I'm a bit wary when 'enhanced', 'strategic', or 'dynamic' are included in a fund's name
Marketing aside, what do you really think about the funds?

Are enhanced index funds genuinely enhanced?
Link

Rather than (or in addition to) reading a summary, why not read the whole piece (18 pages): https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~mgruber/pdfs/efm21.pdf
Stern (NYU) and Tobin (St. Johns)
I've just skimmed each, Swedroe's summary and the original paper.
Swedroe writes:

The pre-expense advantage of enhanced index funds all but disappeared post-expense because of their higher expense ratios. This was true whether using the low-cost share class available to institutional investors or the low-cost share class available to individual investors.

IOW, categorically, enhanced index funds do no worse and perhaps a slight bit better than vanilla index funds. The better wording, from the paper itself, is that

The difference [between performance of] both index funds and enhanced index funds is not statistically different from zero. All we can conclude is that enhanced index funds do no worse than index funds after expenses.

So there's no reason to dismiss enhanced index funds as a whole.
An important point made in the paper is that gross of expenses (i.e. before expenses are deducted), enhanced index funds outperform vanilla index funds. It's just that their higher costs eat up nearly all (except for a statistically insignificant amount) of that excess return. Further, while expenses are a predictor of relative outperformance by vanilla index funds (cheaper funds should do better than more expensive ones), they say that expenses cannot predict which enhanced index funds will do better than average.
Let's take that at face value. That any enhanced index fund, net of expenses (i.e. after subtracting off its costs) is as likely as any other to over- or under-perform the average.
Now instead of looking at the universe of enhanced index funds, each with a different "enhancement" method, consider just one enhanced index fund. The size of its outperformance before subtracting fees roughly matches the higher amount of fees it charges. Doesn't matter which enhanced index fund since the authors can make no predictions based on fees.
Suppose now that we had two enhanced index funds, identical in every way (same manager, same portfolios, same quality of execution, etc.) except that one charged lower fees than the other. Their gross performance (before considering fees) would have to be identical by assumption. Their net performance, after subtracting fees, would be different, and predictable.
This does not contradict the paper, because the paper looked at different funds with different portfolios. Those with higher funds performed better, just enough to compensate for their higher fees. That's not the case with the two hypothetical funds because they're identical except for fees.
That seems to be the situation here. Fidelity is taking OEF enhanced index funds, reducing their fees by around 20 basis points, and selling them through ETF channels. Like lower cost vanilla index funds, the ETFs' lower costs makes them attractive, if nothing but sales channel and ERs are changed. That's the $64,000 question - will the ETFs be identical to the former OEF funds?

I'm a bit wary when 'enhanced', 'strategic', or 'dynamic' are included in a fund's name.

:)

I'm a bit wary when 'enhanced', 'strategic', or 'dynamic' are included in a fund's name.

+1 x 1000! :)

@Sven, see Q&A. Fido has all kinds of ETFs - nontransparent, semitransparent, transparent; also, passive, Active.
Q8: Will these ETFs be “non-transparent” or “semi-transparent”?
A: The ETFs will be fully transparent and disclose holdings on a daily basis.
Q9: Does Fidelity have any other transparent active equity ETFs?
A: Yes, Fidelity launched disruptive ETFs in June 2023 that are transparent active equity
ETFs: Fidelity® Disruptive Automation ETF (FBOT), Fidelity® Disruptive
Communications ETF (FDCF), Fidelity® Disruptive Finance ETF (FDFF), Fidelity®
Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED), Fidelity® Disruptive Technology ETF (FDTX), and
Fidelity® Disruptors ETF (FDIF). Fidelity also offers 12 actively managed fully
transparent fixed income ETFs, as well as a number of passively managed fully
transparent ETFs that utilize third-party and proprietary indexes.
Q10: What other ETFs does Fidelity offer?
A: As part of its overall ETF offering, the 64 Fidelity ETFs this month will include twentyone actively managed equity ETFs, twelve fixed income ETFs, thirteen equity factor
ETFs, six passive thematic ETFs, eleven passive equity sector ETFs, and Fidelity ONEQ.
As a leading provider of ETFs, Fidelity’s platform offers individual investors and
advisors access to more than 2,500 ETFs, available for online purchase commission-free,
with more than $930 billion in ETF client assets as of October 31, 2023. As part of
Fidelity's commitment to financial education, the company offers educational resources
to help investors review ETF investing ideas, decide which types of ETFs may fit their
investing needs, or browse ETFs with Fidelity’s screener:
https://www.fidelity.com/etfs/investing-in-etfs.

