@Charles, lots of quick changes in bonds. Junk bonds that worked in last two years now are falling behind as the market is falling, while the safer and quality IG bonds are back this week. Quite a reversal. Yes, I like boring T bills, money market, and stable value as cash and cash equivalents. Now is not the time to catch a falling knife.
Right now the FED is in a tight spot when the inflation remains elevated and getting worse. Watch for the labor market where recession starts.
Is it economically feasible to reshoring manufacturing base to the States? Interesting but naive thinking in my honest opinion.
@JD_co, the tariffs is more revealing that meets the eyes. Excerpt from WSJ article.

But the tariff scheme he announced isn’t reciprocal and isn’t based on measuring foreign trade barriers. Instead, it simply measures bilateral trade deficits and comes up with tariff numbers from there. 
Those are two very different things, and could be one reason why global financial markets are reacting so badly.
The upshot is that, in the majority of cases, the Trump administration is now charging other countries more than what they charge the U.S.
Take the case of Vietnam. The U.S. will now charge Vietnam a 46% tariff for its exports to the U.S. But Vietnam’s simple average tariff is 9.4%, and its weighted average tariff—which is adjusted to account for the share of products coming in under different tariff rates—is just 5.1%, according to data from the World Trade Organization.

For Apple News subscribers, here is the link.
https://apple.news/AP0d-np1rQOSoanLTvSkaVQ

Here is a X post from a Shay Boloor, a financial/investment podcaster, that is making the rounds:
MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.
Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.
But that’s not what this is.
That you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.
You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.
Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.
That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.
And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.
I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.
What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.
And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.
You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.
This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.
And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.
You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.
With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.
That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.
Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.
But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.
That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones. So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.
But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.
I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.
It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.
And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate. Because we don’t need more noise.
We need a plan.

Following are excerpts from the latest newsletter from Heather Cox Richardson.

After President Donald Trump’s tariff announcements on April 2 wiped $5 trillion dollars from the stock market, the Republican Party is scrambling.
Farmers, who were a part of Trump’s base, are “struck and shocked” by the tariffs, the president of the South Dakota Farmers Union told Lauren Scott of CBC News, saying they will have a “devastating effect.” Rob Copeland, Lauren Hirsch, and Maureen Farrell of the New York Times report that Wall Street leaders who backed Trump are now criticizing him publicly, with one calling for someone to stop him. The size of yesterday’s peaceful protests around the country, less than 100 days into Trump’s term when he should be enjoying a honeymoon, demonstrated growing fury at the administration’s actions.
Yesterday, in the midst of the economic crisis and as millions of protesters gathered across the country, the White House announced that “[t]he President won his second round matchup of the Senior Club Championship today in Jupiter, FL, and advances to the Championship Round tomorrow.” This afternoon, President Donald J. Trump posted a video of himself hitting a golf ball off a tee, perhaps as a demonstration that he is unconcerned about the chaos in the markets.
When Trump administration officials Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett appeared on this morning’s Sunday shows, their attempts to reassure Americans and deflect concerns also sounded out of touch.
Bessent, a billionaire, told Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press that the administration is creating a new, more secure economic system and that Americans “who have put away for years in their savings accounts, I think don’t look at the day-to-day fluctuations of what’s happening.” He went on to suggest that the losses were likely not that significant and would turn out fine in the long term.
Lutnick insisted that the tariffs are about national security and bringing back manufacturing, although the administration has frozen the Inflation Reduction Act funding for the manufacturing President Joe Biden brought to the U.S., overwhelmingly in Republican-dominated districts. Lutnick kept hitting on the MAGA talking point that other countries are ripping the U.S. off, and insisted that the tariffs are here to stay.
On This Week by ABC News, Hassett took the opposite position: that countries are already calling the White House to begin tariff negotiations. Host George Stephanopoulos asked Hassett about the video Trump posted on his social media account claiming that he was crashing the market on purpose, forcing him to say that crashing the economy was not part of Trump’s strategy. Hassett claimed that the tariffs will not cost consumers more and that Trump is “trying to deliver for American workers.”
The tariffs not only have forced administration officials into contradictory positions, but also have brought into the open the rift between old MAGA and billionaire Elon Musk.
Trump’s tariff policy reflects the ideas of his senior counselor on manufacturing and trade, Peter Navarro, a China hawk who invented an “expert” to support his statements in his own books. Musk, who opposes the tariffs, has taken shots at Navarro on his social media platform X. On Saturday, Musk directly contradicted Trump and MAGA when he told a gathering of right-wing Italians that he wants the U.S. and Europe to create a tariff-free zone as well as "more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America." On the Fox News Channel this morning, Navarro retorted that Musk “sells cars” and is just trying to protect his own interests.

