I wasn't even invested 20 years ago. No money. But even with 58% bonds, 36% stocks, I'm down from my high-point by -7.5% tonight, including recent dividends. I'm not adding anything to the retirement portfolio. Minimal monthly additions into non-retirement account bond fund. So, not buying any more stocks, I am naturally more concerned about YIELD.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/12/investing/stock-market-dow-coronavirus-goldman-sachs/index.html
This is the most expensive time to buy stocks in 20 years
New York(CNN Business)The US stock market stands 4% higher today compared to a year ago, despite the death and destruction unleashed by the coronavirus pandemic.

So I had learned 15 years back. Converted $50K to $75K in 2 months and then turned $75K to $40K in about 8 days. Closed my account and ran. It was a mistake.
Since my daughter earned a scholarship to university, thought I would earn some income, so revisited some of my learning. Cash earning absolutely nothing.
Don't have to do anything drastic. Just sell a put. And sell it on SPY knowing it will not go to zero. Important to note, I shouldn't blab. I feel today might signal a downtrend. I was lucky to start after the sell off was mostly over and selling puts with markets going up is ideal. If you sell a PUT there is an obligation to purchase. So if you are assigned a share of SPY, you need to immediately sell a covered call. Or just simply sell and get out.
It's really not too hard. Just youtube for a basic options course. Will take 1 hour at most.
PS - There are too many people out there selling too many "strategies". Ignore. You need to know what your objective is. Speculating buying calls and puts? or earn income? mine is the latter. I might have said this before. 0.25% a week should be the target. 1% a month. 12% a year. Now lets say 0.10% a week, 0.4% a month, 4.8% a year. I'll still take it.

Prices were up in April because the fiscal and monetary support was huge and markets are looking ahead. We haven't seen anything like this in the last 50 years.
This is what I posted on ‎03-17-2020 11:38 PM (link)
7) For me and others who don’t mind to use possible better performing categories, select the ones with better momentum.
IDEA1: QQQ looks to me as a better choice than SP500 coming out of this meltdown because these giant high tech companies rule the world and the indexes and the strongest. QQQ also has a lower loss YTD then the SP500.
IDEA2: I am going to let the charts, trend, and prices tell me what is hot.

If I invest in HY it's only for trade. HY is a hybrid product that usually doesn't justify itself. Compare VWEHX(good HY) to VBIAX (60/40 indexes) (chart) and you will see VBIAX beat VWEHX for 1-3-5-10-15 years.
Most investors should not collect funds but use 3-7 funds and why HY doesn't have a place in my portfolio.
The only false justification is higher yield which I never like. The first thing you should look at investment is risk/reward and only then look for higher yield, that true with stocks and bonds.

@wxman123, The new baseline asset allocation can be found on The fund's Fact Sheet. As of 5-1-20 it is 50 percent. Under the old Fact Sheet it was 10 percent.
The 31 day trading rule is to prevent the fund from having wash sales. The fund's 31 day trading rule also prevents it from changing investment direction for 31 days from its last buy or sell transaction.

Maybe it's my reading skills...but as I read it the 31 day rule would not prevent the fund from increasing or decreasing stock allocation more frequently than 31 days. The rule only prevents an increase followed by a quick decrease, which would trigger a wash sale. An increase or decrease on two consecutive days would not have that effect. As the prospectus says: "The second exception is a “31-day Rule;” in order to reduce taxable events and minimize short-term trading if the S&P 500®Index price moves back and forth across a band in the allocation table, after the Fund has increased its percentage allocation to either stock funds or bond funds, it will not decrease that allocation for at least 31 days."
Also, according to the prospectus, the baseline increase is the current implementation of the strategy that has always been in place. Granted, the notion that the market has been "expensive" for the past 18 years (hence the former 10% stock baseline) and is now "normal" (50%) seems a bit disingenuous, but that's what the fund says. It also says that it can revisit this allocation more frequently then annually under unusual circumstances.

Here is a sample from one thread of the article:

For years, commentators of a conspiratorial lean have half-jokingly suggested that humanity is living in a simulation, à la The Matrix. When it comes to economic activity and markets, that is no longer an absurd suggestion.
...around three-quarters of those laid-off workers "receive benefits that exceed their former wage," Goldman says.
Goldman's projections actually call for a small increase in disposable personal income.

Again, we are living in a simulation.

But there is a problem related to living in a simulation:

The Treasury can make up for people’s lost wages, but people need the things wages buy. So replacing lost wages and revenues will not be enough for long: the economy has to produce goods and services.

