Good morning. In checking a few things this morning the futures look to be up in Europe and the States ... the options market is sending a cautious bullish signal ... and, the VIX is now down to the mid thirties. I'm still with my thoughts that stocks will be mostly be range bound, but with a slight upward tilt, as we move thorugh most of the summer months. The short volume in the Index was elevated yesterday with a reading in the 70% range of total volume for SPY. Perhaps, today they will do some covering.
I have the Index as of market close 4/15 down -17.8% off its closing 52 week high and up +24.4% from its closing 52 week low. With this, I am not looking for stocks to have the upward surge that they have had the past couple of weeks as things most likely will move more slowly and... hopefully ... upwards as we work our way through Q1 earning season. In checking my source ... S&P is projecting that TTM earnings for the S&P 500 Index will be in the mid 130's. With an earnings yield of 5% this puts the Index with a valuation somewhere around 2700 range. From the 2700 range ... I'm thinking ... we will move upwards with good news and downward with bad. And, by the way, Old_Skeet's market barometer has the Index at fair value on it's scale as I write.
Have a good day ... be safe ... and, I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Consider someone working 11 hours a day, leaving 5 hours for personal time, and 8 hours for sleep. That person would not be especially inclined to give up one of those few personal hours for extra pay.
Suppose that nevertheless this person would, for some amount of money, be willing to give up a precious hour. Then the person would be willing to give up that hour for half as much, a quarter, even for minimum wage.
This comes from the assertion that netting less money would not increase the reluctance (decrease the willingness) to work an extra hour.
Now suppose the contrary. That this hardworking person would not be willing to trade that hour for any amount of money. Not for time and a half, not for double pay, not for 10x. Since the reluctance to give up that hour would be absolute, it likewise would not be amplified by netting less money.
Those would seem to exhaust the options. P or not P. Willing to work the extra hour or not willing to. The former suggests that this overworked person would give up another personal hour for peanuts. The latter says that this supposedly hardworking person wouldn't work another hour for a king's ransom.
Speaking for myself, I have a certain nonzero value I place on each hour of my personal time. If someone wants me to do some extra work, I'm going to have to net at least that much to make it worth my while. The more I'm taxed, the more I'm going to have to charge to net that target amount.

yes, the consumer spending thing is going to be brutal for many of the obvious venues, restaurants, dentists, summer camps and the like, orthopedists and dermatologists and similar, and on and on and on.
So no one knows how it will play out; some informed guesses are smarter surely than others.
In 02 I was laid off as a manager from a successfully but then suddenly failing SW startup of many years, and talked right away w an old tech writer friend from an earlier gig who said I think this is going to be a long haul for you (he was employed), and I said, hmm, huh, oh, well.
And so it turned out. I had good contracting work for several years, or good enough, but it was 3y of moderate misery and anxiety, 05, before I got a staff job again, in the same editorial area, though this time DoD proposal work.
My adult kids now, it is interesting, and fearful.
The one who works at a mid-high level for a huge family-owned business centered on international travel and education is still employed but fears for the future, not surprisingly, as the company's business and model are stalling.
Her husband, who works for a local construction PM consulting firm, still has work, onsite at local university, which is closed but proceeding w repairs and rebuilds and such, even some new construction planning.
My other child is a new consultant at the biggest of management consulting firms, and so far he plenty of work, but there are freezes all round.
Finally his wife is a part-time pedi (school) nurse, now repurposed to public-health nurse, so gets to talk to, you know, parents whose kids are CV-positive and ill-ish, but who themselves are asymptomatic --- but test positive, and had been out and about at grocery and pharmacy for the past month. What lies ahead for her is unknown, though perhaps this will prove a lasting slight career shift from pedi to public if schools do not reopen for a year-plus.
And these are all highly fortunate and privileged and count-our-blessings situations. Imagine those for whom little of this applies.
Since income is spending and vice-versa, it will be a long trauma as that cycle grinds down.