Comment: The nest has been kicked and the ants are scurrying hither and yon...

Treasury Secretary Bessent is full of insights.
"During an interview with NBC News’ 'Meet the Press,' Bessent called it a 'false narrative' that Americans
who are close to retiring may be reticent to do so after their retirement savings may have dropped this week
due to the stock market downturn."
“'I think that’s a false narrative,' he told moderator Kristen Welker.
'Americans who want to retire right now, the Americans who put away for years in their savings accounts,
I think they don’t look at the day-to-day fluctuations.'”
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/06/treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-markets-tariffs-recession.html

A wee bit of Econ 101 for the less informed.
Tariffs have always and will always have a direct effect on national and world economies. And, taking it slow here, national and world economies have a direct effect on world financial markets. (Links supporting these facts below.)
If they are significant enough, or if they are so insanely ridiculous that it appears they were pulled out of a punch bowl, they will have a HUGE effect on world stock, bond and FX markets. (See US & world market activity, 04/03/25-Current.)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/
Excerpt:
The findings suggest that tariffs have a detrimental effect on output, with the negative effect larger for higher tariff increases and persisting over time, at least over the next four years or so. The residualized growth tends to be in negative territory in all four years following an increase in protectionism. For example, after the second year, the residualized output growth is −0.4/−0.8 for one/three standard deviation(s) increases in tariffs, respectively. After four years, tariff increases are associated with an annual negative output growth of 1.5 percent when tariff increase is above three standard deviations.
https://www.epi.org/publication/tariffs-everything-you-need-to-know-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
Excerpt:
These uses are not trivial: Tariffs are absolutely a key tool of smart industrial and trade policy. But on their own, tariffs cannot and should not be the centerpiece of a national economic strategy. Doing so would represent a gross overuse of a tool for a task it’s not suited for and would cause damage to the wider economy.
Reducing damaging trade deficits cannot be achieved solely through trade policy—except in the extreme case where trade policy measures are so severe that they essentially shut down all international trade, which would cause radical disruption to the U.S. economy. Instead, more balanced trade will only result from macroeconomic policies that are consistent with lower trade deficits—including exchange rate management to realign an overvalued U.S. dollar and a reasonable mix of fiscal and monetary policies.
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/tariffs-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-work/
Pretty basic stuff for anyone who has ever extended their financial knowledge base as far as Econ 101.

@Sven. Since 28 March 2025, I'm liking TBills, CDs, IG Bonds. I do think that since inflation will not be demand driven, Fed may step in down the road. That said, IG Bonds have not been the place to be for years. Hopes of lower rates have just not materialized.
IG Corporate Bonds now paying 5-6% over10-20 years, callable though.
Fun fact. In May 2007, height of market back then, I bought my retirement home putting 20% down and took a 30-year fixed mortgage paying 6.5%! So, I think years of ZIRP since have probably distorted my perspective on rates.

Regarding all the fuss about FD, I don't find anything unusual about his market exit. He has often moved out of the market quickly during market turmoil. Back when both FD and I invested similarly in bond oefs, he would often let me know he was selling before I did, but we have been going down very different investing tracks for the last several years. He hasn't communicated to me in a long time about his investing decisions, but his statements on this thread seem very consistent with how he has handled past market turmoil periods.

Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:
The Biden-era limits were designed to reduce emissions of toxic pollutants, including a cancer-causing ingredient used in antifreeze and plastics.

