@WABAC. Sometime will have to post all the bullish momentum indicators that triggered beginning on April 9. A plethora of them. More than in August 1982 and March 2009. So far so good.

If the markets start tuning out these Tariff announcements, maybe we suffer over the next year or so and narrowly avoid a recession. The dollar has to stabilize. Our credibility has taken a hit this year. And the Fed must remain independent, or our credibility takes another hit.
The US Markets resilience will be sorely tested. Hopefully the next POTUS can unwind most of this regime's mess, but that is easier said than done.
"Brand USA" keeps falling.

A tidbit I recently read. There was recently a 25 day trading period ( ending May 12) where the S@P gained 15%. That is rarer than rare and going back to 1957 - 11 occurrences - and in no instances has a recession occurred within 12 months. In fact the S@P has averaged a 25% gain one year after such signals.

From 1957 til recently tariff policy wasn't in a constant state of flux, or even something people have had to consider since the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.
It's only my opinion--meaning I don't know of anybody I could quote on this--that tariffs are exogenous to whatever most people take into account when they think of market cycles. I can't say that I am reassured that smart people are beginning to discount the velocity of announcements and reversals as crying wolf while elsewhere companies are pulling earnings guidance.
As a sports fan, I hate streaks. Seems like they always end ugly.
For extra reading: The S&P 500 was introduced in 1957. And according to this website, the bear market that year is classified as a Teddy Bear:

Because it just dipped below -20% and then accelerated into a recovery more rapid than the drop which lasted over three times longer

If the markets start tuning out these Tariff announcements, maybe we suffer over the next year or so and narrowly avoid a recession. The dollar has to stabilize. Our credibility has taken a hit this year. And the Fed must remain independent, or our credibility takes another hit.
The US Markets resilience will be sorely tested. Hopefully the next POTUS can unwind most of this regime's mess, but that is easier said than done.
"Brand USA" keeps falling.

A tidbit I recently read. There was recently a 25 day trading period ( ending May 12) where the S@P gained 15%. That is rarer than rare and going back to 1957 - 11 occurrences - and in no instances has a recession occurred within 12 months. In fact the S@P has averaged a 25% gain one year after such signals.

CNN
—
President Donald Trump said Sunday that he has agreed to delay a 50% tariff on European Union imports until July 9, the latest instance of Trump declaring an impending tariff and throwing markets into confusion only to later walk back the threatened levies.

... which goes along w/what I just posted in another thread:
IMO we are in the early stages of a seismic, but quiet, re-ordering of the global economy over the next 10-15 years. Specifically, I think the world economy and/or money flows will pivot to working WITH (or AROUND) the United States as a partner, not THROUGH the United States as a requirement. Could that become the proverbial 'New World Order'?
The current regime, backed by its complicit Congressional enablers and a history of biparitsan whistling-past-the-gravegard, is showing that America cannot be relied upon anymore as a stable partner in business, economics, markets, defense, etc, etc. Tariff Toddler's on-again, off-again proclaimations are not confidence-building or reassuring other nations, let alone businesses. And then seeing our nation's 'leaders' gleefully adding more to our debt again on the very day our credit rating gets (again) downgraded is just another example of the current folks in DC acting irresponsibly and figuring deep down that the music will never stop.

I think international ex-USA funds should see more positivity in the future. The only US sector I'm bullish on are utilities.
IMO we are in the early stages of a seismic, but quiet, re-ordering of the global economy over the next 10-15 years. Specifically, I think the world economy and/or money flows will pivot to working WITH (or AROUND) the United States as a partner, not THROUGH the United States as a requirement. Could that become the proverbial 'New World Order'?
The current regime, backed by its complicit Congressional enablers and a history of biparitsan whistling-past-the-gravegard, is showing that America cannot be relied upon anymore as a stable partner in business, economics, markets, defense, etc, etc. Tariff Toddler's on-again, off-again proclaimations are not confidence-building or reassuring other nations, let alone businesses. And then seeing our nation's 'leaders' gleefully adding more to our debt again on the very day our credit rating gets (again) downgraded is just another example of the current folks in DC acting irresponsibly and figuring deep down that the music will never stop.

