Barron’s Article: https://www.barrons.com/articles/arks-cathie-wood-disrupted-investment-management-shes-not-done-yet-51614992508 (may be paywalled - I accessed it through Apple News without a sub)
One cautionary tidbit: her mentor at USC was Arthur Laffer of laughable Laffer Curve fame.

Related Article:
Don’t put all your eggs in the yield curve control basket just yet

Many believe that the recent rise in US treasury yields has crept up on the Fed policy radar and that the natural next step for the Fed is to hint at and eventually deliver a yield curve control (YCC) policy, just as it has been forced into so many easing moves in the past, once the market is sufficiently distressed to provide the excuse. Here, we look at why comprehensive YCC is not on the way any time soon.

My favourite way to keep tabs of all of this remains the Gold price. If YCC was really on the way, gold would be $1,000 higher (as capped interest rates and emerging inflation would force real rates even deeper into the negative.) Instead, gold is losing altitude quickly as right now, real rates remain stubbornly bid, and this even before the incoming, monster $1.9 trillion Biden fiscal spending and $2-3 trillion in infrastructure spending to come later, before the EU starts allocating its new budget, and before China reverses its current tight monetary stance. In other words, we have only just started on this move higher in yields as the physical world is way too small for the fiscal spending on infrastructure, the green transformation, and supporting incomes for the lower half of the “K” in the K-shaped recovery.
Gold is your indicator for yield curve control and real interest rates. Speculative equities and those valued at nosebleed multiples of even the steadiest of free cash flow yields could be another.

home.saxo/content/articles/macro
and,
investopedia.com/what-is-yield-curve-control
K- Shaped Recovery:

A K-shaped recovery occurs when, following a recession, different parts of the economy recover at different rates, times, or magnitudes. This is in contrast to an even, uniform recovery across sectors, industries, or groups of people. A K-shaped recovery leads to changes in the structure of the economy or the broader society as economic outcomes and relations are fundamentally changed before and after the recession. This type of recovery is called K-shaped because the path of different parts of the economy when charted together may diverge, resembling the two arms of the Roman letter "K."

k-shaped-recovery

March 5th Episode:

Perspective. Rates are up a lot YTD(year-to-date) and...
VFIAX (=SP500)...YTD=2.6%...1 year=29.3%...3 year=14.3%
It's pretty known for months already that value is finally doing better. YTD SCHD=9.4%
The usual, the stock market fluctuates, the rest is noise ;-)

@Old_Joe,
This caught my eye; I agree (and there are many other hurdles -- some known, some unknown -- to be surmounted as well):
"What I have a great problem with are some of the blithe assumptions seemingly thrown out as "solutions", with little or no challenge from the standpoint of practicality."
Are you familiar with the work of Vaclav Smil, an impressive Canadian energy specialist?
I refer interested folks especially to his 2015 Power Density (MIT Press). A bit from the publisher's blurb on the book:

Power density—the rate of energy flux per unit of area—is an important but largely overlooked measure. ...
[Smil] argues that our inevitable (and desirable) move to new energy arrangements involving conversions of lower-density renewable energy sources will require our society—currently dominated by megacities and concentrated industrial production—to undergo a profound spatial restructuring of its energy system.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/contributors/vaclav-smil
As I recall, he writes that alternatives to fossil fuel, especially renewables, could provide only a small percentage of the power Americans use today, given existing setup.
I wish there were some knowledgeable people guiding US policy aspirations in this arena.
Also: Canada is a partner. Maybe all of North Am should be considered as a single energy space.

Hope my light-hearted remarks above didn’t offend. I’ve owned TMSRX nearly from the start. You’ll do better in a low cost equity fund over a longer time period. But for those with shorter time horizons or who are skeptical of current equity valuations it’s a decent alternative. If you read the prospectus you’ll realize the fund pursues 5 (or more) different investing styles. Last time I checked, each approach was being managed by a different person. The fund’s goal is to make money in any kind of equity market. Up, down, sideways.
Derivatives? Of course. Shorts? Yes. Higher fees? Yes - but reasonable compared to peers. This is an area of investing where more funds fail than succeed. My modest investment rests partially on years of experience with T. Rowe and a belief that if anyone can make this approach work, they can. Notwithstanding the above - I fully expect the fund to experience some 5-10% down years.

