@wxman123 - who said "I don't have any great ideas on how we could have dealt with Covid any better." So you think that denying that it even existed, calling it names (China virus), calling it a hoax and stating that it would just magically disappear was the way to go huh? How has that worked out so far?
You also said "How many lives were saved by shutting hair salons and gyms?" How would you even quantify this since the intent was to stop the spread of the virus between folks who don't frequently share their life's activities outside these venues. The same goes for wearing of the masks. I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid. Unlike you I consider their choices as idiocy.
Edited Sunday morning to add:
Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle.
So maybe just a 10th as brilliant.

So what approach worked well (outside of a few islands)? Gun to your head: had Hilary or Biden been in office do you think we'd fall more on the New Zealand side of the ledger or closer to the UK, France, Spain? Same question on the vaccine, do you think Hilary or Biden would have done better? Was Cuomo genius as DeSantis was "moronic"? Now, after one of the fastest vaccines in history is developed the liberal media is criticizing the speed with which it will get distributed, and before it even happens? Sorry you lost friends, but in Florida that was very likely a result of choices THEY made, unlike Cuomo who gave nursing home residents none.

She will be confirmed no matter what happens in Georgia, which some are optimistic about (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-georgia-debate-loeffler-refuses-to-acknowledge-trump-lost-election/ar-BB1bGzrs)
The rest of any blunting of the last destructive 4y, who knows?
This is worth keeping in mind, for mental health.
(JRubin WaPo) --- overwhelming:
Biden not only received a majority of the popular vote, but also cleared 51 percent — the largest vote percentage obtained against an incumbent president since 1932 and a bigger percentage of the popular vote than any Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1988, when Bush was essentially running for a third Ronald Reagan term. In the process, Biden amassed the largest total number of ballots in U.S. history. He pummeled Trump by more than 7 million votes (and exceeded Barack Obama’s 2008 vote total by more than 11 million). That margin is bigger than Massachusetts’s entire population; in fact, only 14 states have a population of more than 7 million. Biden’s popular vote margin by percentage (4.4 percent) far surpasses Obama’s 2012 victory over Mitt Romney.

Check this link out. What next to cool mother EARTH .
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-artificially-cool-planet-stave-110003837.html

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Portfolios, Quick Search, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
November marked the second time this year that the S&P 500 posted a greater than 10% return. The other month was April, the beginning of the current bull market … 8 months ago … or was that 80 years ago?
There are about 2,400 mutual funds and ETFs in the US Equity category (aka SubType). Their average 8-month return is nearly 50% and 24 of these funds have more than doubled, as described here.

> I tried VBILX, for YTD old M* chart was close at 9.05, new chart 8.77%, real number 9.06
Real number? According to whom? Morningstar? That's a secondary source.
>Chuck says VBILV 9.04 YTD I say I can live with .04, .05, or .06 !
Consider chucking Chuck.
That's a tertiary source: "Except as noted below, all data provided by Morningstar, Inc."
(Footnote on Chuck's page for VBILX)
Primary source, Vanguard: 9.05% YTD (Recent investment returns table, YTD as of 12/4/20 column)
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/performance/vbilx
Of course Vanguard is correct. You can prove it yourself.
Start with 100 shares purchased on 12/31/2019. Calculate the dollar amount of the divs paid each month and how many shares that buys based on the end of month reinvestment price. (Vanguard provides a table with all this data here.) Add those shares, rinse and repeat. After 11 months (divs for Jan-Nov), you'll have 102.107 shares.
Add to the current (12/4/20) value of those shares the accrued divs for four days. One can approximate that by taking: 4/30 x Nov div/share x 102.107 shares = 28¢
The increase in value (from $1181.00 to $1287.85) , is 9.05% of the original value.

Per share	Record/		Reinv	Bought	Total 	Share		Accrued
dividend	reinvest 	price	Shares	Shares	Value		Divs
(Now)		$12.61 			$1,287.57 	$0.284
$0.020830	11/30/2020	$12.66 	0.168	102.107		
$0.021910	10/30/2020	$12.55 	0.178	101.939		
$0.021760	9/30/2020	$12.65 	0.175	101.761		
$0.022890	8/31/2020	$12.66 	0.183	101.586		
$0.023520	7/31/2020	$12.75 	0.187	101.403		
$0.023540	6/30/2020	$12.59 	0.189	101.216		
$0.024980	5/29/2020	$12.47 	0.202	101.027		
$0.024320	4/30/2020	$12.34 	0.198	100.825		
$0.025300	3/31/2020	$12.10 	0.210	100.627		
$0.024390	2/28/2020	$12.30 	0.199	100.417		
$0.026390	1/31/2020	$12.09 	0.218	100.218		
$0.026630	12/31/2019	$11.81 	100.000	100.000	$1,181.00 	
(Share value + accrued divs - original purchase) / original purchase = 9.05%	

BTW, the new chart shows 9.0584% from 12/31/19 to 12/4/20. Take a closer look.

