>> unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age
As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?

You were the one who spotlighted that quote from me and ignored everything else; what am I supposed to think? Btw, I have four grandkids, two step-grand kids, and four step-great-grandkids; yet another assumption that was totally wrong.

You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.

I wasn't sure what you were saying and asked for you to clarify. I guessed you were talking about man-made sequestration of CO2; something we might conceivably be able to do, and replied to that. Apparently that's NOT what you were alluding to. Do I think an economic deterrent would have a positive impact on things? Possibly. I don't think it will be enough, though. Nor do I think it'll be implemented to any great extent without ALSO impacting economic stability, but that's not an issue everyone cares about at this point. So long as the world population keeps burgeoning, there can't be a real solution to the various problems; just temporary bandaids.

>> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
What science is it that works "against" warming?

I said no such thing, nor am I clear on YOUR meaning for "warming" and what you believe to be the cause. I learned my lesson and won't try to guess what you mean this time.
Everything has to have a context though; in the past it has been both much warmer AND much colder and man had little to do with either. That said, while humans may have contributed to the current state of things, the only real solution, imo, is having less of us around at any given time. Unimpeded growth in ANY population NEVER has a good outcome for that population!
This COVID-19 thing is simply the LATEST example: Our increasing mobility makes a world-wide reaction more likely, and the consequences of our population density, coupled with the natural selection effect that antibiotics have had, makes pandemics MORE likely to be novel and without effective treatments/cures. As bad as COVID-19 has been, its infection rate has been in the single percentage digits, and of THOSE, the fatalities have also been in the single percentage digits. Can you even imagine what a 50% infection rate coupled with a 50% fatality rate would look like? Many infectious diseases have a 90% fatality rate. In the past, they were localized geographically. IMO, THIS is the greatest danger we actually face, and it is MUCH more likely to have a catastrophic outcome. We've been VERY lucky (so far); if you can call 1.6 million dead (and counting) lucky...

Arnott isn't the only one who was wrong for years
1) US stocks are over value, the rest of the world is undervalue. US stocks did better in the last 10 years.
2) The GMO team and Arnott have been wrong for 10 years.
3) Gundlach was way wrong when he predicted the 10 year will be at 6% in 2021
4) Bogle was wrong when he predicted stocks/bonds performance based on the past and averages.
5) Inflation and interest rates can only go up. Both wrong for years.
6) inverted yield signals recession = wrong. High PE, PE10 signal the end of the bull market...wrong again for years.
7) There is no way stocks will have a V recovery in March 2020 based on blah, blah, whatever...and they did.
8) The economy is bad, unemployment is high, the debt is huge = bad future stock market. The reality? Stocks are still up.
9) If Trump will be elected, it will be a disaster. Reality? stocks were up
The truth is the 24/7 media has to write about something for someone to click and read and how they get paid.
The Fed successfully managed to do all the above and why many "experts" were wrong
If you didn't get the message already, most investors should do nothing to very little. Predictions area a flipping coin. Some will be correct just because markets go sometimes down
BTW, I always do something big when I see something crucial happening NOW but I don't recommend it to anybody. I don't mind being wrong because I invest to meet my specific goals.
Lastly, why Arnott still in business? most of us lose their jobs after just several mistakes so why people who manage money don't.

I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

Thank you, FD1000,
I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.

Hello,
I'm new to this forum and curious which funds do you and others own?

@racqueteer

I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.

You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try?

Actually, the solutions were fusion, geothermal, and solar with microwave transmission from SPACE. Tidal isn't a solution, but it would help. There is also OTEC, which I hadn't mentioned. 15 years was Biden's goal; it didn't originate with me. Finally, please quote where I said we shouldn't try to fix the problem.
I might as well throw out ANOTHER solution you won't like, also doable if we had the will... Start controlling and reducing overpopulation of the planet; with its resultant global warming, pollution, reduction of rain forests, reduction of arable land, and on and on. THAT would ALSO be a solution to the problem.
I've no particular quarrel with your #1, but it doesn't get us to Biden's goal. On #2, I'll just note that France, for example, is virtually all fission-generated power with its OWN issues, but a 'solution' nonetheless, and Europe generally is HEAVILY dependent on imported oil - much of it from Russia. #3 and #4 are predominately swipes at Republicans in general, so unproductive. So long as we remain divided on the basis of extremist views on BOTH sides, we're in trouble as a nation. Moderates in control would a better alternative.
I'll just briefly remind you that the op specifically mentioned BIDEN'S grid plan and asked for our reaction to it. I've remained on topic, slandered no one, took no political stance, and provided simple facts... How about you?