Two chemical industry groups are asking President Trump for a complete exemption to free their factories from new limits on hazardous air pollution. Under a new rule finalized by the Biden administration last year, chemical plants would soon be required to monitor and reduce emissions of toxic pollutants, like ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing ingredient used in antifreeze and plastics.
Now the two groups, the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represent the nation’s major chemical companies, are seeking a temporary presidential waiver for all polluters to the rule. The request came after the E.P.A. told companies last month that they could apply for waivers to major clean-air rules by emailing the agency. The E.P.A. pointed to a section of the Clean Air Act that enables the president to temporarily exempt industrial facilities from new rules if the technology required to meet those rules isn’t available, and if it’s in the interest of national security.
Under Mr. Trump, the E.P.A. has moved to roll back many of the same rules. That could mean that companies granted a temporary exemption now would ultimately never have to comply with the new rules.
The Biden-era rule had been part of that administration’s effort to address the disproportionate effect of environmental hazards facing communities near chemical plants. These are often low-income, predominantly Black or Latino neighborhoods with elevated rates of asthma, cancer and other health problems. It updates several regulations governing emissions from chemical plants, some of which have not been tightened in nearly 20 years, and applies to more than 200 chemical facilities across Texas and Louisiana, as well as the Ohio River Valley and West Virginia — all home to major chemical hubs.
The rule had for the first time considered the cumulative effects of multiple chemical plants on communities in such hubs, rather than simply the effect of a single source of pollution. Companies would be required to rigorously tighten controls and processes to limit chemical emissions. They would also be required to monitor smokestacks and vents at the manufacturing facilities, while also checking whether chemicals are present at the property line of a plant. That kind of fence-line monitoring is similar to those required of petroleum refineries.
But the chemical industry had raised various concerns about the new restrictions, particularly on ethylene oxide, saying it was used in a variety of products like batteries for electric vehicles. It also is essential to sterilizing medical equipment, according to the Food and Drug Administration. In a statement on Saturday, Chet Thompson, chief executive of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, called the Biden-era rule “unlawful, unreasonable and technologically unachievable,” adding that it put “critical U.S. manufacturing operations at risk.”
The latest move is part of an effort by the Trump administration to steer the E.P.A. away from its original role of environmental protection and regulation. Mr. Zeldin has described the agency’s new mission as lowering the cost of purchasing cars, heating homes and running businesses, as well as encouraging American energy dominance. Last month, the administration dropped a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing high levels of chloroprene, a likely carcinogen, from a plant in Louisiana.
The E.P.A. has said it plans to slash jobs, eliminate its scientific research arm and ensure that enforcement actions don’t interfere with energy production. It also aims to reduce the agency’s overall budget by 65 percent. The Trump administration has also placed former lobbyists and lawyers for the oil, gas and chemical industries in senior positions at the agency.

Comment: This situation actually is not all that important, unless of course you happen to live near these chemical plant operations. If that should be the case, then the "ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL" option applies, so there's really no problem anyway.

Here’s what Fido’s analytics pulled up for me this morning.
Domestic Stock 16%
Foreign Stock 24%
Bonds 26%
Short Term 22%
Other 11%
After 2 days buying I’ve moved the equity position from 35% to 40%. The “other” remained stable at 11%. Most of that is in a real assets fund. Somewhat more aggressive than those numbers however, because a good chunk is in CEFs which employ leverage. Friday was my worst day in years, off 3.22% - slightly less than what PRWCX lost (- 3.37%).
I’m not someone looking for positive annual returns. Willing to lose money over shorter periods (1-3 years) as long as I have confidence in what I own. I believe that over 3-5 years I’ll do better than cash. Investing entails risk. All the fund prospectuses tell you that. @Sven is correct that we’re all different in our needs, expectations, dispositions and past experiences.
Question for the members: What do you think David Giroux was buying Friday?

stillers

@linter, thanks for your research and post, providing conclusive evidence of what most of us already knew, Teched1000 is a fraud.
His reply, with two links to nowhere (sic) and his rambling psycho-babble post about general investment BS and references back to 2020 and 2022 (Say what?) are testament to it. You don't have to have 35+ years of audit experience to know that 500+ word responses about everything but the simple question that was posed/issue that was raised indicate, well, in technical accounting terms, bullshit.

