MLPI: Examining The Structure And Suitability Of This High-Yielding ETF

The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI) targets high monthly income via a portfolio of midstream equities and a call-writing strategy.MLPI delivers a 14–16% annualized yield, substantially outpacing peer energy infrastructure ETFs, but sacrifices capital gains potential for elevated income.The fund's naked call options on MLP ETFs introduce additional risk and can lead to underperformance during strong equity rallies in the sector.MLPI is best suited for income-focused investors willing to accept lower total returns and higher risk in exchange for outsized distributions.Looking for a portfolio of ideas like this one? Members of Energy Profits in Dividends get exclusive access to our subscriber-only portfolios. Learn More » StevanZZ/iStock via Getty ImagesThe NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI) is an exchange-traded fund that has the objective of providing its investors with a high level of monthly income. As the name of the fund implies, it primarily aims to achieve this goal by holding a portfolio that consists of the common equity of midstream C-corporations and master limited partnerships. These companies tend to have some of the highest yields available in the American equity market, so that provides one source of income for the fund and for the fund’s investors. In addition to this, MLPI writes call options on exchange-traded funds that invest in midstream master limited partnerships. The fund itself does not own the ETFs that it is writing options against, so these are technically naked call options. The fund management’s expectation is that the midstream companies in the portfolio will deliver a performance that is similar to or better to the index that it is writing call options against. As there is no guarantee that this will be the case, the fund’s call option-writing strategy does have some risks. It is important to understand exactly how this fund works before making an investment in it, so the remainder of this article will focus on this task.As mentioned in the introduction, the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF is an exchange-traded fund that has the stated objective of providing its investors with a high level of monthly income. The fund’s website provides the following description of the fund’s objective:The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF seeks to generate high monthly income in a tax efficient manner with the potential for equity appreciation.This description essentially states that the fund is primarily focused on providing its investors with a monthly distribution that serves as income for the owner of the fund. The fund paid total distributions of $2.0147 per share for the first quarter of 2026:NEOSIf we annualize this number, we get a distribution of around $8.05 to $8.06 per share for a full-year period. As we can see here, the share price of this fund hovered between roughly $50 and $56 per share over the same period:Seeking AlphaThis gives the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF an annualized yield of 14% to 16%, which is far higher than the yields of other exchange-traded funds that invest in the energy infrastructure sector. We can see that in this chart:Fund NameYield As Of April 10, 2026NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF14.54%Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP)7.72%Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF (MLPX)4.08%Global X MLP ETF (MLPA)7.44%First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure ETF (EMLP)2.71%Tortoise North American Pipeline Fund ETF (TPYP)3.24%ALPS Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR)4.18%Figures are calculated by annualizing the most recently paid distribution for each fund as of April 10, 2026, and then dividing the annualized figure by the fund’s closing price as of the same date. The yield figure provided by most financial websites is the total of all distributions paid out over the trailing twelve-month period divided by the current share price. As MLPI has an inception date of December 17, 2025, calculating the yield in the manner of most financial websites makes it appear to be much lower than it actually is.MLPI is generally going to be one of the, if not the, highest-yielding energy infrastructure exchange-traded funds around. The reason for this is that this fund’s strategy differs somewhat from other energy infrastructure funds (such as the ones shown). The majority of these funds simply purchase the common equities of companies that are involved in the energy infrastructure industry, which includes pipeline operators, natural gas liquefaction companies, and natural gas processing companies.

The First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure ETF also includes utilities in its portfolio, but most energy infrastructure funds do not. The energy infrastructure companies in each fund’s portfolio pay dividends or distributions to the fund itself, and the fund passes this money through to its own shareholders, net of its expenses. For most of these funds, the distributions are entirely financed by the dividends and distributions that they receive from the portfolio companies, along with occasional capital gains in the event that the given fund realizes them.The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF, in contrast, has all of the same sources as the other funds. MLPI invests its assets into master limited partnerships and midstream companies that pay distributions and dividends to the fund. As with the other funds, MLPI distributes this money to its investors net of its own expenses. It also might occasionally realize capital gains, but as this fund’s equity portfolio aims to duplicate the MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index, we should not expect it to realize capital gains particularly often. The unique thing about MLPI, and the source of much of the excess distributions that it possesses compared to the other funds, is the call-writing strategy. The fund’s prospectus states:To implement the options strategy, the Fund invests in traditional exchange-traded options and/or FLexible EXchange options that utilize an MLP ETF as the reference asset. Traditional