TMSRX down .56% today. I know it's only one day's performance, but any ideas what happened?

LOL - @Blitzer, The fund is not meant to be understood. :)
Honestly, your guess or mine would be as good as anyone’s. I suspect they short some major equity indexes. Looks like the DJI tacked on over 500 points today.
Newton’s Third Law? “For every action ...”
Added: Than there’s the take on things of this sort from Peter, Paul, and Mary ...
“It went "Zip" when it moved, and "Bop" when it stopped,
And "Whirrr" when it stood still.
I never knew just what it was and I guess I never will.”

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1032423/000103242321000063/cchysupplement-03052021.htm
497 1 cchysupplement-03052021.htm 497
DIAMOND HILL FUNDS
Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund
Diamond Hill High Yield Fund
(All Share Classes)
Supplement dated March 5, 2021
to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
dated February 28, 2021
A Special meeting of Shareholders of Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund and Diamond Hill High Yield Fund (each a “Fund” and collectively the “Funds”) is expected to be called on June 11, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, to approve Agreements and Plans of Reorganization (each a “Plan” and collectively the “Plans”), which provide for the acquisition of all the assets and liabilities of the Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund by the BrandywineGLOBAL—Corporate Credit Fund in exchange for shares of beneficial interest of the BrandywineGLOBAL—Corporate Credit Fund and for the acquisition of all the assets and liabilities of the Diamond Hill High Yield Fund by the BrandywineGLOBAL—High Yield Fund in exchange for shares of beneficial interest of the BrandywineGLOBAL—High Yield Fund. Each acquiring fund is a series of Legg Mason Partners Equity Trust.
On February 3, 2021, Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. announced that Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc. ("Diamond Hill" or “Adviser”), its independent active asset manager subsidiary, had entered into a definitive agreement to enable Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC (“Brandywine Global”), a specialist investment manager and subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc., to acquire the business of Diamond Hill’s high yield-focused High Yield and Corporate Credit Funds. The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021, subject to customary closing conditions, including fund shareholder approval. Portfolio managers John McClain, CFA, and Bill Zox, CFA, will join Brandywine Global as part of the transaction.
No sales loads, commissions, or other similar fee will be charged in connection with the fund reorganizations. Neither fund will bear any costs of the reorganizations. The costs of the fund reorganizations will be borne by Diamond Hill, Brandywine Global or their affiliates.
The Diamond Hill Corporate Credit Fund and the Diamond Hill High Yield Fund will as soon as practicable prior to the closing date of the reorganizations, declare and pay to the shareholders of record of each respective fund, one or more dividends so that each will have distributed substantially all of the sum of (i) its investment company taxable income and (ii) its net tax-exempt income, if any.
Only shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 31, 2021 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Special Meeting. The Proxy Statement/Prospectus, Notice of Special Meeting, and the proxy card are first being mailed to shareholders on or about April 13, 2021.
If shareholders of both funds approve the Plans, the reorganization is expected to occur on or about July 30, 2021, or such other date as the parties may agree. If shareholders of either fund do not approve the Plan for that fund, neither fund reorganization will occur, you will remain a shareholder of your fund, and the Adviser will consider whether to recommend an alternative plan to the Board of Trustees of Diamond Hill Funds.
This document is not an offer to sell shares of either the BrandywineGLOBAL—Corporate Credit Fund or the BrandywineGLOBAL—High Yield Fund, nor is it a solicitation of an offer to buy any such shares or of any proxy.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

TMSRX down .56% today. I know it's only one day's performance, but any ideas what happened?

Bee's "Ignoring Energy Transition Realities as We Greenify" discussion is important, and addresses quite a number of aspects which I will not discuss here.
I've taken the unusual step of opening a separate "chapter" on this subject, so to speak, because it seems to me that we, as a nation, are blithely stepping off a cliff without a whole lot of contemplation of the rocky landscape below.
Bee's discussion, like most others on this subject, makes some assumptions that I seriously question. Those assumptions go to the very heart of the issue: is it even realistically possible to have this electric "Greenification"?