These are many tempting ideas to read for one who has 95% of his egg in FIGXX earning 4.17%
Normally chasing a few basis points isn't worth the effort, but with 95% in MMFs, you might take a look at VUSXX. Its seven day yield is 4.23%. And last year it was 100% state tax exempt (vs about 1/2 for FIGXX). For someone in a 5% income tax rate state, that would save about 0.20% in taxes vs. 0.10% with FIGXX.
After tax, VUSXX does about 1/6% better. For pocket cash, or even "money awaiting investment", that may not be worth the effort.
It's also relatively accessible. Just a $3K min, and it's available through E*Trade (for those who decline to transact with Vanguard).
Or you could roll short maturity Treasuries. Fidelity reports 3 month Treasuries as yielding 4.32%. (Estimated yield on auction 3-month T-bill is 4.31%.) About the same as VUSXX and you don't have to go to another institution to buy.

Barron's article simply mentioned that "...JEPI has about two-thirds the volatility of the market...", but didn't offer any explanation.
True, the equity portfolio of JEPI has more conservative, dividend-paying stocks. And Morningstar shows 86.49% equity exposure with the rest in Other (options on SP500 + some cash).
Assuming JEPI equity similar to VYM (3-yr Relative SD 0.8546 by TestFol) and applying M* % equity, I get to Relative SD 0.7391 for JEPI.
Repeating this calculation with VIG, I get 3-yr Relative SD 0.7289 for JEPI.
That is still too far from TestFol 3-yr Relative SD 0.6512 (almost 2/3 rd) for JEPI. So, I am missing something in JPM's secret sauce.

Barron's recently published a story about covered-call funds.
JEPI and JEPQ were both mentioned.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/these-funds-offer-low-volatility-and-10-yields-there-s-a-trade-off/ar-AA1F6xo9

I fully appreciate the developing problems here in the US, but hopefully we should look beyond the current administration for the longer term picture.

@Old_Joe, I hear you. Slow growth has been a persistent issue in EU as the article highlighted the financing challenges, especially high tech startups. European index is trading at a lower multiple reflects lower earnings and slower growth comparing to those in US.
Having said that, the Europe index diverged from S&P 500 considerably due to the depreciating dollar; 20% (unhedged) vs -1%, respectively. Will this trend revert to the mean at the longer timeframe beyond this administration? Honestly, no one really knows.

I suppose many saw this already:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-barry-ritholtz?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=277517&post_id=164274091&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=tcpky&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

PRWCX is available in Merrill accounts. I dip-bought a bunch a month ago and it's up 7% --- luck.
These are many tempting ideas to read for one who has 95% of his egg in FIGXX earning 4.17%.

I took another look at JEPI. While it hasn't been exposed to a bear market, 2022 and 2025YTD have been tough years. JEPI is consistently superior to OEF GATEX (that also uses protective puts) and equivalent allocation 65%SPY + 35%BND; note that Relative SD of JEPI is 0.65 wrt SP500.
For an individual stock, covered-call limits the upside in exchange for the call premium, but doesn't limit the downside. So, something in the fund structure of JEPI is leading to lower volatility. My guesses for reasons include (i) lower equity exposures, (ii) more conservative equity holdings, (iii) upside caps (that trim some volatility), (iv) execution of the options strategies & (v) redeployment of premium & other proceeds (e.g. when the stocks get called away). But I cannot point to a single dominant cause.
Similar observations can be made for JEPQ in relation to QQQ (Nasdaq 100).
https://testfol.io/?s=kRhewIHNMLw

I mentioned, above, an interesting report that I read some time ago concerning the possible future of the European economy. I erroneously thought that it had been in The Economist, but it was actually in The Wall Street Journal, and it's main focus was on the poor prognostication for growth in the Tech sectors.
Here's a free link-

I kind of like some absolute return and market neutral funds. My favorites, which are EGRIX, BDMAX, and QMNNX keep chugging along. They have done well this year during an uncertain environment.

