Let's look at a story of 2 International funds. If we look at total return, the growth of $10,000 invested on 1/1/2011, we have these results:
Both funds A and B start with a $10,000 investment on 1/1/2011.
on 12/31/2011, fund A had $8609 / fund B had $9823
on 12/31/2012, fund A had $10124 / fund B had $11608
on 12/31/2013, fund A had $12391 / fund B had $14969
on 12/31/2014, fund A had $11489 / fund B had $15138
on 12/31/2015, fund A had $11459 / fund B had $15625
on 12/31/2016, fund A had $11018 / fund B had $17188
on 12/31/2017, fund A had $13360 / fund B had $19843
on 12/31/2018, fund A had $11876 / fund B had $17966
on 12/31/2019, fund A had $15456 / fund B had $21034
At the end of 9 years of return history, fund B has returned 36% more than fund A.
on 4/1/2020, fund A had $12663 / fund B had $15693
Even after a misstep in the 1st qtr of 2020 (which every manager goes though) Fund B has still returned ~20% more than fund A for long term investors.
Also:
Fund A's managers have been on board for 3 years, fund B management since inception. Fund A's volatility as measured by STD is 13.5, fund A has been less volatile at 11.3.
Fund A has an expense ration of 1.15%, you'll pay less for fund B, 0.9%.
If you are a long term investor, which fund would you have been happier investing if on 1/1/2011? If you are a long term investor, why would you throw out fund B and replace it with find A? Is there a crystal ball that tells you fund A is immune to manager missteps?
of course:
Fund A = CWVGX
Fund B = FMIJX

@FD1000 The problem with this sort of comparison is the past is gone, and there is little evidence for long-term performance persistence of top performing funds in the future: https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/01/23/december-2019-spiva-persistence-scorecard There is evidence for short-term performance persistence, however. The fund that is hot this year may well be hot the next, but the fund that is hot over the past five years most likely won't be over the next five. That's why other criteria besides peformance should also be used, fees being one, valuation of the portfolio, style consistency, manager tenure and risk control. By the time three or five-years of outperformance have occurred the investments the manager made that have proven successful may be tapped out and he/she is due for some underperformance. The question is then is the manager someone investors can tolerate sitting through the underperformance periods after the strong ones. Evidently for some MFO-ers, this is not the case with FMIJX, despite the explanation management provided for the underperformance. This is a fundamental problem with active management. Even if the strategy makes sense and the management knows how to execute it many investors buy and sell at the wrong times, leading to a poor overall investor experience. There are a number of MFO-ers I think therefore who would be better off indexing as they can't take these bouts of underperformance. This is not meant to be a criticism. It is a reality of investing.
Then again, FMIJX marketed itself as a defensive fund that is good at losing less during downturns. In this regard, it has failed at a fundamental objective during this period, although it hasn't in past ones. Therefore, a review is in order and a consideration of management's explanation of the suprising downside in this case. The question becomes, do investors believe management's rationale or not?

So Vanguard Prime Money Market is yielding 0.6. All other "Safer" money markets are yielding even less. This when just a couple of months back Prime was yielding more than what you could get in an FDIC insured MM account with a bank. While Bank MMs have also dropped their interest rates, Mutual MM fund yields have basically collapsed.
All of the above to simply explain I'm looking at selling OTM Puts to generate Income and wanted to know tax treatment. I learnt gains / losses from options are capital gains, all short term unless options are actually held over a year (and even here there are some exceptions). More curious was the fact index/bond/futures options get a more favorable treatment of 60/40 long term/short term tax rates. So now I have one question for those might be doing what I'm about to try, or otherwise use options regularly in their portfolios.
If I sell options on SPY - ETF that invests in the S&P 500 index - will I qualify for the favorable 60/40 tax treatment? I'm thinking not and only institutions that can actually sell options directly on the index may be able to do that. However, thought I would ask.