+1 Ben I sold OAKBX after its terrible 3Q 2011 performance: lost 12.8% compared to VFIAX loss of 13.9, during debt hostage negotiations ! Too many good choices in the 50-70% allocation segment to keep holding this laggard.

+1 Replaced GLRBX with EXDAX and AONIX. Was satisfied with GLRBX until the fund started falling off the cliff !

I use mainly the new M* chart and only use the old for links because I can do more with the new charts. The old charts don't work if you want to see more than one newer funds + older funds. Try to see PIMIX+MWFSX+EIXIX on the same chart. You can start with MWFSX and add PIMIX but not EIXIX. If you start with PIMIX you can't add any of the others. MWFSX has more than 2 years history.
The new M* can handle all the above.
You can link to the old but not to the new. One plus to old M*.
New M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M, 6M, YTD, 1Y, 3Y, and weekly data for 5Y, 10Y, Max.
Old M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M only, and weekly data for YTD, 1Y, 5Y, 10Y, Max.
Huge advantage for the new M*.
Much easier reading with the new M*, it actually tells you the % instead of calculating it with the old which is harder when it's negative.
In the example of VCFIX from 2/25 to 3/25. The old shows you just chart numbers, the new shows you chart numbers + the % near the ticker at -19.72%
ETF: I tried HYG,HYD and they were wrong with the new. Then I tried BIV and it was accurate with the new.
I try to stay away from ETF and for comparison I use OEFs VBILX=BIV, VBTLX=BND.
10 years:
old M* 10K grew to: BND=14.36K VBTLX=14.356K
new M* 10K grew to: BND=14.3K VBTLX=14.3K
Then I tried VBILX, for YTD old M* chart was close at 9.05, new chart 8.77%, real number 9.06. So now the new chart is also bad?

>> [new M* charts] show reinvestments for mutual funds only, not for ETFs
wow, how dumb

What does this chart supposedly without reinvestments show? Just price appreciation, or price appreciation plus divs with 0% return (i.e. one just piles up the cash divs over the years), or ...?
Over the past decade (12/6/10 to 12/4/20), the new M* chart for BND shows $10K growing to $14,306.99. (The link is just to the page; you have to pull up the graph yourself.)
Over the past decade, using M*'s old ETF chart, the total (not annualized) price appreciation was 8.15%, i.e. $10K worth of shares appreciated to $10,815. NAV appreciation wasn't much higher, at 8.24%. So the new chart is showing much more gain than mere price appreciation.
FWIW, using div data from Yahoo, one gets another 28.29% in cash over the decade. If not reinvested these divs plus the share appreciation (28.3% + 8.2% = 36.5%) is much less than the total return shown in the new chart (43.07%). So whatever the chart is showing isn't just appreciation plus unreinvested divs.
The new interactive chart for BND shows that between 11/30/10 and 11/30/20, $10K grew to $14,327.71. Vanguard's performance page for BND has a graph showing growth of $10K ending 11/30/20. Set the tab to 10 years and mouse over the tail of the graph. According to Vanguard, $10K grew to $14,327.70.
Okay, M* is off a penny. It sure looks like these graphs are showing total returns, including reinvested divs, of the BND ETF.

Attached is a reply from M* Poster Yogibearbull, who is probably the most respected and knowledgeable poster on M* regarding M* Performance Charts:
"I don't like new M* charts. They show reinvestments for mutual funds only, not for ETFs. And they cannot be linked, and taking screenshots and uploading them all the time is a headache.
Old M* were/are great. We knew/know tricks to force reinvestments in almost everything. [They are not so good for CEFs as they work with NAVs only].
Now to the observed discrepancy for VCFIX.
New M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M, 6M, YTD, 1Y, 3Y, and weekly data for 5Y, 10Y, Max.
Old M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M only, and weekly data for YTD, 1Y, 5Y, 10Y, Max [these may change for funds with long histories as longer period views change to monthly]
[@Gary1952 (Customer)​ , note that Portfolio Visualizer data are monthly, so the drawdown shown there is different]
YTD view shows relevant Feb-April period and the data sampling then is different, daily for New M* Charts, weekly for Old M* Charts. But I also forced daily data in Old M* Charts by using a shorter custom window to capture Feb-April decline [see link below].
Old M* Charts weekly data show -16.33% decline from 2/28/20 to 4/10/20.
Old M* Chart daily data show -19.72% decline from 2/25/20 to 3/25/20 [matches New M* Chart data]
Old M* Chart VCFIX 2/15/20-4/15/20"

Chinese scientists claim to have built a quantum computer that is able to perform certain computations nearly 100 trillion times faster than the world’s most advanced supercomputer, representing the first milestone in the country’s efforts to develop the technology.

Getting Faster

\\\ how we could have dealt with Covid any better. Most of the strategies tried throughout the world ended up failing sans New Zealand (for the most part) clearly most of things we tried in the USA failed. Mother nature will usually have her way. You can't lock down people forever and masks really are only marginally effective (it seems)
... On the other hand, the shutdowns cost millions of jobs, depression, even suicide. How many lives were saved by shutting hair salons and gyms? I don't know but I doubt very many in the grand scheme. Operation warp speed seems brilliant but time will tell, .... I probably would have gone with the Florida approach. The covid there is as bad as mostly everywhere else but at least business owners are surviving, there is freedom of choice, and no outrageous hypocrisy from the leadership. ...