They are quantitatively "enhanced" index funds, though Fidelity dropped the "index" part of the name for the ETF versions.
Fidelity converted its International Enhanced Index Fund FIENX, its Large Cap Core Enhanced Index Fund FLCEX, its Large Cap Growth Enhanced Fund FLGEX, its Large Cap Value Enhanced Fund FLVEX and its Mid Cap Enhanced Index Fund FMEIX into ETFs.
From these funds' prospectus:

Generally using computer-aided, quantitative analysis of historical valuation, growth, profitability, and other factors to select a broadly diversified group of stocks that may have the potential to provide a higher total return than that of [the respective index]

The addition of these six active equity ETFs can serve as core building blocks for investors to meet this need.’ ...

The “active” strategy and daily reporting make these funds different from other index fund ETFs. From Mark’s link above, these are new addition to Fidelity’s existing actively managed ETFs. In term of fees, they are a tad higher than index ETF in the range of 18-28 bps.

I've always felt that insurance is almost impossible to evaluate because cost is the easiest, but only one of the important variables. How does one evaluate an insurance company's track record of responsiveness to customer problems or of handling claims?
What's the point of paying less in premiums only to get screwed if you have a claim?
You may not always get what you paid for, but you never get what you didn't pay for.
OK, maybe that's a shade too cynical- I've surely had situations where someone was extremely generous in accommodating me well beyond what was actually called for. But sure as hell not insurance companies.

You speak truth.
But here's one: On the way to my doctor, I found I was leaking brake fluid. Just managed to stop in the lot without hitting a tree along the shrub-line. Called the useless1-800 number. ...Hello, I need a tow just as far as the next gas station. Gotta buy some brake fluid. I'm leaking fluid. ....Yes, we cover 62 things related to roadside assistance, but not that.
I called my AGENT, who lives and works an hour from where I was. "I'll bring it to you." And he did. Don't like his Fake Noise politics, but he saved my bacon, that day.

Here is the Fidelity webpage for the ETFs you have identified:
https://www.fidelity.com/etfs/find-an-etf?selectTab=4&imm_pid=700000001009773&immid=100826_SEA&imm_eid=ep35276482655&utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_account_id=700000001009773&utm_campaign=MUT&utm_content=58700004245025695&utm_term=fidelity+sector+etf&utm_campaign_id=100826&utm_id=71700000038831601&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiApOyqBhDlARIsAGfnyMrrbWQ4X3k711ZwQmSPfRszC7RweSFM7NLv4KqFTpkTGYe69AIcrJQaAnhVEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
Excerpt from Citywire's 11/13/23 article:
,,,The ETFs will retain the objectives and management of their mutual fund counterparts. However, their expense ratios have been reduced to about half -- FELC, FELG, and FELV will cost 0.18%, FMDE 0.23%, and FESM and FENI 0.28%. They will continue to be managed by Anna Lester, Max Kaufmann and Shashi Naik.
‘We continue to see demand for active ETFs as investors seek the potential for outperformance with the benefits of an ETF wrapper,’ said Greg Friedman, Fidelity’s head of ETF management and strategy. ‘The addition of these six active equity ETFs can serve as core building blocks for investors to meet this need.’ ...

