yes, the consumer spending thing is going to be brutal for many of the obvious venues, restaurants, dentists, summer camps and the like, orthopedists and dermatologists and similar, and on and on and on.
So no one knows how it will play out; some informed guesses are smarter surely than others.
In 02 I was laid off as a manager from a successfully but then suddenly failing SW startup of many years, and talked right away w an old tech writer friend from an earlier gig who said I think this is going to be a long haul for you (he was employed), and I said, hmm, huh, oh, well.
And so it turned out. I had good contracting work for several years, or good enough, but it was 3y of moderate misery and anxiety, 05, before I got a staff job again, in the same editorial area, though this time DoD proposal work.
My adult kids now, it is interesting, and fearful.
The one who works at a mid-high level for a huge family-owned business centered on international travel and education is still employed but fears for the future, not surprisingly, as the company's business and model are stalling.
Her husband, who works for a local construction PM consulting firm, still has work, onsite at local university, which is closed but proceeding w repairs and rebuilds and such, even some new construction planning.
My other child is a new consultant at the biggest of management consulting firms, and so far he plenty of work, but there are freezes all round.
Finally his wife is a part-time pedi (school) nurse, now repurposed to public-health nurse, so gets to talk to, you know, parents whose kids are CV-positive and ill-ish, but who themselves are asymptomatic --- but test positive, and had been out and about at grocery and pharmacy for the past month. What lies ahead for her is unknown, though perhaps this will prove a lasting slight career shift from pedi to public if schools do not reopen for a year-plus.
And these are all highly fortunate and privileged and count-our-blessings situations. Imagine those for whom little of this applies.
Since income is spending and vice-versa, it will be a long trauma as that cycle grinds down.

Have been using ETFs such as MINT & NEAR for cash substitutes for years though after this past Monday, I'm not so sure. They have always been fairly stable. At one point Monday, NEAR fell by over 4%. It was down for over several hours by over 2%. Though by the end of the day, things evened out & was only down by about .24%. Not sure what computer algorithm had that jumping like that. Maybe this has happened before though I'm not typically around my computer watching intra-daily pricing.
Fortunately I was already in the process of moving money over to Navy Federal into this IRA CD. It's a 37 month CD with a 3% APY. $50 minimum to open. $150,000 maximum which you can fund at any time in that period. You do have to be a Navy Federal Credit union member. Talking to a representative, their board typically meets at the end of the month & sets their rates in the first week of the month though they can potentially change things at any time. This time period works well for myself & when I'll need the money. Schwab at this time has 3 yr CDs at 1%. It took about a week & a half to transfer assets from Schwab to Navy Federal. The downside- totally boring. No drama.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

********************************
...Just noticed: the listing which shows each of these two particular "featured" products each carry a footnote. #1 and #2. But the explanation for #2 does not exist, at least it does not exist right THERE, where it might do someone some good. ;)

@FD1000 What in your view do the last ten years of data have to do with the 1929 - 1954 period return? I already stated twice that dividends matter, although those numbers for large blend from the Depression are almost certainly wrong and subject to survivor bias. Also, while dividends do matter, the reinvestment of dividends was not automatic in 1929 and I suspect most did not or could not or would not reinvest those dividends while the Dow was falling over 80%. Try calling a bankrupt broker in the 1930s to reinvest them. Total returns as normally calculated do not exist without dividend reinvestment. And even a 14% dividend reinvestment would not bring the Dow’s Depression decline anywhere close to what Morningstar is reporting for large blend funds’ total return for that period if they were 100% pure stock portfolios.

@Old_Skeet
You pretty much covered everything I mentioned already

In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX.

CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility.

I know that and why I mentioned numbers since inception but also the last 5 years + YTD

Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020

Correct, M* is up to date on performance BUT I look deeper at SD, Sharp,Max Draw,Sortino and these numbers are monthly one. I can easily find funds with better performance which is one criterion, what about the rest? I also look longer term because a fund can be great for 1-3-6 months but not 3-5-10 years. An investor who wants to hold long term these numbers are important.
When I checked CTFAX long term, it handled YTD amazingly and did a pretty good job for 3 years. If you look further VWIAX had better volatility, in 2008 Max draw for VWIAX was -18.7 while CTFAX -42.55
So, I'm guessing they changed the formula which is great because it's a good option.
BTW, COTZX is not available at Fidelity and Schwab which are 2 major discount brokers.
Here is my bottom line: CTFAX risk-adjusted performance for YTD and for 3 years are very good.

