This small ($69M) sized Event Driven fund has had a really nice run. It's been around for almost 20 years. Would have to eat a 2% Front-end Load for the A class (EVDAX), which keeps many investors away.
I do see that ETRADE has it LOAD WAIVED. The Institutional version is $1M Min. Any takers?
As of 12-31-2022:
Camelot Event Driven Fund Class A
1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Life
3.51% 14.76% 12.05% 8.59% 7.26%

” The average stock market return is about 10% annually in the U.S. over time — but realistically, that figure varies widely from year to year, and it’s more like 6% to 7% when accounting for inflation. For context, it’s rare that the average stock market return is actually 10% in a given year. When looking at nearly 100 years of data, as of September 8, 2022, the yearly average stock market return was between 8% and 12% only eight times. In reality, stock market returns are typically much higher or much lower.” Source
Since gold has been mentioned, personally I’ve held small exposures to it through “thick and thin”. But more “thin” than thick. Nonetheless I remain optimistic. Folks are usually referring to p/m mining funds when they reference gold - albeit it is possible to buy ETFs that invest in the less volatile metal itself. Be aware gold funds have in the past declined by as much as 70% over shorter periods (3-4 years). How many small investors possess the fortitude to hold an asset like that when it’s in a downtrend?
Not promoting or discouraging gold. Just pointing out why you don’t hear a lot about it here. Hasn’t shined for at least a decade - few really good years over my 50+ years investing. Recently it has been hot. Friday alone my fund (OPGSX) and one mining stock I own were both up well over 3% on the day.

+1 hank No etfs were available 50 years ago, as SPY was launched in January 1993 !

“ Did no one rtfs?”
I did a quick read of the advertisement / article. Was only allowed to access it once on M/W and was cut off from subsequent reading.
This did not seem to be written in any kind of objective manner. Those who read the WSJ, Barrons, fund reports and prospectuses are not accustomed to simplistic analysis (using words like “crazy, amazing, simple”). However, if you think the world of equities, bonds, commodities, previous metals, real estate, derivatives can be boiled down to a “simplistic” formula that even a 12-year old could grasp - than by all means study the author’s scheme and take away his suggestions.
Reading Level / Text Analyzer
If the intent of the writer is to emphasize the importance of diversification across asset classes and regular rebalancing, I agree. In the past I recall more discussion on this board and its predecessor about both of those issues. Threads like “How much do you allocate to commodities?” or “How frequently do you rebalance?” were quite common. Today, less is said of that for whatever reason.
Does the plan involve owning ETFs? How many were available to retail investors 50 years ago - the date from which the success of this plan is purportedly measured?
50 years is a long time if the author’s assessment is accurate. While past performance does not necessarily predict future performance, I’d think it entirely possible to generate a 9% annual return over very long time periods with a well diversified portfolio and annual rebalancing.
As I said, I no longer have the article / Ad to view, so am going here with what I rirst glimpsed.

FRNW has a similar mix of sectors as ICLN, minus Con Ed, plus a healthy dose of Hong Kong. It's only been around a few years. So it's entire track record is in the red.
More info from etf.com:

FRNW provides exposure to the global clean energy industry utilizing an ESG overlay. The fund specifically includes developed and emerging markets firms of any size that generate at least 50% of their revenue from one or more of the following business activities: clean energy distribution, clean energy equipment manufacturing, and clean energy technology. Eligible companies are initially assigned with ‘thematic relevancy scores’ based on a proprietary natural language processing algorithm—which identifies clean energy firms using keywords from publicly available company documents. Firms are then further screened for various ESG factors. The highest scored companies are selected for inclusion and are weighted by market-cap. The index rebalances quarterly.

That's good enough for a C from fossilfreefunds.

ICLN invests in global clean energy companies, which is defined as those involved in the biofuels, ethanol, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind industries. Aside from holding companies that produce energy through these means, ICLN also includes companies that develop technology and equipment used in the process. Selected by the index committee, the fund is weighted by market-cap and exposure score — subject to several constraints — and reconstituted semi-annually. Prior to April 19, 2021, the index followed a more narrow methodology.