***************************************************************************
As I write this, the last post in Bee's discussion is from kings53man, who contemplates a comforting scene of "thousands/M of electric vehicles [charging] in the night". This is absolutely not to poke fun at kings53man, because his scene is actually a pretty common picture promoted by the Green folks.
Now, before the bricks start flying, let's establish this: I fully understand the climate dilemma, agree that humans likely are major contributors to the problem, and that "something" major needs to be done, and soon.
What I have a great problem with are some of the blithe assumptions seemingly thrown out as "solutions", with little or no challenge from the standpoint of practicality. To keep things reasonably easy to contemplate, let's confine our picture to the United States.
OK, postulate that in "x" number of years no more internal engine vehicles are going to be produced. Anyone wanting a vehicle will need to be driving electrics. Fine... one problem solved.
Energy. It comes in lots of different packages. To list just four: coal, natural/synthetic gas, gasoline/diesel, electricity. To help visualize the issue, consider each energy package as a number of boxes- that number being relative to the amount of each being currently used. The total amount of energy needed is equal to the volume of all of the various boxes.
Keeping things simple, lets assume that one box of energy is equal to any other box of energy, and that any kind of box may be transported over any kind of energy distribution network: a mental picture of boxes being transported across the country through trucks and tankers, or more weirdly, shoving their way through pipelines and thin electric grid wires.
Now, the reality is that all of the presently existing energy transportation networks are pretty close to operational capacity. There's simply not a huge amount of extra room just waiting to be used on the existing electric grids or fuel pipelines.
***************************************************************************
OK, coal is obviously a loser, and can be replaced for the most part by natural gas. So that means more boxes of natural gas, fewer of coal. This is actually under way, and seems pretty easy.
BUT: natural gas is now deemed unacceptable also, and the proposed premise is to substitute boxes of electricity. Now things are getting a bit more complicated. First of all, the electrical distribution grids of the United States do not have the capacity to transmit a significant additional number of energy boxes.
Let's step back for a moment and try to visualize a couple of huge mountains of energy boxes. First, those boxes needed to support our national vehicle fleets. Second, the boxes needed to supply heating and cooking for homes and workplaces. It's being proposed that all of those boxes are to be transported somehow over our already stressed electric grids. To me, this is a typical picture of political operators who haven't the faintest idea of the actual practical realities of electrical transmission. Very much like the politicians who are responsible for the Texas power grid network.
Let's think for a moment about the actual efficiency of various energy types. Yes, electricity can certainly be used to generate heat, and fairly easily too. Unfortunately, it takes significantly more than one box of electricity to equal the heat energy in one box of natural gas energy. In other words, electricity is simply less efficient than natural gas to transport or generate heat.
Well, that's something that obviously needs more thought, so let's look instead at vehicles. Again, to keep things fairly simple, let's ignore large trucks and similar equipment, and just consider the average automotive vehicle.
OK, first, lets look at the mountain of energy boxes now supplied by gasoline or diesel fuels, and try to visualize those boxes also being stuffed through the national electric energy distribution systems. H'mmm- that's quite a puzzler also. Existing grids were largely built when the country was less populated, and it was a lot easier to construct major infrastructure without lawsuits and protests. Not suggesting that situation was ideal- simply stating a fact.
When pundits and promoters talk about the "electric grid system", most of us compose a mental picture of huge steel pylons with heavy electric wires marching across the land. We think something like "well, those really aren't all that pretty, but then the odds of having one of those in my backyard are pretty slim, and most of that stuff is someplace else anyway".
Really? The next time you're out and about take a moment and look at the wiring on any overhead electric distribution system. Try to imagine having to either replace most of those wires with much thicker wires, or alternately, to double or triple the number of wires. Take a close look at some of those power poles, and note the large metal enclosures which are mounted there. Those are transformers, and they will also need to be either much larger, or have many more of them. Speaking of the power poles themselves- do you notice that many of them are already pretty full of stuff, and that there really isn't a lot of room for more stuff?
Well, perhaps you're fortunate, and live in a nice middle-class area where everything is neatly underground and out of sight. Sorry- get prepared for a lot of digging and streetwork- all of those systems will need substantial upgrades also.
Wow! And how exactly is all of this going to be paid for?
***************************************************************************
Well, let's assume some sort of miracle on that, and consider how each new electric vehicle is actually going to receive it's energy packages via the grid.
Right! We're back to looking at "thousands/M of electric vehicles will charge in the night". Sounds easy enough. It's not too difficult to image a cozy scene of middle-class detached homes with one or two electric vehicles happily guzzling boxes of electric energy while their owners sleep away the night. OK, that's under control.
But what about the huge number of Americans who live in apartments, multi-family housing, or who need to park their vehicles on the street because they don't have suitable garage space?
And, thinking about this a little more, exactly what kind of plugs and extension cords will all of this need? The present vehicle charging systems don't just plug into the nearest 120 volt outlet with a #14 extension cord from Home Depot. No, each charging station needs to be installed with a power source that is pretty heavy-duty and able to handle the increased load.
Has anyone, anywhere, even begun to think through the financial implications of any of this? We have a substantial percentage of Americans who even now can barely keep food on the table. And they are going to have to install an expensive charging system in older homes which would need significant wiring upgrades to even accommodate this?
So now we are telling those people "sorry- but having a vehicle is just for the better-off folks"?
***************************************************************************
I've deliberately only touched on a few of the aspects of this whole thing. Having spent much of my career in electronics, I naturally tend to look at things from a somewhat technical point of view, and fully understand that others may not do so. But, as demonstrated here in California, and also so very recently in Texas, placing ignorant political activists of any persuasion in charge of problems requiring some degree of interest in and understanding of technical reality is not particularly helpful.