This is from the NFCU website tonight:
Certificate Special Offers
Rates effective as of: 15 April, 2020 12:01 AM ET
Product Minimum Deposit Term Dividend Rate APY†
Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate1 $50 37 months 2.96% 3.00%
Special EasyStart℠ Certificate2 $50 12 months 3.44% 3.50%
1Limit one Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated Annual Percentage Yield (APY), is effective December 6, 2019. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. The Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate has a $50 minimum and a $150,000 maximum balance. Only available for IRA/ESA Certificates. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. IRA/ESA certificate subject to IRS contribution limits. Penalties apply for early withdrawals from certificates. Other restrictions may apply.
2Limit one Special EasyStart Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated APY, is effective Dec. 10, 2018. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. Penalty for early withdrawal. The Special EasyStart Certificate has a $50 minimum balance and a $3,000 maximum balance. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. Certificate owner(s) age 18 and older must have Direct Deposit of Net Pay or payroll allotment and a Navy Federal checking account within 90 days of the certificate issue date. If these requirements have not been satisfied by the 90th day, your Special EasyStart Certificate dividend rate will be reduced to the prevailing dividend rate of the standard EasyStart Certificate for the remainder of the certificate's term.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

Have been using ETFs such as MINT & NEAR for cash substitutes for years though after this past Monday, I'm not so sure. They have always been fairly stable. At one point Monday, NEAR fell by over 4%. It was down for over several hours by over 2%. Though by the end of the day, things evened out & was only down by about .24%. Not sure what computer algorithm had that jumping like that. Maybe this has happened before though I'm not typically around my computer watching intra-daily pricing.
Fortunately I was already in the process of moving money over to Navy Federal into this IRA CD. It's a 37 month CD with a 3% APY. $50 minimum to open. $150,000 maximum which you can fund at any time in that period. You do have to be a Navy Federal Credit union member. Talking to a representative, their board typically meets at the end of the month & sets their rates in the first week of the month though they can potentially change things at any time. This time period works well for myself & when I'll need the money. Schwab at this time has 3 yr CDs at 1%. It took about a week & a half to transfer assets from Schwab to Navy Federal. The downside- totally boring. No drama.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

********************************
...Just noticed: the listing which shows each of these two particular "featured" products each carry a footnote. #1 and #2. But the explanation for #2 does not exist, at least it does not exist right THERE, where it might do someone some good. ;)

DERI APRs are now down to 1.75% (under $10K), 1.85% (up to $50K), and 2.00% (over $50K)
https://investors.dominionenergy.com/fixed-income/dominion-energy-reliability-investment/default.aspx
GM Financial Right Notes® are currently paying 2.00%, $500 minimum.
https://www.rightnotes.com/
For something safer, and with a lock on rates, Marcus (Goldman Sachs Bank) is still offering 7 month no penalty CDs ($500 min) at 1.70%.
Marcus just lowered the APY on its savings account from 1.70% to 1.55% today, so the CD rates may not last much longer. They also offer an 11 month no penalty CD at 1.60% and 13 month no penalty CD at 1.50%.
https://www.marcus.com/us/en/savings/no-penalty-cds
To see these rates you have to go to the open CD page. The drop down list of CD terms shows you the rates.
https://www.marcus.com/us/en/savings/new/account-creation?accountType=NPCD&term=7
Other uninsured notes similar to DERI, offered with lower APYs:
Duke Energy PremierNotes® Investments: 1.46% (< $10K), 1.51% (up to $50K), 1.66% (over $50K)
Ford Credit Ford Interest Advantage: 1.46% (< $10K), 1.51% (up to $50K), 1.66% (over $50K)
Ally Financial Demand Notes: 1.16% (< $15K), 1.36% (up to $50K), 1.51% (over $50K)
The Ford page has a link to its rate history, so you can see how rates have been dropping. Though when they first got started in 2017 they were yielding only about 1%.

@MikeM
Why would you use allocation fund with "Trailing Stop Order". The idea is to sell only stocks in a market meltdown while bonds protect you. It depends on the bonds of course. In a real meltdown treasuries are the best. When you sell your stocks you are safe guard your entire portfolio. It depends on what and how you do it.
I also don't like AOM, AOR, AOA as much as SPY because they have much lower volume and that can be a problem in a panic market.

"If you work with an adviser or even if you do things yourself, setting up a portfolio is based on your risk tolerance. So much equity, so much bonds, so much cash. You decide you're comfortable with a 10% loss or a 20% loss, ect... A stop limit order on the portfolio would set that risk or acceptable loss tolerance without emotion. The Blackrock iShare ETFs as far a I can see are the only balanced portfolio ETFs that can execute this idea."