Given the weight of utilities in both funds (56% and 52%), it's going to be hard to get good carbon grades. A plain old utility index, like VUIAX makes ICLN look like Mr. Clean.

Hi @Sven
The two Vanguard funds are inside the UTAH 529; which we established in 2006.
VITPX and VBMPX are the original tickers, and were changed several years (by Vanguard) ago for use inside of 529's. The new tickers are VSTSX and VTBSX.
Both funds are U.S. centric. The total U.S. equity index performance is a mirror of the broad based ITOT etf, and I suspect many other U.S. total equity market funds. The total U.S. bond index is a performance mirror to the bond etf of AGG.
This LINK is a current listing of the investment choices for the UTAH 529. We didn't use the age based investment choice that reduces equity exposure over time, and used the 'build our own mix' option, which was set at 50/50%.
Sidenote: The ER's are so low, that the holdings are almost 'free'.

LewisBraham
January 2 Flag
Another excerpt:
"The atmosphere is softer there. The economy is booming. The electronics manufacturer Foxconn is rapidly expanding production capacity for Apple devices, building a hostel for 60,000 workers on a 20-acre site near the city."
A few years back Foxcon made a deal for screen production in the state of WI. somewhere around Milwaukee. I can't give you the numbers on how this worked out, only Foxcon didn't live up to it's end of the bargain.
I guess I know now where all those jobs went.
A quick search provided this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin

Direct link https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312523002397/d416122d497.htm
M* had mentioned that co-lead-manager Yu Zhang was responsible for the recent (5+ years) shift in MAPIX from old current-dividend emphasis to also include dividend-growth emphasis. As a result, MAPIX started behaving similar to other growth-oriented Matthews Asia funds. IMO, this change may restore MAPIX to its original current-dividend emphasis.

As with star ratings or any other magic numbers, one needs look behind the numbers to better understand what they represent.
Somewhat like SRI funds that set very stringent de minimis thresholds on investing in "bad" companies, the sites I suggested grade on severe curves. Invest more than a little in "bad" companies, and your score goes down rapidly. It's still monotonic - the more a fund invests in "bad" companies, the worse its score. But it's a nonlinear scale.
To take ICLN as an example - fully 1/8 (12.49%) of its portfolio is invested in utilities selling or using fossil fuels. Half of that alone (6.22%) is invested in ConEd. Seriously?
Sure, ConEd has a "clean energy" subsidiary, ConEd Solutions. They used to offer me clean electricity as an ESCO, but that ended years ago. Now, all I can buy from ConEd as an electricity supplier is this mix (as of Dec 2020 - the latest info provided):
Biomass <1%
Coal 2%
Hydro 9%
Natural Gas 47%
Nuclear 36%
Oil <1%
Renewable Biogas <1%
Solar <1%
Solid Waste 3%
Wind 3%
Emissions relative to NYS average
SO2 113% of average
NOx 112% of average
CO2 113% of average
Needless to say, I buy electricity from a third party, not ConEd.
Carbon footprint? ICLN is off the charts, as measured by direct and indirect carbon emissions per dollar invested. You may disagree with FossilFreeFund's figure, but even MSCI's figure for the fund (also direct and indirect emissions), is still very high (nearly double that of the S&P 500 (IVV), per MSCI).
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239738/ishares-global-clean-energy-etf

Tax-managed VTMFX has 50-50.
But other Vanguard allocation/balanced funds are either 60-40 or 40-60. For years, people have talked about a 50-50 mix of VWELX and VWINX to produce 50-50 allocation.
Wellington managed HBLAX is close to 50-50.

As You Sow has really upped its game in the last couple of years since I last visited there. Appears that it is important to look at the details of the ratings.

