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.

In case anyone has NOT noticed this, the national biz media tends to get a wee bit overly excited about SMALL moves DOWN in markets. Break the 50 dma and there's probably gonna be a CNBC "Markets in turmoil" special coming pretty soon. Ring the registers!
Yeah, many T/A's and investors gotta get back above the 50 to "feel safe" but several T/A guys/gals I read yesterday expressed that we'll likely be at new highs within a coupla weeks. A coupla weeks or a coupla months makes NO difference to me.
FWIW, I welcomed yesterday's slightly DOWN day to continue to build my ITOT position that I recently started but didn't get fully funded by last THU. I've recently revamped my port and started a new 5-yr portfolio effective 10/01/21. So I'm reasonably certain the BTD moves I've made in the past few days will be MUCH higher in the 5 years they'll be invested there. And the seed came from either cash, maturing CDs, and/or bond OEF sale proceeds. So there's that.
The biggest questions EVERY investor who reduces stock allocations during smallish pullbacks (like this one) and plans to re-deploy back into stocks later needs to ask is:
Am I sure the market is headed DOWN further?
Did a bell ring at the interim top?
Where am I going to park these proceeds?
Is that interim parking spot anywhere near the LT investment as the stocks I cashed them from?
WHEN does my crystal ball tell me will be the best time to re-deploy the parked proceeds back into the market?
Have I been successful with these market timing moves before?
Will I be ready when the time is right this time?
Will a bell ring when it's time?
What is my history/odds of timing this thing right on both the "Run and hide" AND "Get back in the game" moves?
And the BIGGIE: WTF do I do if I whiff on my re-deployment timing and the market moves HIGHER, or god forbid, significantly HIGHER than where it was when I ran and hid?
Is there NOT a better strategy than this one?
I employed the "Run and hide" and "Get back in the game" strategy for a while in hopes (ugh, that unviable investment strategy Art Cashin learned about over 50 years ago and routinely reminds us of ) to score a nirvana moment like dumping ALL of my money back IN the market on a day like March 20, 2020.
What's that infamous Peter Lynch quote again on this topic?
FWIW, I currently employ the BTD strategy that has been working flawlessly (for me at least) since the 2020 crash and I feel safe continuing to do it for the next 5 years.
Disclaimer: We're 65, retired for about ten years, have SS and pensions, have 96% of our port in tax-deferred a/c's, have NOT paid a dime in FIT/SIT since retiring in 2012, and have more $ than we're probably ever to be able to spend. But we're gonna start trying! YMMV.

“Powell's chances have fallen from about 80% in August to 61% as of Monday morning. The sharp decline comes amid an ongoing stock trading controversy that has ensnared several Fed governors and led to the resignations of Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan.”
Story
Third member now implicated amid growing public outcry
Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida switched between $1 million to $5 million from a bond fund into stock funds a day before Chairman Jerome Powell said coronavirus poses risks to the US economy, according to his financial disclosures from 2020. Forms filed with the government ethics office show that Clarida shifted funds out of a Pimco bond fund on February 27 last year, and bought into the Pimco StocksPlus Fund and the iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor exchange-traded fund on the same day, Bloomberg reported on Friday.
Story
PS - I’ve played around with the caption - not wanting to allege wrongdoing by Clarida. For better or worse, his trading has drawn suspicion and he’s become part of the larger issue.

From GP's Chairman's letter dated 1/31/2020:
Here is a link to that letter:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-is-20200131.pdf
Excerpt:
There is also a very important strategy that we’ve been developing for several years now, which we call Global Explorer. It follows the same idea as Global Reach, but would be managed by our geography teams rather than the industry teams. Launching Global Explorer is roughly targeted for 2021-2022.
Excerpt from the registration filing link above:
PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES OF THE FUND
The Fund invests primarily in foreign and domestic micro- to mid-cap companies based on a geography-focused framework intended to identify companies that the Adviser believes are particularly well-positioned for long-term growth.
The Fund will typically invest in securities issued by companies economically tied to at least ten countries, including the United States. The Fund will invest a significant portion of its total assets (at least 40% under normal market conditions) at the time of purchase in securities issued by companies that are economically tied to countries outside the United States, including emerging and frontier market countries. The Adviser generally considers a company to be economically tied to a market based on where the company is organized, headquartered, has its primary stock exchange listing, or has substantial concentration of assets or revenues.

