Thank you. I read that teenager's brain are not fully developed until they reach 25 years old. So it is not surprising they would engage in large gatherings while most likely not wearing face covering. Not sure the administrators are aware of this. They are under a great deal of financial pressure to reopen the schools.
University setting in lecture halls with > 100 students and in dorms are very challenging to practice social distancing effectively. For those who are in physical science and engineering are having hard time taking their laboratory classes. And there is no good substitute for hands-on learning.
However, several countries including New Zealand, Taiwan, and Singapore are in much better situation where they have reopened their schools. Their death tolls is very small comparing to that of US.

Tend to agree with FD1000 and MJG to the extent that I think one shouldn’t make significant changes in their investing approach (ie: running to cash, loading up on gold, buying treasuries) based on such prophesies as “A reckoning is coming“. I sometimes post such articles as Mark here, but I like to add a disclaimer saying this is for discussion purposes and “not necessarily my own opinion.” Without that, some may interpret the post as some kind of personal financial advice. Just my 2-cents.
There’s always a reckoning coming. Greenspan spoke of irrational exuberance” in ‘96.
Vanguard sent out letters cautioning its investors that “trees don’t grow to the sky” in the late 90s. President GWB in ‘08 warned of “ ... a depression greater than the Great Depression.” Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, John Hussman. And so it goes. Bottom line: I want to make money. Not a lot. But a sum substantially greater than the meager returns available on cash. So, I’ll stay the course, ride the markets thru a diversified portfolio, go with the flow .... Maybe “tilt” this way or that for good reason - but no major changes based on the dozens of daily prophesies - often from writers who know less about it than you or I do.

@msf

"single-family buildings with between one and four units".
How do you legally get four units into a single-family building?

Depends on the size of the house. I've seen many homes cut up six ways from Sunday. Typically in college towns. But it probably happens elsewhere too.
I suspect that the reporting will get better on this as more outlets take a whack at it. I don't think of Politico when I think about strong financial reporting.
But even at 42-43% of those four units holding a mortgage there is the potential for some serious pain.
Here's CNBC taking a whack.

Nearly a third of renters who live in single-family or small multifamily properties owned by individual landlords were unable to pay their August rent, according to a survey by Avail, a technology and marketing platform for small landlords. That is up from just under 25% in July. Avail received responses from 2,225 landlords and almost 3,000 renters.
[ellipses]
Individual landlords make up the majority of single-family rental owners. Nearly 23 million units in 17 million properties are owned by individual investors, according to the most recent count by the U.S. Census Bureau. Just under a third of these investors are retirees.
Nearly 54% of the income from a typical rental unit normally goes toward fixed costs associated with property ownership, according to an analysis by Zillow. These expenses include mortgage payments, property taxes, maintenance, insurance and capital improvements. Without the rent, landlords still have to cover shortfall.
“Our data show that 42% of renters and 35% of landlords are digging into their emergency funds and savings to cover everyday expenses,” said Ryan Coon, CEO of Avail.

Here is an opinion piece in The Hill taking on mortgages in general, as well as renters. The opiner calls for more relief. And I wonder where that ends, whether it's to the renters, the landlord, or both.

While I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of mom-and-pop landlords, the thesis of the article is not well supported by the facts presented. The thesis being that it is the ban on evictions that is "threatening the livelihood of millions of landlords".

One in three tenants failed to make their September rent payment on time, according to the latest Apartment List survey. And a little over 25 percent said they had slight or no confidence in their ability to pay their rent this month, according to Census data published Wednesday, with another 22 percent expressing only moderate confidence.