The numbers DO NOT represent TOTAL RETURN which includes distributions. The only thing that matters is total return.
I also proved the last 10 years and we have all the data for it.
So, which is accurate, the Dow numbers or DIA(+SP500 which is close)?
Can you please answer this simple question?
I bet you won't answer it. I let other posters decide which one is accurate.

@FD1000. In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong. The fund's inception date is 2002. Going back to 2002 takes into account the Great Recession. Why is this important because when stocks are cheap CTFAX loads equities and when they are expensive it holds less of them. CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility. I was pointing out that you had CTFAX's fund inception date wrong in your analysis. Again, the correct date is 2002 rather than 2012 which you used in your analysis. I'm thinking using the correct date will change things a good bit within your analysis. Within the past year its equity allocation has ranged from a low of 15% on upwards, most recently, towards 70%, perhaps more. Morningstar has it currently classified as 15% to 30% equity allocation fund. This could change and I think worth watching.
In addition, if one were to use a different share class COTZX rather than the A share version that I referenced this changes things a good bit performance wise as CTFAX performance since 2002 is 6.85% while it lower er cousin (COTZX) is 7.12%.
My reasons for owning the fund are listed below.
Takes advantage of market shifts. Follows a disciplined approach to adapt to market changes.
Rebalances automatically. Aims to buy low and sell high by adjusting equity exposure based on the price level of the S&P 500 Index. Pursues risk-adjusted returns.
Your analysis is interesting; but, it is not fully reflective of the CTFAX's performance since it's inception date is inaccurate and differs from my own alalysis which is detailed below.
Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020. Three month advantage CTFAX +8.02% vs VWIAX -3.31%, YTD advantage CTFAX +8.44% vs. VWIAX -2.99%, 1 Year advantage CTFAX +17.75% vs VWIAX +5.74, 3 Year advantage CTFAX +28.82 vs VWIAX +19.11, 5 Year advantage CTFAX +35.24% vs VWIAX +31.99%, 10 Year advantage CTFAX +108.70% vs VWIAX +105.51%.
Again, what I was communicating in my opening comment was that to play stock market volatility that CTFAX was a better choice over the widely followed, and touted by some, VWIAX. I'm thinking I just now provided the support, through the above analysis, necessary to posture my opening comment even on out through a 10 year period.
I'm still with my plan to increase my position in CTFAX with it soon to become one of my top five holdings due to its strong recent and time tested performance.
One can learn more about CTFAX through the below link.
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755&_n=1
Skeet
Note: CFTAX was a typo error it should have read CTFAX.
In a comparison of CTFAX vs. PRWCX ... CTFAX betters PRWCX up to and through three years but trails in the 5 year and ten year comparison.

Interesting. However, I am finding that CTFAX's inception date is 2OO2. I wonder how this would change things. For me, CTFAX is not a complete investment strategy. I am using it to play stock market swings automatically rather than doing it manually. For me it seems to be the better fit.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX. I guess we are talking about CTFAX.
PV (link) has data since 2003 and shows that both VWIAX+PRWCX were a better risk-adjusted choices than CTFAX but in the last 5 years (link) CTFAX was the better choice because YTD (chart) was great.
Your manual changes are a personal choice and what works for you.
Most investors can't/won't switch funds and I don't blame them, it's much harder.
VWIAX is a great LT, and low ER fund with a great management for most retirees.
I do trades all the time but I check it too. My LT goals are to make over 6% annually with SD < 3 and never lose more than 3% from any last top. Schwab calculates annual average performance + SD. My portfolio performance is higher than 6% and SD < 2(actually 1.71) and I never lost more than 1% from any last top in about 3 years.

I don't have a direct Dow with distributions but I already proved with M* chart that includes distribution I'm correct.
How about you prove I'm wrong.
Since I know you will not find it I will do my best. This is a 100 years DOW (chart). That chart shows similar numbers as your previous post.
BUT
If you look at the DOW prices (here) 10 years, you will find the DOW went from 11019 to 23949. This means it made 129% in 10 years.
If I look at M* for VFINX+DIA(which is the Dow ETF) for 10 years (chart) you will see that VFINX (SP500) and DIA are close.
In 10 years DIA made 168% which is higher than the above 129%.
Maybe the numbers are not very accurate but enough to make my point and I'm not going to spend more time on that.