exchange-traded options have standardized terms, such as the type (call or put), the reference asset, the strike price and expiration date. FLEX Options are a type of exchange-listed options contract with uniquely customizable terms that allow investors to customize key terms like type, strike price and expiration date that are standardized in a typical options contract.While this description states that the fund “invests” in options contracts, it is actually only writing (selling) them. The fund does not purchase call options. Whenever the fund writes an option, it receives an upfront premium from the buyer that serves as a source of income for the fund. These premium payments provide the fund with an additional source of income that the other energy infrastructure funds do not have. This is the source of the excess distributions that this fund has versus its peers, and it is the reason why MLPI is able to boast a substantially higher yield than any of its peers.While the fund’s call option-writing strategy does have the effect of boosting its yield relative to its peers, it also has the effect of lowering the fund’s potential to provide its investors with capital gains. This is because a call option requires the writer of the option to sell the security to the buyer at the price specified in the option (or deliver the difference between the current price of the asset and the price specified in the option, depending on the option). Thus, the writer of the option sacrifices any upside potential beyond the price specified in the option. For example, here is a list of all of the call options on AMLP that expire on May 15, 2026:Yahoo FinanceAs we can see, the strike prices range from $49 to $57. On April 10, 2026, AMLP closed at $52.30. Thus, anyone who is short the call options with strike prices ranging from $49 to $52 will not be able to benefit from any increase in AMLP’s price unless they buy back the option and close out their position. If that investor was the original writer of the option, the cost to buy back the option will probably be higher than the premium that they received from the sale of that option. This is the downside of any strategy that attempts to use a call-writing strategy to boost the income received from a portfolio. It requires the investor to sacrifice some of the potential capital gains that could otherwise be realized from the investment. In short, the investor is sacrificing capital gains for income. The same thing applies to the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF. In exchange for a higher yield than its peers, investors in this fund have less potential to obtain capital gains than would be the case with one of the other funds shown in the peer comparison chart earlier.The fact that the MLPI sacrifices some of its upside potential in exchange for income may not be a problem during a market environment in which energy infrastructure equities are relatively flat or declining. In fact, in those environments, the option premiums that this fund receives from the sale of options could actually help it outperform. This comes from the fact that these premiums provide an incremental return that the peer funds do not possess. In addition, if the common equities of the various energy infrastructure companies are flat or declining, the fact that MLPI has to sacrifice some of the upside potential does not hurt it very much. However, it is a different situation when the common equity prices of energy infrastructure companies are rising relatively quickly. This is because the capital gains that energy infrastructure common stocks can provide in that situation can be greater than the premiums that the fund receives from the option sale, and because the call option caps the potential upside from the position, the fund is not able to benefit from the capital appreciation of the companies in its portfolio.We can see this by looking at the fund’s performance compared to its peers during the first few months of 2026. As many readers might remember, this period saw a massive rise in crude oil prices during the month of March 2026, but many energy infrastructure equities rose well before that event occurred. After all, in early 2026, many technology companies also announced that they would invest heavily in the construction of data centers intended to support the deployment of artificial intelligence technologies. One characteristic of these data centers is that some, if not many, of them have natural gas turbines on site to generate the electricity required to make the technology function. Energy infrastructure companies, such as pipeline operators, benefited from this due to the fact that these companies own and operate the infrastructure necessary to move natural gas from place to place. This chart shows the total return provided by MLPI and a few of its peers over the period from December 31, 2025, to April 10, 2026:Seeking AlphaThis performance chart assumes that an investor actually opted to reinvest all of the distributions that each fund paid out over the period in question. Thus, the fact that the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF pays a monthly yield and has a higher yield than any of the other funds shown would have actually allowed investors to accumulate shares more rapidly than in any of the peer funds. Despite this, the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF underperformed the Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF over the period. It is worth noting that MLPX actually has the lowest yield of the four funds, so that might be a negative for investors who prioritize earning a high yield.Over the period from December 31, 2025, to April 10, 2026, MLPI did manage to outperform both the Alerian MLP ETF and the Global X MLP ETF. However, the composition of the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF might play a role in this. MLPI invests in both of the following:This is different than either the Alerian MLP ETF or the Global X MLP ETF. These two exchange-traded funds both invest exclusively in the second category and have no exposure at all to energy infrastructure companies that are structured as C-corporations. This is a very important distinction due to the fact that those energy infrastructure companies that are