Another thread of the article discussess Modern Monetary Theory and ties it into current Fed and Treasury activities. Here is a sample:

The US can always buy whatever there is to buy that's denominated in US dollars. It has no need to borrow dollars from anyone else because it is the issuer of those dollars. The US can spend too much, which risks stoking inflation, but the US does not, will not, and has never, needed to borrow dollars. Suggesting otherwise is to traffic in patent nonsense.
Why do governments sell bonds whenever they run deficits?...By selling bonds, they maintain the illusion of being financially constrained.

Here is the link to the article:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4345783-simulation-game

These articles hardly ever get the info you need/want. The most interesting are funds in the 3-6% yield where you find good risk/reward + yield.
Over the years I find myself using many times HY Munis + Multisector/NonTrad funds, especially securitized/MBS. Many of these got hit hard in 2008 and 2020 but they will be back.
FAGIX is an interesting fund I have watched over the years but not used. Did you know that FAGIX performed better than the SP500 for one year since the bottom on 3/6/2009?
In 2020, SPY is better since the bottom of 3/23.

Hi @Level5, For someone that has not followed the fund I can understand why one could become confused. It took me, years back, a while before I fully understood how the fund works. Know, I am not trying to change your thoughts on the fund ... Just, trying to help bring a better understanding on how it works from my past experiences.
Here is the link to the fund. https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755&_n=1
First, know that it has a 31 day trading rule and it can not change position direction once established until 31 days have expired.
Second, to see how the fund is positioned follow the link and open The Asset Allocation Update which will be a pfd. On this pfd you will find the last six asset allocation changes the fund made with the last one taking place on 4/28/2020 where it moved to a 35% stock / 65% bond allocation.
Third, once annually (May 1st) the fund managers set the trading ranges for the fund going forward for the coming year. With this, on May 1st of 2020 the fund made an asset allocation change from a baseline 10% equity allocation to a 50% baseline equity allocation before adjusting for the movement of the 500 Index. Since, the 31 day traiding rule is in effect the fund will not make the actual declared adjustment until the 31 days has expired from the date of the last asset allocation change. This will be done somewhere around May 29th.
For me it was a risk off ... risk on ... fund holding. Now with the baseline asset allocation change from a 10% baseline equity allocation to a 50% equity allocation it is no longer, from my perspective, a risk off ... risk on ... fund. With this, I have it under review, myself, to determine just how much of it I will continue to hold going forward.
I hope my above comment bring some clairty for a better understanding of how the fund positions.
Skeet

hmmmm. no thoughts. i already made all the money on pot stocks that i think i can and don't want to go back there. day trading on hot tips nearly killed me, though i did come out ahead by like 25k. too kooky. but that was a few years back and maybe things have settled down since then.
as re CTFAX (and RLSFX, for that matter) -- yup, 52 week highs. which makes me a FOMO investor of the most worstest kind. going to keep a short tether on both, however. or at least i hope to.

@Old_Joe
I agree completely. I think this is not going to be a "V" shaped recovery; It may not even be "U" shaped, but more "L" with a long tail.
All it will take to close movie theaters again is a couple of cases linked to a local theater. Same with restaurants, cruise lines fitness centers.. any business that depends on face to face public interactions etc.
Most REITS have reported collecting less than 70% of the rent owed them in April. How long before that number is lower?
If you can accept a 3 to 5 year stock market sag, I guess you are OK staying in the market, although it was down 80% in 1929- 1933 and did not fully recover until 1954, right?
People really need to consider why they are in the market. IF it is to fund a retirement 20 years away go for it. But if it is to get a dependable income stream for your current retirement I would be very very careful. I would much rather spend principal for a few months to live on than run the risk of a 25% decline
While I doubt the feds will help, maybe by mid to late summer if there is enough contact tracing and testing there will be the ability to identify cases quickly and keep the infection rate low. However, given the way the right wing is "weaponizing" Covid Politics, I think there are likely to be large areas of the country with significant disease for a long time
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/us/politics/coronavirus-death-toll-presidential-campaign.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The 68-69 flu killed a ~100k in the USA over 1.5 years... we're getting there in 4 months with COVID19 and only 400k-500k attended Woodstock.

linter, I have been an investor in AKREX/AKRIX for about three years and it has rewarded my very well. It is "low" risk and it's metrics are outstanding.
Just curious, why would you sell out of it now? It has held up fairly well, and remember it is not a typical "LCG" fund.