@racqueteer

I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.

You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try? No politician probably in the history of politicians has probably set a timetable for a goal and expected it to be 100% achieved by then. So let's say we reach 50% of the goal, 75% in 15 years. That would still be valuable. The U.S. I believe has four possible choices:
1. Lead in the fight against climate change while others follow us- The moonshot goal, what America was once famous for. Would be great for America's image.
2. Follow other countries that are actively fighting climate change like Germany and other Western European ones. OK, acceptable, better than nothing.
3. Do nothing and deny anthropogenic climate change is real and that we have any way to influence it and waste time complaining "whatabout" China, etc.. This is the traditional GOP response. It's bad, very bad.
4. Actually go backwards, roll back environmental regulations already in place, drill baby bill and spend needless hours trying to "make libtards cry" while the planet dies. This is where we are with the current president who has rolled back environmental regs and did everything possible to sabotage environmental movements. It is absolutely dreadful.
You seem to be saying Biden's plan isn't feasible in 15 years. So what? Something in the right direction is better than where we are now and moaning about other countries' behavior. And if we support addressing climate change via solar, I'm sure scientists will consider other avenues along the way. Regulations must change as well, not just tech innovation. It needs to be more expensive to produce carbon emissions and consume plastic. There are many avenues for attacking the problem. But moaning about what other countries are doing or not doing as an excuse to do nothing is no longer acceptable.

Ok, last try for me... The issue is 15 years; what can be accomplished in that time. I don't think that we're likely to have any kind of solution in that timeframe. I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years. The people who have been responding negatively to me have proposed ZERO 15-year (or longer) solutions. I remain willing to listen to some substantive plan for accomplishing this admittedly worthwhile goal. I have a decent idea what is going to be ATTEMPTED, and note that it ISN'T one of the actually DOABLE routes I listed, but the old standby: Earth-based solar power; something that has serious technological drawbacks unless we can get them into space; maybe at a LaGrange point. For me, just "doing something" in the hope that it'll work out is inefficient and a waste or resources as well as energy.

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.

So, LewisBraham, the sum total of what you've got is: "We can do it", followed by the notion that we can do it ON OUR OWN, 'somehow'? Hmmm... You claim you "cant understand my commentary"? Admittedly, I used a couple big words, and didn't adhere to some preconceived notion you might have, but I think it was clear enough, and you STILL haven't supplied anything of substance - Good you have that "can do" attitude though! So what's your "can do" plan for doing ANY of this which doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, physics, or finance? Fusion would do it - eventually. So would geothermal - eventually. Solar will NOT unless we get it off-planet and it ain't going to happen in 15 years. You disagree? Then back it up with facts and plans; not hope and wishes.

I can’t understand your commentary because it is written incoherently. Write it clearly. Oh wait I thought you were kings53man who uses terms like “global warning.” You I’ve already responded to. You just don’t like the response. You want to make this a relative nationalist problem when it is a global one that requires everyone to pitch in regardless what the Chinese are doing.
Also, it seems oddly unpatriotic and un-American of you actually to say “ We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.” America is the country that put a man on the moon. We used to lead in technology, not follow what other countries are doing.” Why is it that when it comes to climate change you cry, “Waaah, we can’t.” We invest and make the tech better. Where’s your “can-do American attitude” when it comes to this? In fact, it will be both a PR and economic triumph if we lead in this area and a disaster if we don’t.
And I find it reductive and one-sided to say that investing in improving our carbon footprint doesn’t create any jobs but only destroys them. There have already been a number of studies that green jobs can more than replace fossil fuel ones.
But as I’ve already said, this is not a relative game and actually beside the point in some respects. It shouldn’t matter what the Chinese are doing with regard to what America is doing because the entire planet is suffering from what everyone is doing. And everyone needs to do something. And at least Biden has a plan to do something as opposed to the big fat nothing, lying and denial the GOP has offered.

