Thanks @Mark
I agree that this sector has a lot of price swings. And not unlike other sector plays, the etf's being introduced has expanded a lot. My interest and use of etf's for sector investing goes back to the early '80's of using Fidelity select mutual funds.
From a various mix of sectors (wide and narrow) I watch, ICLN and TAN were the only 2 today that closed positive, +.36% and +.56%.

The below link to etf.com has several data sets, including their list of 19 (scroll down the page). The table data is set by AUM, but may be sorted by selecting 3 month return, etc.
Aside from a particular area (solar, wind, water...whatever) We consider AUM to be of importance, as some of the eft's have very low AUM. Being able to trade these etf's may be thin for low AUM issues, and/or have larger spreads.
We purchased a small amount of TAN (solar) when Putin decided to play war in Ukraine.
Any of these sectors may have their own problems for profit; being the whims of the markets, supply chain, legislation and monetary support from countries and also that; share buys/sells and/or options trading by large investment houses (hedge funds, etc.) may affect performance.
For us, less than a 5% position doesn't add enough meaningful value to the overall portfolio. This doesn't mean an immediate 5% + buy, but to obtain this point within a short time frame via "dollar cost averaging". Generally, we buy or sell in a least 5% positions. The mind set being; that we feel comfortable with this choice........OR one should likely not consider the transaction at all.
As to TAN in particular, this etf has held up well in 2022, considering the performance damage done in many areas of the overall markets.
Have you investments in this area? What do you like or are watching???
Note: there may be other choices not on the short list in the link.
19 renewable clean energy etf list
Thank you for your input.
Remain curious,
Catch

Tonight: 08 August, 2022: a toehold Limit Order into QAT at $20.99, which is -8.7 less than where it stands overnight, at $23.01. Who knows how long THAT will take to fill? I'm in no hurry, though. Why? Qatar is a rising market. This order to buy shares is like a "precision strike," rather than to depend only upon my TRAMX, which has been INCHING upward recently. Time will tell, as ever.
***Edited to add: QAT is moving too far, too fast for me. Winning the race, going away. Canceled Limit order. Instead, bought a Postal REIT on a Market Order today. Pleased with the entry price: $16.315. (yes. TRP brokerage.). PSTL.

+1 Mark / 17.5% here. (5 or 6 different ones)
But I think it all depends on the particular stocks and also achieving some balance between the sectors so they don’t all move in the same direction. I’m just a novice on that front, but I’m sure I have a few mutual funds - especially in the mining sector - that are way more volatile than most of the individual equities held.

Yes, that's a good way to put it! With so much already in Financials, I'm looking for a good pick in a different industry. Marine Shipping, or clothing manufacturing, or what have you. ... JRSH. PCFBY. GRIN. SBLK DAC. I need to save up some cash, at the moment, however. RGR fell like a stone after latest Earnings Report disappointed... TRP tells me my personal Rate of Return in RGR is now DOWN -10%. Sucks. But it is a tiny amount of money. That might well be the one I "flip," after the 31st Aug. dividend shows up. Not too far away. Others I'm eyeballing: QAT (ETF.) PSTL (RE.). DBSDY (Singapore Bank ADR.). CLF (but no dividend!)

Sorry. Getting very far afield, here. The early years were a muddled mess for the infant new country. Lots of veterans just plain got SCREWED:
"...In 1797, Knox's claim was upheld. Martin's 100-acre farm was valued by three commissioners: one appointed by the settlers, one by the Proprietors and the third by the first two. Martin's was appraised for the sum of $170, payable over six years in three installments either in cash or in farm products. He could not raise the money and begged Knox to allow him to keep the land. There is no evidence that Knox even acknowledged his plaintive letters and appeared to let him remain on the land. Plumb Martin farmed only eight(8) acres of the original 100 he opted for. Knox died in 1806, never demanding payment from Plumb Martin. By 1811, his farmland was cut by half, and by 1818, when he appeared in the Massachusetts General Court with other Revolutionary War veterans to claim a war pension, he owned nothing.[7]
In 1818, Martin's war pension was approved and he received $96 a year for the rest of his life.[6] Still, other war veterans were fighting for what they were properly owed and, in an effort to further the cause of the veterans, Martin published his memoirs anonymously in 1830. It was not considered a success and mainly fell to the wayside, apparently lost to history.
In 1836, a platoon of United States Light Infantry was marching through Prospect and discovered that Plumb Martin resided there. The platoon stopped outside of his house and fired a salute in honor of the Revolutionary War Hero.
*** So, not only did he fight and win, but afterwards, the Sec. of War first attempted to evict him, but then tacitly relented. "Thanks a lot, that's awfully white of you!"
After all he had been through, JP Martin's gravestone simply states: "A Solder of the Revolution." (Stockton Springs, Maine.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Plumb_Martin

