Experience tell me in order to fully recover the loss that would be time, recovery time that is. During 2008 drawdown, S&P500 index took over 4 years to full recovery the loss from peak to trough. Depending on your asset allocation, it may be shorter (hopefully not longer).
At presence the sell-off is severe, i.e. the rate of decline is even steeper than 2008. There are days when the supposedly opposite asset classes such as bond vs. equity move in the same direction, which indicates panic selling to cash. So jumping to one ship on fire to another is not a viable option to recover the loss.
If you follow Charles Bolin article on MFO, he is near retirement and his portfolio is constructed very conservatively with 20% equity. He should be doing quite well now considering S&P 500 index is down over 30% as of 3/20/2020.

I'm planning on riding the stock market back up with pretty much with what I rode it down with; however, I have increased my allocation to equities from 40% to 45% and reduced cash to from 20% to 15% and kept my fixed at 40%. I added to a couple of my equity income funds and also to a couple of funds held in the growth area of my portfolio at the 8%, 13%, 19%, 26% and 28% decline marks on the S&P 500 Index. With this, I'm positioned and now I await the rebound. In addition, since my portfolio generates a good income stream I'll put some of this income generation back into my portfolio as the stock market rebounds.

Hi @_Bobpa
I am not investment guru/expert, but I would imagine betting on more aggressive heavily stock driven portfolio [90/10], or Emerging market/oversea products may get you back to previous peak soon if there is indeed recovery. Many predict maybe few years before we see dows at 30000 levels. Others say recessions on horizon and unemployment rate maybe extremely high in near future and severe economiccontractions.
For us late 40 years old, has many years until retirement, our portfolio still comprise 80/20, mostly index products. We are also couch potatoes thus we do hold Tdf 2045 funds in vanguard and schwab. We did not sell, hoping for market to recover soon
Our largest holders currently :
Brk.b
Vanguard primecap core
Vanguard emergent market etf VWO
EEM
Wellington fund vwelx
Vanguard star vgstx
Fbnd
Bnd
Vti
Voo
Been adding vde qqq and vti last week, even going all way downs
Probably will sell good holding bonds [private-corp bbb ] soon, would need cash to pay uncle Sam 2019 tax next few weeks.
Regards

Hi @VintageFreak
A quick look at the portfolio of the fund ( RSIVX ) you mentioned indicate why the recent price drops.
First, a quick look at S&P's bond rating guide:
"AAA" and "AA" (high credit quality) and "A" and "BBB" (medium credit quality) are considered investment grade. Credit ratings for bonds below these designations ("BB," "B," "CCC," etc.) are considered low credit quality, and are commonly referred to as "junk bonds".
RSIVX , per M* has an overall rating of "B" rating. Also, as a compare; an excellent high yield/junk bond fund ARTFX has a SEC yield of 6.25%, while RSIVX has a SEC yield of 5.53%. For me, this also indicates that RSIVX is closer to "junk" status for its holdings.
Corporate bonds in particular, have not fared well during this melt period.
There remains a lot of stress going forward in the ability of companies to be able to service their debt properly.
RSIVX bond grade holdings:
Grade / Fund %
AAA/ 0.00
AA/ 0.00
A/ 0.64%
BBB/ 23.72%
BB/ 30.51%
B/ 38.18%
Below B/ 6.95%
Not Rated/ 0.00
Lastly, regardless of the "name type" (strategic, total, etc.) of a fund, one needs to know what is under the hood, yes?
My 2 cents worth.
Take care,
Catch

Yep.
https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1242426219569852418?s=20

You can't take a big hit when you are at 99.5+% in a money market :-)

so you keep reminding us; bully for you

You can't take a big hit when you are at 99.5+% in a money market :-)

ANGLX joined the party of "LOW SD SECURITIZED" category when it lost -3.6% today.   From the high(or pretty close to it) on March 4th, SEMMX lost 16+%...ANGLX 14+%...VCFAX close to 14%....IOFIX over 42%...DPFNX 19%...DHEAX 8.5...PMZIX 17%...BDKAX over 60%

