US global has gold, emerging markets and bitcoin investments. If GROW stock goes to $0.25 I'm going to buy 10000 shares, and pretend I made $2500 investment in a mutual fund. In fact, going to put in a GTC order tomorrow. If it hits $0.25 and then market comes back, it will easily hit $1.00, while no way any of their funds will provide 300% return.

Ouch...
FMIJX = OUCHX
Not what I expected from this fund.
YTD (-28%)
Another one of it's bifurcated moments. This fund is either in the top 10% or in the bottom 10% of its category.
Right now 95% of funds in its category are outperform this fund.

Interesting fund I've followed for a while but haven't quite figured out yet is doing well in this environment:
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/gumpx/performance

There was a time when I thought similarly about RMBFX. Not just long-short but long-short in a specific sector. I thought I had found the b..b.
I have great powers. I can buy GUMPX and it will fall 50%. Everyone be nice to me.

Speaking of things budgetary, I just found this article in this morning's Chron. Edited for brevity:

The staggering economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to create a budget deficit in San Francisco of from $1.1 billion to $1.7 billion over the next two fiscal years, city officials said Tuesday.
The grim projections accompanied an announcement that San Francisco’s budget-setting process would be delayed for two months to buy the city’s financial experts time to readjust their spending plans in light of stark revenue losses.
In December, the projected budget shortfall over the next two fiscal years was pegged at around $420 million. That gap between the city’s spending plans and available revenue has roughly quadrupled. Last year’s budget, the largest in the city’s history, was $12.3 billion.
“The coronavirus pandemic is an immediate threat to our public health, and we’re doing everything we can to slow its spread and save lives, but we know that it is also having a major impact on our economy and our city’s revenue,” Breed said in a statement.
The city has already sustained substantial losses brought on by the threat of the coronavirus and its attendant impact on the economy. The estimated losses reflect evaporated revenue the city otherwise would have expected to receive.
Over the next three months, city officials expect a shortfall of from $167 million to $288 million, driven primarily by losses in hotel and real estate-transfer taxes. The 2020-21 fiscal year is shaping up to be worse, according to the projections, with $330 million to $581 million in revenue drained away. Losses in the 2021-22 fiscal year are estimated at between $214 million and $382 million.

I took my equity allocation down to 20% in my retirement account when the S&P hit 2900. I increased back to 45% when S&P hit 2400. I plan to increase again if/when S&P hits 2300.

Yes, not unexpected. I have REIT investments and have seen their valuations cut 50-60%. In my mind selling now would be ridiculous as I don't expect that all of them will magically go out of business although some very well may. The only single REIT I currently own is Realty Income bought during the financial crisis. Others are held within a CEF whose managers I am comfortable with. For now I wait patiently for them to stabilize and eventually start to rise before considering add-on buys. My magic 8-ball has been in for repairs for some time now so my timing, unlike others, is never perfect.

For those who invested in REITs. this sector has been declining rapidly to match that of S&P500. Shopping malls such as Simon Property are sizable components in most REIT funds. Many are having problem of paying their bills due to the lockdown across the country.

The biggest U.S. mall owner, Simon Property Group, has furloughed about 30% of its workforce, CNBC has learned, as the company copes with all of its properties being temporarily shut because of the coronavirus pandemic.

https://msn.com/en-us/money/companies/largest-us-mall-owner-furloughs-nearly-a-third-of-its-workforce/ar-BB11Y4jU?ocid=iehp&li=BBnbfcN

It paid dividend of .05 on 3/31. Same as per last 12 months.
Derf

@VF - yeah I was thinking 1700 but your 1600 has a 50-50 chance of being right also.

