I started scaling up yesterday from my hold position (which is a bit crazy for you normal peeps). I'm mostly playing the junior silver miners. They can be accessed at http://www.kitcosilver.com/equities.html However, there are some serious nose bleed stocks on this list so please be prudent.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

AAII Sentiment Survey, 4/12/23
For the week ending on 4/12/23, neutral became the top sentiment (39.5%; above average) & bullish became the bottom sentiment (26.1%; low); bearish became the middle sentiment (34.5%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -8.4% (below average). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); economy; the Fed; dollar; cryptos; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (59+ weeks, 2/24/22- ); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were mixed (cyclicals up, growth & tech down), bonds down, oil up, gold down, dollar down. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=9&scrollTo=1007

Vanguard charges $20 per trade for TF funds.
Investors with $1M - $5M in eligible funds can execute 25 trades gratis per calendar year.
Fidelity charges $49.95 to buy TF funds but there are no fees to sell.
It appears the $5 automatic investment option (after initial investment) at Fidelity may be available for ARDBX.
Interested parties should probably contact Fidelity to confirm this is correct.

A couple of clarifications (perhaps):
- The termsheet that Shadow provided says that minimum additional investments are $5K, but doesn't say that these additional investments are required or that they can only be made on a monthly schedule.
- The 3 years before redemptions are allowed start when the initial offering is closed (as opposed to when operations begin). The Form D filing says that the initial offering is expected to remain open for more than a year. So it could be much longer than three years before one could get one's money out.
@sma3 - are you referring to the Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986?

ONCE TOUTED AS THE INVESTMENT vehicle of the future, limited partnerships are seldom pitched to investors today. Instead, clients and the CPAs who advise them are looking back at the tax and financial factors that contributed to the downfall of LPs in areas such as oil and gas, real estate and equipment leasing.
...
THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1986, combined with increased Internal Revenue Service audit scrutiny spelled the beginning of the end for tax-oriented LPs. Extension of the at-risk limitations to real estate tax shelters and the passive loss provisions in the TRA [reducing the ability of individual taxpayers to offset income with losses from tax shelters] gave the IRS the weapons it needed.

Journal of Accountancy, What Happened to Limited Partnerships?
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/1997/jul/knight.html

Just to point out some loophole: If you have more than 250K in any set of Artisan funds, you can buy any closed Artisan fund. From their prospectus about the required condition: "You are a shareholder with combined balances of $250,000 in any of the Funds..."

Yes, next year or whenever. See gift I-Bonds here, https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/577/thread

I used a wide range for fixed rate (0.40-1.00%). The current fixed rate of 0.40% should go up. But with 5-yr TIPS at 1.18%, 1.00% sounds generous. So, the range of 3.79-4.40% for the combined rate is solid.

Fixed rate 0.40-1.00%
Semiannual inflation 1.694% (Unadjusted CPI 6-mo change from Sep-Mar)
Composite rate = 3.79-4.40 %
(Current rate of 6.89% valid for purchases until 4/28/23)
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1006/thread

”Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed Monday to pay $15 million to settle regulatory claims that it obscured the cost of derivatives that clients purchased to bet on or against an index of overseas stocks. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said Monday that Goldman in 2015 and 2016 didn’t tell clients that it priced swaps in a way that put them in a disadvantageous position. The swaps contracts were tied to an index of stocks from Japan, Europe, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia, the CFTC said. Clients that traded with Goldman on those terms either bought the index at an above-market level or sold at a below-market level, which put them ‘underwater’ at the start of the trade …
“Swaps are financial contracts in which traders agree to exchange payments based on, say, changes in the price of a stock, index or other asset. Buyers can purchase them from a bank such as Goldman, typically paying a fee, expressed as an interest rate, when they enter the trade … Goldman traders set the initial price of the swap using the MSCI Europe Australasia and Far East Index’s value on the same day the parties agreed to the trade, regulators said. Such trades are typically priced on the following day’s value of the index, in order to reduce the risk that banks with more information about the underlying markets could gain an advantage in how the swaps are priced … Goldman benefited when it found a client that would agree to same-day swaps because it could enter into related trades that quickly netted a profit …
“Goldman tended to target the trade at clients who understood less about how the underlying markets of the swaps worked, the regulator said. ‘Communications show that Goldman personnel believed that the less the clients understood about the economics of the same-day swaps, the more profit Goldman could make,’ the settlement order said.”
Excerpted from The Wall Street Journal / April 11, 2023 (Attribution to Reuters ) Byline - Dave Michaels
Here’s a Link - You’ll probably need wsj subscription to access full story
“If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.”
― Warren Buffett

@BenWP It is certainly an interesting fund for those who want exposure to the Artisan team. But the more I look at ARDBX, the more I think it is truly a different animal from ARTKX. Not just small-caps, but highly concentrated in just 34 stocks. I would expect significantly more volatility. My thinking is it could be a good satellite international position, but not a core one, a way to get exposure to this talented management team, but not ARTKX's particular portfolio or style. ARTKX is also concentrated in 53 stocks, but those are big blue chips, less risky. I think the decision comes down to whether an investor wants a stylistic clone to ARTKX--that is not ARDBX--or exposure to ARTKX's managers/analysts--that is ARDBX.

@Sven, thanks for pointing that out You used an important phrase: "out-performing their respective index". The WSJ didn't compare all 1,257 "qualified" (over $50M AUM, 3 year record) actively managed domestic equity funds to their respective indexes, but compared them all to the S&P 500.
Providing a quick bit of context, VFIAX returned -7.77% (April 2022 - March 2023), while its sibling VTSAX returned -8.78%. (Data from M*, 1 year performance as of last quarter.) Based on that figure it looks like active managers have acquitted themselves pretty well over the past 12 months.
Of course, I'm fudging figures too, because I'm not looking at how many large cap vs. small and medium cap funds there are. For example, if 99% of funds were large cap, then we should indeed be comparing the average fund return to the S&P 500.
The point is that the WSJ piece didn't look at any of this. It just went: oooh, look at how few funds made money last year. That would sound a lot different if it had been expressed as: isn't it a shame that only 27 actively managed funds managed to beat the S&P 500 by more than 7.7%?