+1
Add to it QLENX.
Another option is to own the best categories/funds. Europe (VGK) signaled it since 02/2025.
https://schrts.co/qqqMxnXW

Vanguard has been careless in merging some of its OEFs. After ignoring related investor complaints, it had to settle with the SEC on this
What Vanguard was careless about was how it went about reducing the min of its institutional clones of TDFs. Not the merger per se.
Reducing the min triggered a mass migration of smaller sized employer-sponsored retirement plans from the retail funds to the institutional funds. The result was a huge sell-off (and recognized gains) in the retail funds. Individual investors with shares in taxable accounts were left holding the bag - a huge tax bill.
Shortly thereafter, Vanguard merged the institutional funds with the retail funds.
Had Vanguard not reduced the min for institutions, or had Vanguard reduced the min subsequent to merging the funds, no sales and no gains would have been triggered.
I haven't checked the prospectuses of these new ETFs, but Vanguard allows tax-free conversions of its mutual funds/OEFs to their ETF classes that may have lower ERs (typically similar as Admiral OEF ERs), but not the reverse.
See https://www.chapman.com/media/publication/15122_IL-0224-Coyle-Pershkow-Warren.pdf

This highlights another benefit to Mutual Fund Class shareholders of Perpetual’s proposed structure (also a featured part of the original Vanguard model, the DFA Application, and the First Trust Application, the Fidelity Application). The structure outlined in the Perpetual Application contains a conversion privilege that allows for a shareholder seamlessly convert from a Mutual Fund Class to the ETF Class.[fn 17]
17 Unlike the Perpetual Application, the DFA Application, the Fidelity Application, the First Trust Application, and the original Vanguard application, the F/m Application proposes a conversion privilege whereby an ETF shareholder could convert its ETF shares to mutual fund shares. The F/m Application, however, does not address whether this structure would function essentially as an open-ending mechanism. Any time shareholders are displeased with the spread or premium/discount of their ETF shares, they could move to the mutual fund and redeem at net asset value (NAV). This could have at least one major unintended consequence: market makers and liquidity providers who regularly purchase and sell creation units will be disincentivized to make markets or provide liquidity, thereby stressing the ETF’s arbitrage mechanism.

Many years ago I looked into ways of investing in currencies when Fidelity (among others) offered currency funds.
Invesco CurrencyShares® ETFs (e.g. FXE, FXF) are one way to play currencies. The YTD gains reported above include both changes in premium (spread of market price over NAV has increased) and interest (these ETFs can pay interest).
From the M* chart for FXE here the YTD figures are:
NAV (representing currency movement less expenses): +9.47%
NAVwDivs (representing the above plus interest earned): +10.09%
Price (representing NAV gain + increased premium): +9.65%
Price+Divs (representing the above plus interest earned): +10.27%
Thus, interest earned YTD = (10.27% - 9.65%) = (10.09% - 9.47%) = 0.62%.
Compounded to annual yield: 1.0062 ^ (365/144) (days) - 1 = 1.58%
Another way to invest in currency is to open foreign currency accounts at banks. Perhaps the most well known is Everbank. It wasn't competitive when I looked at it years ago and doesn't seem to be competitive now. (It is offering 0.10% APY on a three month Euro CD.) There are other banks that offer foreign currency accounts. The one I remember is Cathay bank.
Dollar weakness seems to be due to worldwide disinvestment in the US attributed to increasing uncertainty in the US generally (regulatory environment, tax regimen, tariffs, etc.). Somewhat counterbalancing this are higher interest rates in the US - the Fed has not reduced rates recently (due to inflation concerns) while other central banks have continued to do so.
WSJ, Why the Fed Isn’t Ready to Join Other Central Banks in Cutting Rates, May 8, 2025.

The Fed cut its benchmark short-term rate by 1 percentage point in the second half of 2024 ... The European Central Bank, meanwhile, has cut its benchmark rate seven times in the last year by a combined 1.75 percentage points. The Bank of England on Thursday cut its benchmark rate to 4.25% from 4.5%. It was the bank’s fourth cut since last summer.

