MSTY sells options on a synthetic MSTR position, while CONY writes options on a synthetic COIN position. Each is therefore a single-stock covered-call ETF whose distributions are generated through an options strategy tied to one company rather than a diversified portfolio. The supplied descriptions associate MSTY with MSTR’s volatility and company-specific outcomes, while CONY combines COIN-specific exposure with crypto-market volatility. Their prices were $13.22 and $20.44, respectively, as of July 15, 2026; price alone does not measure income or total return.
Both funds distribute weekly. MSTY’s stated distribution rate was 81.30%, compared with 61.82% for CONY, while their SEC yields were only 1.03% and 1.04%. This wide gap matters because a distribution rate describes the fund’s payout pace, whereas SEC yield applies a standardized income calculation. The rates therefore should not be read as equivalent measures of income earned by the portfolios. The return-of-capital figures provide additional context for why cash distributions can be much larger than SEC yield. Annualized return and return-horizon data were not provided for either fund.
MSTY’s expense ratio was 1.03%, one basis point below CONY’s 1.04%. Each fund had 49 recorded payouts. Across its latest 12 payout events, MSTY paid $3.6339 in total, with a $0.30283 mean and a $0.1549-to-$0.5553 range. CONY paid $4.0715, averaging $0.33929 with a $0.2389-to-$0.5631 range. Those 12-event totals are historical cash amounts, not total-return comparisons. Relative to the prior 12 events, payouts declined 14.10% for MSTY and 14.49% for CONY.
Return of capital represented 56% of MSTY’s trailing distributions and 50% of CONY’s. For the latest regular payouts, dated July 16, 2026, the classifications were 97.18% return of capital on MSTY’s $0.2067 payment and 95.62% on CONY’s $0.2430 payment. Return of capital means that the classified portion was not treated as investment income; it can include cash paid from fund capital and is not, by itself, an additional economic return. The structural trade-off is current cash paid out versus value retained in the fund: how that balance is viewed depends on assumptions and goals, while the supplied data do not establish total-return outcomes.
AI-assisted analysis · generated 2026-07-17 from each fund’s stored, issuer-sourced data · reviewed structure, not advice
The analysis above is AI-assisted, grounded only in each fund’s stored issuer data, and educational — it makes no recommendation and no prediction. Educational scenario modeling only — not investment, tax, or financial advice. Results are hypothetical outcomes of your assumptions, not forecasts.