Just a BA in Economics here ... I'm thinking that the S&P 500 Index trades between a near term range of 2,000 to 2,400. This is based upon TTM earings for the Index being in the range of $100.00 to $120.00 with an earnings yield of 5%. Currently, S&P list the 500 Index with projected March TTM earnings at $140.00. I'm expecting this to change as companies report March results.
For me, since cash is a big part of my asset allocation this market turmoil presents a long term buying opportunity. I'm sure there are others that think differently. But, this is what makes a market. The different perspectives and views.
I am, Old_Skeet

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/747546/000168386320001575/f2978d1.htm
497 1 f2978d1.htm 497
PARNASSUS FUNDS
PARNASSUS INCOME FUNDS
Parnassus FundSM
Investor Shares: PARNX | Institutional Shares: PFPRX
April 1, 2020
Supplement dated April 1, 2020 to the
Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus, each dated May 1, 2019, as amended and restated March 17, 2020
Name Change and Strategy Change
Effective as of May 1, 2020, the name of the Parnassus Fund will change to the Parnassus Mid Cap Growth Fund, and all references in the Prospectus are hereby changed to the new name as of that date. As of that same date, the Fund will move from being a "multi-cap" fund to a fund that primarily invests in mid-sized growth companies. So, while the Fund currently invests materially in mid-sized growth companies, effective as of May 1, 2020, this will be its primary focus, and effective as of that date, the Fund's "Principal Investment Strategies" disclosure is amended and restated as set forth below. In connection with this change, the Fund's investment objective will remain the same and the Fund may continue to hold any company that it has previously purchased regardless of changes to its market capitalization.
The Parnassus Mid Cap Growth Fund seeks capital appreciation through investing primarily (normally at least 80% of its net assets) in mid-sized growth companies. The Fund considers a mid-sized company to be one that has a market capitalization between that of the smallest and largest constituents of the Russell Midcap® Growth Index (which was between $1 billion and $33.7 billion as of May 31, 2019) measured at the time of purchase. The Fund will not automatically sell or cease to purchase stock of a company it already owns just because the company's market capitalization grows or falls outside the ranges of the Russell Midcap® Growth Index, which are subject to change. The Fund may normally invest up to 20% of its net assets in smaller- and larger-capitalization companies. A growth company is a company that the Adviser believes has a superior and pragmatic growth strategy and the potential for above-average revenue and earnings growth. The Fund invests mainly in domestic stocks of companies that are financially sound and have good prospects for the future, and to a lesser extent may also invest in foreign securities of similar companies. The Fund may purchase foreign securities directly on foreign markets. The Fund is fossil-fuel free, as it does not invest in companies that derive significant revenues from the extraction, exploration, production or refining of fossil fuels; the Fund may invest in companies that use fossil fuel-based energy to power their operations or for other purposes. To determine a company's prospects, the Adviser reviews the company's income statement, cash flow statement and balance sheet, and analyzes the company's sustainable strategic advantage and management team. The Adviser also takes environmental, social and governance ("ESG") factors into account in making investment decisions. The Fund will sell a security if the Adviser believes a company's fundamentals will deteriorate, if it believes a company's stock has little potential for appreciation or if the company no longer meets the Adviser's ESG criteria.
And the following risk factor is added to the "Principal Risks" disclosure, effective as of May 1, 2020:
Growth Investing Risk. The Adviser may be wrong in its assessment of a company's potential for growth and the growth stocks the Fund holds may not grow as the Adviser anticipates. Finally, there are periods when investing in growth stocks falls out of favor with investors and these stocks may underperform.
The following risk factor has been modified as shown below to fit the revised investment strategy of the Fund, effective as of May 1, 2020:
Small- and Mid-Capitalization Company Risk. The Fund invests primarily in mid-capitalization companies, and may also invest in small-capitalization companies, both of which can be particularly sensitive to changing economic conditions since they do not have the financial resources or the well- established businesses of large-capitalization companies. Relative to the stocks of large-capitalization companies, the stocks of small- and mid-capitalization companies are often thinly traded, and purchases and sales may result in higher transaction costs. Also, small-capitalization companies tend to perform poorly during times of economic stress.
The paragraph with the heading "Large-Capitalization Company Risk" is removed from the "Principal Risk" disclosure, effective as of May 1, 2020.
In the "Selection Process for Equity Securities" section, the paragraph with the heading "Parnassus Fund" has been replaced with the following, effective as of May 1, 2020:
Parnassus Mid Cap Growth Fund
The Parnassus Mid Cap Growth Fund seeks capital appreciation through investing primarily (normally at least 80% of its net assets) in mid-sized growth companies. The Fund considers a mid-sized company to be one that has a market capitalization between that of the smallest and largest constituents of the Russell Midcap® Growth Index (which was between $1 billion and $33.7 billion as of May 31, 2019) measured at the time of purchase. A growth company is a company that the Adviser believes has a superior and pragmatic growth strategy and the potential for above-average revenue and earnings growth. While mid- capitalization companies can be riskier than larger companies, they can also possess more potential for future growth.
A significant portion of the securities held by the Fund may be disposed of in connection with the change in investment strategy to align the securities portfolio of the Fund with the mandate that the Fund invest primarily (normally at least 80% of its net assets) in mid-sized growth companies. Any realignment could result in additional portfolio transaction costs to the Fund.
******
Please Read Carefully and Keep for Future Reference