First, the 500+ words were my opinion about the markets. If you don't like it move on.
Second, you just crossed the line by saying "fraud, sic, psycho-babble, general investment BS" and should be banned from this site.
Third,I urged people to look at the links that were provided and see the truth.
But wait, stillers, the seeker of truth posted under 4 different names on different sites.
Karen/ Stillers / Arriba / Albie. Any respectable person uses the same one.
The last name was Karen. He claimed that he was married to a financial advisor and then continued to post dozens of opinions that supposedly came from his husband while they were his own.
When I revealed it and posted about it, he disappeared.

Stick to your portfolio allocations and don’t do anything rash during the market turmoil. Keep the money you may need in 1-2 years in “cash” (money-market funds, ultra-short-term bond funds, T-Bills, high-yield savings accounts, short-term CDs

Great reminder. We are happy to be there already. Thank you @yogobb for the summary. Look like I have homework this evening.

A rare look at my account because of what was written about me.
I don't deny or confirm anything more. Too much hassle and time-consuming.
2 attachments (using a snipping tool) from my biggest account directly from Schwab. The other accounts are similar. You can clearly see what I have done; it's the blue line. MM is over 99%.

Since I trade only/mostly bond funds for years, I can hold longer and get out in time.
My 3 best ideas funds in 2025 (HOSIX,NRDCX,CBYYX) were doing OK but nothing much.
I never invested directly in treasury funds; I play it thru HY Munis. Both categories volatility have been too high and why I missed it. That is not a concern because I have enough. My main goals are very low SD, positive yearly performance, and very small losses.
So, what do I see?
First, the big picture. Is it unique? Yes. Global tariffs are unique. Trump was serious all along. Is risk elevated? Yes, for a while already.
The VIX absolute number is important, but the speed is too. Most risky categories are down = another verification.
Bonds: high-rated bonds went up; this is good; it worked this time. Even HY munis did OK. They went up Thur and Fri. The MOVE (bond volatility) also moved very quickly to signal a sell.Another stress sign is RPHIX, it was down on Friday -0.21%.
Second, T/A was verified. We had a small bump in stocks, but it was a short-term one. I mostly use uptrends to verify buys or a switch. After a big meltdown, I use T/A to enter back. IMO, ceilings and floors/support don't make sense because both keep breaking; which is the real true one? Other T/A indicators are useless in predicting the future.
Markets didn't make sense to me for several weeks. When it happens, I sell because very low SD and capital conservation are my primary goals. My biggest "mistake" was that I thought that rates would not go down that much; after all, inflation isn't low enough, and new jobs are still doing OK. The Fed chair, Powell, reiterated it too with no rate cuts yet.
There is no way to know how much more. Selling early or based on an absolute % are my preferred methods because you are late after it starts going down. There is no way to know if it will go 8-10% or 20+%.
Research shows that missing the worst days is better than missing the good days, and most of these good days come after a big dive. See https://fd1000.freeforums.net/thread/14/missing-worse-best-days
BTW, I always sell a huge % early, but I buy back very quickly when my big picture risk + other indicators signal that.
See 2/29/2020
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55299/bond-mutual-funds-analysis-act-2/p2
See March 2022
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/thread/1262/make-sense

Even though I had cash to invest during the pandemic, I hesitated - caught between wanting to exit or take a chance to buy while the market was low. I chose to hold what I had and invested only small amounts at the edges, kicking myself later for the missed opportunity.
So even though this time *may be different* I deployed dry powder at the edges on both Thursday and Friday, keeping enough in reserve to see us through the next 2-3 years if necessary.
The U.S. is not going out of business, but we’re all aboard a ship run by fools.

