Lost 18.14% in 1Q 2020, vs 10.94% for FMSDX .

Had given up on many of the funds listed in this string. But I stayed with HMEZX, despite Nexpoint having a questionable partner history (via Highland Capital - J. Dondero). It is a red flag for many.
But HMEZX has been a solid "steady eddy" performer. Returns are bond-like, and it has outperformed other merger-arb funds. If not for that 1 red flag, I would own a lot more.
Another interesting vehicle is HRSTX, which converted a few years back to an options-based fund. Very steady, with great performance during negative market periods since its 2018 conversion.

Here’s a clip of what Ed said re cash:
“So, back to asset allocation – obviously have enough cash reserves to fund at least two years of living expenses, in insured certificates of deposit. There is a market to be shopped there in smaller banks and credit unions, with nine to twelve month certificate yields running between 35 and 45 basis points. In terms of currencies, if your liabilities are dollar-denominated, your investments also should be. The exception is using international funds that do not hedge back their foreign currency exposure to dollars. In terms of bonds, favor those with maturities of less than a year, generally using some of the ultra-short bond funds available from Vanguard or Northern Funds.“
@bee Good point on oil. It’s taught me the value of patience and sticking to your guns, as most of us abandoned our oil positions way back and watched its price fall into negative territory (early 2020). Yet - here it is at near $83. I remember T Boon Pickins predicting this price rise a few years ago. T. Boone had it right. Unfortunately he died in 2019.

Perhaps of interest to those with REIT holdings and to those considering them. Includes a link to the referenced M&A and Strategic Transactions Monitor report.

A new report from JLL’s Capital Markets M&A and Corporate Advisory details the surge of $108B in REIT M&A transactions and general outlook for the sector.

REIT M&A boom continues

Per Google search...
COLA 2022 Increase Announcement The Cost of- Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2022’s increase will affect the money disseminated monthly to Social Security beneficiaries. It will most possibly be declared on October 13. Such a schedule is in accordance with the 2020 declaration for the 2021 COLA increase.

We should be days away from the 2022 increase announcement.
Note that the Social Security Benefits Increase in 2021 was announced on the SSA site on October 13, 2020.
2021 announcement per SSA site:
https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-benefits-increase-in-2021/

I like Vanguard Tax-Managed Small Cap (VTMSX) for taxable accounts.
The fund attempts to tracks the S&P 600 index while minimizing taxable gains.
VTMSX has performed well vis-a-vis small blend funds since my initial purchase approximately 10 years ago.

“I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.”

― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
A broader discussion of regressive and progressive taxes might be useful. Sales taxes on necessary goods--and necessary is a debatable term obviously--are regressive in that poor people spend a greater proportion of their income on essentials--such as food and housing--than the rich. So the sales tax rate on basic necessities has a greater impact on the poor than the rich and is therefore regressive. But what is a basic necessity? I don't think soda is. In fact, it is one of those products that is essentially destroying the health of many Americans and has a hidden cost--or tax you could say--on our healthcare system. I also am not particularly fond of property taxes for one's primary residence, yet believe they are absolutely justified for secondary residences, investment properties and summer homes. The prospect of eviction for someone who has essentially paid off their house seems unjust, and when those property taxes are used to finance schools as is often the case, it leads to an inequitable school system in that high property value areas have more funding than low property value areas. So while not exactly regressive, property taxes and rental taxes certainly seem problematic. By contrast, income taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes make complete sense to me.

Laugh all you want, the initial bounce IS over, bub.
They did NOT say there won't be another leg down, did they?
No, they said,
The indexes need to get above their resistance levels and confirm the new uptrend. If they fall back, there's a serious risk that this correction will take a new leg down....
You must not watch a lot of business news or read much worthy stuff as a central topic of the day Friday was, "Is it too late to buy the dip?" (Read, The initial bounce is over. The easy, LT money-making trades have been booked.)
And in case you missed it, IBD has been a widely recognized stock picking authority for decades with its specific, time-tested strategy (CANSLIM) for making indv stock investors out-sized returns.
Trying to diss them by citing "Numerous studies have shown..." is an exercise in demonstrating that old axiom about three kinds of lies:
(1) Lies,
(2) Damned lies,
(3) Statistics.
To wit, please show a specific study that includes IBD strategy results for indv stock trades and/or market moves to support your broad stoke diss of them.
FWIW, I used to subscribe to ALL IBD services back in the day and I routinely point to it as one of the primary reasons I retired early about a decade ago at 56.
YMMV.
And no need for a new thread on a current topic that already has one. FWIW, I'll continue posting on this thread until the Dip/Diplet is over (likely in a coupla days/weeks) and the BUYS I made during it (from cash and bond OEF proceeds; maturing CD proceeds to be deployed this week) are kicking arse like ALL of the Dip/Diplet BUYS I've made since March 2020.
Disclaimer: I am a LT Buy/Hold TR investor who BUYS Dip/Diplets with the above-referenced funds and since Feb 2020 have NOT taken a dime out of stocks. Have 96% of nest egg "under the umbrella" (read, tax-deferred a/c's), haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

More analysis:
MARMX Max Drawdown 2008 -13.90% vs VTINX -17.77%. 10/09/07-3/09/09
MARMX Max Drawdown 2020 -9.54% vs VTINX -12.48%. 2/19/20-3/23/20
Since inception 12/2007 - 9/2021:
MARMX CAGR 5.34% vs VTINX 5.25%. With less equity (according to you).
MARMX Sharpe 1.05 vs VTINX 0.83%
MARMX SD 4.48% vs VTINX 5.66%
5 and 10 year star rating identical although frequently meaningless IMO.
Substantial difference in 3 yr SD MARMX 5.12% vs VTINX 6.18%.
I would need it in a brokerage not direct. I like them both.