Wrongness and wrongheadedness aside, I do not have the words to express how discouraging and jolting it is to read this, from someone who seems to read and keep up a little bit and considers others' responses.
But it is an answer to the question I posed to you, so thanks for that.

For tax wonks: An organization must be more than merely nonprofit in order for contributions to it to be deductible. For example, superPACs are nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, yet a taxpayer cannot deduct contributions made to them.
https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2013/04/05/explaining-the-differences-between-501c3-and-501c4-non-profits/
MFO is a 501(c)(3) entity, so donations to MFO are deductible. Further, it is classified as a public charity. This can affect the amount of contributions that a taxpayer may deduct or carry over into future years. Being a public charity is also important because one can make QCDs only to public charities.
https://www.fidelity.com/building-savings/learn-about-iras/required-minimum-distributions/qcds
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Mutual-Fund-Observer-IRS-determination-letter.pdf

Hot off yahoo news...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/capitalism-will-collapse-on-itself-without-empathy-love-scott-galloway-120642769.html

@wxman123 - who said "I don't have any great ideas on how we could have dealt with Covid any better." So you think that denying that it even existed, calling it names (China virus), calling it a hoax and stating that it would just magically disappear was the way to go huh? How has that worked out so far?
You also said "How many lives were saved by shutting hair salons and gyms?" How would you even quantify this since the intent was to stop the spread of the virus between folks who don't frequently share their life's activities outside these venues. The same goes for wearing of the masks. I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid. Unlike you I consider their choices as idiocy.
Edited Sunday morning to add:
Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle.
So maybe just a 10th as brilliant.

RConnor delves a bit:
https://humbledollar.com/2020/11/rate-debate/
cape ratio this weekend just under 34

That's a great list of most of the important numbers.
One class of figures it left out is charitable contributions. For 2020 only, if you make contributions in cash to a public charity excluding DAFs, you can contribute up to 100% AGI. This drops back down to 60% in 2021. The limit of appreciated property (including fund shares) to charities is 30% of AGI. Then there are all sorts of combo limits. When giving to public charities, any unused deduction can be carried forward for five years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/berniekent/2020/04/03/giving-more-than-60-of-income-to-charity-cares-act-says-deduct-it/?sh=7382a816b34f
There's also the $300 above the line deduction for cash contributions to charities (excluding DAFs).
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/special-300-tax-deduction-helps-most-people-give-to-charity-this-year-even-if-they-dont-itemize
This appears to be available in future years as well: "Under new Sec. 62(a)(22), for tax years beginning in 2020, eligible individuals may deduct up to $300 in qualified charitable contributions made to qualified charitable organizations."
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2020/sep/cares-act-charitable-deduction-for-nonitemizers.html
Finally, let's not forget one of the most important (and underfunded) numbers:
(800) TAX-1040

There's more to analysis than reading numbers off a table or a chart. One needs to understand what they represent.
First, notice that according to Yahoo, the return was 0.00% (no change) between March 4 and March 6. In contrast, M* reports a gain of 1.25 basis points from the 4th to the 5th, and a total gain of 5.02 basis points to the 6th. That's for both old and new charts.
Best guess is that M* is reporting total return, including accrued divs. That's something Yahoo can't do because it doesn't get this data. It only gets the monthly paid divs, not the daily declared divs. Over the long haul, Yahoo is fine, but you two are quibbling over days' worth of returns.
Second, while I don't have Yogi's email, if one looks at the old M* chart for the fund YTD a and mouses over Feb, one sees only weekly data points, not daily ones. Notice the dates given: 2/28 and 3/27, exactly four weeks apart (leap year). While not conclusive, this is evidence that the data presented had weekly granularity.
Stockcharts? Try this link instead, it's a much cleaner performance graph. If you need to reset it to the appropriate period, set the slider width to 23 days (double click so that you can enter "23"), and slide it over (using arrow keys for fine tuning) to begin on Feb 24th. You'll notice that Feb 28th is 0.24% higher than the starting point of Feb 25th. Offhand, I'd guess that Stockcharts, like Yahoo, is looking at monthly divs paid rather than daily divs accrued. Hence the jump on the date the div was paid.
Thus, according to Stockcharts, the max drawdown started on Feb 28th. (Set the slider width to 19 days, start the window on Feb 28; this goes through March 25th.) Stockcharts says that drawdown is -19.96%. But this excludes the daily divs, even though it purports to be a performance chart. So it overstates the magnitude of the drop, and it doesn't identify the correct date range for the max drawdown.
We now return this channel to angels dancing on the head of a pin.

This can be a confusing year with regard to RMDs. This might help:
Can I Avoid Taking My RMD After Reaching My Required Beginning Date?

Lots of information all in one place:
Important 2021 Numbers