Sounds similar to my thinking. My portfolio was off to one of its better starts with about a 4% gain thru the first 3 months of the year. Most (but not all) of that has been erased in 2 days. I too deployed dry power Thursday & Friday taking cash from 12% down to 4.5% at the end of yesterday. There’s considerable fixed income / bond exposure in the ”invested” portion, so that 4.5% cash weighting is a bit misleading. Still, it represents an uncharacteristically low level for me.
I’m struck by how universal across asset classes Friday’s selling was. By contrast, on Thursday utilities, consumers staples, most bonds were up. But Friday all hell broke loose. Little was up. (“Sell now! Look later!”) I’m thinking Thursday’s selloff was based more or less on fundamentals, while Friday’s selling was mostly sheer panic.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly+ (2025/Q1–April 7, 2025)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2025/Q1 and YTD to 3/31/25)
(No Supplement – it’s all within the main issue)
(Congratulations to @LewisBraham who seems to be in charge of all features now)
Pg 18: A list of defensive, chaos-resistant funds. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
“Cash”: Money-market and ultra-short-term bond funds
Bonds: BND,CBLDX, FFIAX, FPFIX
Large-Cap-Value: ACMVX, GQHPX, SCHD, TWEIX
International/Global: CIVVX, LVHI, SGENX
Gold-Bullion: GLDM
Alts: BAMBX, PCBAX, QDSNX, QLENX
Pg 20: In 2025/Q1, gold, bonds and foreign stocks were winners. Large-cap-growth and cryptos were losers. SP500 peaked on 2/19/25. There were strong inflows into the money-market, ultra-short-term and intermediate-term bond funds. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
More on Funds & Retirement
Popular dividend-blend etf SCHD has increased its energy exposure to 21% after the recent reconstitution; the next sectors are consumers 19%, healthcare 15%. Alternative ETFs include VIG, VYM, DGRO.
INTERVIEW/Q&A – FUNDS. Sean SUN, Thornburg etf TXUG. The international growth fund has been hurt by its Chinese exposure, but those stocks are now rebounding. He looks for quality and durable growth at reasonable prices (GARP). The Fund includes emerging growth, mature growth and industry leaders. He doesn’t worry about risks to Taiwanese chip industry from China-Taiwan frictions. There are also carveouts for chips in the new US tariffs (25% for S Korea). The obesity drug sector will continue to have strong growth.
RETIREMENT.
GOLD is hot (relatively), but retirees shouldn’t chase it. Gold has had several short-term rallies, but it doesn’t have a good long-term record. For small positions, use gold-bullion IAU, GLDM, SGOL, GLD. In taxable accounts, higher collectibles capital gain rate of 28% applies. Goldminers are catching up in 2025 – GDX, GDXJ. Ignore the ads for Gold IRAs.
Stick to your portfolio allocations and don’t do anything rash during the market turmoil. Keep the money you may need in 1-2 years in “cash” (money-market funds, ultra-short-term bond funds, T-Bills, high-yield savings accounts, short-term CDs).
Barron’s weekend issue has CASH TRACK charts showing 4-wMA of flows.
https://i.ibb.co/4D8Q7Dm/Barrons-Cash-Track-040525.png
Q1 Top 5 Fund Categories (MFOP Quarterly Metrics)

Q1 Bottom 5 Fund Categories (MFOP Quarterly Metrics)

LINK

Even though I had cash to invest during the pandemic, I hesitated - caught between wanting to exit or take a chance to buy while the market was low. I chose to hold what I had and invested only small amounts at the edges, kicking myself later for the missed opportunity.
So even though this time *may be different* I deployed dry powder at the edges on both Thursday and Friday, keeping enough in reserve to see us through the next 2-3 years if necessary.
The U.S. is not going out of business, but we’re all aboard a ship run by fools.

I did sell all equities after three years, precisely. Week ago, Thursday, 27 March. Rolled into DODIX, PIMIX, HOSIX. Done pretty well. But if recession bell continues to ring, will exit to TBills.

