What a horrible UX on Safari.

I'd rather have bonds with a small yield than the S&P (which fluctuated 3% almost every day this week) with a higher yield.

You've just discovered the Sharpe ratio. The part you're missing is that bond prices are just as volatile as equity prices in risk-on environments.

Another alternative is to go all cash.

The recent drop happened in only one week, it was really abrupt and breaking records.

GFC didn't happen over 1 week, the bear market from GFC was from October 9/10, 2007 to March 9, 2009.

I don't think it broke any real records, the only one is the absolute point drop in the indexes, but that's a meaningless stat that will constantly be broken in the future as the economy grows - proportion is what's interesting.

My bad, it did not break records outside the 1987, dot-com and GCF crises, made a mistake there. However, I don't agree with the theory of infinite economy growth (as you said "constantly be broken in the future").

Future economy growth =/= infinite economy growth.

It's hard to objectively calculate how large the impact from corona virus will be and how it has affected the supply chain. Additionally, this could be a black swan event that could become a catalyst, this is not an isolated event and it will send a shockwave across the markets.

The losses in earnings as well as the reduction of consumption are hard to estimate, they need to be priced in into the stock's price which might be currently undervalued or overvalued. The idea is that no one knows exactly what the prices should look like. You might go for the S&P yield and end up losing 20% in the short term because of the price tanking.

The point is that investors like certainty, that's why some are holding cash or even a mix of bonds, cash and gold. They might prefer lower yields than S&P and more certainty.

Nowhere in the article do you ever talk about any kind of agreed-upon challenge where anybody gave you permission to try this kind of exploitation.