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.

>> 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.

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

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman was the first to suggest that the mind-bending properties of quantum mechanics could be harnessed to make a new kind of computer. Almost 40 years later and after a decade of significant progress -- and after a claim by Google that its computer had reached a milestone known as “quantum supremacy” -- it’s still easier to describe the approach’s potential importance than to describe how it works.

As for the coal minor, sure, a comparatively small industry, but one that is directly affected by the new green movement. Every life matters, right?

We estimate that the more conservative $25 carbon tax would boost U.S. employment by 1.4 million jobs each year between 2020 and 2030, which is nearly a 1 percent increase above the reference–case forecast of 160 million jobs in 2030. As the economy expands and the tax increases, job growth from the GND [i.e., Green New Deal] would accelerate, creating, on average, 3.4 million new jobs each year between 2040 and 2050—a nearly 2 percent increase above the 182 million jobs forecast for the U.S. in 2050. Overall, it is estimated that 72 million job years would be created over the three decades with a $25 carbon tax. (Note that if one job continues after one year for another 12 months, it represents two job years.)
With the more aggressive $60 carbon tax, U.S. employment would still exceed the reference-case forecast, but the increase would be less than that of the $25 tax. The higher tax causes much larger supply-side job losses, but they are still smaller than the gains in energy-efficiency jobs motivated by higher energy prices. Overall, 35 million job years would be created between 2020 and 2050, with net job increases in almost all regions.
According to the latest data, in 2018 about 9.2 million Americans (5.7 percent of the U.S. workforce of roughly 162 million at the time) were employed in an energy industry. Nearly half of these jobs (about 4.3 million) made up the traditional supply-oriented categories: fuels, including petroleum, natural gas, coal and woody biomass (1.1 million); electric power generation (900,000); and transmission, distribution and storage (2.3 million). The motor-vehicle-related industries employed 2.5 million, and energy efficiency employed 2.4 million.
The GND would cause traditional supply-oriented jobs to decrease, but energy-efficiency jobs would more than compensate for the losses. New jobs from energy-efficiency investments would be significant, totaling 1.8 million in 2030 and 4.2 million in 2050. These estimates reflect the labor-intensity of jobs in construction, which account for more than half of the energy-efficiency workforce in 2018. Other large gains would be associated with heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems—the largest share of energy-efficiency investments in the residential and commercial sectors. In industry, the greatest investments estimated would be in energy and environmental management and smart controls, followed by industrial-machinery manufacturing such as that of high-efficiency motors and variable-speed drives. The result would be job growth across all nine Census divisions of the U.S., in all three decades with a $25 carbon tax. The $60 tax would boost job growth in the U.S. overall and across a majority of its nine Census divisions and three decades.