With a large swath of renters being unable to make timely payments, would landlords be better off evicting tenants who may be paying some money in the hope of finding new renters able to pay more during a pandemic? Is it really the eviction ban creating this threat to landlords?
From another, slightly earlier (and somewhat less conclusory) Politico piece:

A ban without assistance, [ National Low Income Housing Coalition CEO and President] Yentel said, is a “half-measure that extends a financial cliff for renters to fall off of when the moratorium expires and back rent is owed.” ...
“Without direct rental assistance, rents cannot be paid, and owners face a financial crisis of their own by not being able to maintain properties and pay their mortgages or property taxes, ”NAA President & CEO Bob Pinnegar said. ...
Mnuchin also supports rental assistance, he told lawmakers: "Our first choice is to have bipartisan legislation that allocates specific rental assistance to people hardest hit."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/01/trump-administration-block-evictions-backlash-407060
BTW, I linked to the "Census data published Wednesday" in my post here.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/131148/#Comment_131148
The original article also includes some statements and figures that seem at best a bit flaky:
"single-family buildings with between one and four units".
How do you legally get four units into a single-family building?
"In a four-unit building, if one person can’t pay rent you’ve just lost 25 percent of your income."
That may have seemed obvious to the person quoted, but it's not necessarily correct (the situation can be much worse):

About 40 percent of seniors who live in and own two-to-four-unit buildings have a mortgage. If these older landlords with a mortgage do not receive rental payments, not only are they likely to lose their single source of income, but some may lose their homes.

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/owners-and-renters-62-million-units-small-buildings-are-particularly-vulnerable-during-pandemic
Small landlords often live in multi-unit buildings they own. So in a four-unit building, if one person doesn't pay rent, they've lost 33% of their rental income. Aside from losing a larger percentage of their rental income than the article says, these owners are themselves at risk of eviction (post-foreclosure).
"And most of those buildings have a mortgage — meaning the property owners themselves still need to make their own monthly payments."
According to the Urban Institute's presentation of RHFS data, 42% of 1-4 unit buildings have a mortgage, not most. The RHFS data itself (click the "apply" button on the linked page for this table) says about 43%. Just 3/7, not "most of these buildings".
As far as "property owners themselves still need[ing] to make their own monthly payments", many will need to, some won't. "[T]though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have established multifamily forbearance plans, small-building landlords are less likely to hold federally backed mortgages". Urban Institute, ibid.
"Fannie Mae today [June 29, 2020] announced updated renter protections and forbearance extensions for borrowers."
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-announces-updated-protections-renters-impacted-covid-19

"Wealthy investors and the Fed have been propping up large companies. It can’t last."
"If the stock market doesn’t reflect the health of our economy, what does it measure? Most directly, it indicates the financial health of the richest among us. Overall, about 55 percent of Americans own stocks, according to Gallup, but ownership is heavily skewed toward the wealthy. According to Federal Reserve data, the top 1 percent of U.S. households own 39 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 10 percent own 83 percent — which leaves workers in the bottom 90 percent owning just 17 percent."
Article Here

per Politico:
I read that the stock market isn't the economy, but after a while . . .

More than 22 million rental units, a little over half the rental housing in the country, are in single-family buildings with between one and four units, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute. And most of those buildings have a mortgage — meaning the property owners themselves still need to make their own monthly payments.
“In a four-unit building, if one person can’t pay rent you’ve just lost 25 percent of your income,” Pinnegar said.
Most of the units are owned by mom-and-pop landlords, many of whom invested in property to save for retirement. Now they’re dealing with a dramatic drop in income, facing the prospect of either trying to sell their property or going into debt to meet financial obligations including mortgage and insurance payments, property taxes, utilities and maintenance costs. If enough landlords can no longer make those payments, it would threaten everything from the school budgets funded by property taxes to the stability of the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market itself.
Six months into the crisis, millions of tenants can no longer meet their rent — and the situation is only getting worse. Tenants already owe some $25 billion in back rent and will owe nearly $70 billion by the end of the year, according to an estimate last month by Moody’s Analytics.

I agree that politics is an inevitable part of life, especially financial life and economics. People feel very strongly about what their money does and some feel very strongly how they make their money. Some do 9not.
However, the very fact that cigarette companies can hire people shows that many people either don't think about it or don't care. Many of my relatives believe climate change is a "plot" by scientists to increase th9eir grant funding.
Nothing I can do or ask them to read will change their mind, so their are a couple of choices: Either don't see them ( the one I usually try to use), or if you have to see them don't talk politics or if you see them continue a haranguing argument that convinces no one but makes everyone upset.
The problem here is most of us don't know each other and can't see that we are upsetting people we care about. ( Although with my relatives, seeing they are upsetting me doesn't seem to stop them)
I am not sure closing down "off topic" will do much, unless David or another moderator also follows though and deletes any post deemed "too political" in the other forums.
I am not sure how that will be determined, and if we will still be able to discuss policy and fact based statements about the economy and the pandemic etc, and not get too political.
Maybe we can just use the tone and the overall content to be a guide.