Thanks @Sven and @Baseball_Fan for the comments.

” I never quite understand gold as an investment ... “

@Sven - I doubt very many, including myself, understand how it behaves. It’s always had kind of a “doomsday” following (the end of civilization crowd). I think the wild swings are associated with very large holders “playing” the market. Likely these guys (hedge funds, etc.) are making money whether the price rises or falls. They’re loaded with algorithms and smart traders able to predict what we Tom Dick and Harry are likely to do - in the same way professional gamblers know how to game the system and take advantage of the unsophisticated. (Remember we’re talking about a relatively narrow market.)
Personally, I’ve had a mild fascination with the metals since the 80’s when gold shot up from around $100 to $800 in a few years. That was a period of double-digit inflation which I’ve never forgotten. 14% mortgages on new homes were common. The items in your shopping cart sometimes increased in price before you got to the checkout. Of course, it’s said that investors often fight “the last war.”
The best arguments I hear are that the central banks are debasing the currencies and eventually will get caught between “a rock and a hard place” - unable to support the equity and bond markets any longer. Gold may benefit. So might baseball cards, rare art and antique autos. Most of my holdings are pretty mundane. So, a small weighting to a mining fund does add some “sparkle.” Nothing wrong with gambling a bit with a small part of your holdings IMHO - and while doing so you might learn something that helps you longer term.
@Sven - I’m surprised at the recent success of PRPFX. Hard to explain. Of course this one tends to swing up and down, with investors rushing in at the highs and bailing out at the lows. 5-6 years ago you would have had a hard time giving it away on this board. (I’ve long owned the fund).

To reduce volatility by 25%, one can use a 75/0/25 portfolio (stocks/bonds/cash).

Thank you. Will explore further with this interesting idea.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/894240/000089418921001399/monetta497e.htm
497 1 monetta497e.htm MONETTA 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 033-54822; 811-07360
MONETTA YOUNG INVESTOR GROWTH FUND (MYIFX)
(formerly known as Monetta Core Growth Fund)
a series of Monetta Trust
March 5, 2021
Supplement to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated April 30, 2020
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Effective April 30, 2021, the name of the “Monetta Core Growth Fund” will change to the “Monetta Young Investor Growth Fund”.
There are no changes being made to the investment objective, policies, or strategies of the Fund, and the current portfolio managers will continue to manage the Fund subject to the Fund’s current investment objective, policies, and strategies.
All references in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and SAI to “Monetta Core Growth Fund” are hereby replaced with “Monetta Young Investor Growth Fund”.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

I see little value of holding gold in this environment. Perhaps gold miners maybe use for trading purpose. I share the opinion with Warren Buffet on gold.

