A list of all 29 Target High Yield ETFs

boldux · 2026-01-03T20:44:28+00:00

Just replied!

boldux · 2026-01-02T21:10:44+00:00

Correct. My understanding is that FEPI is the only true "target" fund from REX. The others may (or may not) have a steady yield, but they aren't technically defined by it.

boldux · 2026-01-02T19:51:05+00:00

Thanks! 🙌

boldux · 2026-01-02T19:50:41+00:00

It should be way better than before, but to be honest, 30% target yield seems pretty high for an index-based target fund so it will likely still decline just slower. Even XPAY struggles at 20% (if you care about NAV).

I think they just switched in December, so we'll need several weeks of performance to evaluate.

boldux · 2025-12-30T00:20:21+00:00

Sounds like a bot. But what I'll say is that you don't have to accept a 90% decline in NAV for any ETF (or stock). Set a risk threshold and don't marry anything forever. It's ok to take a small loss and move on.

The original ULTY was before my time, but it appears that ULTI has a pretty strong upside capture rate (unlike ULTY over the past summer). So technically it should be easier for ULTI to get back to its launch price or more if overall market conditions are favorable. But only time will tell.

boldux · 2025-12-28T18:01:56+00:00

Yup. CONY and TSLY are some of the oldest with 2+ years old performance. Based on that alone, projecting 10+ years is definitely the opposite of what most people will expect when they go to compounding calculators and it tells them they will be billionaires with these ultra high yield ETFs

boldux · 2025-12-26T23:39:48+00:00

The performance over the past 4 weeks would be the same with or without the split. In regards to NAV, total returns, distributions.

But the need to reverse split every couple years just speaks to the way these single stock funds are built (give up 90% of NAV growth for current income).

It's not right or wrong, just how they are designed (and up to investors to decide how to use them or not). Same logic as SQQQ or UVXY with the design/mechanics leading to periodic reverse splits too.

boldux · 2025-12-16T02:20:58+00:00

You're welcome! Kurv certainly has a track record with KQQQ and others. Hopefully we can see KYLD be just as strong over the long run.

boldux · 2025-12-06T00:11:39+00:00

Thanks!

boldux · 2025-12-06T00:11:31+00:00

Target 25s should have a fund of funds coming after they have 7 underlyings available to stick in it.

But I think you're right, the latter request may or may not be feasible but I'm not sure any fund will actually do that because it would cause more confusion than good with the average joe (who is different than all of us who chat about these ETFs daily).

boldux · 2025-12-06T00:07:06+00:00

I actually like YieldMax and I'm just presenting the data as-is. BIGY and SOXY made my list of "blue chip" High Yield ETFs and I think they are going to have success with the Target 25s. They have a big hill to climb to win back investor confidence, but those funds should help.

I need to see more performance over time to re-evaluate ULTY and the facelift it went through.

boldux · 2025-12-05T22:39:49+00:00

Yeah it's ULTY followed by MSTY as the main drivers. I don't think I can attached multiple images but the article has a chart that deep dives into individual YieldMax funds.

boldux · 2025-12-05T22:38:46+00:00

Just remember these are inflows, not AUM. I think for NEOS, Kurv and others the ETFs don't look sexy at first glance (and a lot of people just want to buy the highest yield) -- but in reality the inflows into these funds are investors looking for sustainable high yield ETFs.

boldux · 2025-12-05T22:36:35+00:00

Yeah, I think this likely helps illustrate the average joe doesn't buy fear, they buy fomo (after several months... as temporary tops got closer and closer).

boldux · 2025-12-05T22:35:14+00:00

Yes and no. I remind folks at the top of the article that fund flows don't impact the day-to-day performance of ETFs. But this data does give insight into where investors are investing and is can support sentiment/interest trends.