The SAGA of securitized isn't over yet

Given recent questions about money market funds, it seemed worthwhile to post a few links with comments.
Basic background on types of MMFs (from Vanguard):
Money market reform: What you need to know (2014)
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/VGMMR.pdf
Aside from institutional MMFs, there are government MMFs, prime MMFs, and muni MMFs. Government MMFs keep 99.5% of assets in federal government securities, cash, and repurchase agreements backed by federal securities. They are considered the safest (but see below), and are not required to impose redemption restrictions in times of stress. Prime MMFs are taxable MMFs that don't meet the 99.5% requirement (e.g. holding corporate paper). Muni MMFs hold (mostly) state, municipal, and territorial (e.g. Virgin Islands) paper.
Splitting hairs on government MMFs, the safest are pure Treasury funds. While the funds themselves are not guaranteed by the Treasury, the underlying securities are. Other government funds may hold agency securities that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the government. See, e.g. Northern Trust US Government MMF NOGXX.
Non-Treasury funds may also hold repurchase agreements. These not only introduce another (small) level of risk (see this Schwab paper) but are also not state tax-exempt. A few states (Calif., NY, Conn.) tax 100% of a MMF's income if too much of it comes from state-taxable paper like repurchase agreements.
Retail prime and muni MMFs must impose gates and/or redemption fees in times of stress. That's said to happen if a fund's percentage of "highly liquid" assets fall below certain thresholds. Except for muni MM funds, at least 10% of assets must be in cash, Treasuries, or securities that mature within one day. There's also a weekly threshold of 30% which applies to muni funds as well as to prime funds.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-14.htm
Because of the possible restrictions on redemptions, I would keep some cash in a bank or government MMF. At least enough for a couple of weeks, which is about as long as redemptions can be held up (10 business days).
Aside from liquidity, there's the risk of breaking a buck. "[G]overnment and retail money market funds are allowed to try to keep their NAV at a stable $1.00 per share. These funds do this by using special pricing and valuation conventions when valuing the fund assets. ... If one of these money market fund’s NAV deviates by more than half a cent from $1.00, the fund would have to re-price its shares to something other than $1.00, which is known as “breaking the buck.” Therefore, if it deviates by more than half a cent below $1.00 (as one money market fund did in 2008 due to losses in the underlying investments), investors in the fund will likely lose money."
https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/investor-alerts-mmf-investoralerthtm.html
Funds are now required to post their liquidity figures and their NAVs (out to four places) daily. So you can see how close they are coming to imposing redemption gates or breaking a buck. OJ asked about SWKXX. This is a good case study, and I suspect typical of muni MMFs these days. Its NAV has dropped in the past week from $1.0002 to $0.9987. While still comfortably about 99½¢, the speed of the drop invites close monitoring. On the other hand, its weekly liquidity has been quite stable.
One keeps hearing that "we're in uncharted territory." That's often an exaggeration, but in this case I believe apt. These are new disclosure and enforcement regulations. Combined with the precipitous drop in security prices, we are at a place we have not seen before.

I couldn't ever buy DSENX simply because I didn't really understand it. What I was able to see, and learned more about from all of you guys, is that it was leveraged, using derivatives. I am philosophically opposed to that sort of thing, anyhow. So, I put no money in it. This evening (still afternoon here,) I'm down one-fifth from the recent record-high in February. But that includes (as I always have done) wifey's 403b. It's a dividend-payer of the sort Old_Skeet has been recommending and buying. I guess we can't complain: a big chunk of that money was put into that account (VEIRX) by wifey's employer via the company match. I don't quite "get" why they do it this way, but they do: once per year in the Spring, there's a single, big dump of money into the 403b, but through the year, there is that "match," too, with every paycheck. That fund has fallen hard, -35%. It would seem to be a good time to BUY that fund, right now. Or wait. Because we will continue to go lower. Blame that pustule who is the Senate Majority Leader.