@sma3. When I was doing the research, it was easy to find alt-energy ETF funds that excluded consumer durables. IIRC, that is the category that Tesla, and other EV makers, fall into. It's like looking for dividend funds that exclude REITS.
I'm also always irritated when I find Amazon in an ESG fund.
And all of the funds we bought get horrible grades from the site recommended by @msf.
In my experience, when I bought any fund is the single largest factor in how I feel about it years later.
Alt-energy and tech were at significant discounts this past year. TDV and CSGZX have held up reasonably well from our purchases in July. Purchases from 2021 don't leave us half so enthusiastic.
One question I ask myself is, "Are these things going to go away?" Another question I ask myself is whether I will be disappointed if tech, alt-energy, and health become as boring as consumer durables and utilities.

If a fund has a $100,000 minimum, is it OK if you invest with this amount and shortly afterwards, remove a large portion of the initial sum while maintaining the rest of the investment?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the fund requires for a maintenance balance, and then if you fail to maintain that balance, whether the fund company chooses to exercise its right to give you notice (if required) and close (or downgrade) your account.
For taxable accounts, FZDXX requires $100K to open, but only $10K to maintain. From its statutory prospectus:

If your fund balance falls below $10,000 worth of shares for any reason and you do not increase your balance, Fidelity may sell all of your shares and send the proceeds to you after providing you with at least 30 days' notice to reestablish the minimum balance.

So by prospectus, you're allowed to drop the balance by 90% with no consequences. And even if you drop the balance lower, it's up to the discretion of the fund company (here, Fidelity) to close out the account after appropriate notice.
The reality is that for this particular fund, Fidelity is pretty lax. But don't push things too far. I did. For RMD purposes, I sold $10K of a fund in a Roth IRA and moved it to FZDXX ($10K min in IRAs). I announced to the Fidelity rep that my intent was that some of that be used for the RMD and the rest stay there to maintain open position in FZDXX. Even though this would drop the balance below the min; I would rely upon Fidelity's discretion not to close the account.
While the rep acknowledged that Fidelity doesn't really close these accounts, my explicit acknowledgement was a bit too much for him. He (rightly) felt compelled to check with his back office whether this was okay before he put the trade through. The back office said what I was planning was fine and the rep placed the trade. But I did, inadvertently, put him in an awkward position.
A few years ago, two Vanguard funds we held in admiral shares dropped below the admiral class min. Vanguard converted one of the funds back to investor class shares. The other fund Vanguard left alone. FWIW, the funds were submanaged by different money management firms.
The bottom line is that it depends. If the rules allow a lower maintenance balance, all is well and good. If not, it's up to the fund company. In my experience, most times the fund company won't care. But sometimes it does act.

But all you can come up with now is a mortgage fund and a one-day inverse gov ETF?
Weren’t you whingeing on about BSV months ago?
Do you have any nonwacky thoughts?

I posted already "You can make several % more in managed bond fund, this is where they shine. Think DODIX for higher rated bonds, HY Munis and good Multi (where I find my best ideas)."
In HY Muni there are funds such as ORNAX.
Both DODIX+ORNAX are not wacky. I'm a trader and based my decisions on big picture + T/A. I think 2023 would be a good year for bonds. If you want to make more, you got to know the funds you own. Good trading can add even more.
Hint: none of these funds are Vanguard (or other) vanilla funds.
BTW, I made a lot of money in "wacky" funds. In the early years of PIMIX, many claimed it's wacky and can't be done.
FAIRX was a great "wacky" fund in 2002-2008.
I love to find these funds.