Howdy folks,
Raised a bit of cash yesterday as I'm fading this rally. Slightly reduced intl equity holdings and traded up for quality in the miners.
Best estimate I've seen has the pandemic lasting for years even if we get a vaccine and life will never be the same.
Good luck all. Stay safe.
And so it goes
Peace and Flatten the Curve
Rono

Thanks JohnN. I can’t believe stocks are cheap, what will be the P/E when there is no E? But I seem to have been less than enthusiastic about the equities for years.
From the link in the OP, Just to reemphasize, Nomura’s managing director, cross-asset macro strategy, Charlie McElligott Says:
*Summer could bring “hard economic data collapsing like we’ve never seen before, terrible corporate guidance, stories of pending bankruptcies,”
*second wave of layoffs that will hit the white-collar sector
*Rising trade-war rhetoric from the White House as a presidential election campaign heats up could present more risk
*folks are getting ready to hit the wall again, with this idea we’ve moved out of stabilization and now we’re back into the harsh reality of what this is,” without having a Federal Reserve boost and no more stimulus checks until things get a lot worse, he said.

The difference in ERs between institutional class shares and A shares at PIMCO is on the order of 0.3% - 0.4%. So just subtract that from the performance figures. Admittedly, these are larger difference than the 0.25% 12b-1 fee difference one finds at most fund families.
Total Return Fund share classes
Income Fund share classes
PMDRX is only available in institutional class shares.
A shares are indeed the equivalent of retail, no load. They're where all the D share investors were moved. More generally, I don't think that A shares should be load adjusted for several reasons:

• Most people buying the shares on their own are not getting charged the load (as noted)
  
• People buying these shares with a load with the help of advisors are receiving value for that payment - the services of the advisor. (One can debate whether this "value" has any value, but that's a different question.)
  
• People who buy these shares themselves with a load perhaps do need an advisor; they should get what they pay for.
  
• There is no clear amortization period for the load. Just because we're looking at five year returns doesn't make five years the correct length of time.

With respect to C shares, they are automatically "load adjusted", because the load is embedded in the ER and thus in the performance figures. Using the logic above (that this is a fee for advice, not a cost of running the fund), I respectfully suggest that the load portion of the ER be backed out when evaluating the performance of the fund itself. Though as David observed, this gets to be an absurd exercise with dubious benefit.
Finally, with respect to 5 years being arbitrary and skewed by recent performance. It is certainly arbitrary. I've commented in a few other posts about how a recent sharp downturn can skew even long term figures, especially with more aggressive and/or volatile funds.
That said, I didn't add the comment in my post above because at least for vanilla bond funds, YTD performance is positive and in line with long term performance. Of course, the more one moves away from vanilla, the greater the skew:
Intermediate Core: YTD: 3.27%, 5 year 3.22%
Intermediate Core Plus: YTD 1.17%, 5 year 3.15%
Multisector: YTD -6.61%, 5 year 2.13%
High Yield: YTD -9.98%, 5 year 2.09%

There are various strategies for asset allocation that seem to work out about the same. Consequently, I honestly think the choice comes down more to what feels right than to a real difference in outcome or even overall risk.
To the extent that I invest in dividend paying stock funds, I do that to diversify my equity portfolio, not for a cash stream per se. ISTM that what matters when investing in a company is how profitable the company will be. Whether it retains its profits (because it feels it can put the cash to good use), or pays them out to me as divs, doesn't matter.
At a macro level, what works for me with cash is allocating enough to "real cash" to last a couple of years, to "near cash" for 1-2 more. I also maintain a secondary liquid cache (see below). Along with a modest bond buffer that sits between cash and equities I can wait out almost any equity downdraft. Essentially I can bury my head in the sand until it all blows over. Which is one's natural inclination anyway - not to look at figures that are down 30% or more :-)
I think the micro level is what you're asking about - how am I splitting up that cash and near cash. In my mind, cash is something that's available for immediate use without fluctuation in value.
Right now I do like no-penalty CDs since they give me that flexibility and better rates than MMAs (let alone MMFs). Until recently, something like Vanguard's Treasury MMF did better on an after-tax basis (state tax exempt). I do keep a few months cash in MMAs. They pay not much less than the CDs (though I expect MMA rates to fall), and they're a bit easier to deal with than the CDs. When one cashes out a CD, it's all or nothing. So I pay a small amount (in lost interest) with the MMAs for a small added convenience.
Moving up the scale, I use both taxable and muni "near cash" funds. I've written before that one expects these to do better over a span of a couple of years, though they could underperform cash (or even lose a penny or two) over shorter periods of time.
I also have a second level "cache" - mostly older I-bonds. Liquid, no penalty, state tax exempt, tax-deferred, and aside from tax benefits competitive with MMAs. Not replaceable - there are limits on how much one can buy in a year, they have penalties for five years, and the fixed rate on new ones is now 0%. If I need to wait out a long market decline, these are available as backup.
So long as rates are stable or dropping, I don't expect to move money from cash (MMA, MMF, no penalty CDs) to "near cash" (short term and/or short duration funds). I'd rather have the rate lock on the CDs. When rates take a sharp jump up, I'll see what vehicles are offering the best yields.
Overall, while this is a conservative cash strategy, it lets me be more aggressive with equities, both in percentage allocation and in the type of equities. For other people, a traditional 60/40 portfolio provides a greater level of comfort and they don't have a cash drag from a significant cash allocation. Or, they can be more aggressive with their cash. Different paths to hopefully the same positive results.