Can you explain how you do it using the BlackRock iShares allocation funds, AOM, AOR, AOA that you posted at the top?
Suppose you want only 10% loss and SPY goes down 20%, up 10%, down 20%, up 20% down 30%. It gets worse, most times stocks just lose up to 15-20% and rebound and very seldom lose 50% and it takes more than a year.
You will find pretty quickly how challenging it is.
I have talked to many advisors and so far couldn't find one that can guarantee a simple max loss of a specific number. Some use programs to adjust the asset allocation, rebalancing but never a specific max loss.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1683471/000089418920002726/sourceliquidationsupplement.htm
497 1 sourceliquidationsupplement.htm 497 SOURCE DIVIDEND OPPORTUNITY ETF
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-215588; 811-23226
Source Dividend Opportunity ETF (DVOP)
a series of Listed Funds Trust
April 15, 2020
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus (each, a “Prospectus” and collectively, the “Prospectuses”), and Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) each dated December 26, 2019
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectuses and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectuses and SAI.
After careful consideration, and at the recommendation of Source Asset Management, LLC, the investment adviser to the Source Dividend Opportunity ETF (the “Fund”), the Board of Trustees of Listed Funds Trust approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Fund pursuant to the terms of a Plan of Liquidation. Accordingly, the Fund is expected to cease operations, liquidate its assets, and distribute the liquidation proceeds to shareholders of record on or about April 30, 2020 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shares of the Fund are listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
Beginning on or about April 20, 2020 and continuing through the Liquidation Date, the Fund will liquidate its portfolio assets. As a result, during this period, the Fund will increase its cash holdings and deviate from its investment objective, investment strategies, and investment policies as stated in the Fund’s Prospectuses and SAI.
The Fund will no longer accept orders for new creation units after the close of business on the business day prior to the Liquidation Date, and trading in shares of the Fund will be halted prior to market open on the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers, and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Fund’s shares during that time period. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions.
If no action is taken by a Fund shareholder prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal to the net asset value of the shareholder’s Fund shares as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. This amount will include any accrued capital gains and dividends. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. The liquidating cash distribution to shareholders will be treated as payment in exchange for their shares. The liquidation of your shares may be treated as a taxable event. Shareholders should contact their tax adviser to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation.
Shareholders can call (800) 617-0004 for additional information.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
1

You can do the above. Suppose your portfolio is 50/50 and you invested 20%(out of the 50%) in SPY with a trailing stop market at 10%. It means that as long as SPY goes up the trailing stop follows but when SPY starts going down and eventually hits it SPY will be sold at 10% (could be higher if the market is moving really fast) loss and now you will have only 30% in stocks.

@FD1000: Yes, I know. But I'm looking at this not as getting out of a single holding and changing the balance of the portfolio. The idea is to safe guard your entire portfolio, your retirement savings, to some pre-specified loss. SPY may drop 10% but if your portfolio only dropped 5% and that is within your risk tolerance, why would you run to safety or sell SPY at that point ?
If you work with an adviser or even if you do things yourself, setting up a portfolio is based on your risk tolerance. So much equity, so much bonds, so much cash. You decide you're comfortable with a 10% loss or a 20% loss, ect... A stop limit order on the portfolio would set that risk or acceptable loss tolerance without emotion. The Blackrock iShare ETFs as far a I can see are the only balanced portfolio ETFs that can execute this idea.
Just talking through the idea. I'm a buy and hold investor with small buy-sell-swap adjustments on the side like most everyone else here.

Another deep dive and a more positive outlook: https://morningstar.com/articles/976107/coronavirus-update-long-term-economic-impact-forecast-to-be-less-than-2008-recession
So who's right? Morningstar or:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/unemployment-coronavirus-pandemic-normal-economy-is-never-coming-back/
or:
https://forbes.com/sites/hershshefrin/2020/04/12/great-depression-economics-101-what-historical-numbers-and-charts-from-the-great-depression-foretell-about-the-economy-and-stock-market/#2f6845c11e3c
Or no one?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061220000057/mfcorebondr6closeprosupp.htm
(There is a table. It is better to view the table via the link)
Madison Funds®
Supplement dated April 15, 2020
This Supplement amends the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information of the Madison Funds dated February 28, 2020,
and the Summary Prospectus for the Madison Core Bond Fund dated February 28, 2020.
Madison Core Bond Fund - Closing Class R6 Shares and Converting to Class Y Shares
On March 6, 2020, the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds approved the termination of the Class R6 share class of the Madison Core Bond Fund (the “Fund”), which it deemed to be in the best interests of the shareholders of the Class R6 shares of the Fund.
Effective immediately after the close of business (4:00 PM EST) on May 28, 2020 (the “Closure Time”), Class R6 shares of the Fund will be closed to all investors and will no longer be available for purchase, including purchases by exchange. As of the Closure Time, each Class R6 shareholder’s outstanding Class R6 shares of the Fund will automatically convert to a number of full and/or fractional Class Y shares of the Fund equal to the aggregate net asset value to the shareholder’s Class R6 shares of the Fund determined as of the Closure Time (the “Class Y Conversion”). There will be no change in the overall value of a Class R6 shareholder’s Fund holdings as of the Closure Time resulting from the Class Y Conversion. Investments in Class Y shares of the Fund after the Closure Time will be subject to the fees and expenses applicable to Class Y shares as disclosed in the current prospectus and referenced below...