“FSRRX may be a fund of interest to those who believe that inflation is a concern or that rates may rise. It has had a maximum drawdown of nearly 15% over the past five years with an average annual return of over 5%. The yield is about 2 percent.”
Yes - But the max drawdown (14.5%) appears to have come in a single quarter (Qtr 1 2020). By contrast, Price’s TMSRX lost 3.2% over that quarter. To be fair, that brief period was particularly cruel to funds holding certain types of fixed income, as a severe liquidity crunch threatened until emergency measures by the Fed to prop up corporate debt were undertaken.
Not to suggest FSRRX sn’t still a fine fund. Just to say that along with 2008 (if a fund’s history extends back that far), Qtr 1 of 2020 is another place to look if seeking out maximum historical volatility.
For the roughly 30% of portfolio devoted to “alternatives” I like to include at least 2 (preferably 3) different funds, as the approaches and success achieved under varying market conditions vary greatly among the alternatives. None, AFAIK, have perfected the “secret sauce” for managing risk in down markets.

That piece is arguing that at best, VWINX will fall less than other traditional funds, e.g. since it leans toward value¹. That's in contrast to funds that are designed to benefit from inflation. Which is why I felt that it doesn't make much sense to directly compare performance of these two types of funds.
¹This is not unusual for traditional 40/60 funds. Only 4 out of 120 (30%-50% allocation) funds have portfolios that are in growth style boxes (per M* screener).
The writer speaks in sweeping generalities without substantiation:

• the fact that the Fed Funds rate will stay at or near zero for at least the next few years [as of Sept 2020].
  Facts don't change, but predictions do as events change or more data is known. In June, "The central bank forecast[] it would raise interest rates twice by the end of 2023 after previously estimating there would be no interest rate hike until 2024."
  Most recently (Sept), "Just over 70 per cent of [leading academic economists surveyed by FT] believe the Fed will raise rates by at least a quarter of a percentage point in 2022, with almost 20 per cent expecting the move to come in the first six months of the year. That is far earlier than the 2023 lift-off from today’s near-zero levels that Fed officials pencilled in back in June."
  
• Higher inflation likely leads to higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve?
  Wellesley traditionally holds a longer duration portfolio than is typical for its peers. That would hurt Wellesley if you believe this generalization linking interest rates and yield curves and that it will hold the next time.
  However, when we look at the last sharp spike in interest rates (1978-1981) we see a very different picture. Rate going up across all maturities (which would hurt all high grade bonds), but with the yield curve inverting - the opposite of steepening. (Inverted yield curves often presage recessions, which in turn can be triggered by high inflation and lower spending.)
  
  (Source page)

Speaking of the late 70s and inverted yield curves, banks (notably S&Ls) took a beating, as they lent out long term money at lower rates while borrowing short term money (via deposit accounts) at higher rates. SA notes that VWINX concentrates on financials, but doesn't break it down further. (According to its latest semiannual report, about half of the fund's financial sector holdings are in banks: JPM, BAC, MS, TFC.) Personally, I have faith in Wellington Management to navigate this risk.
M* has an actual analysis of real performance data for VWINX to see how the fund responds to rising interest rates.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1041732/stress-testing-some-vanguard-and-t-rowe-allocation-funds
What M* found was that Aug-Dec 2016, "as the price of long-dated bonds fell, Vanguard Wellesley Income lagged its average category peer by 1.2 percentage points." VWINX lost money over that period while on average its peers eeked out gains.
OTOH, "over the more recent January-October 2018 interest-rate climb ... [VWINX] modestly outpaced the average of that group by 0.5 percentage points. Even with its longer duration, the strategy’s lower exposure to weaker-performing non-U.S. equities gave it a bump.
Hmm, a lesser exposure to foreign equities. SA didn't pick up on this. Could help again if rates climb globally, but hurt if rates rise disproportionately in the US. Regardless, we're again talking about relative performance against peers, not measuring against inflation oriented funds.
I certainly wouldn't sell VWINX. Though that's different from saying that this fund is designed to weather extended bouts of inflation well.

Changing to 24 hour trading will break a ton of how the markets currently operate I think. The after-hours provides a pause for everything from system upgrades to EOD pricing to letting traders eat, sleep, and have a life outside of work. And especially during periods of market stress, (eg, 2008, 2020) when things go south and adrenaline runs high everywhere, professionals and market managers CANT WAIT for the closing bells to ring so they can catch their breath and assess where things are ahead of the next trading day, be it the Asia, London, or NY opens.
I'm opposed to this idea, but I'm sure many retail investors -- most of whom probably should be called 'retail gamblers' probably love the idea, though. (@Hank, I also do my best thinking at night, but i also like having time to think w/o worrying I'll 'miss' a move in the markets with whatever I'm pondering.)
If people want 24 hour trading action to satisfy their fix, they can try Forex .... or futures, if you know what you're doing.