You may remember Stan Druckenmiller as a frequent guest on the old PBS Nightly Business Report. This is not intended to represent a broad spectrum of opinion. Nor is his view anything new (unless you’ve been asleep in a cave for the past decade or longer). Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, I’m quoting an amount of bio that under normal circumstances might be inappropriate.
“Druckenmiller began his financial career in 1977 as a management trainee at Pittsburgh National Bank. He became head of the bank's equity research group after one year. In 1981, he founded his own firm, Duquesne Capital Management. In 1985, he became a consultant to Dreyfus, splitting his time between Pittsburgh and New York, where he lived two days each week. He moved to Pittsburgh full-time in 1986, when he was named head of the Dreyfus Fund. As part of his agreement with Dreyfus, he also maintained management of Duquesne. In 1988, he was hired by George Soros to replace Victor Niederhoffer at Quantum Fund. He and Soros famously "broke the Bank of England" when they shorted British pound sterling in 1992, reputedly making more than $1 billion in profits, in an event known as Black Wednesday. They calculated that the Bank of England did not have enough foreign currency reserves with which to buy enough sterling to prop up the currency and that raising interest rates would be politically unsustainable. He left Soros in 2000 after taking large losses in technology stocks ...
According to Bloomberg News, on August 18, 2010, Druckenmiller announced the closing of his hedge fund "telling investors he'd been worn down by the stress of trying to maintain one of the best trading records in the industry while managing an 'enormous amount of capital.'" Duquesne Capital Management posts an average annual return of 30 percent without any money-losing year. His funds were down for about 5 percent when he announced his retirement in August. However, they had since erased the losses and closed with a small gain through successful bets that the market would rally in anticipation that the Federal Reserve would announce further "Quantitative Easing" to assist in reducing unemployment and avoid deflation.
According to The Wall Street Journal, on August 18, 2010, Druckenmiller "told clients that he's returning their money and ending his firm's 30-year run, citing the 'high emotional toll' of not performing up to his own expectations." He indicated it was not easy to make big profits while handling very large sums of money.“
Link to Wikipedia Article

Postscript: It’s clear to me that one of my money managers has absolutely no concept of what a bubble is. Dodge and Cox clearly doesn’t like to party. Their flagship domestic stock fund, DODGX, is down nearly 10% YTD. It’s negative over 1-year and has averaged just a sedate 5.2% annualized return over the past 3. “What mania?” they might be asking about now.
:)

Could be an interesting fund, but seeing that it is "dynamic", it may not be what the OP is looking for. M* shows a significant style drift, from large cap growth in 2017 to mid cap blend (2018) to its current mid cap value. That's likely by design, as Invesco says it reweights its holdings based on where we are in the economic cycle.
https://www.invesco.com/us/financial-products/etfs/product-detail?audienceType=Investor&ticker=OMFL
FWIW, M* classifies the fund as large cap blend, and Lipper calls it multi-cap core. The turnover over the fiscal year ending June 2019 was 138%; the 83% that M* reports is for the two months July 2019-August 2019, according to the prospectus.
http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/Invesco/Fund.aspx?cu=46138J619&dt=P&ss=etf
It appears that the fund has four fixed portfolios, representing recovery, expansion, slowdown, and contraction phases in the economic cycle. So if the country remains in one phase of a cycle for a year, one should expect very little turnover (primarily reflecting changes in the Russell 1000). OTOH, if there's even one change of phase, there should be a significant turnover, as one portfolio is substituted for another. That would explain the high turnover rate.
In terms of design, I'd prefer to see a smooth transition between phases. Aside from this, it is an interesting approach. The questions are how well matched the factor weightings are to the economic phases (i.e. whether stocks with those particular weightings will tend to do better in each of the phases), and how well the index identifies the current cycle phase we're in. Typically NBER takes several months to determine, retrospectively, that we have entered (or exited) a recession. This index must make similar determinations in real time.
https://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html
"The current economic cycle/market condition category, which determines which factor configuration is applied, is derived from a rules-based methodology that relies on certain leading economic indicators and information regarding global risk appetite. The applicable category is provided to the Index Provider by Invesco Indexing in the form of a data signal (the “Signal”)." (prospectus)