Max drawdown of VWSUX was 3% between March 9 and March 20.
Max drawdown of VUSFX was 1.4% between March 11 and March 20
Vanguard Short Term Tax-Exempt Fund's inception was Sept 1, 1977. In 2001, Vanguard added Admiral shares. Doesn't matter, the fund did not have a down year all the way back to 1977.
As far as pulling the trigger goes, the question is: what risk is of concern? IMHO, the risk is not one of temporarily seeing one's balance decline (" I can also definitely withstand [a] drawdown"), but of having made less than the alternative when the cash is withdrawn. This is why, e.g. one might look at monthly drawdowns rather than true day-to-day drawdowns.
The longer the time frame, the greater the risk becomes of making less money with the MMF. Conversely, when used as a checking account, the risk of making less money with an (ultra) short bond fund increases. So keep three months, six months, even a year's cash in a high yield savings account or a bunch of no penalty CD (which insures against the risk of yields dropping).
Longer than that and the risk of making less money in the bond fund is rather small. Even it it returns less it won't be that much less; on the flip side, the risk of substantially underperforming with the bank/MMF becomes significant.

VUSFX is a taxable fund with an inception date of 02-24-15.
The fund's largest monthly loss was -1.08% during this past March.
Since 2016, VUSFX has generated only two monthly losses (other loss was -0.05%).

Correct, my posts were in reference to the tax free fund, VWSUX, but I actually own both and use both as you do, for a near cash alternative. I just can't pull the trigger completely and make either a really large position thought it's probably not the best investment decision to keep much in real cash these days.

@kings53man Huh?

VUSFX is a taxable fund with an inception date of 02-24-15.
The fund's largest monthly loss was -1.08% during this past March.
Since 2016, VUSFX has generated only two monthly losses (other loss was -0.05%).

I use VUSFX in lieu of a MMF.

I was thinking of starting a new topic on just this issue. I know in my head that VUSFX is virtually certain to be a better investment than a high yield cash account yielding around .66% these days. It's tax free, has a slight negative correlation to the stock market, and never had a down year since inception in 2001. I can also definitely withstand it's max drawdown of 0.65%. AND YET, my heart won't let me take my dedicated cash position and move it over to VUSFX. Back in the day, when you could still get some yield on cash this was not such a problem, but now, what's a fella to do?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/99188/000110465920134148/tm2038239d1_defa14a.htm
FPA CAPITAL FUND, INC.
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90025
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
WE NEED YOUR HELP
December 10, 2020
Dear Shareholder,
We need your help. The Special Meeting of Shareholders of your Fund, FPA Capital Fund, Inc., was adjourned until December 16, 2020 to provide shareholders who have not yet cast their proxy vote, more time to do so. Our records indicate that you have not yet cast your proxy voting instructions. It is critical that we receive your response so that we may proceed with the important business of the Fund.
PLEASE take a moment to cast your vote TODAY. We wish to avoid any further costs associated with following up on this matter.
As discussed in more detail in the proxy statement sent to you via hard copy or e-delivery, shareholders are being asked to vote on an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization. FPA Capital Fund’s Board of Directors and its investment adviser, FPA, believe that reorganizing the Fund into the Acquiring Fund is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders, as it will combine the strengths of two organizations. Specifically, FPA believes that the Reorganization will combine the expertise of the sub-adviser managing the Acquiring Fund using similar types of securities and implementing a similar investment strategy, with the experience and resources of FPA, will provide both FPA Capital Fund and the Acquiring Fund with greater potential to attract additional assets and will potentially allow shareholders to benefit from economies of scale. There is no increase in fees in connection with this proposal. The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” the proposal.
For more information, please refer to the proxy statement, which can be found at https://vote.proxyonline.com/fpa/docs/CapitalFund2020.pdf. If you have any proxy related questions, or would like to cast your proxy vote by phone, please call 1-888-605-1957 for assistance. Representatives are available Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. We very much appreciate your attention to this matter...