One question I have: If governments issue Treasury Bonds, municipal bonds and other sovereign bonds to finance their operations and public programs, and these bonds are purchased by wealthy investors seeking interest, how can that be considered "socialism?" Aren't those government-issued securities vital parts of our capital markets and necessary for our capitalist system to function? You could just as easily have a balanced budget or even a surplus in a socialist state if citizens were taxed enough to pay for government services. The debt in some respects is a concession to the wealthy saying yes we are going to have these government services, which you will also benefit from--roads, military, police, etc.--but instead of taxing you fully to pay for them outright we're going to borrow from you and pay you interest for them. And rather than pay the debt down with higher taxes we're going to keep rolling the debt forward. Moreover, the government sector is a massive consumer in the private one, purchasing large military contracts, healthcare and technology services from private companies that wealthy stock investors benefit from, and the government pays for some of those purchases with the debt the government borrows from the wealthy. So again, how is that socialist? If anything, such debt financed spending benefits the wealthy in many ways, as it would certainly with this infrastructure bill. The notion that this is just socialist redistribution is false.

Took a couple days longer than planned. Made mistake of trying to add a couple "Super Bull" market evaluation periods, which messed-up release schedule. Curiosity got better of me. It was prompted by M* CEO Kunal Kapoor describing current bull market as one of greatest, if you ignore the CV-19 Bear of March 2020. Similarly, others ignore the Black Monday Bear of October 1987 when discussing the Bull Market of 1980-1990's.

Another look:

Inflation
The purchasing power of nominal wealth is inversely related to the price level. That is, a higher price level means one’s money buys fewer goods and services. Inflation refers to the rate of change in the price level over time.
It is helpful to keep in mind the difference between a change in the price level (a temporary change in the rate of inflation) and a change in inflation (a persistent change in the rate of inflation). It is admittedly difficult to disentangle these two concepts in real time, but it remains important to make the distinction.
The amount of nominal government “paper” the market is willing to absorb for a given structure of prices and interest rates is presumably limited. A one-time increase in the supply of debt not met by a corresponding increase in demand is likely to manifest itself as a change in the price level or the interest rate, or both. An ongoing issuance of debt not met by a corresponding growth in the demand for debt is likely to manifest itself as a higher rate of inflation. How the interest rate on U.S. Treasury securities is affected depends mainly on Federal Reserve policy.
As long as inflation remains below a tolerable level, there is little reason to be concerned about a growing national debt.

stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/fourth-quarter-2020/does-national-debt-matter

stillers said:
Still lost?

When I said that you lose me, that didn't mean I was ever lost.
You pay "BIG bucks" for brokerage newsletters, knowing full well that its in their best interests to always paint a rosy picture for retail investors. Of course they all agree. How great is the accuracy of such projections?
With exception of early 2020, its been working out just fine recently. "Let's just keep that gravy train moving". But they aren't going to ever tell you when the train tracks end.

@stillers said:
GoldmanSachs for one I trust......

This is where you lose me. GS knows how to make money for GS, but that does not imply that they give out their best proprietary information (or important guidance) to the general public. Nor does any brokerage house.

What I said was
GoldmanSachs for one I trust uses some pretty sophisticated programs and their "guess" (if you can call it that) is for a S&P 9% gain in Q4.
Well I happen to pay the BIG bucks for a coupla newsletters (not GS) and they're saying pretty much the same thing.
Still lost?
If you know the history of the S&P's average annual path since 1950 as compared to this year's and that over 70% of semis stocks are already in Correction mode, you know that given that history and the current state of BIG tech, a 9%-10% move UP in Q4 2020 is a REAL possibility. And as I and people in much higher pay grades than me are saying, is likely.
And FWIW on the free stuff, GS is not alone in projecting a Q4 move UP:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rate-fears-just-another-white-knuckle-moment-for-tech-stocks-says-this-analyst-whos-forecasting-rebound-of-at-least-10-11633427803?siteid=yhoof2
Excerpt:
...To closely followed tech analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities, this is just a “white knuckle moment” that will soon pass. Ives says the worries around rising yields and growth stock valuations will give way to a year-end rally of at least 10% in the tech space...

When Washington enters the irrational bats--t crazy phase as it is right now, it's good to be prudent. Trim or sell if you want to lock in gains or preserve capital, do something, do nothing ... do whatever lets you sleep well at night.
Everyone says DC will avoid a default at the 11th hour and 59th minute, and I suspect that's why the markets have been fairly tame when the debt ceiling is in the headlines these days. But given the insane nature of things around this town, I really can't help wondering if "this time is different" and their brinksmanship will backfire on them -- and us.
As for me, I'll buy into any crash and perhaps trim a bit of things to lock in gains and/or TLH going into Q4. But that's not panic, that's prudence and fairly normal investment management.