Passive voice in CNBC piece: "are expected". Who is expecting, and why?
The current SEC rules and regulations require funds to seek "exemptive relief" from the SEC. Generally all share classes of a fund must be treated equally. That's not true of ETF shares. Hence the need for relief.
ETF shareholders cannot purchase and redeem shares at NAV (they must trade at market price in a secondary market). There are other inequities as well. When funds seek exemptive relief, they include plans for how they will deal with various differences between the share classes.
https://www.chapman.com/media/publication/15122_IL-0224-Coyle-Pershkow-Warren.pdf
(For those interested in fund mechanics, this is an interesting nine page (plus notes) piece that doesn't get bogged down in legalize. The first few pages are of more general interest, describing the differences between ETF class shares and OEF class shares.)
Another example is brokerage fees. OEF shareholders pay these fees (though they're not included in the ER calculation). They purchase shares for cash which a fund then uses to buy securities, thus incurring brokerage fees. In contrast, authorized participants buy ETF shares with creation baskets of securities already purchased. No brokerage fees involved. There are various ways a fund can deal with this disparity. A request for exemptive relief has to spell this out.
The former acting SEC chairman, Mark Uyeda, "directed staff to prioritize the review of more than fifty applications for relief that had been unprocessed for as long as two years."
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2em6tlqjoggjytyhjgjy8/corner-office/etfs-may-become-just-another-share-class-if-sec-approves-dimensionals-latest-regulatory-ask (April 1)
Maybe that's what's supposed to open the floodgates. But Uyeda was appointed back in January. So why the CNBC piece now, and not in January, or a month ago (related to the Uyeda quote above)?
The only thing I see that has happened since then is that Paul Atkins was sworn in as SEC chairman on April 21. He is not expected to change much from what Uyeda was doing. "Chairman Atkins thus has arrived at an already changed agency."
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-enforcement-20-chairman-atkins-has-arrived
A concern with actively managed ETFs (already discussed in an older thread) is that pragmatically they cannot close to new investment when capacity is reached. So this is something to monitor when purchasing an actively managed ETF. Soon OEF fund investors will also need to monitor capacity if their funds begin to offer ETF class shares.

FXE (Euro) +10.27% YTD (vs Dollar)
FXF (Swiss Franc) +10.47% YTD (vs Dollar)
Depends on how much, if any, your fund hedges back to the Dollar. But to varying degrees the outperformance this year in European funds is reflective of a weakening Dollar globally. I’m not expecting a reversal of that trend soon, but might be wrong.

I don't see The Economist article either. I did a search on all Economist pieces since March 1 containing the word "Europe" (there are 267). The vast majority are under 1,000 words. Several are between 1,000 and 2,000 words in length (typically around 1,200). Only a 8 (3%) are over 2,000 words. Most of those are not on point, the two relevant ones aren't as bleak as you describe:

• If it comes to a stand-off, Europe has leverage over America, March 13, 2,688 words.

  Almost all the steps it [Europe] could take would be self-harming, even if they inflicted even greater damage on America. For that reason among others, getting European leaders, a fissiparous bunch at the best of times, to agree on a concerted response to American bullying would be a feat. But if they resolved to fight back, they have plenty of ways to do so.

• As Donald Trump's trade war heats up, China is surprisingly confident, April 3, 2,632 words.
  
• Your guide to the new anti-immigration argument, March 13, 2,545 words
  
• Emigration from Africa will change the world, April 24, 2,522 words
  
• Would Vladimir Putin attack NATO?, May 8, 2,520 words
  
• Can the world's free-traders withstand Trump's attack?, April 2, 2,496 words

  Much may hinge on what Europe does next. The EU and its open-market allies could form a formidable bloc—co-ordinating responses to American tariffs and pulling China in a more free-trading direction.
  

• Aid cannot make poor countries rich, March 6, 2,159 words
  
• Will Jamie Dimon build the first trillion-dollar bank?, May 22, 2,184 words.

Whether it remains true that "when America sneezes the world catches a cold" (cf. Klemens von Metternich referring to France and Europe) remains to be seen.
Still I agree that European stocks may not prove to be the safe refuge people are looking for, having asked: The question remains: ... will they [foreign equities] continue to have positive returns?

I don't want to throw cold water on the European stock picture, but I have to tell you that a couple of weeks ago there was a lengthy and detailed report in The Economist which was very negative on the general business future of Europe vs the U.S.
Perhaps the current enthusiasm about EU stocks is actually just the retail herd chasing each other (as usual) rather than any actual long term merit based on actual growth potential. The Economist viewed Britain and Germany as particularly challenged for a variety of reasons, and of course Portugal, Spain and Italy are pretty much just so-so at best.
I fully appreciate the developing problems here in the US, but hopefully we should look beyond the current administration for the longer term picture.
Anyway, keep your eyes open and be very careful out there. As @hank said in another current thread:
Maybe: “The trend is not your friend.”

Add: I just tried to review back issues of The Economist and I have to tell you that I can't find anything like what I described above. Very frustrating... I know very well that I read that report in full, because I found it to be interesting. If if wasn't The Economist, I have no idea where I might have seen that.
Add to the Add- OK, I finally found the report- it was in the Wall Street Journal-
here's a free link-