Hey, I'm taking the same hit on DSENX. Only had a couple of k there, so no big deal, but still down 1/3.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, about a year ago I went to roughly 95% cash, because I figured that at 80 it was time to quit playing. But I kept a vestigial amount, roughly 2k, in most of the accounts. So I can see the total carnage- almost everything is down by 1/3. I'm no genius either.

New filing for IOFIX concerning liquidity risk:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064220001282/alphacentric497s.htm

RiverPark just posted David's update, which should download if you click on it, and we had a few minutes to chat at the end of his lunch hour.

1. The fund is performing well. It's down 2.1% YTD. That compares to MINT at -4, Zeo at -10 and ultrashort bonds as a group at -3.8%.
   
2. By its nature, Short Term High Yield is generating investable income for him every day. The "ultra short" part means that he doesn't have to sell portfolio holdings so much as letting them mature and be redeemed, which happens regularly. About 40% of the portfolio, $270 million, will rollover into cash in the next 30 days.
   
3. He's buying. The nature of panics is that they favor folks with dry powder and a willingness to buy. He's picking up things that, under the right circumstances, are offering annualized returns of 7-50%.
   
4. He's willing to talk with you. Both he and Morty Schaja have offered to join us on a conference call if that's something that might be useful and generate enough interest among board members / readers to justify the effort.

Let me know what you think. In particular, let me know what topics you'd want to hear about if a call occurs. As a caveat, there are likely to be some topics where David & Co. would be unable to comment for legal reasons.
By way of disclosure: I own shares of RPHYX and last week bought additional shares - as I did with most of my holdings - but we have no other financial ties with Cohanzick or RiverPark.
For what that's worth,
David

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836906/000168386320000717/f2615d1.htm
497 1 f2615d1.htm CAPITAL VALUE FUND MERGER
Vanguard Capital Value Fund
Supplement Dated March 23, 2020, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated January 31, 2020
Reorganization of Vanguard Capital Value Fund into Vanguard Windsor™ Fund
The Board of Trustees of Vanguard Malvern Funds (the Trust) has approved an agreement and plan of reorganization (the Agreement) whereby Vanguard Capital Value Fund, a series of the Trust, would be reorganized with and into Vanguard Windsor Fund, a series of Vanguard Windsor Funds.
The reorganization will consolidate the assets of the Funds and allow Capital Value Fund shareholders to merge into a significantly larger fund with a similar investment objective, similar expenses, and the combined utilization of multiple investment advisors. We anticipate that the reorganization will eliminate duplicative expenses and spread fixed costs over a larger asset base of the combined fund.
The reorganization does not require shareholder approval and is expected to close on or about July 24, 2020. Prior to the closing, shareholders of the Capital Value Fund will be issued a combined Information Statement/Prospectus, which will describe the reorganization, provide a description of the Windsor Fund, and include a comparison of the Funds.
Under the Agreement and after the closing, shareholders of the Capital Value Fund will receive Investor Shares of the Windsor Fund in exchange for their Investor Shares of the Capital Value Fund, and the Capital Value Fund will cease operations. Following the reorganization, shareholders owning Investor Shares of the combined fund that meet the applicable eligibility requirements for AdmiralTM Shares of the combined fund may request a self-directed conversion to the lower-cost Admiral Shares at any time, and may be automatically converted to the lower-cost Admiral Shares upon Vanguard's review.
We anticipate that the reorganization will qualify as a tax-free reorganization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Closed to New Accounts
Effective immediately, the Capital Value Fund is closed to new accounts, and it will stop accepting purchase requests from existing accounts shortly before the reorganization is scheduled to occur...