structured as C-corporations tend to deliver stronger capital gains than those energy infrastructure companies that are structured as C-corporations. One reason for this is that Federal regulations prohibit a regulated investment company from having more than 25% of its assets invested in the common equities of master limited partnerships. The majority of funds trading in the market are structured as regulated investment companies. In addition to this, the inclusion of master limited partnerships in a tax-advantaged account, such as an IRA, can expose the account to tax liabilities. Finally, most broad-market indices, including the S&P 500 (SP500), do not include master limited partnerships, so funds that track those indices also do not purchase MLP common units. These factors limit the pool of potential capital and also result in master limited partnerships having less buying pressure than C-corporations in the same industry (which are included in the broad-market indices and do not have limitations on the potential buyers). As such, MLPs frequently experience less capital appreciation than energy infrastructure C-corporation common stocks during bull markets.As of April 13, 2026, the largest positions in MLPI’s portfolio were the following:NEOSThe only master limited partnerships on this list are Energy Transfer and Enterprise Products Partners. All of the other eight companies are C-corporations. Across the fund’s entire portfolio, a bit less than 25% of its common equity portfolio was invested in master limited partnerships as of April 13, 2026. This makes the fund’s portfolio much closer to MLPX or TPYP than to AMLP or MLPA.With that in mind, we can compare the performance of the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF to that of MLPX and TPYP over the energy infrastructure bull market from December 31, 2026, to April 10, 2026:Seeking AlphaOver that particular period, MLPI underperformed both energy infrastructure index funds on a total return basis. This clearly illustrates the trade-off inherent in the fund’s strategy. In short, the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF provides its investors with a substantially higher yield than its most comparable peers. However, the fund also has less capital gains potential than other funds that invest in similar assets and do not use a call-writing strategy. This suggests that the fund is designed for investors who wish to earn a very high level of income from their assets and are willing to accept lower total returns to do so. An investor whose top priority is growing their wealth may be better served with one of the peer funds.There are many exchange-traded funds on the market that use options as a way to earn a higher yield from their assets than the underlying assets themselves provide. Two of the more well-known funds that use such a strategy are the Global X S&P 500 Covered Call ETF (XYLD) and the Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call ETF (QYLD). These funds employ a covered call-writing strategy, which means that the fund owns the asset against which the option is being written. This is generally a reasonably safe strategy because in a worst-case scenario, the fund can simply sell an asset that it already owns to the investor who purchased the option.This is not, however, what the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund is doing. The fund’s common equity portfolio is essentially the MerQube North American MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index. From the fund’s prospectus:The Fund, while not an index fund, will generally use a “replication” strategy by investing in all of the component MLPs and equity securities of the MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index in the same approximate proportions as in the MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index.The basic strategy employed by an index fund is to purchase all of the securities included in the index in equal proportions to their weighting in the index. This is essentially what the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund does with respect to the MerQube North American MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index. MLPI does not market itself as an index fund, but we should expect the fund’s common equity holdings to be pretty similar to the composition of that index.The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF is not writing call options against any of the individual securities that it holds in its portfolio. It is also not writing call options against the MerQube North American MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index. As such, this fund is not a covered call fund like many other funds that employ an options strategy. Rather, its prospectus states:[The Fund] utilizes a call options strategy to provide high monthly income, which primarily consists of writing (selling) call options on one or more ETFs that invest principally in energy infrastructure MLPs.A look at the fund’s full portfolio (which can be downloaded from its website) shows that the fund is actually writing call options against the Alerian MLP ETF. In other words, the fund is promising to sell shares of that ETF to whoever purchases the option at a pre-determined price in exchange for an upfront payment. However, the fund does not actually own shares of that fund. Thus, this fund is actually writing naked call options, which can be a risky strategy. Investopedia states:It’s inherently risky since there is limited upside potential and, in theory, unlimited downside losses. In fact, the maximum gain is the premium that the option writer receives upfront.The risk of this strategy comes from the unlimited potential losses. If the buyer of the option wishes to exercise it, then the fund must sell shares of the Alerian MLP ETF to the buyer at that price. However, as the fund does not own the shares of that ETF, it must purchase them from the market and pay whatever price the market demands for those shares. We can see that if the Alerian MLP ETF appreciates substantially between the time that the fund writes the option and the time that the buyer chooses to exercise the shares, the fund could potentially take enormous losses. If this fund takes losses, then anyone who is holding the fund’s shares also suffers losses.As we mentioned earlier, energy infrastructure C-corporations have frequently outperformed their counterparts that are structured as master limited partnerships. That appears to be what this fund is depending on to manage the risks of its naked call-writing strategy. In short, the expectation is that the MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index will outperform the Alerian MLP Index during most periods. If that proves to be the case, then the fund’s underlying portfolio should be able to generate sufficient returns to offset any losses that it suffers from the naked call option-writing strategy. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case, and as such, investors should consider the risks before purchasing shares of MLPI.The basic strategy of MLPI is to hold common equities of energy infrastructure companies in similar proportions to their representation in the MerQube North American MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index and then write call options against the Alerian MLP ETF to provide an additional source of income. As such, we should take a closer look at the index in order to get an idea of how this fund should perform in real-world conditions.The methodology documentation for the index offers the following description:MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index measures the performance of a self-rebalancing, float-adjusted portfolio of US and Canadian MLPs, pipeline operators, LNG companies, and energy logistics firms, capturing both income and growth characteristics across the North American energy and midstream infrastructure sector.This description provides a reasonably good overview of the types of companies that we can expect to find in this index. In particular, the index includes companies that own and operate crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, and refined products pipelines as well as liquefied natural gas producers. These companies are generally called “midstream” companies due to the fact that they operate in the midstream segment of the oil and gas value chain. These are the companies that provide the services that are necessary to get the hydrocarbon products from the wells where they are extracted from the ground to the refineries that process them into a form that is usable by consumers of energy. In the case of natural gas, these companies provide transportation services as well as process the natural gas to remove the impurities that are present in it when it is removed from the ground.One of the defining characteristics of companies in the midstream sector is that they tend to have very stable cash flows that are not affected very much by changes in resource prices. For example, Enbridge was the largest constituent in the index on April 10, 2026. Here are Enbridge’s operating cash flows during each of the full-year periods from 2017 to 2025:Seeking Alpha(all figures in millions of Canadian dollars)Oil prices exhibited considerable variation during the period in question. For example, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil very briefly went negative in 2020 and consistently hovered near multi-decade lows over the course of 2020. During the first half of 2022, in contrast, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil was well over $100 per barrel. This chart shows the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil over the same period, adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:MacroTrendsAs we can see, the price of crude oil exhibited considerable volatility over the period, even with the inflation adjustment. However, Enbridge’s operating cash flow was fairly stable by comparison. This is due to the fact that pipeline operators primarily conduct business under very long-term contracts (typically five to twenty years in length), under which the pipeline operator charges a fee for each unit of oil, natural gas, or refined products that moves through its pipelines. These companies charge by volumes, without regard to the value of the hydrocarbon product. Furthermore, the contracts typically include take-or-pay clauses or minimum volume commitments that essentially require the customer to pay for a certain volume of resources to be moved from place to place, even if the customer does not actually require that amount. This protects the pipeline operator from a situation where a customer might reduce their production due to a decline in oil prices. It also has the effect of allowing pipeline companies to have stable and predictable revenue and cash flow in spite of the fact that commodity prices can move around significantly over time.A liquefied natural gas producer, such as Cheniere Energy (LNG), has a similar business model. Similar to a pipeline operator, a liquefied natural gas producer conducts business under very long-term contracts. For example, European oil and gas supermajor Shell (SHEL) and Venture Global LNG signed a twenty-year contract under which Shell purchases a specific quantity of liquefied natural gas every year from Venture Global LNG. These contracts are essentially take-or-pay contracts, in which the customer pays a fee for the conversion of the natural gas into liquefied natural gas, regardless of whether or not the customer actually takes delivery of the product. Cheniere Energy explains how this works in its 2025 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:Our long-term counterparty arrangements for the foundation of our business and provide us with significant, stable, long-term cash flows, and include SPAs, in which our customers are generally required to pay a fixed fee with respect to the contracted volumes irrespective of their election to cancel or suspend deliveries of LNG cargoes, and IPM agreements, in which a gas producer sells natural gas to us on a global LNG or natural gas index price, less a fixed liquefaction fee, shipping and other costs. The SPAs also have a variable fee component, which is primarily indexed to Henry Hub and generally structured to cover the cost of natural gas purchases, transportation, and liquefaction fuel consumed to produce LNG.In other words, the contracts under which liquefied natural gas producers include a fixed fee that the customer must pay