That was very helpful, yogibearbull (gives new meaning to the phrase "regulatory burden"). It makes clear that at present, a comparison of fund performance to a broad-based index is an SEC requirement. I wasn't sure.
But this version of the form mentions exchange traded funds, hence, can't be too old. Do you happen to know whether an agency like the SEC would keep a trailing history of the text of prior versions of a key form like N-1A? Or would those be buried in some paper archive, like pre-1994 EDGAR submissions, and only apparent by unearthing an old 1950 filing for some fund?

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

Today in their SEC filings all mutual funds report fund performance relative to a benchmark, historically the S&P 500 or a total market index. But was it always that way?
General reporting requirements date to the 1940 Act. Did that act explicitly specify comparison of fund performance to a benchmark, or did that habit begin later? Easy to imagine the marketing department at some fund on a hot streak coming up with the bright idea to show how much the fund outperformed. Also easy to imagine that comparison to a benchmark was something that John Bogle started doing in the 1960s or 1970s, to suit his purposes.
OTOH, the SEC report that laid the foundation for the 1940 Act benchmarked fund performance against the Standard Statistics index. So maybe it is in the Act.
Anybody know? Or anybody have a mutual fund annual report from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s? I’d love to know whether a benchmark was customary in fund reports even back then.

There is some story behind this.
So, John Hancock (with Canadian parent MFC) was surprised/blindsighted when its fund JCUAX / JCUIX's (AUM $571 million) subadvisor First Quadrant was acquired by Systematica, and big AMG has stakes in both advisory firms. So, somebody forgot to loop in John Hancock/MFC, or for some reason, John Hancock/MFC doesn't like this move but the parties decided to go ahead.
https://citywireusa.com/professional-buyer/news/hancock-gatekeepers-place-quant-shop-under-review-ahead-of-acquisition/a2390473

He left out the 5th, or first one, which occurred toward the end of the War of 1812. Lenders in New England were issued short term bills toward the end of the war. It was not possible to redeem them at the time the war ended, and for some years thereafter; there was nothing in the till (the notes had to be paid in gold and there wasn't any).
IIRC, the notes weren't paid until 1820 or so, and by awarding shares in the newly formed 2nd Bank of the US, not gold.
History buffs can read the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for those years; look on FRASER or hathitrust.org

STORY
Yuppers! The package pictured in the linked story is actually a decent product when you’re in a hurry and just want to pop something in the microwave. And chicken tends to be lower in calories than beef. However, been passing it up on trips to the grocery. A year ago the 22-ounce package could be had for between 6 and 7 dollars. Now it’s around $11 for same product. Expensive bird!
I do know that table corn, which usually sells for 25 cents a cob this time of year, has been going for as much as $1 apiece this summer. And ISTM chicks like to eat corn (the cheaper “field corn“ variety). Why we invest - To maintain the purchasing power of our money over time.
(It appears both Barron’s and the WSJ have more extensive coverage on Tyson. However, am unable to link them.)
Related Story: Wacky Reason Price of Chicken is on the Rise