Here's a rough approximation of an answer, responding to Lewis's concern about the skew created by institutional shares. I searched the MFO database for all PIMCO funds with a five-year record and an investment minimum of $10k or less. Basically, the "A" and "C" share classes of each fund.
113 results, pretty much half "A" and half "C." EM Currency and Short-Term Investments doesn't report a "C" class, which is why the number is odd rather than even. So, 57 "A" share classes.
Of the 57, 35 (61%) have peer-beating absolute returns, 3 exactly match their peers, 19 lag.
If you switch to Charles's MFO Rating, a risk-adjusted return metric that uses the more conservative Martin Ratio rather than the Sharpe ratio as its basis, 20 of 57 funds have four or five star (above to much above average) ratings and another 21 have three star (just a bit above or below average) ratings. One fund, a money market doesn't have a rating. So, 72% "okay to excellent" over the past five years.
- - - - -
What unites the real stinkers? Mostly the word "real." PIMCO created a series of inflation-proof funds with the word "real" in their names. They incorporate hedges like TIPs, commodities and so on. Absent inflation, they've really sucked.
Also "Dividend and Income," for reasons I haven't explored.
- - - - -
But remember: five years is an arbitrary period based solely on the number of fingers and toes we possess (rolls eyes) and the measurement in question ends in the midst of a massive downturn which skews the results.
On whole: relatively few strategies have been soaring over the past five years, and many of them ignore traditional virtues like valuation, income-production and diversification. That would make me cautious of using them for a guide.
For what that's worth,
David

In 2015, 10 year treasuries yielded 2.14%, in 2016 it was 1.84%, then 2.33% (2017), 2.91% (2018), 2.14% (2019), and 1.17% (annualized) so far this year. So just looking at yield, one might have hoped for a tad north of 2%/year.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond-rate-yield-chart
IEF, an ETF of 7-10 year maturity Treasuries has an average duration of 7.6 years.
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239456/ishares-710-year-treasury-bond-etf
Let's figure that over five years rates dropped by around 1% and duration was around 7.6 years So applying some back of the envelope calculations, appreciation was around 7% (allowing for some convexity) giving us maybe 1.3%/year annualized appreciation over five years.
Keep in mind these are all very crude estimates. Still, that adds up to around 3.5%/year over the past five years for the intermediate treasury market. Non-treasuries yield more but may not have had the same appreciation.
VFITX (intermediate treasury) has returned 3.26% annualized over the past five years.
VSIGX (interm treasury index) has returned 3.39%
VISCX (intermediate corp index) has returned 4.22%, and its benchmark index is at 4.41%
(All Vanguard data from Vanguard's site.)
Disregarding junk and securitized debt (categories that have done worse), one expects an intermediate term fund to have had returns falling somewhere between these figures. So PTTRX (3.89%), PIMIX (3.85%), even PMDRX (3.24%) seem to have held their own.
Over five years, PTTRX is 0.67% above its category, 0.04% above its index.
PIMIX is 1.58% above its category and matching its index.
PMDRX is 0.02% above its category, though 0.61% below its index.
(Data in this paragraph is from M*)
The record that seems "unbelievably bad" is not PIMCO's but that of the market. PIMCO has done fine with bonds. Arnott is a completely different story.

Lipper rates Janus small cap value as a "core" fund. And it has spent most of the last five years in M*'s "blend" box.
It currently holds nearly as much in mid value as in small value
I don't think "style-drift" is unusual for a low-turnover fund.
I own it as a small cap value in my IRA.