Thanks, David for point us to this. Here’s Barron’s take : https://www.barrons.com/articles/climate-change-poses-a-major-risk-to-u-s-financial-system-warns-regulator-51599667397
“ The risks from climate change include damage to infrastructure, housing, crops, communities, and livelihoods, as well as to the value of financial assets, according to the report, which argues that systemic shocks related to climate change can undermine the financial health of banks and insurance markets.
It makes 53 recommendations, including that financial supervisors require bank and nonbank financial firms to address climate-related financial risks, that companies make meaningful disclosures about climate risk, and that U.S. and financial regulators provide clarity to confirm the appropriateness of making investment decisions using climate-related factors in retirement plans.”

from today's New York Times:

A report commissioned by federal regulators overseeing the nation’s commodities markets has concluded that climate change threatens U.S. financial markets, as the costs of wildfires, storms, droughts and floods spread through insurance and mortgage markets, pension funds and other financial institutions.
“A world wracked by frequent and devastating shocks from climate change cannot sustain the fundamental conditions supporting our financial system,” concluded the report, “Managing Climate Risk in the Financial System”

Managing Climate Risk in the US Financial System (September 2020)
Recommendation #4 seems to directly address the administration's push against the inclusion of ESG investments in retirement plans. The CFTC, to the contrary, recommends:

The United States and financial regulators should review relevant laws, regulations and codes and provide any necessary clarity to confirm the appropriateness of making investment decisions using climate-related factors in retirement and pension plans covered by ERISA, as well as non-ERISA managed situations where there is fiduciary duty. This should clarify that climate-related factors—as well as ESG factors that impact risk-return more broadly—may be considered to the same extent as “traditional” financial factors, without creating additional burdens.

How this plays out at the individual investor level puzzles me. Even if we can guess the three likeliest short-term outcomes (say, increases in extreme weather, greater number of "orphaned" assets, a push for more-sustainable energy generation and distribution), I'm not exactly sure of how to act on the information. Do you simply dodge carbon? Look for "impact investors" who actively seek to mitigate effects? Shift to financials on the premise that insurance companies make money from catastrophic events (high short-term payoff offset by even higher premium increases)?
Curious.
David

For sure that is something to watch out for. Reduced growth funds several weeks ago so to lessen FAANG stocks exposure.
Going forward trade war will likely get uglier as China flexes their influence. Unfortunately that is the downside of globalization.
Buffett turned 90 years old. It seems his successors are making more of key changes. Still he holds lots of financial.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55234/japanese-stocks-are-well-placed-to-confound-the-skeptics
Since I posted the above story 6 months ago, Price’s PRJPX is up about 9.4%. YTD it’s up by 10%, and for one year It’s up 26%. Their Nikkei stock market is still recovering from one of the greatest boom & bust cycles in recorded history. I’m not recommending it as an investment, though I do like multi-nation funds that have maybe 10-25% exposure to Japan.
(Above cited data from Yahoo and Lipper)
The 2018 Accord Hybrid I bought 2 years ago is a superbly designed auto for its price range (mid-20s). Probably the best overall build-quality of anything I’ve owned. The car was assembled in Ohio, but the engine was imported from Japan.
Sony still makes some fine electronics. I have two of its SRX series bluetooth speakers. It’s amazing what the SRX-XB41 can do. (Completely waterproof too, in case I decide to take it swimming.)
+1 @MikeM - Barron’s is still a fine read. Nice broad education in financial & investment thinking. When you get down to it, the ability to weigh data and compare subjective opinions and than fashion your own investing approach is much more valuable and longer lasting than the latest “hot tip” on what to buy. I hear Barron’s doesn’t have the charts / data it once did. That’s probably true. Who needs it with everything on the internet now?