What a whopping day is was in HY Munis where many funds lost 0.8-1%
I sold everything again and now at 99+% in Gov MM.
Basically, I gave back about 50% of what I made last week. Life goes on :-)
Don't know what happened to Munis today but this (link) has an explanation.
But it’s important to note that bonds issued by states and localities are only part of the muni market. About two-thirds of the market is “revenue” bonds — those issued by everything from hospitals to transportation providers to colleges and universities, all of which are about to take a serious hit from a shuddering economy.
“You could draw a dotted line from the economic impact of coronavirus to any facet of muni finance,” Kazatsky said.
“Investors have to brace for systemic downgrades across states, cities, hospitals, transportation, even essential service utilities,” Fabian said. “You can think some pretty grim things these days. The economic data is going to turn terrible.”
What does that mean? The municipal market is wary of sweeping predictions, like the one in 2010 by banking analyst Meredith Whitney, who warned of “a spate of municipal bond defaults,” as if state and local governments had never confronted an economic downturn before.

Let's make predictions. After all there is no rule you have to have an MBA from Harvard and work at GS. I predict S&P 500 goes to 1600.

@MikeW I don't have a sense for how far along we are in the correction (or crash) process. My simple minded approach is to DCA 2% of my available cash each week into either the bond side or the stock side of my holdings. Given the recent surge on the stock side, next week the bond side may wind up receiving an injection. More dividends come in every month, so my cash is somewhat replenished each month. If it drops to maybe 50% of where it is now before the horizon clears, I will probably reevaluate this approach.

A number of company are suspending their dividends including Boeing during this crisis. Wonder if this continue in near term until recovery takes hold ?
VDIGX, VIG, and PRDGX are solid choices. VDIGX has a healthy exposure to health care sector that helped in 2008. Same strategy is also working this year by slightly leading S&P500 index.

While two days is not a trend, does this give you any sense that muni money market funds are stabilizing? It seems the answer is it depends on the daily net shareholder cash flows.

Certainly that's a part of it. However, 532; of these funds are in cash or paper that will mature or can be redeemed within five business days (weekly liquid assets). So it's hard to see such a stampede moving the shadow price (mark-to-market NAV) four times what we've just seen (i.e. to below 99.5¢). These funds have enough "cash" to handle a run on the bank, and the remainder of the assets will make its way through the fund over a few months.
The government, as the WSJ put it, recently "backstopped" these MMFs. With all due respect, I think most MMF investors just see this as a "government guarantee". It's not quite that, but perception is reality and it should have a calming effect.
That doesn't mean that the muni bond market won't again go wacko. This only addresses the question of cash flow of muni MMFs.
Given that "Individual, or 'retail,' investors are the largest holders of municipal securities", a herd mentality reaction could make a real impact on the muni bond market. That in turn could depress the value of a fund's holdings. (Quote is from ICI's FAQ About Municipal Bonds.)
ISTM that the government MMF loan program lets MMFs prop up their shadow price by swapping undervalued paper for cash. For example, a MMF might have a muni bond that will mature and be redeemed at par in 11 months, while the market is currently pricing it at $0.98. This loan program allows the MMF to borrow against the bond as if it were worth $1 (amortized cost).
But that program doesn't come without a cost of its own. There's an interest charge equal to the primary credit rate (currently 0.25%) + 0.25% for muni MMFs. Will sponsors go for this?
If past is prologue, the answer is largely yes.