It can be the most wonderful - and also most awful - holding among one’s investments. I’ve slowly bought down in recent months in my one mining fund (OPGSX). It now amounts to 2.5% of total investments, dwarfed by most everything else. Yet, on a daily basis it is often the biggest determiner of how the day went. IMHO - it’s about as close to gambling as one can get with their investments. I could never recommend it to anyone - though in physical form I think some of the bullion coins lovely (keeping in mind that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder).
Been looking at site with a lot of gold bugs. Many went “all in” a year ago. Some weeping in their brew today.

Intimately related to the question of what is a bond fund is why own bonds or a bond fund in the first place? A reason often given is to reduce overall portfolio volatility, i.e. to zig when stocks are zagging. The mention of Sharpe ratio (based on volatility) suggests that volatility is indeed a major consideration.
If one is diversifying into bonds to control a portfolio's overall volatility, then HY isn't a great way to do it.

High yield bonds, also known as “junk” bonds, have always had an identity crisis. They show up in our portfolio reviews under the category of “bonds,” but in reality, they move more closely with the stock market than the bond market. ...
High-yield bonds historically have a correlation of .71 with stocks, and a correlation of .17 with traditional bonds, meaning they move much more closely with stocks than bonds.

Forbes (2018), The Most Confused Identity In Your Portfolio: High Yield Bonds
If the intended use is simply to tamp down the volatility (reduce beta, serve as deadweight aka "ballast") of a stock-like investment, then investing in HY bonds in lieu of equities may serve that purpose. (This was implied by comparing FAGIX with VTI.) Alternatively one could dial down the equity volatility explicitly and precisely by adding cash. To reduce volatility by 25%, one can use a 75/0/25 portfolio (stocks/bonds/cash).
BTW, M* reports only five share classes of taxable bond funds with YTD returns of 0.97%. Three are not generally available to retail investors:
TCRRX - the institutional version of PRCPX
EGRIX - TF institutional share class available with retail mins
EGRSX - R6 share class of EGRIX available only through large retirement plans
ETSIX - A shares available load waived, NTF
FXIDX - One of Pimco's FISH "comingled vehicles"
Except for the TRP HY fund, these are all nontraditional bond funds. ETSIX at least seems worth a look.

Once again, you can't have a sensible discussion on this subject without defining what is meant by "bond fund." YTD my bond fund portfolio is up .97% compared to BND which is down 3.09%. Going back to 2002 FAGIX (which admittedly holds some stock but is considered a HY fund) had a CAGR of 10.64% with a sharpe of .87 while VTI had a CAGR of 10.75% and a Sharpe of .67%. Meanwhile SHY (sometimes used as a cash surrogate) had a CAGR of 2.06% and a sharpe of .66%. Some may sleep well at night with that cash, but likely will do so in the poor house. Just my opinion of course.

Technical analysis for gold futures - Can the bears be stopped?
https://www.kitco.com/news/2021-03-04/Technical-analysis-for-gold-futures-Can-the-bears-be-stopped.html
Technical analysis for gold futures - Can the bears be stopped?
**The daily gold chart is showing that the price is in a strong downtrend at the moment. All hope is not lost for gold bugs as there are some decent support levels close by. The red support level at $1676.60/oz was an important level in the past. It was here that in March 2020 the price hit some strong resistance and when it did finally break it was used as a support level before a subsequent move higher.**
Gold looks attractive again, resistant level maybe at < 1680 but who know may drop to < 1500 since we have bitcoin.

p/e plateau of like 45-50? do you think SP500 4300 would represent reasonable or even high-reasonable valuation?

I agree with this scenario. My wave analysis is pointing to the SPX at 4300 later this year. Perhaps as early as May. This is nothing more than a healthy to be expected correction. It has absolutely nothing to do with interest rates, as history has shown countless times that rates and stocks often rise in unison.
SPX 3550-3600 is my next buy zone.

So .. I think we can all agree without fed stimulus, handouts etc, we'd likely see another great depression. Might see one eventually after fed says no more. Where does this sheet show leave us?
Many think over next 10 years we'll be lucky to see 1% returns in stock market
Do you know of any 10year single A bonds that are paying over 2%?
Hide out there and in tbills, waiting for the cathie Wood tesla stock market crash
Timing market yes, but better than losing 25% in two weeks time
Posting for entertainment purposes only. Due your own due diligence
Good luck to all,
Baseball Fan