OMG, the lib media is in shock, they expected at least 7 million job losses and they got +2.5 million gain. The 2.5 million came without help from NY+CA which are still shut down.
It's terrible for them but good for America.
Then came their usual, it's a lie, it's meaningless, it's only low paying jobs why cheer.
When unemployment was the lowest ever (for many categories) months ago even then they didn't cheer. It's so ridiculous.
Wait, social distancing? no more. Let's march together, burn and loot our cities, and defund the police.

See my comment here.

How do we know the published job numbers are not fabricated?

It appeared there is a miscalculation from BLS, and the actual number reported is 3% higher than that of April number. Taken that in its totality, the employment picture is not so rosy as the president announced...

The special note said that if this misclassification error had not occurred, the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported," meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.

https://www.greenwichtime.com/business/article/The-May-jobs-report-had-misclassification-error-15320999.php
This is the same article published in Washington Post last night by Heather Long, a long respected financial reporter. ...
Question is how can this error released pre-maturely? And this get back to TheShadow's question...

As I noted in my linked-to post, correcting for the same type errors in April makes the reduction in the unemployment rate even larger. It goes from the official 1.4% improvement to 3.4%. Though total unemployment is, of course, higher than officially reported for both months. So while the absolute number is not so rosy as the president announced, the trend surpassed the president's rosy picture.
@davidrmoran addressed Shadow's question. But then again, so did Heather Long's article:

“You can 100% discount the possibility that Trump got to the BLS. Not 98% discount, not 99.9% discount, but 100% discount,” tweeted Jason Furman, the former top economist for former president Barack Obama. “BLS has 2,400 career staff of enormous integrity and one political appointee with no scope to change this number.”

As a special added bonus, note that PK is also on record as having made the same statement. (In the words of Warner Wolf, let's go to the videotape. Check the 37 minute mark. "I'm mostly on the side of fast recovery ... IF the coronavirus is under control.")

@FD1000: "...D&C is [one of the worst managers of all time]...". Oh my goodness. Really; what does one do with that?

I meant to say below average. EXample: DODGX trail the "stupid" index SPY for performance + risk attributes. See the (proof)
Please don't come back and claim it's not fair because DODGX is more value while SPY is blend. The goal is to make money and if your fund has worse performance + SD,Sharpe,Sortino it's a knockout. You can'y hide behind "VALUE" for years. Recent performance is another proof. YTD...DODGX -7.8...SPY -0.2%

Why all the agitation over BLS misclassification errors this month, when similar ones last month were arguably worse? Something that @Rbrt pointed out.
Actually, if both April and May numbers were adjusted as suggested (to 19.7% unemployment in April and 16.3% in May) the reduction in unemployment, such as it is, would be 3.4%, far better than the official 1.4% reduction.
The flaw in the April figures was obvious; one didn't need the BLS or reporters to it. The number of people in the labor force (i.e. employed or unemployed) does not drop from 162.9M in March to 156.5M in April, unless a lot of the newly unemployed are being counted as no longer in the labor force.
Here are the BLS figures; read from them what you will:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
Forbes, May 10, 2020,Don’t Be Fooled By Official Unemployment Rate Of 14.7%; The Real Figure Is Even Scarier

“Interviewers were told to classify people who were employed [but] absent from work due to COVID-related reasons as temporarily unemployed. Many did this incorrectly —correcting for this error raises the unemployment rate to nearly 20%,” [Betsey Stevenson] explained. [Ms. Stevenson "was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers as well as the Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor".]
To its credit, the BLS realized and called out this technical misclassification in its report ... The misclassification caused the BLS to understate the unemployment rate by roughly five percentage points, meaning the adjusted unemployment rate is really closer to 20%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/05/10/dont-be-fooled-by-official-unemployment-rate-of-147-the-real-figure-is-even-scarier/#3aa898c055dd

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/fidelity-throws-heft-into-hidden-asset-etf-arena-with-new-funds-56110.html
Fidelity Throws Heft Into Hidden-Asset ETF Arena With New Funds
Fidelity Investments is launching three exchange-traded funds that will partially conceal their holdings.
"These three active equity ETFs complement our existing mutual fund and ETF offerings and will meet a specific need in the marketplace,”

My apologies .
Imho I think present and past POTUS opinions and voting records are so strong /skewed and seem >50% favored one sided; the other side definitely think 'dictatorships' but in reality they only vote/do what best for their party (except for Trump maybe)...
Strong opinionated maybe corrected term...

