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

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.

Great work FD, I wish I could say the same for my portfolio...but happy I'm up a bit. Been about 47% cash all this year. On the other hand, you could have stayed in ANBEX (one of your choices) and been up over 17% YTD while you did nothing but sip wine and coffee!

>> Covid, and, more accurately stated, the overblown and ineffective response ...
>> ... the cure cannot be worse than the disease. That clearly has been the case with Covid.
Say, since you are articulate and appear to give things thought, if you were in charge of both covid policy and energy policy, what would you advise? No changes?
Serious question. From angry droning old white guy.
>> still haven't explained what should be done that's preferable to what is already being done
I missed the carbon tax and emissions and temperature mandates and the new federal land and forest management policies and and even the wee things like national seaweed research ...
This is a high-level view of the state of play:
https://www.brookings.edu/2019/03/22/where-does-u-s-climate-policy-stand-in-2019/
Here is some tired old dated progtard reading, surely superseded (and strengthened by now):
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-you-can-stop-global-warming
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-can-we-do-slow-or-stop-global-warming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-in-a-half-a-degree-2-very-different-future-climates/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limiting-warming-to-1-5-celsius-will-require-drastic-action-ipcc-says/
and mostly this is not out of the UN or the Paris Accords we pulled out of.

I don't have any great ideas on 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) but I wear a mask, can't hurt (IMO). 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, not clear about the long term consequences of the vaccine (there is a phenomenon where it may even hurt in the real long term, like with the Dengue vaccine). 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. As for energy, I'm good with common sense approaches, limiting emissions where we can, employing reasonable alternative energy where plausible. I'm not for plowing down vast stretches of land to install windmills nor agreeing to treaties where we do our part but most of the rest of the world goes their merry way.

Regarding quality of markets, IMHO the problem is more the level of enforcement than unpredictable legal environments. An example of the latter might be attempting to remove Section 230 protections from social media companies in order to secure military funding. (I offer this as an example of capriciousness; it is independent of whether changes/removal of Section 230 would be good or bad.)
Regardless of which types of risks one is concerned about, there are many to choose from in EMs. The SEC Chairman opines that with respect to the plethora of risks, "Passive Investing Strategies Do Not Take Account of These Risks." IMHO this is a good argument for using actively managed funds to the extent that one is interested in EMs.
https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/emerging-market-investments-disclosure-reporting
Even though the D&C fund will be actively managed, it is important to look at its benchmark. This is because different index providers classify countries differently. If one focuses exclusively on economic criteria ("(1) per capita income, (2) export diversification, and (3) degree of integration into the global financial system"), which is what the IMF does, countries like Taiwan, Greece, and Korea are considered to have developed ("advanced") economies.
https://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/what-it-takes-to-be-promoted-to-emerging-market-status/
https://etfdb.com/emerging-market-etfs/taiwan-south-korea-and-israel-developed-or-emerging-markets/
The picture changes when one adds criteria of interest to investors, such as quality of markets and liquidity. AFAIK, Taiwan has never been considered a developed market by any index provider and Greece was demoted by MSCI in 2013 and by FTSE in 2016.
https://www.msci.com/market-classification
https://research.ftserussell.com/products/downloads/FTSE_Equity_Country_Classification_Paper.pdf
Korea is where things get interesting. S&P added it to developed markets in 2001, FTSE 2009. MSCI continues to consider it an emerging market. So if you use a fund like the emerging D&C EM fund (using MSCI criteria) to complement a developed market index fund like VTMGX (based on a FTSE index), you'll wind up "drowning" in Samsung stock (it's #2 in the Vanguard developed market index fund).
https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/is-south-korea-crowding-your-emerging-markets-allocation

FD:"My calculation for peak to trough...VCFIX -19.7% from M* new charts found (here) from 2/25 (10000) to 3/25 (8027.67). Stockchart gives me -19.85% for VCFAX(link)"
I used the performance chart system that Yogi sent out via email some time ago. On a YTD basis, VCFIX high was on 2/28 ($10,194) and its low was on 3/27 ($8553) for a difference of $1641.When you divide $1641 by $10194, that gives you 16.09% drop

You looked at the old M* chart and I verified your numbers but I don't think they are accurate. I don't use the old M* chart anymore. The new M* chart is better.
I can see closer numbers to mine it in 2 places + yahoo data below verifies that.