It was my sense the Fed would be deploying new programs this time around. This report discusses some of them (still no direct stock market purchases as far as I can tell)....
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced a series of steps this morning designed to support the flow of credit in the U.S. economy. The actions taken are breath-taking in their scope. Indeed, these steps surpass in breadth and depth the measures that the Fed created in the midst of the financial crisis a decade ago. If the Fed pulled out a monetary policy "bazooka" during that crisis, then the steps it announced this morning are the central bank equivalent of "going nuclear."
.....For starters, the committee announced this morning that it will be creating two facilities to support credit to large employers. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) will support the issuance of investment grade corporate bonds, and the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) is aimed at provide liquidity in the investment grade corporate bond market. This is the first time, of which we are aware, that the Fed has stepped in to provide direct support to the corporate bond market.
...the Fed created the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF) last week to support money market funds. The Fed has broadened the MMLF to include variable rate notes that are issued by municipalities. In addition, the Fed will also support municipal financing via its expansion of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) to include high-quality, tax-exempt commercial paper.
Most incredibly, the committee announced that it will soon be releasing details on the Main Street Business Lending Program that is intended to support lending to small-and-medium sized businesses. This program will support efforts that are underway by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to keep credit flowing to businesses that rely primarily on bank lending for financing.
https://fxstreet.com/analysis/the-fed-goes-nuclear-202003231542

This post has been edited to correct my description of the fund's implementation of its strategy. I should have gone directly to DoubleLine to begin with. My apologies for being lazy.
It is a value play, if I understand the methodology correctly. M* calls it a blend. Lipper calls it a value. Value has been hit pretty hard lately.
I don't really think of it as a quant fund. More of a sector rotation strategy. From their description:

Each month the index ranks 11 sectors based on a modified CAPE® ratio and 12-month price momentum factor. The index selects five US sectors with the lowest modified CAPE® ratio or undervalued based on the ratio. The sector with the least favorable 12-month price momentum is rejected and the Index is comprised of the remaining four sectors for the given month.

Their holdings as of February 29:

Communication Services 25.77%
Industrials 24.67%
Materials 24.87%
Technology 25.01%
Total 100.00%

I added to the position in my IRA on the 18th when Treasuries were going haywire. But I'm pretty much fully invested there now. I would add it to my taxable if I could. I really like reinvesting those monthly dividends.

For what it is worth I think the issue with IOFIX is they were forced to sell thinly traded bonds at any price to meet redemptions after they exhausted their line of credit ( I seem to remember $200 million??)
Since these bonds probably sell "by appointment" and I think by phone anybody they called knew they were in trouble and offered low ball prices seeing if they would bite. They had not choice
Once they sold at those low ball levels, there is a price and more of the portfolio gets "marked to market" and the NAV is automatically that much lower, even if the bonds in the fund are really worth much more.
With corporate bonds that mature, like in ZEOIX, the mangers will tell you just to hang on and bonds that mature will mature at par in a few months or so, raising the NAV by that much. I don't know the duration of IOFIX, but if the mortgages mature in 10 to 15 years it will be a long time before they hit "par". Many homeowners may also have enough equity to refinance but that would be a redemption at par and would just reduce the interest payment. but "raise" the NAV.

This from Bloomberg:

A crisis in credit markets deepened on Sunday as a cluster of funds that own mortgage bonds sought to sell billions in assets to meet investor redemptions, sparking pleas for government intervention.
The sales included at least $1.25 billion of securities being listed by the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund on Sunday, according to people with knowledge of the sales. It sought buyers for a swath of bonds backed primarily by private-label mortgages as it sought to raise cash, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing the private offerings. The fund plunged 17% on Friday, bringing its total decline for the week to 31%.
“The coronavirus has resulted in severe market dislocations and liquidity issues for most segments of the bond market,” AlphaCentric’s Jerry Szilagyi said in an emailed statement on Sunday. “The Fund is not immune to these dislocations” and “like many other funds, is moving expeditiously to address the unprecedented market conditions.”
The best way to obtain favorable prices is to offer a wider range of securities for bid, Szilagyi said. He declined to discuss the amount of securities the fund put up for sale.

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-23/mortgage-bond-sales-flood-market-amid-pleas-for-help-from-u-s

Thanks for the link, Sven. It looks like the break-even point for me is age 84-85 between drawing SS at age 66 and 70. I rather doubt that I will live older than 85 given my family history but my wife’s family tends to live longer. However, by starting SS sooner, we could avoid withdrawals from our IRAs and 401Ks indefinitely.