Several comments
1) FMIJX ranks in M* in its category for YTD and 1-3 years at 92-94 which is at the bottom 6-8%. In the last 5 years it ranked in the top 10% in 3 years but at the bottom 2 years. That should tell you its inconsistency. Up to 2016 it was a much better performer.
2) From their 3/31/2020 outlook "At this early stage, COVID-19 has hurt value investors much more than their growth counterparts. Many sectors and industries in the value camp, such as financials, energy, industrials, travel and hospitality, have been the hardest hit by the virus. Intensifying the market pressure, Saudi Arabia’s unexpected move to open the spigots has crushed the price of oil. Nearly all energy-related companies, including businesses that only have moderate energy exposure, have seen their stocks decline precipitously. Year-to-date, value has underperformed growth by 10.69%, as the MSCI EAFE Value Index has declined 8.20%,"
3) You can switch to CWVGX with better performance + risk. See PV(link)
4) I have been avoiding international for years now. The SP500 gets about 40% of its earnings from abroad and QQQ about 50%.

Just found Fidelity closed three of its money market funds a couple of weeks ago (sorry if this was already posted previously):
https://www.pionline.com/investing/fidelity-closes-3-money-market-funds-new-investors
or
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/fidelity-shuts-three-money-market-funds-to-most-new-investors-2020-03-31
or
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fidelity-shuts-three-money-market-205320236.html

April 17th, 2020 Episode:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/891190/000168386320003566/f3655d1.htm
497 1 f3655d1.htm VANGUARD TREASURY MONEY MARKET FUND 497
Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fund
Supplement Dated April 16, 2020, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated December 20, 2019
Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fund (the "Fund") is closed to all new investors (with the exception of participants who invest in the Fund only through defined contribution plans that offer the Fund as an existing option).
The Fund will remain closed until further notice and there is no specific timeframe for when the Fund will reopen. During the Fund's closed period, all current shareholders may continue to purchase, exchange, or redeem shares of the Fund online, by telephone, or by mail.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information about the Fund's transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard's Investor Information Department at 800-662-7447.

...but it is still expensive.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1370177/000139834420008148/fp0053131_497.htm
RIVERNORTH FUNDS
RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund
Institutional Share Class
(Ticker Symbol RNCIX)
April 17, 2020
SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS DATED
January 28, 2020
The RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund Institutional Share Class to Reduce Initial Minimum Investment Amount.
On April 6, 2020 the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of RiverNorth Funds approved a change to the initial minimum investment amount for the Institutional Share Class for the RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”). Effective on April 24, 2020, the minimum initial investment amount for the Fund’s Institutional Share Class (ticker RNCIX) will reduce from $5,000,000 to $100,000.
RIVERNORTH FUNDS
c/o ALPS Fund Services, Inc.
1290 Broadway, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80203
1-888-848-7569
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

I assume that the studies will have enough patients in them so eventually we will have lots of data on effectiveness on patients in hospital. I do not know what egibility criteria they are using to add a patient to the study; presumably on assisted ventilation ( ie at least BiPap) or significant oxygenation or other measures of severity but if they are smart they have included patietns in early stages to see if it prevents deterioration
Keep in mind thought that even if it is extremely effective and say reduces mortality or deterioration by 50% it will not stop transmission or new cases. People will still be worried about getting sick and the still increased ( if lower) risk of death.
Thus a wildly successful drug may lessen the panic and fear, but may not do as much to reopen things as people will still be worried about getting sick
I very much doubt Hydroxychloroquine will do much, but we will know more shortly.
Several small better studies than the one Trump touts have shown little to some smaller benefits
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.10.20060699v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3
But we need to know all of data definitions and how studies were done. For example in latter study what does "improved pneumonia" mead? Did the doctors who read the patients xrays know the patient was taking hydroxychloroquine?
These are standard protocols that must be followed if we are to have confidence these drugs will be effective.
Without this is as if Trump had decided that Boeing had "done enough" to fix the Max 737, certified it to fly by presidential edict and told the FAA to stop the investigation.
Who would get on such an aircraft?

