Roger Nusbaum

Infrastructure's Future: ETFs Worth Allocating To

yeahwhatnow?


On Mar 24 03:42 PM MaineLobster wrote:

> Interesting. But I think it would be responsible if you mentioned
> that ETF's are not but and hold vehicles. They were invented for
> day trading and should be used that way.
>

Infrastructure's Future: ETFs Worth Allocating To

the best place to look is the website of the fund provider. no levered infra ETFs that I am aware of.

Infrastructure's Future: ETFs Worth Allocating To

Forgot about FLM. A quick glance under the hood it is heavy heavy in industrials, more so than IGF and done about the same as IGF. In looking at the holdings on the FT websites it appears to not own any of the cashflow names (toll roads and ports) which I suspect would make it more volatile than IGF. At times that will be a good thing and at other times a bad thing I suppose.


On Mar 23 04:41 PM intrigued investor wrote:

> I heard that First Trust has an infrastructure (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> ETF - how does that size up to the ETFs mentioned in your article?

Macquarie Infrastructure Trust: Use It Only as a Portfolio Diversifier

thanks for the comments. Auto credit If you are trying to copy Harvard or Yale then I suppose so but this is just my opinion, I do not want too much riding on any one thing in case something I can't see coming hits hard. I would note that Harvard and Yale have had a different experience of late as many of their illiquid holdings have really bit them including, I believe some absolute.


On Nov 27 07:33 PM Auto Credit wrote:

> So do you include RYMFX in this 2-3% narrow category or do you think
> it deserves a higher weight? The last numbers I have show the Yale
> and Harvard endowments at 18% and 26% in the absolute returns...
> so if we're coming close to them we need 10 different things like
> RYMFX?

Macquarie Infrastructure Trust: Use It Only as a Portfolio Diversifier

MIC and BIP own assets and are generally meant to pay out an income stream off of those assets,they are not ETFs. IGF from iShares, which I own for clients is more along the lines of building the infrastructure and so would seem in line to benefit from the spending that appears to be on the way. MIC and BIP would not seem to specifically benefit from any spending plans.


On Nov 27 11:10 AM D333GS wrote:

> A question re infrastructure ETFs and Obama's upcoming infrastructure
> spending: There is some hype starting re infrastructure ETFs . From
> looking at the holdings of these ETFs, they seem hold companies that
> own the infracture. Isn't the money going to be made by the companies
> that repair the infrastructure? IE infrastructure construction companies
> like SNC & Aecon?
>
> Many thanks
>
> John

More Timber

thank you for all the added value to this post

Correlating Infrastructure

Heisenberg, a lot of the nuclear plant building industrials are Japanese companies. If you are bearish in Japan (I am bearish on it) then the question becomes what is more important--Japan not doing well or parts of this theme doing very well?

Sorry I have no answer, I can tell you I don't own Japan equities and have no plans to.

Infrastructure ETF IGF's Appeal: Low Correlation to U.S. Stocks

MFD is an actively managed CEF that owns stocks. MIC owns infra assets not stocks. For this I prefer MIC and have owned it personally and for clients since a couple of months after it listed. it has certainly come with ups and downs, it is far from immune from volatility.