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=IR5WX4rLGbKvtgWqkLvICQ&q=Saving+for+Retirement+Is+Never+Easy.+The+Covid+Pandemic+Has+Made+It+Even+Harder.&oq=Saving+for+Retirement+Is+Never+Easy.+The+Covid+Pandemic+Has+Made+It+Even+Harder.&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBADUKsYWKsYYPIiaABwAHgAgAHZAYgB2QGSAQMyLTGYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp
Saving for Retirement Is Never Easy. The Covid Pandemic Has Made It Even Harder.
Ed Daizovi, a 57-year-old career diplomat, entered the retirement homestretch earlier this year: He had just moved back from Africa and was setting up a new home in Miami where he planned to retire next year with his wife of 29 years, after investing diligently to fund a comfortable retirement.
But the coronavirus pandemic—and the volatility stirred first by the market’s crash and quick recovery, and now by uncertainty heading into the election—is making Daizovi wary about his retirement timeline
Many folks indeed are suffering. We hope c19 conditions improve in the near future and more peoplemay get their old jobs back/lives back in orders. Heard so many personal stories of misdeeds, financial turmoils/ family restrains and conflicts previously.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924727/000110465920102657/tm2030240-1_497.htm
497 1 tm2030240-1_497.htm 497
(may wish to click link to see all information)
FPA Funds Trust
FPA Crescent Fund
Institutional Class (FPACX)
Supplement dated September 4, 2020 to the
Prospectus dated April 30, 2020
This Supplement amends information in the Prospectus for the FPA Crescent Fund (the “Fund”), a series of FPA Funds Trust, dated April 30, 2020. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.fpa.com or calling us at (800) 638-3060.
Effective immediately, the current single class of shares of the Fund is hereby renamed Institutional Class shares, and all references to the current single class of shares of the Fund in the Prospectus are hereby superseded and replaced with references to Institutional Class shares. In addition, the following changes are made:
The section titled “Fees and Expenses” on page 2 of the Prospectus is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Fees and Expenses of the Institutional Class
This table describes the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the Fund’s Institutional Class. The table and example below do not reflect commissions that a shareholder may be required to pay directly to a broker or other financial intermediary when buying or selling shares of this class.
Shareholder Fees (fees paid directly from your investment)
Maximum Sales Charge (Load) Imposed on Purchases (as a percentage of offering price) None
Maximum Deferred Sales Charge (Load) (as a percentage of original sales price or redemption proceeds, as applicable) None
Redemption Fee (as a percentage of amount redeemed on shares held 90 days or less) 2.00 %
Exchange Fee None
Annual Operating Expenses of the Institutional Class of Shares (expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment in this class)
Management Fees1 1.00 %
Distribution (12b-1) Fees None
Other Expenses (Before Short Sale Dividend and Interest Expenses) 0.07 %
Total Expenses (Before Short Sale Dividend and Interest Expenses) 1.07 %
Expense Reimbursement2 0.02 %
Total Operating Expenses Before Short Sale Dividend and Interest Expenses 1.05 %
Short sale dividend and interest expenses 0.16 %
Total Annual Operating Expenses 1.21 %
1 The Management fees include both the advisory fee of 0.93% and class-specific administrative service fee of 0.07%. For additional information about the administrative service fee please see the section titled “Management of the Fund.”
2 First Pacific Advisors, LP (the “Adviser” or “FPA”), the Fund’s investment adviser, has contractually agreed to reimburse the Fund for operating expenses in excess of 0.05% of the average net assets of the Fund, excluding management fees, administrative service fees, short sale dividend expenses and interest expenses on cash deposits relating to short sales, brokerage fees and commissions, interest, taxes, fees and expenses of other funds in which the Fund invests, and extraordinary expenses, including litigation expenses not incurred in the Fund’s ordinary course of business, through September 4, 2021. This agreement may only be terminated earlier by the Fund’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or upon termination of the Advisory Agreement...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/99188/000110465920102469/tm2030154-1_497.htm
497 1 tm2030154-1_497.htm 497
FPA Capital Fund, Inc. (FPPTX)
Supplement dated September 4, 2020 to the
Prospectus dated July 29, 2020
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for FPA Capital Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”), dated July 29, 2020. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.fpafunds.com or calling us at (800) 638-3060.
At a meeting held on August 28, 2020, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Fund approved the reorganization (the “Reorganization”) of the Fund into the Queens Road Small Cap Value Fund, a series of the Bragg Capital Trust (the “Acquiring Fund”).
The Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the Fund’s shareholders and the terms of the agreement and plan of reorganization approved by the Board.
If the Reorganization is completed as proposed, each shareholder of the Fund would become a shareholder of the Acquiring Fund. The Acquiring Fund is an existing series of Bragg Trust with a substantially similar investment objective and similar principal investment strategies as the Fund, with certain differences, as described in the combined proxy statement and prospectus on Form N-14 (the “Proxy Statement/Prospectus”). It is currently expected that prior to the Reorganization, shareholders of the Acquiring Fund will be asked to approve the transition of the Acquiring Fund to the FPA Funds platform. In connection with this proposed transition, subject to approval by shareholders of the Acquiring Fund, FPA will serve as the investment adviser to the Acquiring Fund and Bragg Financial Advisors, Inc., the current investment adviser to the Acquiring Fund, will serve as the Acquiring Fund’s sub-adviser. Also subject to approval by shareholders of the Acquiring Fund in connection with this proposed transition, the persons currently serving on the Fund’s Board will serve as Trustees of the Acquiring Fund in replacement of the Acquiring Fund’s current Trustees.
It is expected that the Reorganization will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes, and no commission, redemption fee or transaction fee will be charged as a result of the Reorganization.
The Board’s decision to reorganize the Fund is subject to shareholder approval, though no shareholder action is necessary at this time. Shareholders of the Fund will receive a Proxy Statement/Prospectus that contains important information about the Reorganization and the Acquiring Fund in which they would own shares upon closing of the Reorganization, including information about investment strategies and risks; fees and expenses; and potential tax consequences of the Reorganization. Prior to the Reorganization, Fund shareholders may continue to purchase, redeem and exchange their shares subject to the limitations described in the Fund’s prospectus. If shareholders approve the Reorganization and other closing conditions are met, the Reorganization is anticipated to close in the fourth quarter of 2020.
The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, shares of the Fund or the Acquiring Fund, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. When it is available, please read the Proxy Statement/Prospectus carefully before making any decision to invest or when considering the Reorganization. The Proxy Statement/Prospectus will also be available for free on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

