@royal4 We still have bread, but currently no circuses to pacify the masses. Without sports and/or work, all of the hormones of the angry young men--of every race, color and creed--explode in violent ways. Occassionally, when there aren't enough work and sports to go around and societies suffer from excess capacity, the leaders start a good war to deal with all the angry young men without jobs. Then all of the angry young men end up in body bags instead of rioting and the older generation wave their little flags at parades and call the angry young men heroes instead of thugs for inflicting violence on foreigners. That hasn't happened--yet.

Every post you make FD is all about you. "I saw this. I did that. Every one else is dumb for missing it." The point is the likelihood of anyone 'investing" in this fund, not trading, would not have seen a 40% drop in 2 days on the horizon.
Yes, totally BS. And what is the smiley face for?

You are correct, I didn't know in advance how bad it could be but I expected it to be bad.
Your reaction is typical, I see anger and disbelief when I tell you my thoughts and how I operate. The smiley is to let you know it's all expected.
In this thread(

link), I documented many trades that I have done since 2-28-2020. I made several similar posts on MFO too, see (here). Why no admit I made a great call.
I'm pretty sure you will come back and request me to post every trade I make :-)
My trading style has been established for years which helped me in the last 3 years since retirement in 2018. I will sell any bond fund that loses more than 1%, actually, I even sell earlier if other funds in the same category behave differently or I can find a better fund according to my goals.
Here is the bottom line: while you claim it's all BS the facts show I sold all my portfolio to cash prior to the meltdown.

They have not been repeatedly defamed by self-interested marketers and lazy financial journalists looking for cheap stories. “80% of mutual funds failed to beat the market last year” is utterly fatuous – beating the market isn’t the goal, one year is an irrelevant time period, risk matters as much as returns, very nearly all passive products also trail the market – but has made it hard to approach investors, young, professional or otherwise. The term “skunked” comes to mind. The repackage offers a clean slate.

The risk-adjusted performance of active funds obviously improves on a gross-of-fees basis, but even then, outperformance is scarce. Only Real Estate (over the 5- and 15-year periods), Large-Cap Value (over the 15-year period), and Mid-Cap Growth funds (over the 5-year period) saw a majority of active managers outperform their benchmarks. Overall, most active domestic equity managers in most categories underperformed their benchmarks, even on a gross-of-fees basis.
As in the U.S., the majority of international equity funds across all categories generated lower risk-adjusted returns than their benchmarks when using net-of-fees returns. On a gross-of-fees basis, only International Small-Cap funds outperformed on a risk-adjusted basis over the 10- and 15-year periods.
When using net-of-fees risk-adjusted returns, the majority of actively managed fixed income funds in most categories underperformed over all three investment horizons. The exceptions were Government Long, Investment Grade Long, and Loan Participation funds (over the 5- and 10-year periods), as well as Investment Grade Short funds (over the 5-year period).
However, unlike their equity counterparts, most fixed income funds outperformed their respective benchmarks gross of fees. This highlights the critical role of fees in fixed income fund performance. In general, more active fixed income managers underperformed over the long term (15 years) than over the intermediate term (5 years).
On a net-of-fee basis, asset-weighted return/volatility ratios for active portfolios were higher than the corresponding equal-weighted ratios, indicating that larger firms have taken on better-compensated risk than smaller ones.

One important saving grace I think is that SPIVA only considers risk as volatility and not downside capture or Sortino ratios. So that should be considered. All of that said, the threat from passive ETFs is most certainly real and should not be underestimated.

...the clinical findings in Italy likely do not reflect any change in the virus itself. Zangrillo’s clinical observations are more likely a reflection of the fact that with the peak of the outbreak long past, there is less virus in circulation, and people may be less likely to be exposed to high doses of it. In addition, only severely sick people were likely to be tested early on, compared with the situation now when even those with mild symptoms are more likely to get swabbed, experts said.
All viruses evolve over time, and many infectious-disease experts think the novel coronavirus will eventually become less lethal to human beings, joining four other coronaviruses in causing common colds. But there is no solid evidence so far that it has changed significantly in the five months since it was first recognized among patients in Wuhan, China. “The virus hasn’t lost function on the time scale of two months,” said Andrew Noymer, an epidemiologist at the University of California at Irvine. “Loss of function is something I expect over a time scale of years.”

The Federal Reserve began its historic purchases of corporate bonds exchange-traded funds, almost half of the Fed’s purchases went into BlackRock funds, according to ETFGI, an ETF research and consulting firm.
The five largest purchases by the Fed, in order, were iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD), Vanguard Intermediate-Term Corporate Bond Index Fund ETF Shares (VCIT), Vanguard Short-Term Corporate Bond Index Fund ETF Shares (VCSH), iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) and SPDR (JNK).
The optics of the Fed’s purchases of iShares ETFs are controversial, given that BlackRock (ticker: BLK) is running the Fed’s three debt-buying programs. BlackRock has said it won’t charge management fees on the iShares ETFs it buys behalf of the Fed. A BlackRock spokesperson wasn’t immediately available to comment.
BlackRock’s iShares has 38.1% of the exchange-traded product market; Vanguard has 26.5%, and State Street’s SPDR ETFs has 16.5%,

Every post you make FD is all about you. "I saw this. I did that. Every one else is dumb for missing it." The point is the likelihood of anyone 'investing" in this fund, not trading, would not have seen a 40% drop in 2 days on the horizon.
Yes, totally BS. And what is the smiley face for?

Timothy Plan’s Israel Common Values fund invests solely in companies either domiciled or incorporated in the country of Israel. One of the only funds of its kind, Timothy Plan is proud to offer investors the opportunity to support the growing markets of a nation that maintains a common moral fabric of the United States.

The basics are still the same: Know what you own, expect the worse(which is what I do) and past performance and volatility are not guaranteed.

I call BS on that advice FD. None of what you said is usable. This was a fund with good consistent returns and a very low STD to boot. It would have been easier to interpret the risk if the funds literature would have been more accurate, especially on liquidity and possible fire-sale risk. The fund collapsed 45% before the dust could settle. 40% within 2 days. Trading limits on mutual funds that only allow trades after the market closes gives an investor 2 days as the quickest reaction time to unload. Most here aren't day traders so your advice on this fund is worthless.
Sorry, but your infallible preaching is a bit nauseating.