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1331971/000113322822005289/jhfiiarcf-html5301_497.htm
497 1 jhfiiarcf-html5301_497.htm JHF II ABSOLUTE RETURN CURRENCY FUND_497
Prospectus Supplement
John Hancock Funds II
John Hancock Absolute Return Currency Fund (the Fund)
Supplement dated August 8, 2022 to all current Prospectuses, the Summary Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information (SAI), as may be supplemented
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to all classes of shares offered by the Fund contained in the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectus and SAI.
First Quadrant, LLC (First Quadrant), the subadvisor to the Fund, announced on June 16, 2022 that it has entered into an agreement with Systematica Investments Limited (Systematica), under which Systematica would acquire First Quadrant. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2022. Announcement of the transaction and the impending change in ownership at First Quadrant triggered an extensive due diligence review process by John Hancock Investment Management LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, to understand the potential impact of the transaction on the Fund and the Fund’s ability to meet its investment objective. In connection with this process, effective after the close of business on September 6, 2022, shares of all classes of the Fund may no longer be purchased by new investors, except as noted below.
1. Existing shareholders of the Fund as of the close of business on September 6, 2022 may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund in their existing Fund accounts, and may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions received from the Fund.
2. New accounts established with existing shares of the Fund by transfer, such as transfers because of a change in broker, transfer-in-kind, divorce, or death, will be permitted.
3. Participants in group employer retirement plans, including 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans, non-qualified deferred compensation, and health savings account programs (and their successor plans) (a “plan”) may establish an account in the Fund if the Fund has been approved by September 6, 2022 as an investment option under the plan (or under another plan sponsored by the same employer).
4. Group retirement models or broker-dealer discretionary programs that include the Fund as an investment option, or have approved the Fund as an investment option as of September 6, 2022, may continue to make Fund shares available to new and existing accounts.
If a shareholder redeems all Fund shares in his or her account, the shareholder will not be able to buy additional Fund shares or reopen his or her account.
The Fund reserves the right to change or make exceptions to these policies at any time and may permit new accounts in the Fund to be opened by certain investors, including investors not identified above.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectuses, Summary Prospectus and SAI and retain it for your future reference.
Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, Stylized M Design, and Manulife Investment Management & Stylized M Design are trademarks of The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and are used by its affiliates under license.

+1 Mark / 17.5% here. (5 or 6 different ones)
But I think it all depends on the particular stocks and also achieving some balance between the sectors so they don’t all move in the same direction. I’m just a novice on that front, but I’m sure I have a few mutual funds - especially in the mining sector - that are way more volatile than most of the individual equities held.

ISTM Alternative funds occupy a bizarro corner of the investing universe. For lack of a better source, U.S. News does offer up a mixed platter of such funds. For those interested in return, checking the 5 year + return of some of these might give a clue as to what to expect over the next several years. (Better to look after a prolonged downdraft than when equity / bond markets are sky high)
I don’t dwell on what any pocket of my allocation model will return. Total return over 3-5 years is the goal. At any specific time some assets giveth and others taketh away.
One way to look at it … If inflation over the next 5 years averages 3% than a total (annual) return of 5% over that time might be good enough. But if inflation averages 10% over those 5 years, a 5% annual return would leave you standing in the dust. What will inflation be? Only The Shadow knows!

- “I’m not against alternative funds perse … But when do these winning alternative funds get mentioned? When do they come into MFO attention? - when they have already made their money. That's my point.”
- “I'm sure there are some here that are good at adding value to their returns with their buys and sells. I dare say, I've looked at past data and I am not one of them. But I keep trying.”

@MikeM - Be careful with the term “alternative fund”. Almost by definition it’s not classifiable. That’s because the word “alternative” essentially means “not something else”. However, as commonly referenced in investing “alternatives” are investments other than conventional stocks, cash or bonds. For instance, precious metals are sometimes cited as an alternative investment. So are things like art, comic books, stamps, real estate. The fund industry has jumped on the “alternative” bandwagon and concocted hundreds of variations to stock or bond funds under the banner of “alternative.” I have no problem with them applying the name alternative to whatever exotic high cost product they wish to market. I’m just saying - be careful with that term. To your point … we both lived through the madness here 10-15 years ago with MFLDX, an early alternative fund that soared as its fame and popularity rose and than nose-dived as investors fled overnight it seemed.
I like the concept of alternatives as part of a portfolio - but apply the term loosely to fit my needs. In my 45% alternative sleeve, I have: a conservative allocation fund that overweights commodities a bit (ABRZX); a style permea fund that spreads risk around among stocks, precious, metals, natural resources, bonds (PRPFX); a multi-strategy fund (BAMBX); and a long-short fund (NLSAX). The other components consist of 3 individual stocks representing distinctly different market sectors. As stocks carry no fees, their inclusion helps offset the higher fees of the alternative funds. As you can see, I define the term “alternative” very loosely to fit my own needs.
As far as ‘high” expenses go, I hold virtually none of the most expensive asset of all - cash. With inflation at 8-10% annually, cash is a guaranteed looser. Total allocation to all types of income oriented investments is 20% at present. Most is in DODLX and PRIHX. A smaller sum in GNMA etf. Only a trace resides in money market funds or bank accounts. So my use of alternatives is a way of maintaining some level of portfolio stability as needed at my age without carrying much cash.
-
I dunno about why folks buy and sell a lot. But I’d guess the results vary depending on what gets bought or sold and when. Markets have been ugly. If you can grab off a quick 1K or so playing Cathie’s musical chairs or taking some other gambit and than reinvest that $$ back into your regular portfolio, why not so indulge? :) Especially beneficial if the winnings are inside a Roth.
With me the spec money ranges between 5-10% … play money really. Right now it’s committed to a couple inverse funds as a hedge against some really nasty rainy day - an insurance policy. And there’s a bit in GLTR - for mostly the same reason. Than, there’s my predilection to lay more money on the table when stocks appear cheaper and than pull it back off after they rebound. Might be what you’re seeing in other individuals as well.
Glad you like your Schwab Robo Advisor Mike! Has to be far better than many of the “low risk” conservative funds nowadays. (Check out AOK)