Wile it's true that the individual categories are clearly marked, the "Discussions +" section intermixes all of the categories. If "Off-Topic" were excluded from "Discussions +", no one would ever have to look at anything that they didn't want to. Those interested in "non-financial" posts would simply select the "Off Topic" category.

Bankruptcy and unemployment. It is commonly said that consumer spending drives seventy percent of the economy.

the economy so far has replaced only about 9 million of the 22 million jobs lost to the coronavirus pandemic.
[ellipses]
Ranked by assets, bankruptcy filings this year have already surpassed the financial crisis year of 2008, according to BankruptcyData, which tracks business bankruptcies.

“ For the bears... what might trigger the correction?”
I’d take exception to the wording. Of course, any market can “correct” (financial stocks, technology, emerging markets, gold, real estate). Let’s assume you are talking about the broad U.S. stock market as represented by the S&P 500 and other indexes. One need not be a bear to expect a stock market correction at some point. They are healthy and necessary to efficiently functioning markets. And, “correction” should not be confused with “crash”. The former tends to be quite temporary. The latter can set investors back for several years.
This question is nearly impossible to address. I don’t worry about corrections. Some markets saw a 30% correction only a few months ago. It turned out to be a good buying opportunity. A “crash” is an entirely different matter. It can result in sector losses of 50% or greater, grind on for years (occasionally decades) , and seriously damage many investors. Crashes tend to cause significant changes in investor psyche and this alone becomes a factor in how valuations are perceived.
What might cause a crash?
- Interest rates across the spectrum rising.
- Reactionary belt-tightening by Congress and the Executive branch - a slashing of federal spending combined with higher taxes (highly unlikely in a Pres. election year).

I happen to belong to small union that bought diamonds to diversify . Long story short. Instead of buying one of the best , high quality , numerous smaller stones were purchased. Pension fund dropped the ball on that deal & lost a bundle !!
That caused union to find a financial advisor instead of members input .
Shit Happens, Derf