@msf If you look at the original article, this was from a phase 3 trial. But yes, it's only one small part of that trial, so Gilead is correctly saying it's promising but too soon to be sure.
Poking around a bit further, it seems that even if it works, they could produce a million doses by the end of the year.
That wouldn't be enough to end this pandemic, though it would save a lot of lives.
Seems to me the market is betting that something is on the way, whether this drug or something else or a comob, so the end is in sight.

Investors should be cautious ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/gilead-drug-remdesivir-investors-should-be-cautious-analysts-says.html

Just early results, but this from Gilead sure sounds promising: a survival rate of over 98% for severely ill patients (already a subset of those infected.) Still need more testing, obviously, and we'd also obviously still have a long haul for a full economic recovery, but if this is for real, current market prices would make a lot more sense.

An explanation of what happened of sorts: https://fmimgt.com/fmi/corp/International/Letter/2020/iso_in_20200331.pdf

"The virus is in charge, no economics or the Fed."
Correct.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/coronavirus-hot-spots-farm-belt-189272

I think the answer to "So who's right?" is it depends.
Here in mid April, there is still no widespread testing available in the U.S.
Aggressive widespread testing (for the virus itself as well as for antibodies) & contact tracing/surveillance would not only start to give control of containing the infection but would also go a long way in boosting confidence in the business world with some semblance on how to proceed going forward. It would definitely be the most cost effective way to do so & with the most surgical precision. And even though this is not a panacea (with false negative viral tests, the unknown at what level of antibody titers actually confer immunity, best treatment options, etc.), at least it's an effective start & a plan of action & can start to address specific issues as they come up. It seems like a logical first step.
Instead this is the white house plans for reopening:
"The plan lays out three phases: Preparing the nation to reopen with a national communication campaign and community readiness assessment until May 1. Then, the effort through May 15 would involve ramping up manufacturing of testing kits and personal protective equipment and increasing emergency funding. Then staged reopenings would begin, depending on local conditions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/14/cdc-fema-have-created-plan-reopen-america-heres-what-it-says/
It's a long way between now & May 15.
"prepare for the best & hope for the best" is probably not the answer.

This is from the NFCU website tonight:
Certificate Special Offers
Rates effective as of: 15 April, 2020 12:01 AM ET
Product Minimum Deposit Term Dividend Rate APY†
Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate1 $50 37 months 2.96% 3.00%
Special EasyStart℠ Certificate2 $50 12 months 3.44% 3.50%
1Limit one Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated Annual Percentage Yield (APY), is effective December 6, 2019. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. The Special 37-Month IRA/ESA Certificate has a $50 minimum and a $150,000 maximum balance. Only available for IRA/ESA Certificates. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. IRA/ESA certificate subject to IRS contribution limits. Penalties apply for early withdrawals from certificates. Other restrictions may apply.
2Limit one Special EasyStart Certificate per member. This offer, including the stated APY, is effective Dec. 10, 2018. Navy Federal reserves the right to end or modify this offer at any time. Penalty for early withdrawal. The Special EasyStart Certificate has a $50 minimum balance and a $3,000 maximum balance. Additional deposits are allowed at any time, subject to the maximum balance. Certificate owner(s) age 18 and older must have Direct Deposit of Net Pay or payroll allotment and a Navy Federal checking account within 90 days of the certificate issue date. If these requirements have not been satisfied by the 90th day, your Special EasyStart Certificate dividend rate will be reduced to the prevailing dividend rate of the standard EasyStart Certificate for the remainder of the certificate's term.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1683471/000089418920002726/sourceliquidationsupplement.htm
497 1 sourceliquidationsupplement.htm 497 SOURCE DIVIDEND OPPORTUNITY ETF
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-215588; 811-23226
Source Dividend Opportunity ETF (DVOP)
a series of Listed Funds Trust
April 15, 2020
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus (each, a “Prospectus” and collectively, the “Prospectuses”), and Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) each dated December 26, 2019
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectuses and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectuses and SAI.
After careful consideration, and at the recommendation of Source Asset Management, LLC, the investment adviser to the Source Dividend Opportunity ETF (the “Fund”), the Board of Trustees of Listed Funds Trust approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Fund pursuant to the terms of a Plan of Liquidation. Accordingly, the Fund is expected to cease operations, liquidate its assets, and distribute the liquidation proceeds to shareholders of record on or about April 30, 2020 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shares of the Fund are listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
Beginning on or about April 20, 2020 and continuing through the Liquidation Date, the Fund will liquidate its portfolio assets. As a result, during this period, the Fund will increase its cash holdings and deviate from its investment objective, investment strategies, and investment policies as stated in the Fund’s Prospectuses and SAI.
The Fund will no longer accept orders for new creation units after the close of business on the business day prior to the Liquidation Date, and trading in shares of the Fund will be halted prior to market open on the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers, and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Fund’s shares during that time period. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions.
If no action is taken by a Fund shareholder prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal to the net asset value of the shareholder’s Fund shares as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. This amount will include any accrued capital gains and dividends. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. The liquidating cash distribution to shareholders will be treated as payment in exchange for their shares. The liquidation of your shares may be treated as a taxable event. Shareholders should contact their tax adviser to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation.
Shareholders can call (800) 617-0004 for additional information.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
1