There are two rules (that I know of) in CARES regarding $100K distributions from traditional IRAs. If one could combine them, one would have a fantastic loophole on Roth conversions. I don't think it works, though.
First, the basics. As catch noted, no RMDs for 2020. So the rule that "RMD amounts are not eligible to convert to a Roth IRA" doesn't apply this year since there are no RMDs. So you're free to convert any or all money you take out of a traditional IRA this year.
There never is an early withdrawal penalty for doing a Roth conversion.
One of the $100K CARES rules is that instead of being forced to do a rollover within 60 days, you can make an IRA withdrawal and then take up to three years to put the money back into a tax-sheltered account. Even better, you can put it back in parts, e.g. take out $100K, put $50K back in a year, and $50K back two years after that.
CARES Section 2202(a)(3).
I haven't been able to interpret this rule as allowing one to withdraw money from a T-IRA and take three years to put the money into a Roth (i.e. do a 60 day Roth rollover conversion). But I'm not an authority.
The second of the $100K rules says that if you don't put the money back into into a tax-sheltered account: a) you don't pay an early withdrawal penalty, and b) you get to declare the income over three years, 2020, 2021, 2022 ($33.3K/year).
Section 2202(a)(1) - no early withdrawal penalty
Section 2202(a)(5) - spread income over three years
Since there wouldn't be a penalty for a Roth conversion, all that might matter is the ability to spread income over three years. As with the rollover rule, I have a hard time seeing how it could be applied to Roth conversions.
But if you could apply both of these rules to a Roth conversion, you could take $100K from a traditional IRA, play with it for up to three years, deposit it into a Roth, and spread the taxes over three years, 2020-2022. Sweet deal if the law actually allowed that.

Hi VF
This is a very short form of info. Lots of info available, including your (I would hope) accounts web site.
--- When converting a traditional IRA, keep in mind:
If you are required to take a required minimum distribution (RMD) in the year you convert, you must do so before converting to a Roth IRA.
RMD amounts are not eligible to convert to a Roth IRA.
Generally, converted assets in the Roth IRA must remain there for at least five years to avoid penalties and taxes.
A distribution from a Roth IRA is tax-free and penalty-free provided that the five-year aging requirement has been satisfied and at least one of the following conditions has been met: you reach age 59½, die, become disabled, or make a qualified first-time home purchase.
Is the bold above the penalty you're asking about ???
Also, NO RMD for 2020. Waived by the CARES ACT. Perhaps there is more regarding this in the CARES ACT.
Catch

I measure portfolios with max 60% in stocks against my 2 long term funds.
For a portfolio of 30-40% stocks, I use VWIAX.
For 1 portfolio of 60-65 stocks, I use PRWCX.
So VWIAX VS CFTAX shows that VWIAX was a better choice since inception in 2012 (link)
CAGR...VWIAX 5.85%...CFTAX 5.67%
SD.........VWIAX 4.49%...CFTAX 5.1% (lower is better)
Worse year + Max draw...VWIAX leads by a lot
Sharpe+Sortino...VWIAX leads
CFTAX ER=0.69%...VWIAX ER=0.16%
BUT
If you test it for 3 years CFTAX comes ahead (link) with similar performance but only about half of the SD=volatility.

@FD100, but what the idea is is to stay invested in a diversified balanced portfolio through the good years and exit automatically when a black swan event unexpectedly pushes you into some place you don't want to be, 20-25% loss. I don't think many retirees want to take more than a 10-15% loss on retirement money in an unexpected occurrence. With minimizing the loss you may not have any long term affect on your life style.
I agree though that if done, it should be a % of the total. But maybe a substantial %.

You can do the above. Suppose your portfolio is 50/50 and you invested 20%(out of the 50%) in SPY with a trailing stop market at 10%. It means that as long as SPY goes up the trailing stop follows but when SPY starts going down and eventually hits it SPY will be sold at 10% (could be higher if the market is moving really fast) loss and now you will have only 30% in stocks.

In a recent thread a contributor indicates they don't want to increase their income if it raised their marginal tax rate,I can sort of understand not wanting to work harder doing physicaL LABOR OR WORKING MORE HOURS and have the govt take more money from you but when it comes to investing I don't get it.If the govt takes a bigger share but you make and take home more money are you not better off?