Good morning Crash. Well put ! +1
Stay safe, Derf

"Many Americans are still hurting. Giving them the help they need could have greater value for the economy — and the country — than the Dow hitting new heights."
TRUTH.
...Yet, here's an additional thought: The one typing these words is a socialist, but even I realize (sigh) that capitalism is the only game in town. People must be educated and have the fact drummed into them, that capitalism is the only game in town, in the USA. By definition, capitalism is inequitable. There are winners and there are losers. Because the playing field isn't level. Thus the need for regulations. But regulations with TEETH, not loopholes. So, "winners" and "losers" don't have to be so very far apart, as is the case today. The income inequality in this country today hasn't been so crazy nuts since the Gilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons. JP Morgan. Jay Gould. Rockefeller, Carnegie and all the rest of them.
Equality of opportunity is essential. Equality of OUTCOMES is self-sabotage, I think, in societal terms. But then, defining your terms then becomes necessary. And there's a huge difference between what's legal and what's ethical. Our common humanity demands that they not be so utterly divorced from each other, as is the case today.
...So, years from now, someone with 12 million dollars can feel satisfied, but at the lower end of the income scale, that guy need not feel like he's been left with the shit-end of the stick. If students truly LEARN how to not just save, but to INVEST, and if they are taught not to do crazy stuff with their money that they don't even understand, then they will be much better off than the mass of people today.

social reminder
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/04/stock-market-stimulus-unemployment-figures/

Dodge & Cox rarely opens new mutual funds.
The firm was founded in 1930 but currently manages only six mutual funds.

The FAA should never have certified the 737 Max with such a major design flaw.
I'm very disappointed in how Boeing handled this entire situation.
Boeing once was a proud engineering-driven company.
However, their culture started to deteriorate after the McDonnell Douglas acquisition in 1997.
Link

Remember this is for the advisor share class. The retail Investor share class for Oakmark tends to run about a dozen basis points higher.
See also the different share classes for Oakmark E&I (13 basis point difference), Oakmark Int'l (11 basis points), Oakmark Select (12 basis points), etc.
Side note: what happened to Oakmark? Not a single fund rated higher than 2 stars. Though M* still loves the company, giving most of its funds gold or sliver prospective (forward looking) analyst ratings.

While the current vaccine race has many components over many years to achieve what is now in place; the processing speeds of computer systems to help determine outcomes in many areas provides great benefit now and into the future in our lives.
From an October, 2019 thread.

Curiously, the advisor share class OAYMX of the Oakmark Fund OAKMX is available at Vanguard ($1,000 min), Fidelity ($2500 min), and TD Ameritrade ($100,000 min), but the advisor share class OAYCX of the Bond Fund is nowhere to be had.
M* purchase page for OAYCX
M* purchase page for OAYMX
FWIW, the advisor share class has a slightly lower ER. So for long term investors it may be worth paying the TF for this cheaper share class of Oakmark funds when available.

"How about moving north? there's a lot of vacant land in the north country."
We've got to give wxman123 a lot of credit on that one- it's probably the easiest and simplest way to handle the whole thing that we've yet heard.
After getting the agreement of every nation on the face of the earth, we just start at the equator and move each and every national border line and all interior borders of all political jurisdictions, and finally each and every property line 100 miles north or south, depending upon the hemisphere. As the planet continues to warm, we simply move everything again, as much as needed.
It's going to be a little tough on island nations, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
That's going to leave quite a bit of unusable territory near the equator, but we can designate that area as the international dumping ground for plastic waste and other non-recyclable crap.
I'm certain that other benefits will become obvious once we get started on this fine program.

Oakmark has a bond fund in advisor and institutional share classes. No retail as of yet. Here is the December 2020 prospectus.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/872323/000110465920111005/tm2031542-1_485apos.htm

Talk about the hackneyed “ different strokes for different folks”. The sole purpose of my bond email group in April was the recapture of value play in the beaten down mortgage funds. This was the result of the Black Swan liquidity meltdown. Our selection basis was focusing on the ones who had the WORST peak to trough. So throughout the spring and summer our three main players were BDKAX, IOFIX, and SEMPX - the funds that had the most recapture value. Then eventually based on performance came down to almost solely IOFIX. But basically you could have used any of the many bond categories that were impacted by the March meltdown such as junk corporates, junk munis, and even many investment grades areas.
Can’t recall his name but one prescient market analyst was spot on when he said in late March/early April this would be a credit story/rally recapture of value play. This recapture of value play has been the steadiest, most persistent rise with nary a down day I have ever seen since my first bond trade in January 1991. Just when you think you have seen it all, along comes this one of a kind rebound. There was a similar credit rebound - and in many cases a greater one percentage wise - among almost all bond categories in 2009. But it hasn’t had the trend persistency exhibited by the mortgage funds.
Edit: By the way, something I haven’t mentioned here before but in the past month Alphacentric (IOFIX) has finally begun cracking down on in and out traders via a lifetime ban - or at least the ones they deem disruptive to the fund, And they give you no warning notice either - just the ban. It is about time although I would have preferred a 1% or 2% short term redemption fee.