regardless of whether or not they choose to accept delivery of the liquefied natural gas. Furthermore, the price that the customer pays for the liquefied natural gas varies with the price of natural gas. This guarantees that the liquefied natural gas producer earns a profit no matter what the price of natural gas does. Thus, this results in liquefied natural gas producers enjoying relatively stable cash flows and a great deal of insulation from commodity price movements.The takeaway here is that every company in the MerQube North American MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index has relatively stable and predictable cash flows that are largely independent of commodity price movements. This does not necessarily mean that the equity prices of these companies do not exhibit a correlation with energy commodity prices (they do), but the cash flows of these companies are generally insulated from such swings. This is what allows them to pay out a significant proportion of their cash flows to their investors as dividends and distributions, and it is one factor that gives them the high yields that they possess.In order to be included in the MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index, a company must be in one of the following four sectors:MerQube Index Methodology DocumentThese four categories encompass just about any pipeline operator or liquefied natural gas producer that is domiciled in either the United States or Canada. Thus, the index will consist largely of companies with stable, predictable cash flows, as we just discussed. In addition to this, the company must meet the following qualifications:The purpose of these requirements is to exclude small or very thinly traded companies. Almost any large-capitalization pipeline operator or liquefied natural gas producer should be able to meet these requirements, including nearly all of the ones that most investors in the sector are familiar with.The MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index is a market capitalization-weighted index, just like the S&P 500 Index. However, it does have a few modifications to the standard market capitalization-weighted methodology in order to meet U.S. restrictions on the holdings of a regulated investment company. First, no individual company can account for more than 10% of the index. In addition, all of the master limited partnerships combined cannot account for more than 25% of the index, regardless of their actual market capitalizations. The second of these requirements is due to the fact that a regulated investment company cannot have more than 25% of its assets invested in master limited partnerships.The website for the MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index states that it is rebalanced semi-annually. However, the fund’s methodology documentation states that it is rebalanced quarterly on the third Friday on March, June, September, and December. The prospectus for the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF also states that the index is rebalanced quarterly. The regulations state that any regulated investment company that has more than 25% of its assets invested in master limited partnerships must correct the problem within ninety days, so it seems likely that the quarterly rebalancing is the correct one. It could potentially cause problems for any fund trying to track this index if it rebalanced less frequently.There can be some reluctance among investors, particularly those in a high tax bracket, to hold any type of income-focused exchange-traded fund in an ordinary brokerage account. This is because the distributions of most exchange-traded funds are taxable, and as such, funds with large distributions can potentially expose their investors to considerable tax liabilities.The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF is no exception to this. Its distributions are taxable income to the shareholders during the same year in which they were received. However, the fact that the fund’s income comes from dividends, distributions from master limited partnerships, and option premiums helps keep the amount of income tax that investors have to pay down. As we all know, qualified dividends are taxed at long-term capital gains rates rather than ordinary income rates. The majority of the dividends that this fund passes through to its investors should qualify under the rules for favorable treatment. As such, a portion of the distributions paid out by this fund should not be taxed any more heavily than the distributions paid out by any other domestic equity fund.The portion of the distributions that comes from options, on the other hand, can be taxed somewhat more heavily. If the fund writes an option and it expires worthless, then the entire premium received is taxed as a short-term capital gain. This is true regardless of how long the short option position was open, although this fund tends to write options that have approximately one month until expiration.In most cases, though, the option contracts that are written by the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure Fund should be taxed as Section 1256 Contracts, rather than as ordinary equity options. A Section 1256 contract has 40% of the received premium taxed as a short-term capital gain, and 60% of the received premium taxed as a long-term capital gain. An investor in the top 37% tax bracket would therefore pay a tax rate of roughly 26.8% on the money that is received as a premium for the sale of the option.There are some circumstances where the fund might actually be able to take a capital loss on the options positions to reduce the tax rate paid by its investors. There is no guarantee that it will always be successful at this.The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF is a pass-through entity, and as such, investors in it pay the same taxes that they would if the fund were their own personal portfolio.Thus, this fund is making an effort to limit the taxes that its shareholders would have to pay on its distributions. The distributions paid out by this fund should be taxed at a lower rate than a bond fund. However, due to the fact that the distributions paid out by this fund are taxable in the same year that they are received, it will expose investors to a higher level