......I'll chime in: we are in a hybrid situation. I'm retired, wife still works. Personal circumstances matter a lot. We could not live HERE in the 50th State without:
a) giving up some privacy
b) effectively getting a subsidy from extended family, who live with us. Rent, food. gas. We share all of that.
We don't want to bump ourselves into a higher tax bracket. For several years, on our tax returns, we have come out OWING ZERO TAX. If we had not very much more income to report, it might negatively affect our ability to even do the little bit of investing we do, for heirs as well as for ourselves. And the dividends and capital gains we get are non-taxable for us, in the lowest bracket.
We've paid-in for years and years. It's time the rules worked to OUR advantage, rather than the billionaires and millionaires: every bit of ALL of my earnings have always been subject to Soc. Tax. For them? They pay-in only until their income reaches the legal upper limit. These days, it's something like $127,000. (Hey, politicians! REMOVE THE CAP!) The crisis with SS is manufactured.

Retirees on Social Security and Medicare also have an incentive to limit their income (or at least watch it very closely). The Medicare premium brackets are tied to income. Go one dollar over an IRMAA threshold and a married couple could pay $2500 in extra Medicare tax two years hence.
David

I think of net income in terms of total return. Investment gains are often part of taxable income. Marginal tax brackets do increase the drag on total return or better said marginal tax brackets diminish total return.
Most of us need a certain income to afford our life style. Recent data shows that ninety percent of income earners spend more than 100% of their earning so they need to take on additional debt as a means of affording their lifestyle. That math doesn't work.
Income graph:
https://screencast.com/t/rUJS2IeZ6ah
To your second point:
I remember having a conversation with a colleague who couldn't understand why I chose to retire early. My point to him was that he was working for the difference between what he would make (his work income) and what he would receive in retirement (pension income). I further pointed out that he could go elsewhere and work another full time or part time job making his total return (net taxes) much higher. Obviously by staying with his job he was adding years of service to his pension making his eventual pension income higher.
I consider taxes with regard to tax loss harvesting, Roth conversions, and potential qualifications for various benefits (HSA contributions, ACA Insurance subsidies, etc)
Taxes and tax brackets do have many nuisances (tax rules) beyond the marginal taxes brackets. I have always thought a simple flat tax would level the playing field.

Additional information:
https://www.janushenderson.com/en-us/advisor/bio/alec-perkins/
Alec Perkins is a Portfolio Manager at Perkins Investment Management LLC responsible for co-managing the Perkins All Cap Value strategy since 2011 and the Value Plus Income strategy since 2018. Additionally, he has managed the Perkins All Cap Value Select strategy since 2013. Mr. Perkins also serves as a Research Analyst covering U.S. REITs, a position he has held since joining Perkins in 2002.
Mr. Perkins received his bachelor of arts degree in history with a minor in economics and Chinese from Middlebury College. He earned his master of arts degree from Stanford University and MBA from the University of California – Berkeley, Haas School of Business. Mr. Perkins has 18 years of financial industry experience.

From the author:
"The stock market has declined by 25% or more on 11 occasions since 1871. The median recovery time from this point has been 1.8 years.
Investors who shifted to cash after the 1929 crash faced a 34-year wait to break even, compared with 15 years for those who remained invested and less than 7 years for those who drip-fed additional small amounts in.
A “dash for cash” in 2001 and 2008 would still have left investors out of pocket today"
I would add that one needs to be aware of their own investment time horizon.
https://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/downturns-this-deep-can-take-a-long-time-to-recover-from-financially-and-mentally/

@FD100, but what the idea is is to stay invested in a diversified balanced portfolio through the good years and exit automatically when a black swan event unexpectedly pushes you into some place you don't want to be, 20-25% loss. I don't think many retirees want to take more than a 10-15% loss on retirement money in an unexpected occurrence. With minimizing the loss you may not have any long term affect on your life style.
I agree though that if done, it should be a % of the total. But maybe a substantial %.

According to this NYT article that I have linked below it took only 4.5 years for the stock market to recover from the 1928 stock market crash. It goes on to say that the average investor recovered by mid 1932.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/26stra.html

I was reminded of why I sold ARIVX (in which I made decent money, no complaints) when I went to PVCMX's website and read Cinnamond's commentary. He's an Austrian school hard money guy who thinks monetary policy has been propping up a bubble for the last 30 years or so, and that we'd be better off just letting large parts of the economy crash and burn.
I think that's wrong. I also think it doesn't reflect the world we live in and the Fed we've got. And I don't want to invest with an ideologue whose ideology guides his investing. More the pity because it seems like when he does buy stocks, he picks good ones.