@BaluBalu, NONE were in the ball park of what you mentioned.
Barron's data was to 6/30/22 and all 5-yr performances were in the range 4.34-6.43%. A fair comparison may be with a simple 60-40 index-based target-risk fund such as VSMGX that had 4.95%.

@yogibearbull,12% or higher permanent cash is expensive. Barron's info is behind a paywall for me.
5 yr performance for PRWCX, FBAKX, and VWELX is 11.5%, 10%, and 8%, respectively, per M* performance tab. Mine is 11%. (I would not have guessed VWELX would be so much lower.) I would consider 9.5% (inclusive of cash) for Schwab Robo acceptable for me. Is it?

i concur. and i had not heard about teresa kong's leaving. where did she go? does anyone know? I will take a look.....
...Found this. RETIRING???? She can't be that old.....
https://citywireselector.com/news/a-rated-bond-boss-to-exit-matthews-asia/a2391349
Or is the word being used here in a non-standard way?

Exactly. All the portfolio managers that left have been Teresa's age or younger. Firm has lost an entire generation of leaders on the investment team. Teresa is not that old herself, she's <50 years old if I had to guess? It's a really bad sign.
Looking at the direction of the company, its not a surprise. Why stay on the proverbial sinking ship when your skill set is in high demand? Having felt the change there over the years, I'm not sure why matthews didn't make a leadership change sooner at the top. It almost seems too late at this point. You all might remember they brought in some outside leaders, but they ended up resigning or leaving after very short stints. Yu Ming Wang famously joined in 2020 as Global CIO/President, but resigned within 9 months. That is also a really bad sign and highly unusual. Actually I've never heard of such a thing happening.
https://www.pionline.com/money-management/matthews-asias-presidentglobal-cio-resigns

@BaluBalu, there is a performance table in Barron's for typical 60-40 robo-advisor portfolios. As expected, due to higher cash %, Schwab lost less (but not the least) for YTD and 1-yr, but lagged for 3-yr and 5-yr.
Real reason for Schwab to have high cash % (12% from @MikeM was just an example) was to keep its fee literally "zero", but Schwab shifted that money to Schwab Bank, made money on it and split some of that with the brokerage. So, in a round about way, Schwab robo holders paid for the accounts. After the SEC settlement, the new ad disclosures just make this more visible and clear (previously, it was a small print in footnotes). And Schwab has also introduced a new version (SIP Premium) with more services and flat fees.

As I mentioned earlier, I swapped out GATEX with NLSAX in my alternative sleeve. I thought the reasons might be worth explaining …
In late March of this year Warren Buffett agreed to purchase a stock I held in the alternative sleeve of portfolio. The stock is Allegheny (Y) and the price shot up 25% overnight. I immediately sold all my shares of Y at the 25% premium, leaving a hole in the alternative sleeve. Readers may be aware that I’m not one to hold much cash. So, somewhat in desperation I tried to come up with a suitable fund or stock to fill the hole. GATEX is a fund I’d owned years earlier and had researched more recently. So, the cash proceeds from selling Allegheny went into GATEX.
The biggest drawback to continuing to hold GATEX is that, while hedged against market volatility, it otherwise uses S&P index stocks to represent its equity positions. I hadn’t realized that when buying. Since I also own a small speculative hold in SPDN (a fund that shorts the S&P 500) I found myself essentially shorting GATEX while at the same time owning it. Not a good position to be in. Decided to hang on to GATEX until something better for my purposes came into focus.
That’s the long and short of it …