IMHO there was no obvious point at which most people would say they would have sold TPINX, yet most people would have sold at some point. It seemed that this was a good fund to illustrate how one's sell discipline worked in "real life", given that there doesn't appear to be a "correct" answer.
Only one taker, though.
I did have a small position in TGBAX for several years, which I sold in late 2019. I held the position because I wanted, and still want, a smattering of international bonds to diversify the few bonds (funds) I do hold. Given that target allocation, I was not going to sell the fund because of lackluster absolute performance, but because of poor relative performance. Thus I compared with alternative funds.
Lipper shows only 22 international (as opposed to global) bond funds, excluding inaccessible ones like DFA. Currently, one can purchase the following tickers: BEGBX, WISEX (M* classifies as short term bond, I'd call it EM as it invests according to Sharia and seems to hold a lot in the middle east), DIBAX, LWOAX, DNIOX, EPBIX, FBIIX, MPIFX, GARBX (M* call it EM bond), HXIIX (likewise, EM bond), OIBAX, PXBZX, PFORX, PFUIX, RPIBX, TNIBX, TGBAX, TTRZX, FIBZX, TIBWX, VTABX, ESICX.
Ruling out the EM bond funds and funds that weren't even available in 2016 (FBIIX, PXBZX, TNIBX), that leaves just 16 peers not managed by Hasenstab. Of these, only 1/4, 2 PIMCO funds and 2 index funds (Vanguard, TIAA) returned more than 1.75% annualized over the past five years.
So these funds could serve as points of comparison. Here's a PortfolioVisualizer graph comparing TGBAX with the two PIMCO funds since the start of 2011. Actually, TGBAX doesn't look bad compared with PFUIX (unhedged) until 2020.
What happened was that the dollar took off in 2014 and 2015 (see graph here), hurting unhedged funds and apparently also TGBAX. Through the rest of the decade, as the dollar became rather volatile, TGBAX did not respond well. It's a unique fund in that it's a combination of a foreign bond fund and a currency fund. For example, it never had exposure to the Ukranian hryvnia. (More significantly, it tended to short developed market currencies.) The fact that it did not play currency well, which became apparent (to me) only in the late 2010s was a factor in deciding to sell. The fund was not adding value on the currency side.
I will tend to wait three year before pulling a trigger. 2017 was its worst year (relative) since 2011, and while 2018 was a relatively good year, 2019 was a disaster, in both absolute and relative terms. With increasing volatility as well. This, coupled with what now seemed a long term move into exclusively EM bonds, and the aforementioned failure to navigate currencies well said that it was time to leave. Not a single factor, but a combination.
One could easily argue that I should have left years ago. Had I known the dollar would go up so much and that the fund's purported currency expertise was not as advertised, I might have moved years ago into a hedged fund, or into a global fund.
A related question for others: why would you have bought the fund? I ask because in terms of performance being a trigger, if one buys into a type of fund (here, pure international, not hedged back to dollar), then IMHO what matters is performance relative to peers or benchmark. And one should be careful in identifying peers. Global and international funds are different, even if M* chooses to lump them together.

@Stillers: "Friday was a pretty important day in which the Dip/Diplet appears (to me and the people I read/follow) to have abated. At least for the time being that is, and stopping a potential gusher after you've rolled the dice a bit is always an upbeat time for me."
Do you mind sharing with us where you read / follow those people, assuming those are public and free sites? Did these folks also mention why the market went down? It will be good for me to also read other forums.
P.S. to everybody: I happen to buy on Thursday Close and again on Friday - not a high conviction that we have seen the seasonal bottom but I am not good at picking the bottom. As an aside, I could not stop smiling when I read the outrage about Clarida buying multimillion $$ in equity index funds on February 27, 2020 while on February 28, 2020 Powell mentioned the Fed is watching the markets. Clarida lost 25%+ of the investment in less than a month to the March 23, 2020 bottom. If he waited for the required two day cooling period and bought at the open on March 26, he would have avoided 17% of that paper loss or would have bought 27%+ below the February 19, 2020 market top. Poor guy, he must have received an earful from his spouse for his trade! May be the dip/diplet buyers do not have any scar tissue from buying too soon and watching the market keep going down in Feb-March 2020, granted we do not currently have a similar massive unknown (but now we know from the pandemic how vulnerable we are - i.e., there is nobody at the steering wheel). I still do not understand why the market went down in September.

@CecilJK : It's good to see you posting .
Looking at doing #2. Selling to keep most of the gain. 3 funds I bought last Nov. all had gains of 25 % or more. I decided if gain fell below 25 % I would sell. One of the funds has crossed the line a couple of times & will put in a sell if below 25% when I check later today.
Derf

Hmmm...No reasonably intelligent investor thinks the market now has no chance of losing a point over the next three months.
That said, Friday was a pretty important day in which the Dip/Diplet appears (to me and the people I read/follow) to have abated. At least for the time being that is, and stopping a potential gusher after you've rolled the dice a bit is always an upbeat time for me.
As I've posted previously, I've been BTD pretty successfully throughout 2020-21 with few exceptions when they opportunities arose. My experience over that period of time suggests to me I may have played this one right again.
Either way, UP or DOWN from here, yeah, I'm pretty happy I exchanged a bond OEF holding for more stocks when they were in total DOWN ~5% from their highs, and on indv stocks, DOWN >10% from their high.
NOTE: At least one recent study showed that investors are more than 2x more upset when they lose money in the market than they are happy when they make money. Since reading that study, I take every opportunity I can to BE HAPPY when I make worthy trades/make money.
The football reference was simply an analogy. No intention to actually make that bet OR turn this thread into a football discussion.

You're right that JAAA tends to move a bit more in tandem with stocks (R² of about 0.5) than the other ultrashort term bond ETFs I mentioned. Though there's not much default risk in AAA tranches of CLOs (vs CDOs).
On the upside, there's that higher yield:

To be sure, AAA-rated CLOs and the new ETFs investing in them offer the much safer corners of the leveraged-loan market, with layers of default protection yet higher yields than investment-grade bonds. As of Sept. 30 [2020], the average yield of AAA-rated CLOs was 1.6%, more than double the 0.78% yield of AAA-rated corporate bonds.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/collateralized-loan-obligations-clos-are-now-available-in-etfs-should-you-buy-51603184400
(This was written just as JAAA launched; since then it has done well in part because of those higher yields and in part, as you said, because it moved up somewhat along with stocks.)
JBBB is a different story. Lower credit rating => moves more closely with stocks, more risk of default.