bee +1

Alerian Energy Infrastructure (ENFR)? Hard to think of a $62M ETF that's focused on just a slice of infrastructure (energy MLPs) as a main ETF.
Investopedia's piece seems a bit confused on some details. Its title says that it is about the the best ETFs going forward (best for Q1 2022), but its text says that it is discussing the three ETFs with the best past performance.
It says that there are eight non-leveraged, non-inverse infrastructure funds with AUM over $50M. US News does indeed identify eight ETFs north of $50M: IFRA, TOLZ, PAVE, NFRA, GII, IGF, VPN, and SIMS. ENFR isn't among these eight. Is Investopedia's count wrong or it is mistaken in viewing ENFR as an infrastructure ETF?
From the piece's citations, it seems the writer merely ran this screen on etfdb and picked the three equity ETFs with the best one year returns. In doing so, he missed a better performing ETF.
FWIW, etfdb does not consider funds like ENFR to be infrastructure funds. Nor do M* and Lipper. Here's etfdb's list of infrastructure ETFs. If one is going to consider such funds (I'm not opining one way or the other), then ISTM that one would be writing about Global X MLP and Energy Infrastructure (MLPX) rather than ENFR.
MLPX is a real player (the same size as IFRA), it's in the same energy MLP space as ENFR (having the same top 11 holdings in common), it outperformed ENFR over the chosen one year period by about 1½%; it has better long term risk adjusted performance (4* vs 3* for ENFR), and its bid/ask spread is about 1/5 that of ENFR (from Fidelity pages).
If one is investing based on the just signed infrastructure bill, then it might make sense to focus on domestic funds. If one is investing longer term or seeking greater diversification, then some global funds though not recent standouts might merit a second look.
Here's a recent Kiplinger piece discussing two global infrastructure ETFs along with PAVE.
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/etfs/602631/infrastructure-etfs-trillions-spending
And a US News piece (via WTOP) giving nice one paragraph summaries about what distinguishes each of seven infrastructure funds. It includes MLPX. It also includes SPDR S&P Transportation (XTN). If one is going to consider an ETF (or two) focused on energy infrastructure, then I suppose why not consider an ETF focused on transportation.
https://wtop.com/news/2021/09/7-infrastructure-etfs-to-cash-in-on-1-trillion-bill/
P.S. For a totally contrarian (pure foreign), high risk (China focused), dare I say wacko option, there's OBOR - One Belt, One Road. And yet, it's a five star fund, and a lot less volatile than PAVE.

I was able to locate this PDF from Fido. Hope it may help!
https://institutional.fidelity.com/app/proxy/content?literatureURL=/9903894.PDF
I was able to locate the proxy filing for investors filed 8/23/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320351/000119312521253904/d45030ddefa14a.htm

A good article on the challenges of managing money in retirement.
better-get-a-spending-strategy

The problem with spend down rules is that they assume that the objective of spending in retirement is simply not running out of money. Actually, the objective is… well, spending—and having some predictability around one’s income. Not running out of money is the constraint, not the objective.

@JonGaltIII : "Separate note: when evaluating many "top performing" SC funds, the mean reversion 10+ years ''
Would you care to comment more on that statement. Are you talking from the high point to mean or low point to mean ? Also, does this statement work for growth as well as value ?
Thanks for your time , Derf

At the bottom of MFO Home, it says "Proudly Powered by WordPress", https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/
Then there is news on security breach at GoDaddy's WordPress that says that emails, passwords, etc were compromised. What is MFO advising its members to do? https://gizmodo.com/a-security-breach-exposed-emails-and-site-passwords-of-1848108614
"GoDaddy recently learned that the impacts of a compromised password can be far-reaching. The domain registrar and web hosting platform revealed on Monday that it had experienced a security breach that disclosed up to 1.2 million email addresses for active and inactive Managed WordPress customers, as well as those customers’ WordPress administrator passwords."

I own WAMCX and MSSMX ... the latter can be much more volatile and has had a tough year. I wasn't aware of CSMVX but @gk3105gklm keeps mentioning interesting funds to me. To your question... it depends on if you can stomach the volatility in SC for the increase in returns over the SPY. It probably wouldn't be a "main" component but I understood your question to be ... any percentage. Yes would be my answer. A smaller percentage. Separate note: when evaluating many "top performing" SC funds, the mean reversion 10+ years

Alternatively, maybe, a somewhat brighter future possibly, in the tradition of DClinton, HMann, and Ike:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/22/opinion/biden-infrastructure-spending.html

PTAM is on pg 1 under P.