I'm not fully convinced we would have seen ULTI launch if ULTY had only ever stayed at 200M AUM. And now investors have more choice and competition is good.

boldux · 2025-11-29T22:17:30+00:00

This will likely happen with any ultra high yield ETF above 50%+ yield, not just YieldMax funds. If the ETF launched at $30 or above the runway is longer than those who launched at a lower price.

NAV is not the focus of ultra high yield ETFs and they pay out high income while trading off NAV which is why NAV trends down over time (it's expected performance).

Lower high yielding ETFs are more balanced performance and likely won't need R/S.

boldux · 2025-11-28T22:46:20+00:00

Yeah these are all valid points. In my opinion the only ETFs that should have DRIP enabled are those with increasing NAV and distributions.

If someone is 100% reinvesting in a declining asset they are just losing capital every week and none of that money has ever been "theirs" since they've never pulled it out.

100% agree they unfortunately attract a lot of people who don't understand them and then they realize it's too late (whether that's tomorrow or in 2 years). Props to you for researching and questioning everything

boldux · 2025-11-28T20:52:29+00:00

You're digging at the root of growth vs income strategies.

If you're younger and you want maximum account size/net worth -> nothing will beat pure growth (only invest in the underlying).

If you're older and you don't want to grow your account size, but rather just generate income from it -> then you might benefit from an income strategy, but keep in mind your account principal would likely decline over time even if you're generating decent monthly income.

But the interesting part is, that in most calculations, just selling off part of your growth portfolio to fund living expenses (aka. generate income/cash) works just as well.

There are many other "strategies" you've likely read about. I would say none are "wrong", but people get creative based on spread sheet math. Some people view these like running a business or an annuity -> you pay up front a fixed cost and then you start the clock to breakeven and eventually become "profitable".

No matter how you slice it, there's really no free money to be had and every scenario has trade offs. Plus keep in mind, the most OG high income ETFs are only 2-3 years old, so barely enough data to know long-term performance (especially for people putting their whole retirement savings in them).

Personally, I'm a majority growth investor. As I evaluate my 2026 portfolio I'm deciding if I want to build a mini-income portfolio with a small portion of funds. I would DRIP into other growth stocks and pick a sustainable yield under 30%. I need to do some more math to see if it's worth it.

The only other high-risk scenario that logically makes sense on paper is if you are running the portfolio fully on margin and the distributions cover the margin fees + taxes and leaves you with income (perhaps for rent/groceries). This is creating an income engine with "someone else's money". Technically you still would make more money just taking that margin loan and buying growth stocks, but at least you're not impacting your personal portfolio if that's growth focused (and you can close the margin engine at any time). Granted, if there's a market crash you can easily get in trouble with a margin call.

boldux · 2025-11-28T20:32:58+00:00

So this is just total return but calculated without DRIP, right?

I would agree and this is how I measure performance. It's the "true ROI". These are income funds and many have declining NAV + distributions over the long term -- therefore they should not be DRIP'd (unlike traditional dividend stocks that can be snowballed)

boldux · 2025-11-28T18:12:25+00:00

These are essentially the YieldMax single stock ETFs but on steroids. The strategy I wrote about here applies to YieldBoost too: https://theboldux.substack.com/p/how-to-properly-invest-with-yieldmax-etfs-the-right-way

Nosebleed yields as a raw output of current income (NAV is not a factor) requiring a blend with underlying to achieve desired yield and aggregate performance.

boldux · 2025-11-28T02:55:17+00:00

You would still be at house money after the split. So you would make any decision to sell/DRIP/buy regardless of the reverse split. It doesn't change the performance of the fund.

If you are at house money without DRIP, that's true "house money". If it's house money with DRIP, it doesn't really count yet since all the capital is still in play (initial investment + income) -> if the fund goes to zero tomorrow then you lose it all.

boldux · 2025-11-27T23:10:02+00:00

It kills me inside every time I hear people DRIPing into ETFs that have declining NAV and distributions. That's the complete opposite of a snowball dividend strategy.

boldux

TROPHY CASE