June 6th Episode:

From the article (the gains, due to reopening still stand but that in addition to the May number being wrong the March and April unemployment rates were also underreported)
“ This problem started in March when there was a big jump in people claiming they were temporarily “absent” from work for “other reasons.” The BLS noticed this and flagged it right away. In March, the BLS said the unemployment rate likely should have been 5.4 percent, instead of the official 4.4 percent rate. In April, the BLS said the real unemployment rate was likely about 19.7 percent, not 14.7 percent.
Economists said the big takeaway is that it’s hard to collect real-time data during a pandemic and that while the unemployment rate remains high — likely more than 16 percent — it has declined a little from April.”.
I want to see what this does to number of jobs which is currently reported at around 133,000,000.

When the U.S. government’s official jobs report for May came out on Friday, it included a note at the bottom saying there had been a major “error” indicating that the unemployment rate likely should be higher than the widely reported 13.3 percent rate.
The special note said that if this “misclassification error” had not occurred, the “overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported,” meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.
Economists said the big takeaway is that it’s hard to collect real-time data during a pandemic and that while the unemployment rate remains high — likely more than 16 percent — it has declined a little from April.

https://washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/05/may-2020-jobs-report-misclassification-error/

How do we know the published job numbers are not fabricated?

It appeared there is a miscalculation from BLS, and the actual number reported is 3% higher than that of April number. Taken that in its totality, the employment picture is not so rosy as the president announced...

The special note said that if this misclassification error had not occurred, the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported," meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.

https://www.greenwichtime.com/business/article/The-May-jobs-report-had-misclassification-error-15320999.php
This is the same article published in Washington Post last night by Heather Long, a long respected financial reporter. Another data point from CNBC. That’s due an error in how furloughed workers were treated in the data sample. April’s unemployment rate would have been nearly 20% absent that same error.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/heres-why-the-real-unemployment-rate-may-be-higher-than-reported.html

Question is how can this error released pre-maturely? And this get back to @TheShadow's question...
As a result of this new picture emerged, safe assets such as high quality bonds and gold declined for the week.

From the same source, stockchart, I think this(link) maybe be easier but only allows 5 funds. The easy part is by letting you select the period easily. You have one month and all the way using start/end dates.
The best IMO is PortfolioVis. It has many more choices and you can see SD, max draw, Sharpe, Sortino and more but allow you only 4 funds. See (link) for BBN,GWMEX,TSIIX,ANBEX for 3 years. It shows how BBN SD=12 is 2-3 times higher than the others

I guess we’re playing with semantics here.
“Fabricated” = “completely made up. An investigation will follow.” Geez, I don’t think so.
We had one last winter. You saw where that went.
“Cooked” = “distorted, exaggerated, shaded, tilted, incomplete, compromised and unreliable.” Yes. The government’s been doing that for years with the numbers. Cost of living is a great example.
Whether you believe the numbers or consider them wholly fabricated, the S&P is now up over 40% since late March. So the numbers today helped put $$ In the pockets of investors. The numbers might be as phony as a $1,000 bill. But if you pass a phony $1,000 bill and get away with it (putting morals aside), you still keep the goodies.

I pasted this link in another forum as well. Some food for thought.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2020-06-05/nfp-jobs-data-manipulated-all-paid-ppp-loans

Not sure how much you are expecting to earn from your bond funds. This year I've finally decided to throw in the towel. I never invested in bond funds that much outright. I trusted few managers to do it for now. I diversified, I did all that crap, and then I'm convinced they are no better than active stock managers.
Vanguard has been a real PITA to get approval to sell options. Once I get that taken care off, I plan to roll out a CD ladder of options, one expiring per week, 4 outstanding at any time, i.e. hoping to get option income from 4 options per month at different strikes and different expiry dates further OTM.
If I succeed, I can make proclamations like "Don't invest in what you don't understand". Yes, I don't undertstand bonds. Yes, I understand options. And I know every week what's going on and how to adjust and protect my principal instead of buying and hoping bond fund will give me 5% return on annual basis.