There are SO many. I dunno if this is a repeat.
PTAM. Performance Trust PTIAX Strategic Bond: .0771 cents/share
Muni Fund: PTIMX : zero.
Credit Fund. PTCRX: .02 cents/share.
ptam.com/documents/capital_gain_distribution_estimates_2021.pdf

I think SC's are good to hold in a diversified portfolio, even for retirees. To me what is important is how volatile the sum of all your holding are. Not 1 holding specifically. In my opinion, yes it would be good to have small caps going forward. I read a few opinion pieces in Barrons to weight small caps over large caps in 2022 and value might be the better theme. But take opinions with a grain of salt of course.
There may be more tame ways to hold SC's if you are worried about volatility. One is to use a balanced fund. I bought PMEFX earlier this year but I'm sure there might be others like it. GPGOX is a small/mid cap global fund I've held since inception. I think it's closed though. I have a SC value fund and a SC growth fund in smaller quantities (QRSVX and ARTSX). Recently I decided to over weight SCV a bit and bought VBR, Vanguard small cap value ETF.
I rambled a bit, but to answer your original question, yes I think it is worth having some SC in a diversified buy-and-hold portfolio. The percentage is of course per your liking, but 2% doesn't seem like it would add much to portfolio volatility. I would tend to pick a blend fund (both growth and value stocks) if I only owned 1.

+1 @Crash. The "Best-laid plans" phrase comes to mind when I hear an idea that has to extend for many years of due diligence to be successful. I know I don't have that mental stamina.

...And I thank you for the reply, too, @yogibearbull. Quite some distance drifting now, from Fixed Income. Sorry, all. I was replying to @Mav123.

Howdy folks,
Hell, I think the revolution has already begun. Alas. The anger among the have-nots (is) visible and justified. No hopes, no dreams. Sorry but I see us headed for a bloody revolution. Again. Sorry, I hope I'm wrong.
rono

Sadly true. +1. Not to mention cultural breakdown, and no sense of the Common Good remains. Consumerism and Individualism reign.

GARP approach and term were widely used at one time. The approach was also tied to using PEG - or P/E-to-growth ratio and many managers said to pay PEG up to 1-2 (well, in today's environment, forget that when highflyers trade for high P/S, and some like Rivian/RIVN and Lucid/LCID don't even have S). But then the term GARP disappeared for a while and may not be recognized now by some posters. I think that most "blend" funds could be using GARP.

@MikeM -
Personally I don’t care for online editions of various publications like Barron’s or the WP. Not sure why - but they seem to be laid out more like a website - “links on top of links.” In addition, I had a bad experience many years ago getting one publisher to stop charging my card after I cancelled the subscription..
Amazon pioneered the Kindle reader(s) and sells subscriptions to most anything, although tracking them down on Amazon’s site is sometimes difficult. These Kindle subscriptions read more like a regular newspaper or magazine (front page to end). Essentially, you keep “turning” pages. In addition, there’s an easy to pull down index accessible from anywhere you might be.
Prices for subscriptions are often a bit higher, One nice feature is you can go to your Amazon account and cancel anytime. And they refund the remaining balance same day. One drawback, I suppose, is the Kindle publications don’t update throughout the day. OK with me. And some readers complain about missing charts - particularly with IBD. No - I’m not a Kindle or Amazon salesman! Just trying to be helpful. The type of subscription format is really a matter of user preference.
Devices? The Kindle app is supported by virtually any device. I have the app installed on my ipad. Works fine. Still - being the “finicky” type, I feel I get a superior reading experience from my dedicated (Amazon) Fire 8-9” tablet. The refurbished ones are cheap and quite nice - like new.
-
Since they’re a bit hard to track down on Amazon, here are direct links to a few financial publications available in Kindle format.
WSJ
Financial Times
Barron’s
IBD
The Economist

Some of these deals that I have seen are for 1-2 years! If find those (they flash for a while periodically), then may be get a new subscription in the name of a family member and cancel the current one.

@yogibearbull, that is how they got me to subscribe originally. $1 a month for I think 3 months(?) Can't remember exactly. I'm not sorry I subscribed. I enjoy both the newspaper with my coffee on weekends and the web articles any time.

Check out these deals advertised on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/barrons/posts/10158561337427741

What you said about your Kindle subscription is interesting to me @hank. When I noticed the weekly paper was $5 I sent Barron's an email asking why I pay $30/month. The $30 does include paper delivered each Saturday morning and a site web account. Maybe my web-link is what you call the Kindle edition(?) I threatened to cancel my subscription if they couldn't reduce my cost. Well, they pretty much just said "we hope you reconsider and they believe they supply good value".
That was an empty threat on my part, I didn't intend to cancel, but now the cost makes sense to me. I'm paying for the hard copy paper and an extra $10 for the internet access. Not sure why they just didn't tell me that in response to my email.