Another deep dive and a more positive outlook: https://morningstar.com/articles/976107/coronavirus-update-long-term-economic-impact-forecast-to-be-less-than-2008-recession
So who's right? Morningstar or:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/unemployment-coronavirus-pandemic-normal-economy-is-never-coming-back/
or:
https://forbes.com/sites/hershshefrin/2020/04/12/great-depression-economics-101-what-historical-numbers-and-charts-from-the-great-depression-foretell-about-the-economy-and-stock-market/#2f6845c11e3c
Or no one?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061220000057/mfcorebondr6closeprosupp.htm
(There is a table. It is better to view the table via the link)
Madison Funds®
Supplement dated April 15, 2020
This Supplement amends the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information of the Madison Funds dated February 28, 2020,
and the Summary Prospectus for the Madison Core Bond Fund dated February 28, 2020.
Madison Core Bond Fund - Closing Class R6 Shares and Converting to Class Y Shares
On March 6, 2020, the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds approved the termination of the Class R6 share class of the Madison Core Bond Fund (the “Fund”), which it deemed to be in the best interests of the shareholders of the Class R6 shares of the Fund.
Effective immediately after the close of business (4:00 PM EST) on May 28, 2020 (the “Closure Time”), Class R6 shares of the Fund will be closed to all investors and will no longer be available for purchase, including purchases by exchange. As of the Closure Time, each Class R6 shareholder’s outstanding Class R6 shares of the Fund will automatically convert to a number of full and/or fractional Class Y shares of the Fund equal to the aggregate net asset value to the shareholder’s Class R6 shares of the Fund determined as of the Closure Time (the “Class Y Conversion”). There will be no change in the overall value of a Class R6 shareholder’s Fund holdings as of the Closure Time resulting from the Class Y Conversion. Investments in Class Y shares of the Fund after the Closure Time will be subject to the fees and expenses applicable to Class Y shares as disclosed in the current prospectus and referenced below...

@Old_Skeet
You pretty much covered everything I mentioned already

In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX.

CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility.

I know that and why I mentioned numbers since inception but also the last 5 years + YTD

Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020

Correct, M* is up to date on performance BUT I look deeper at SD, Sharp,Max Draw,Sortino and these numbers are monthly one. I can easily find funds with better performance which is one criterion, what about the rest? I also look longer term because a fund can be great for 1-3-6 months but not 3-5-10 years. An investor who wants to hold long term these numbers are important.
When I checked CTFAX long term, it handled YTD amazingly and did a pretty good job for 3 years. If you look further VWIAX had better volatility, in 2008 Max draw for VWIAX was -18.7 while CTFAX -42.55
So, I'm guessing they changed the formula which is great because it's a good option.
BTW, COTZX is not available at Fidelity and Schwab which are 2 major discount brokers.
Here is my bottom line: CTFAX risk-adjusted performance for YTD and for 3 years are very good.