at least twenty-nine MMFs had losses large enough to cause them to break the buck in September and October 2008 despite significant government intervention and support of the sector. Five funds or more experienced losses exceeding the 3 percent reported by Reserve, and one fund reported a loss of nearly 10 percent. Among the twenty-nine funds that would have broken the buck without sponsor support, the average loss was 2.2 percent."

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/10/twenty-eight-money-market-funds-that-could-have-broken-the-buck-new-data-on-losses-during-the-2008-c.html
Aside from the Reserve Fund that broke a buck, that's 28 other funds where their sponsors propped up their funds. They did this not at a rate of 50 basis points for a few months, but by infusing 200 basis points give or take up front. The loan program is a fantastic deal for the MMFs. From a psychological perspective, the expectation is that they won't have to use it. And should they need to, it is dirt cheap.
Then again, what do I know? As Will Rogers said, all I know is what I read in the papers. I didn't go to a seventh-rated MMF sponsor (Schwab, according to Crane Data) to ask about this new development.
Though I did speak with the big kahuna (Fidelity dominates money-market industry) a few years ago after the liquidity regs were finalized. At that time Fidelity was very courteous, confirming that I was reading the regs correctly, but declining to provide any information about how Fidelity would implement them in practice. As expected, and no different from Schwab's response - just boilerplate.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/101507/000143510920000074/usgiholmes497.htm
97 1 usgiholmes497.htm
U.S. GLOBAL INVESTORS FUNDS
Holmes Macro Trends Fund (the “Fund”)
Investor Class Shares
Supplement dated March 31, 2020, to the Prospectus dated May 1, 2019, as supplemented
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CHANGES TO THE FUND
At the March 27, 2020 meeting of the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of U.S. Global Investors Funds, the Board approved, at the recommendation of U.S. Global Investors, Inc., the investment adviser to the Fund (“Adviser”), changes to the Fund’s name, investment strategies, and primary benchmark index, in order to highlight a focus on luxury goods-related investments, effective May 1, 2020. These changes, among other things, will be reflected in the Fund’s forthcoming prospectus and SAI dated May 1, 2020.
The costs incurred in connection with effectuating the changes to the Fund, such as filing fees, costs incurred in connection with the filing, printing, and mailing of shareholder notices, and attendant legal expenses, among other costs, will be borne by the Adviser and not the Fund’s shareholders. Trading costs associated with transitioning the Fund’s current portfolio of investments, which are expected to be minor, will be borne by the Fund. The Fund could also potentially realize taxable gains in connection with transitioning the Fund’s current portfolio of investments, which could expose the Fund’s shareholders to the possibility of a future capital gain distribution.
A summary of the anticipated changes to the Fund’s forthcoming prospectus and SAI dated May 1, 2020 is as follows:
1. The Holmes Macro Trends Fund will be renamed the Global Luxury Goods Fund.
2. The primary benchmark index for the Global Luxury Goods Fund shall be the S&P Global Luxury Index.
3. The section entitled “Principal Investment Strategies” will be revised as follows:...

Here is an interesting interview with Tom Barrack (Colony Capital chairman) that looks at how regulatory requirements within the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) market are connected to the current liquidity crisis in that market space. There are lots of short term interconnected temporary cash flow problems that need rapid resolution in this crisis situation. Many are unrelated to the historical (and potentially future) values of the underlying businesses and the creditworthiness of the individual borrowers confronting the problems.:
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/barrack-says-real-estate-collapse-222512472.html