Thanks for all the useful information
@msf
NALFX available at Schwab without a load.
NEE has an enormous portfolio of renewable energy so it can really not be considered as fossil fuel dependent as other utilities.
I have not found ESG calculations at M* very useful, as they are too inflexible. "G" is so widely defined almost any tech company qualifies.
Making money on the alternative energy ETFs seems dependent on when you buy them, and the price, as always. That is one reason why I think an active fund has advantages.
A lot of the performance of many of these funds recently is dependent on how much TSLA they own. Active management can cut back large positions like this when they price gets too extreme, but even funds without TSLA have gotten burned last year. ZGEIX for example held onto Beyond Meat as it crashed but sold it before the third quarter.
There are other sources of information but most cost a lot. For example, "Thunder Said Energy" sends out daily emails about their extensive engineering based research, but charges $500 a report. The free charts are very useful, however. As an example, they list projected Lithium demand, or requirements to upgrade the electrical grid. This lead me to GRID, for example, which has number of positions that are critical to upgrading the power grid, many of them in other funds.
The jury is still out on the environmental impact required to implement alternative energy infrastructure. Minerals, steel cement are all needed in much greater quantities than traditional oil and gas extraction.
One point the people at Thundersaidenergy make over and over again, is that the "transition" to decarbonization will require A LOT of energy and fossil fuels. I think it is short sighted to eliminate all oil companies from your investments because they will do well in the near term.
I have small positions in PWO, LIT, REMX,GMET,TAN,FXC NLR as water and minerals and nuclear power will have to assume greater roles than oil and coal in the years ahead.

@LewisBraham
I have owned FPNIX for years but lightened up last year as they lost money.
Does the large exposure to asset backed securities based on automobile loans bother you? If we hit a serious recession a lot of these are going down. Obviously, the managers are aware of this and must think they will not loose much

I agree with @yogibearbull. There must be a program that watches some of these transactions; and then makes an okay or not okay decision based upon the account holder history and likely total accounts values. Several years ago I typed the wrong ticker into a buy choice. The transaction was completed (pending market close). A few hours later, I realized my mistake. This was for a mutual fund that would't process until 4pm (market close). I spoke with a Fido rep. and he killed the transaction. Perhaps this would have been done for any Fido account holder, regardless of account value or longevity.....I'll never know. I would imagine, that fund houses have some amount of flex to keep their clients happy; aside what may be written in a prospectus.

I did that maybe 15-20 years ago with a Summit fund held directly at TRP when I believe the entry point was $25,000 - and it worked until I eventually sold the fund and moved on. Recall one of their (previously very capable) phone reps suggested the tactic to me. My guess would be that it would work until it doesn’t (ie for a number of months but not for years). If there are any “low balance” fees associated with fund, that should appear in the fund prospectus.

I did a little poking around when doing a writeup on ESG investing. Criteria and metrics are all over the map, so one needs to take care and understand the underlying methodology in looking at any scorecard. With all that said, a site I found useful (and one that Kiplinger lauds), is As You Sow - Invest Your Values.
https://www.asyousow.org/invest-your-values/
Lots of criteria with fund ratings and explanations. Here's their list of top fossil fuel free funds. Clicking on a particular fund will take you to a page that explains the letter score.
https://fossilfreefunds.org/funds
It really is important to go past the grade and understand what is going on. For example, it rates ZGEIX a 'D' on fossil fuels (though 'A' on all other ESG criteria). That low score comes from the fact that 5.51% of its portfolio invests in a single "bad" company, NextEra Energy (NEE).
Here are a couple of scorecards on NextEra Energy:
ClimateAction 100+ takes a very unfavorable view https://www.climateaction100.org/company/nextera-energy-inc/
Sustainalytics (a M* subsidiary) reports NextEra Energy's biggest ESG concern to be carbon.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/nee/sustainability
Is a 5.5% ownership stake enough to downgrade what appears to be an otherwise fine fund? Don't know.
With regard to New Alternatives, that's a fund I've loosely followed for a long time. Over the past several years it has performed well. My suspicion is that this reflects the world catching up to what it has focused on for decades.
As a mutual fund, it provides a rare window into marketing costs. You gave the ticker NALFX. Those are the older A shares, that come with a load. The newer, no load NAEFX shares have a higher ER due to their 12b-1 fee.
E*Trade sells NALFX NTF, and Schwab sells it TF, load waived. But these are likely new developments and most brokers sell it with the load. So an investor has a choice of paying for the transaction up front with a load, or paying it over time, with a 12b-1 fee. One way or another (except for E*Trade) one pays for the transaction service.