Note from CrossingBridge on recent market volatility:
Volatility has returned in full force, and while these recent moves may feel surprising, they shouldn’t be unexpected.
The Trump administration has clearly and repeatedly messaged the desire to impose tariffs on trading partners as a source of revenue, justified by their belief in longstanding trading inequality. More importantly, Scott Bessent has focused on the considerable amount of US debt maturities that will need refinancing over the next 12 months. As a result of prior Treasury policy that focused on the shorter end of the curve, approximately $7 trillion of debt needs refinancing in 2025 alone. Bessent is focused on terming out the debt as far as possible and at the lowest rate possible. If weakening the U.S. economy and the dollar is a consequence, he is clearly taking the attitude of ‘so be it.’
As seen over the past few years, investors have been whipsawed in their fixed income portfolios, experiencing drawdowns and volatility typically seen in the equity markets. Should inflation remain sticky (as illustrated by today's payroll numbers), it could put the Fed in a difficult position. Specifically, Danielle DiMartino Booth of QI Research highlighted from Powell’s Special Briefing today that he mentioned “tension” between soft & hard data, and that the word “persistent” replaced “transitory”. Furthermore, we should point out that aggressive U.S. policy may lead to a buyer strike among foreign investors. Alternatively, countries make Trump a phenomenal deal. One might speculate such a deal as tariff-relief in exchange for purchasing 100-year, zero-coupon U.S. Treasuries.
After decades of duration being your friend, we don’t look at duration as a return driver, but rather as an additional risk in the portfolio. We believe it’s essential not to bet on the direction of interest rates, which is completely out of investors' control — but rather focus on what you can analyze. As bottom-up, fixed income value investors, we concentrate on fundamentals such as:
• Cash flow quality and sustainability
• Balance sheet strength
• Liquidity buffers and access to capital
• Sector and issuer-specific risks
• Relative value across the capital structure
For some time, we’ve cautioned that credit spreads were tight and that markets were underpricing both liquidity risk and uncertainty. With corporate profits at historically high levels, and productivity gains increasingly reliant on technological advances, we’ve maintained a defensive posture — overweighting ‘dry powder’ in our portfolios, which aims to serve a dual-purpose: 1) helping protect on the downside and 2) preparing to deploy capital when opportunities emerge.
As spreads have started to widen, we are seeing some buying opportunities, but remaining highly cautious in deploying capital due to the high level of uncertainty.
Please don't hesitate in reaching out to John Conner ([email protected]) if you have any questions/comments.

He's 94 years old!! Let's forgive him if he doesn't challenge Trump to a fist fight. He's done his talking already with his actions. 94 years old!!

“This is why Warren Buffett just said Trump is making the best economic moves he’s seen in over 50 years,” the video says.

Bold letters highlight the non-sense Trump is sprouting.
Buffet has more than half of Berkshire asset in CASH since he took profit in mid 2024. When the market is in deep recession, there will be plenty of buying opportunities for Buffet.

Following are excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:
Stock-market rout continues as investors rattled by Trump tariffs- S&P 500, Dow and Nasdaq cap dismal day for global indices but US president doubles down on tariff plan

Wall Street suffered its worst week since the onset of the Covid-19 crisis five years ago as investors worldwide balked at Donald Trump’s risky bid to overhaul the global economy with sweeping US tariffs. The US president doubled down on his plan on Friday, insisting he would not back down even as the chairman of the Federal Reserve warned it would likely raise prices and slow down economic growth.
A stock-market rout continued apace, with the benchmark S&P 500 falling 322 points, or 6%, and the Dow Jones industrial average retreating 2,231.07 points, or 5.2%, in New York. The Dow’s two-day slump has wiped out $6.4tn in value, according to Dow Jones Market Data. The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite, meanwhile, sank 5.8%, and entered bear market territory, having fallen more than 20% since peaking in December.
Over the week, the S&P 500 fell 9.1%, its worst five-day trading stretch since March 2020.
Trump sought to reverse the slide, but an insistence that his policies “will never change” in an all-caps social media post appeared to only reinforce apprehension over his strategy: “ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL!” he wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform.
China outlined plans to retaliate, setting the stage for an all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies, as other governments worldwide pulled together their response. The sweeping package of tariffs unveiled by Donald Trump on Wednesday includes an exemption for the energy sector, which is a clear sign of the president’s fealty to his big oil donors over the American people, advocates say.
The US market declines capped another dismal day for global indices. The FTSE 100 fell 5% in London. The CAC 40 declined 4.3% in Paris. The Nikkei 225 dropped 2.8% in Tokyo.
“It is now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected,” the Fed chair Jerome Powell said. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

Comment: SO MUCH WINNING !!!
(Note: Text emphasis added in above report.)