With apologies to the Shadow if this has already been posted:
Q1: I understand that Fidelity is launching six new enhanced ETFs. What can you tell me?
A: That’s correct, Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Core ETF (FELC), Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF (FELG), Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF (FELV), Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap ETF (FMDE), Fidelity Enhanced Small Cap ETF (FESM), and Fidelity Enhanced International ETF (FENI) will be available commission-free for individual investors and financial advisors through Fidelity’s online brokerage platforms on November 20, 2023.
The new enhanced ETFs, which were initially launched as mutual funds in 2007, are the culmination of Fidelity’s June 2023 announcement regarding the plan to convert the fund suite into ETFs.
Fidelity Statement

Withdrawals w/Fractional End-Balance Goals (Infl-Adj)
Method
1. Use #PortfolioVisualizer for #SWR (% of orig portfolio bal that can be withdrawn at yearends w/infl adj w/o running out of money ($amounts); CFI = Final Bal (infl-adj)/Initial Bal.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1261/thread
2. #SWRM is % of original portfolio bal that can be withdrawn at yearends w/ infl adj, but at the end, $leftover is fraction f (=< 1) of infl-adj orig principal ($amounts).
SWRM = SWR*(CFI - f)/CFI
SWRMs for 01/2000 - 12/2022
FUND CFI f = 0 f = 0.25 f = 0.50 f = 0.75 f = 1
VWELX 2.9844 7.25% 6.64% 6.035% 5.43% 4.82%
FBALX 2.8961 6.83% 6.24% 5.65% 5.06% 4.47%
ABALX 2.9187 7.40% 6.77% 6.13% 5.50% 4.865%
VFINX 2.2346 4.34% 3.85% 3.37% 2.88% 2.40%

Back to the subject of the Thread.
QLTY trading volume continues to be odd. Everyday since its launch, the volume is higher than the previous day but the AUM remains the same $3.1M (as of today's market open). Today's volume is large enough that almost 100% of the # of outstanding shares would change hands in just today. So much retail (and FA) interest (fascination) with this ETF but not enough institutional interest to get the AUM move above the meager launch AUM!

“CEFs are tradable securities just like ETFs and stocks. They have the current market values but no liquidation dates. They are subject to M&A by activists. Just look at GIM that will turn soon into SABA “
Appreciate all this. But ETFs trade at the value of their underlying assets. No? So do mutual funds (in theory anyways). But CEF’s can trade at discounts of 10, 20% or more below book value and sometimes trade well above what their assets are really worth
Maybe a better way to phrase my question: If you buy, sell or own perpetual (non term limited) CEF’s) on what valuation metric do you base your decision if the “share price” is substantially different from the “NAV”?
ISTM - One part I’ve overlooked is earnings stream. I suspect that’s really important to the perpetual CEFs.

Not suggesting we are in a stock market mania, but in a mania market, expect MOAT to underperform. When MOAT changed its methodology in 2016, they made a small fix to it traditionally disregarding the Momentum factor but not a large enough fix.
MOAT methodology is agnostic to Quality factor as well. (It is possible, in M* eyes, moat subsumes quality.) So, If one looks at M*'s factor profile for MOAT, Momentum and Quality factors currently rank the lowest of all the factors.
Also, I would not invest in MOAT unless one is interested in Value because valuation (though can be subjective / assumptions) drives its strategy. If one looks at the M* style map, this can be seen easily.
Currently, its size factor is on the border of large and mid cap. Also, it is somewhat equal weighted (vs cap weighted). Mid cap and equal weighted portfolios have not done well lately vs SPY. Even after the 2016 methodology changes, the fund can swing greatly in factors (except the Value factor) from one rebalance date to the next, and if one is inclined to be in-charge of active management of their portfolio (or the portion allocated to MOAT), MOAT is not for you, as it can throw you off your game.
With MOAT, expect to get idiosyncratic experience relative to SPY.
Next rebalance is after the third Friday in December. So, its portfolio is fixed until then - just in case, one is hoping and praying that it will behave differently tomorrow.
Hopefully, that is enough discussion about MOAT and the thread can get back to QLTY.

CEFs are tradable securities just like ETFs and stocks. They have the current market values but no liquidation dates. They are subject to M&A by activists. Just look at GIM that will turn soon into SABA.
BTW, CEF structure is one of the oldest fund structures going back to late-1800s (but none around from that era). The OEFs came in 1920s, the ETFs are just newbies from 1990s. Among the oldest CEFs now are GAM (1927), TY (1929), PEO (1929), ADX (1929).
Notion of maturity exists in the bond world.
These newer CEFs with special term-structure are unique in that they do have definite liquidation timeframes without wiggle rooms.

@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.