dtconroe.
I'm OK with VCFIX but the meltdown of over 18% was too much, even PIMIX was down less than that around 11%. I don't put a lot of faith in Schwab bond selections. I think Fidelity is better and free to all investors even if you are not a client, right now their selected Multi list(link) is as follows:PTIAX, HSNAX, BMSAX, DINAX, JHFIX (PONAX/PIMIX used to be on this list for years). Fidelity always promote their funds as selected but I disregard it until I verify their superiority and in most cases I can find better choices.
I think funds like TSIIX,PTIAX are more of a hold than VCFIX.
As usual, I don't trust any fund/managers, volatility can show up any time and I hope not to be there.
wxman, GIBLX is still doing well in its category at one month=2.2% and 3 months=1.4% This is still in the top 15% in its M* category. For most investors who are looking for a ballast, performance and longer term hold, it's a great fund.
For a much smaller group of investors like me, who rely more on bonds for higher performance and use momentum successfully, I hardly ever use Core and Core Plus funds. I would not recommend this for most investors.
Junkster, I stayed away from IOFIX for several months after the crash, I made most of my money after that with HY munis. I wanted to see more calm and was glad the Fed actions worked. I sure missed a lot of performance from the bottom but I also missed all the meltdown in March of 2020 (documented in this thread). Every Saturday I write down my portfolio performance for the last week and YTD. I can't complain too much when I'm up 18% in 2020, only one week loss at -0.3%, 5 weeks at zero and the rest are all up.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman was the first to suggest that the mind-bending properties of quantum mechanics could be harnessed to make a new kind of computer. Almost 40 years later and after a decade of significant progress -- and after a claim by Google that its computer had reached a milestone known as “quantum supremacy” -- it’s still easier to describe the approach’s potential importance than to describe how it works.

As for the coal minor, sure, a comparatively small industry, but one that is directly affected by the new green movement. Every life matters, right?

We estimate that the more conservative $25 carbon tax would boost U.S. employment by 1.4 million jobs each year between 2020 and 2030, which is nearly a 1 percent increase above the reference–case forecast of 160 million jobs in 2030. As the economy expands and the tax increases, job growth from the GND [i.e., Green New Deal] would accelerate, creating, on average, 3.4 million new jobs each year between 2040 and 2050—a nearly 2 percent increase above the 182 million jobs forecast for the U.S. in 2050. Overall, it is estimated that 72 million job years would be created over the three decades with a $25 carbon tax. (Note that if one job continues after one year for another 12 months, it represents two job years.)
With the more aggressive $60 carbon tax, U.S. employment would still exceed the reference-case forecast, but the increase would be less than that of the $25 tax. The higher tax causes much larger supply-side job losses, but they are still smaller than the gains in energy-efficiency jobs motivated by higher energy prices. Overall, 35 million job years would be created between 2020 and 2050, with net job increases in almost all regions.
According to the latest data, in 2018 about 9.2 million Americans (5.7 percent of the U.S. workforce of roughly 162 million at the time) were employed in an energy industry. Nearly half of these jobs (about 4.3 million) made up the traditional supply-oriented categories: fuels, including petroleum, natural gas, coal and woody biomass (1.1 million); electric power generation (900,000); and transmission, distribution and storage (2.3 million). The motor-vehicle-related industries employed 2.5 million, and energy efficiency employed 2.4 million.
The GND would cause traditional supply-oriented jobs to decrease, but energy-efficiency jobs would more than compensate for the losses. New jobs from energy-efficiency investments would be significant, totaling 1.8 million in 2030 and 4.2 million in 2050. These estimates reflect the labor-intensity of jobs in construction, which account for more than half of the energy-efficiency workforce in 2018. Other large gains would be associated with heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems—the largest share of energy-efficiency investments in the residential and commercial sectors. In industry, the greatest investments estimated would be in energy and environmental management and smart controls, followed by industrial-machinery manufacturing such as that of high-efficiency motors and variable-speed drives. The result would be job growth across all nine Census divisions of the U.S., in all three decades with a $25 carbon tax. The $60 tax would boost job growth in the U.S. overall and across a majority of its nine Census divisions and three decades.

>> What sacrifices do we need to make to save that half a degree?
You write as though you keep up, but it is clear you do not, not really. There is a lot of work out there, hardcore practical effective proposals, a lot of them by your mocked academics, covering what is entailed to effect such a huge course alteration as a half a degree.
You must have read, while worrying about working coalminers (of whom there are very very few), and about John Kerry's lifestyle indicating what, hypocrisy? seriously? Kerry?, about the temperature point (which is close, meaning not that far off) at which human life becomes nearly impossible.
>> How about moving north?
Oh, go for it.
Eventually, and not so far off either, those forests will burn every summer too.
Or ... get hep to renewables and feasible policy:
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/10/07/finding-the-right-policy-mix-to-safeguard-our-climate/
I am fascinated that someone literate and thoughtful-sounding falls back on the tiredest of Fox editorials:
\\\ ... causing substantial damage to the environment and people in other respects? This is the real and fair debate among knowledgeable people,

Yes, there absolutely is real discussion of trades. Moneys for retraining. Serious moneys. Disaster relief. Can you cite the debates you think are most informed or fairminded or interesting or promising?
\\\ and to deny it makes you the ignorant one.
You probably had best not go there, honestly, and not just with LB.
\\\ Some honest and good people do care about an entire industry and its workers being told to shut down. If your brother, son, daughter or best friend made their living as a coal minor or working an oil rig I think you would see this point.
Again, best not to personalize or go to anecdote.
There is no helping coalminers or rig workers no matter what anyone does or what policies are adopted. Everybody but you and the most extreme of rightwingers know that --- National Review, the industries themselves, any of the candidates except for the departing pantsloaded infant. 'See this point'? What point would that be? Have you followed (e.g.) coal trends and the data over the last decades ?
These are old and tired arguments, from the 1970s, as though you are 95yo and just waking up and never read the number-crunching.
\\\ I doubt you know any of those types.
oh, here we go. You probably also do not want to turn this into some blue-collar cred thing either, not if you want to present as thoughtful. It's not like a Clifford Odets play from 1934.

Nestlé was responsible for 92 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, roughly double the amount emitted by all of Switzerland.

I am willing to revisit usage of funds like VCFIX/VCFAX as a fund that was considered one of the safer, less riisky funds, prior to the crash, especially when you look at its relatively smooth performance track since the crash. When a reputable brokerage, like Schwab, is willing to put it on its Select fund list, I tend to give that fund more "benefit of the doubt" than funds like IOFIX, DHEAX, and SEMPX, which had terrible crash performance

10 years is too long. PIMIX was great until 01/2018 but its AUM got much bigger than 5-6 years ago, the managers had to look outside their best ideas in securitized and now more HY and EM and the yield is now at 4%.
For mostly special securitized and still lower SD you can use JASVX. 2 of the managers are from SEMMX but this fund performance was much better in March 2020 than SEMMX,PIMIX,VCFIX and good YTD. I know it's new but the managers aren't. YTD (chart)