of taxation than a fund such as MLPX that simply holds equity securities and relies primarily on unrealized gains to provide an investment return to its investors. As such, an investor who is trying to keep their taxable income down might prefer to hold their shares of this fund in a Roth IRA or similar vehicle.The NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF has an inception date of December 17, 2025, which makes it younger than most other energy infrastructure funds that were trading in the market in early 2026. We can see that by comparing its inception date to that of its peers:Fund NameInception DateNEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETFDecember 17, 2025Alerian MLP ETFAugust 24, 2010Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETFAugust 6, 2013Global X MLP ETFApril 18, 2012First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure ETFJune 20, 2012Tortoise North American Pipeline Fund ETFAugust 29, 2015ALPS Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETFOctober 31, 2013As we can see, all of the peer funds had at least ten years of history prior to the creation of MLPI. One thing that we frequently see with exchange-traded funds is that they accumulate assets over time. As such, older funds frequently have more assets under management. We can see that in this particular peer group, as shown here:Fund NameAssets Under ManagementNEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF$497.65 millionAlerian MLP ETF$12.16 billionGlobal X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF$3.25 billionGlobal X MLP ETF$2.15 billionFirst Trust North American Energy Infrastructure ETF$4.03 billionTortoise North American Pipeline Fund ETF$902.92 millionALPS Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF$441.17 millionWith the notable exception of the ALPS Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF, it is true that the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF is smaller than any of the peer funds. Once again, this is pretty much expected due simply to the relative youth of MLPI when compared to the other funds.There is also a correlation between a fund’s size and its volume. In most cases, the larger a fund, the greater its average daily volume. However, this does not hold true for this particular peer group of funds:Fund NameAverage Daily Volume (Number of Shares)Average Daily Volume (US Dollars)NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF293,355$16,466,016Alerian MLP ETF1.77 million$92,571,000Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF404,151$29,353,487Global X MLP ETF278,632$14,976,470First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure ETF274,749$12,116,431Tortoise North American Pipeline Fund ETF107,455$4,523,856ALPS Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF87,602$3,290,331(all U.S. dollar volume figures are calculated using the closing price for each respective fund as of April 10, 2026)The largest fund in the peer group, the Alerian MLP ETF, also has the highest volume by a substantial margin. However, beyond that, the correlation between a fund’s size and its volume is much weaker. In fact, MLPI has the third-highest U.S. dollar volume despite being one of the smallest of the funds.The liquidity here should be more than sufficient for just about any retail investor. In addition, the unique structure of an exchange-traded fund generally means that the fund’s share price stays in line with its net asset value as long as the underlying assets are reasonably liquid. This is because the fund has an authorized participant that is allowed to transact directly with the fund by either adding assets to it or exchanging shares from the market for the fund’s actual assets. The outstanding share count of the fund expands and contracts as needed on an intraday basis. The assets in which the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF are liquid enough that investors probably do not need to worry about their individual trades moving the share price against them.The fact sheet for the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF states that the fund has an expense ratio of 0.68%.In conclusion, the NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF is a somewhat unique exchange-traded fund that uses an options strategy to provide its investors with a very high level of current income. The fund invests its assets into a portfolio that essentially duplicates the MerQube North America MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index, which is comprised of high-yielding common equity securities issued by midstream C-corporations and master limited partnerships. The fund then supplements the income that these securities provide by writing covered call options against the Alerian MLP ETF. This strategy results in this fund having a greater yield than nearly any other energy infrastructure fund. However, this strategy also results in the fund underperforming similar energy infrastructure funds during periods of time in which the equity prices of these companies are rising. As such, this fund appears to be most suited for investors who wish to earn a high level of current income from their assets and do not care if they earn the highest possible total return.This article answers three main questions about MLPI:Editor's note: This article is intended to provide a general overview of the ETF for educational purposes only and, unlike other articles on Seeking Alpha, does not offer an investment opinion about the ETF.Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.At Energy Profits in Dividends, we seek to generate a 7%+ income yield by investing in a portfolio of energy stocks while minimizing our risk of principal loss. By subscribing, you will get access to our best ideas earlier than they are released to the general public (and many of them are not released at all) as well as far more in-depth research than we make available to everybody. In addition, all subscribers can read any of my work without a subscription to Seeking Alpha Premium!We are currently offering a two-week free trial for the service, so check us out! This article was written byAnalyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of MPLX, LNG either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.