IMO, market moved up too far. too fast I don't really care. It seems like dot com days. You can fart in a bottle, hold it up and say "cloud" and your stock goes up. Meanwhile, I read this.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2020-06-05/nfp-jobs-data-manipulated-all-paid-ppp-loans
I've been earning good income on options for 2 months. I'm worried I'm getting addicted to it. I think I can make 10-12% this way, so I'm not rushing in and buying any more funds at this time. I own PRWCX and RPGAX in my MIL's account and am happy with both of them. If GMO is to be believed, then RPGAX should catch up with its higher allocation to international holdings.

Thought this might fits your thread @Junkster...thanks for your posting:
https://thechartreport.com/5-things-about-marty-zweig/
(Zweig’s interview begins at about 6½ minutes into the clip below and has to be one of the most timely market calls in the history of financial media.)

You should be nervous!’—legendary money manager slashes stock market exposure from 55% to 25%
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-should-be-nervouslegendary-money-manager-slashes-stock-market-exposure-from-55-to-25-2020-06-05
/As investors we should always get nervous when we start making too much money too easily. As a foolish youth I once ignored that rule while speculating on interest rate futures, and got my fingers slammed in the door very quickly and very hard./
Do you agree with his views....
Maybe it's a v shape after all
Maybe it's a great day to bail if I am 6 12 months from retirement

March 31, 2020 fact sheets:
Growth Fund:
https://www.zci.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Zevenbergen-GROWTH-Fund-Fact-Sheet-1Q20.pdf
Genea Fund:
https://www.zci.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Zevenbergen-GENEA-Fund-Fact-Sheet-1Q20.pdf
Virtus Zevenbergen Innovative Growth Fund :
https://www.virtus.com/assets/files/1q3/zci_innovative_growth_stock_fund_factsheet_1131_i.pdf

Lipper, unlike M*, does have all-cap (which it calls multi-cap) categories. Lipper concurs that ZVNBX is a multi-cap growth fund. Top rated (5) for all attributes except preservation (rated 3) - no surprise there.

Here's what I can share from owning ZVNBX, one of the two Zevenbergen funds -- the other N class being ZVGNX.
The fund managers are very focused and articulate about their reasons for owning a concentrated portfolio of two large cap growth funds, the outcome of running separate managed accounts for 30 and 26 years in these products.
In general, the main difference between ZVNBX and ZVGNX (Genea) is that the latter is focused on founder-led companies (Musk, Bezos), does not own any health care companies, and is invested in more companies that are, let's say, very early in the curve.
Some nuts and bolts:
From a revenue side, their initial hurdle rate is owning companies that have a minimum growth rate of 15% but a revenue growth rate of between 25-30%, and if they can't grow at that rate, they consider selling. They want to own companies whose business model can sustain that growth rate for 1-3-5-10 years, those companies they consider durable.
(An example of a company they own is NOW (Service NOW), a tech company. It recently said that they expect $7.4T in digital transformation in the next three years.)
These funds can be volatile, and so investor returns lag investment returns, which they often do in many funds, as most of us know. Overall, however, they have had positive inflows since inception.
The average portfolio turnover since inception has been 30%.
Platform availability continues to expand. Having two LCG funds has not been as easy to market, and the firm has a small marketing budget. In mid-April total AUM was about $65M despite being in existence for less than 5 years. It's $95M now.
Schwab offers both N classes NTF for a purchase of $100.
While M* classifies the funds as LCG, they consider the funds all-cap. They can drive attribution in the small and mid cap space as well.
These offerings are worth investor awareness, additional thoughts, and what the initial poster is asking.