Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

GMO: the quality anomaly

2»

Comments

  • Mitchelg said:

    Prefer and own XMHQ. Has a terrific track record.

    Thanks

  • edited January 3
    @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.
  • edited January 5
    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.
  • If quality has a permanent bias to being mispriced to the downside, where and when do you get outperformance to the upside?
  • I have a large position in JQUA and am very pleased with the performance.
  • edited February 4
    QLTY beat a few Quality funds ETFs & SPY YTD
  • FUQIX has the lead. I puzzled over the fund literature, but missed where they explained what SAI stand for. Anyone?
  • Statement of additional information. Usually an addendum to a prospectus or report.
  • edited February 4
    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.
  • edited February 4
    Fidelity has a factor quality etf, FQAL but unfortunately it does not perform nearly as well as FUQIX.

    FYI - 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.
  • fundly said:

    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
  • edited February 5
    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).
  • edited February 5
    I think SAI is a trade name (owned by Fidelity). Not sure SEC could have prevented Fidelity from using in the SAI series.

    Agree that now it forces us to read both prospectus and SAI - at least look at the table of contents.
  • @BaluBalu - did you mean prosecutes or prospectus.
  • Thanks. Corrected
  • edited March 18
    The Ben Inker article referenced in the OP can be downloaded as a PDF without registering on the GMO site.

    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
  • 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.
  • JUQA GQLIX ( or USBOX or QLTY) pretty close to FUQIX over 3 5 years

    Not much difference.
  • @sma3 - just guessing that you meant JQUA and not JUQA as written.
  • sorry but yes JQUA
  • edited March 18
    FUQIX not available to retail investors; GQLIX is global (not just US).
  • fwiw, you cannot buy QLTY at Merrill (!):

    \\ Trading of this security is generally not permitted on the Merrill platform as it carries unique risks, as further described in the prospectus. Merrill maintains a Block List for certain Exchanged Traded products and this has been identified as one of them. This order has potential for volatile performance and/or significant tracking error and may have higher expense ratios, lower liquidity or higher risk of fund closure than other similar funds in the same peer group
  • Yeah, but other than that it seems OK...
  • edited May 2
    OK by me. Up 5.2% since purchase.
  • I bought it on Fidelity with no problems.
  • edited May 2
    From davidrmoran's post:
    "This order has potential for volatile performance and/or significant tracking error and may have higher expense ratios, lower liquidity or higher risk of fund closure than other similar funds in the same peer group."

    It's interesting that Merrill does not permit trading QLTY on its platform.

    1) GQETX (similar to QLTY but includes foreign equities) had lower volatility and max. drawdowns
    than the S&P 500 since its inception on 02/06/2004.

    2) The QLTY expense ratio is 0.50% - not the cheapest but not egregious either.

    3) The Top 10 holdings of QLTY as of 03/31/2024 are listed below.
    These are mostly large, well-known companies with high liquidity.

    Microsoft Corp Information Technology
    Oracle Corp Information Technology
    Meta Platforms Inc Communication Services
    Alphabet Inc Communication Services
    UnitedHealth Group Inc Health Care
    Johnson & Johnson Health Care
    Lam Research Corp Information Technology
    General Electric Co Industrials
    KLA Corp Information Technology
    Texas Instruments Inc

    4) Total assets for QLTY were $440 million as of 03/31/2024.
    I don't think there is a high risk of fund closure due to low asset levels.
  • It's interesting to me also. Fidelity has a warning sometimes associated with buying certain securities that you have to acknowledge you read but never an outright ban.
Sign In or Register to comment.