April 20, 2020 Oil (WTI) hit a 138 year low price of (-$39).

At the start of 2020 the big industrial economies were healthy, investors were optimistic, and West Texas Intermediate was trading at about $60 a barrel. Prices began to fall in February after the first reports of the coronavirus. That accelerated as the outbreak turned into a pandemic. By the end of March, WTI futures were at $20, the lowest they’d been since after Sept. 11. Then, after tense negotiations, the big oil producers—led by Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.—agreed to reduce production by 10% to try to stabilize prices.
Then on April 20th, 2020 oil prices sank.
Here’s how it works: Imagine a trader sees that WTI is at $10 and predicts it’s going to end the day at $5. To capitalize, he buys 50,000 barrels in the TAS market, agreeing to purchase oil at wherever the price ends up by 2:30 p.m. At the same time, he starts selling regular WTI futures: 10,000 barrels for $10 and then, if the market is falling as predicted, 10,000 more at $9, and again at $8. As the settlement window approaches, the trader accelerates his selling, offloading a further 10,000 contracts at $7, then another chunk at $6, helping push the price lower until, sure enough, it settles at $5. By now he is “flat,” meaning he’s sold as many barrels as he’s bought and isn’t obliged to take delivery of any actual oil.
The trader’s bet has come off. His profit is $150,000, the difference between what he sold oil for (50,000 barrels at prices ranging from $10 to $6, for a total of $400,000) and what he bought it for in TAS contracts (50,000 barrels at $5 a barrel, or $250,000). All of this is perfectly legal, providing the trader doesn’t deliberately try to push the closing price down to an artificial level to maximize his profits, which constitutes market manipulation under U.S. law. Manipulation can result in civil penalties such as fines or bans, or even criminal charges carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years. It’s also illegal in the U.S. to place trades during or before the settlement with “intentional or reckless disregard” for the impact.

Story Here:
stock-market-when-oil-went-negative-these-essex-traders-pounced

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/891190/000168386320015018/f7596d1.htm
(VUSXX)
497 1 f7596d1.htm VANGUARD TREASURY MONEY MARKET FUND 497
 
Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fund
Supplement Dated December 10, 2020, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated December 20, 2019
Effective immediately, the investment minimum for Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fund (“Fund”) is lowered from $50,000 to $3,000. All references to the Fund’s minimum investment amount are hereby updated to reflect the new investment minimum.
  © 2020 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.PS 030K 122020

Quick read that looks at some of the challenges surrounding Biden's 15 year plan...

Joe Biden put a 100% clean grid at the core of his climate agenda. Even more remarkable was his proposed timeline: 15 years.
Can anyone build a clean grid that fast? And for that matter, where did an idea this big come from in the first place?

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/the-making-of-bidens-superfast-push-for-clean-electricity

>> Basically if you're under 60 and healthy there's a 99% chance you'll live.
May be. What's the cite for this?
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics is interesting.
Of course you know that QoL is majorly impaired in many survivors.
Two months out of date:

You separate economic impacts from public health. No one with sense does that; they are not severable in any way. If we had appropriate disaster relief, we would not be having such a bootless discussion.

Actually the entire premise of my last few posts was directly opposite from what you claim. Virtually every decision made on covid restrictions was made with someone's sense of the right balance between public health and economics, we merely disagree on what the right balance is. You and Lew have vilified those who disagree with what YOU think is the right balance, and elevated on a pedestal those whose balance you agree with (no matter how absurdly hypocritical those people are). Then, for good measure, you not so subtlety Bash Trump's response while ignoring all of his heroic efforts in the darkest early days (remember your hero Cuomo's praise?) and his orchestrating one of the greatest scientific triumphs in medical history. No need to reply by telling me Trump didn't invent the vaccine, I know that much despite my lack of sense.