@FD1000 What in your view do the last ten years of data have to do with the 1929 - 1954 period return? I already stated twice that dividends matter, although those numbers for large blend from the Depression are almost certainly wrong and subject to survivor bias. Also, while dividends do matter, the reinvestment of dividends was not automatic in 1929 and I suspect most did not or could not or would not reinvest those dividends while the Dow was falling over 80%. Try calling a bankrupt broker in the 1930s to reinvest them. Total returns as normally calculated do not exist without dividend reinvestment. And even a 14% dividend reinvestment would not bring the Dow’s Depression decline anywhere close to what Morningstar is reporting for large blend funds’ total return for that period if they were 100% pure stock portfolios.

@Old_Skeet
You pretty much covered everything I mentioned already

In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX.

CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility.

I know that and why I mentioned numbers since inception but also the last 5 years + YTD

Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020

Correct, M* is up to date on performance BUT I look deeper at SD, Sharp,Max Draw,Sortino and these numbers are monthly one. I can easily find funds with better performance which is one criterion, what about the rest? I also look longer term because a fund can be great for 1-3-6 months but not 3-5-10 years. An investor who wants to hold long term these numbers are important.
When I checked CTFAX long term, it handled YTD amazingly and did a pretty good job for 3 years. If you look further VWIAX had better volatility, in 2008 Max draw for VWIAX was -18.7 while CTFAX -42.55
So, I'm guessing they changed the formula which is great because it's a good option.
BTW, COTZX is not available at Fidelity and Schwab which are 2 major discount brokers.
Here is my bottom line: CTFAX risk-adjusted performance for YTD and for 3 years are very good.

The numbers DO NOT represent TOTAL RETURN which includes distributions. The only thing that matters is total return.
I also proved the last 10 years and we have all the data for it.
So, which is accurate, the Dow numbers or DIA(+SP500 which is close)?
Can you please answer this simple question?
I bet you won't answer it. I let other posters decide which one is accurate.

“The market sentiment is quite clearly don’t fight the Fed. The analytical sentiment from talking to individual companies is very different,” said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Loomis, Sayles & Company and manager of the flagship Loomis Sayles Bond Fund LSBDX, +0.64% , which manages $8.7 billion of assets.

https://marketwatch.com/story/disappointment-on-corporate-earnings-could-undermine-hopes-for-fed-to-rescue-markets-says-warren-buffett-of-bonds-2020-04-15?mod=home-page

Yes, @catch22, I'm thinking that the S&P 500 Index's earnings will be in the mid 120's while S&P has them projected in the mid 130's. With a 5% earnings yield this equates to a valuation for the Index somewhere in the 2500 to 2700 range through summer. Naturally, it can certainly trade outside of this range. Come fall I'm looking for things to pick up.

Still, the dismal earnings ahead from U.S. companies grappling with the coronavirus shutdown could spook investors

I don't know who the investors may be, but I can readily envision the largest 5,000 of global market makers swapping and trading among themselves attempting to discover the profit areas, be it equity or bonds; one hour at a time.

The bullet points follow:
Signs that the coronavirus pandemic is easing drove stocks higher on Tuesday, even as the first batch of quarterly earnings showed the outbreak is taking a toll on corporate profits. The Dow climbed about 560 points, helped by Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, and Apple which rose 4.5%, 4.9%, and 5%, respectively. The S&P 500 also registered a significant gain, rising more than 3%.
The market rallied on the idea that “maybe the worst of the economic freefall is over” and talk about reopening the economy, Charles Schwab’s Jeffrey Kleintop told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Wednesday morning Singapore time. But Kleintop, who is chief global investment strategist at Charles Schwab, warned that “the stock market may have a tougher time from here.” He said one unknown is the possibility of a second wave of infections as lockdown measures lift.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s optimistic tone about the outbreak in his state, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, also boosted investor sentiment. He said Tuesday deaths related to the virus in the state are leveling off.
Still, the dismal earnings ahead from U.S. companies grappling with the coronavirus shutdown could spook investors. Analysts expect S&P 500 earnings growth to decline 10.2% in the first quarter year-over-year, according to Refinitiv.
Generally, bank earnings came in well below expectations on Tuesday due to the economic impact of the coronavirus. However, JPMorgan’s trading division also posted a 32% increase in revenue to a record $7.2 billion.
For the first quarter, 88 negative earnings pre-announcements have been issued by S&P 500 corporations, according to Refinitiv. A wave of major companies has already withdrawn their full-year guidance.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html

@FD1000. In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong. The fund's inception date is 2002. Going back to 2002 takes into account the Great Recession. Why is this important because when stocks are cheap CTFAX loads equities and when they are expensive it holds less of them. CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility. I was pointing out that you had CTFAX's fund inception date wrong in your analysis. Again, the correct date is 2002 rather than 2012 which you used in your analysis. I'm thinking using the correct date will change things a good bit within your analysis. Within the past year its equity allocation has ranged from a low of 15% on upwards, most recently, towards 70%, perhaps more. Morningstar has it currently classified as 15% to 30% equity allocation fund. This could change and I think worth watching.
In addition, if one were to use a different share class COTZX rather than the A share version that I referenced this changes things a good bit performance wise as CTFAX performance since 2002 is 6.85% while it lower er cousin (COTZX) is 7.12%.
My reasons for owning the fund are listed below.
Takes advantage of market shifts. Follows a disciplined approach to adapt to market changes.
Rebalances automatically. Aims to buy low and sell high by adjusting equity exposure based on the price level of the S&P 500 Index. Pursues risk-adjusted returns.
Your analysis is interesting; but, it is not fully reflective of the CTFAX's performance since it's inception date is inaccurate and differs from my own alalysis which is detailed below.
Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020. Three month advantage CTFAX +8.02% vs VWIAX -3.31%, YTD advantage CTFAX +8.44% vs. VWIAX -2.99%, 1 Year advantage CTFAX +17.75% vs VWIAX +5.74, 3 Year advantage CTFAX +28.82 vs VWIAX +19.11, 5 Year advantage CTFAX +35.24% vs VWIAX +31.99%, 10 Year advantage CTFAX +108.70% vs VWIAX +105.51%.
Again, what I was communicating in my opening comment was that to play stock market volatility that CTFAX was a better choice over the widely followed, and touted by some, VWIAX. I'm thinking I just now provided the support, through the above analysis, necessary to posture my opening comment even on out through a 10 year period.
I'm still with my plan to increase my position in CTFAX with it soon to become one of my top five holdings due to its strong recent and time tested performance.
One can learn more about CTFAX through the below link.
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755&_n=1
Skeet
Note: CFTAX was a typo error it should have read CTFAX.
In a comparison of CTFAX vs. PRWCX ... CTFAX betters PRWCX up to and through three years but trails in the 5 year and ten year comparison.

@FD1000 In other words, the numbers for the Dow from 1929 to 1954 in the articles were not "way off" as you claimed and you don't have a leg to stand on. Meanwhile, you are busy quoting stats for the Dow and S&P that have nothing to do with the 1929 to 1954 period. The 100 year link you provided pretty much echoes the articles already cited for that period, only makes it seem worse than described, taking even longer than until 1954 to recover, probably because it is monthly price data as opposed to daily. As I've stated the Morningstar data for the "Large Blend" category back then is inaccurate as there is survivor bias, plus the funds that did survive almost certainly held bonds of some sort or the numbers are off. When stocks fall more than 80%, there's no way a 100% large-blend fund falls only 55%. Heck, Morningstar didn't even exist back then and there was no such thing as a "large blend category." Funds were free ranging and were not constrained by style boxes or even prospectus mandates like they are today. The Invesment Company Act of 1940 hadn't even passed yet restricting their activities. The dividend argument is an accurate one and would've reduced the recovery period assuming one had the courage to reinvest those divideds as stocks went into free-fall, but otherwise there is no case here.