Just a little additional information on Credit Unions. Credit Unions are very "similar" but not identical to banks. Credit Unions offer the same wide array of products that Banks do--checking accounts, savings accounts, credit cards, debit cards, bill pay, Share Certificates/CDs, and they offer a wide range of loans such as car, mortgage, and personal loans. They have government insurance protections (NCUA), which is virtually identical to FDIC for Banks. Almost every mid-size city or larger, will have several different credit unions that should be evaluated for customer service, financial health, and slight variances in interest rates and fees that accompanies their products.
Yesterday, I visited the Kelley Community Credit Union in Tyler, Texas, a city of about 100,000 in population, one of the fastest growing cities in Texas, and a very popular city for Retirees. Kelley Credit Union has a very new and attractive brick and mortar facility, much nicer than the Bank I use. It also has more staff and more professional services in its facility, than the bank I use--for example they have a Professional Licensed Financial Advisor, who previously worked for Morgan Stanley, which my Bank does not have. The main reason I went to this Credit Union is because they offer one of the highest one year "non-callable Share Certificate/CDs at 4.5%, higher than what I can get at my Bank or at Schwab Brokerage. They were very professional and informed me of a special incentive program, if I use several of their products (checking accounts, debit cards, Direct Deposits, E-Statements, and at least $15,000 in deposits and loans) which would lead them to add" .3% to the existing 4.5% Share Certificate/CD so that the actual rate would be 4.8%.
This is a quality and low risk option for my investments, and you may find similar options from a Credit Union in your area!

I heartily agree with you, dt, that individual circumstance has a great deal of impact, at least in principle, on one's financial positioning, what one considers 'risky', and how much risk one is willing to incorporate into one's investments. All of that in addition to one's personal comfort level for allocation. So, yes, I would agree that the advice one may receive online is distorted by those, often absent, details, or by their variability amongst participants.
Almost everyone means well, but it is as if we have different native tongues, and are, nonetheless, trying to explain our thinking. Over time, we come to understand the particular point of view of a recognizable poster, but we certainly need to be circumspect with regard to 'strangers', lest we be misunderstood (and, therefore, mislead). My own circumstances are enough different, that I hesitiate to offer advice without tons of qualification!

racqueteer: "Risk is an odd and variable concept. People tend to view things which haven't exhibited poor outcomes as being "riskless", but just because something hasn't manifested, does not mean that its potential isn't present. Unless you believe in "something for nothing", good performers are taking risks; whether obvious or not. We simply don't observe the consequences of that risk until something goes wrong. Absence doesn't imply nonexistence."
I have read this post a few times, scratched my head a bit about the various applications in the financial world, with it kind of reminding me of the "Deep Thoughts" skits on Saturday Night Live. In the investing/financial world, I am not sure you can avoid the impact of financial factors associated with "risk" that contributes to what you do with other financial decision making. For example, posters often take very strong positions regarding investing in equities, various categories of bond oefs, the importance of investment grade designations for various bond investments, financial health ratings for various banks and their products, role of various fixed income categories that have government insurance protections (FDIC,NCUA) for institutions like banks and credit unions, compared to some brokerage products like Brokerage Money Market funds. In the mutual fund world, standard deviation is commonly used measure to establish the "riskiness" of bond oefs, but often only within that category of bond oefs.
One of my personal issues is how social security and company pension programs impact how much "risk" one will take in other types of investments, such as equities and bond oefs. How much do those pension programs form "safety nets" that allows an investor take more risks in other categories of investing. I have no company pension support payment, my social security payments are relatively small (some of my employers were not participating in social security). I try to use CDs and comparable "low risk" investments to form my safety net, since I do not have a safety net pension program in financial assets. It can all be very different for different investors/posters, and yet when people make posts, you rarely have a comprehensive and detailed set of information about that poster/investor, that forms the basis for giving away free financial advice to others.

You may have seen the news that the 39th President Jimmy Carter passed away after about 2 years under home hospice care.

U.S. stock exchanges will close on Thursday, January 9 in observation of a national day of mourning in honor of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who died on Sunday at the age of 100.
The New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq announced the closures on Monday, a customary gesture to honor deceased presidents.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has recommended an early close on Jan 9 for the U.S. bond market at 2:00 p.m. ET/1900 GMT.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wall-street-close-jan-9-honor-president-jimmy-carter-2024-12-30/

It is better to understand the basics and contemplate than to eat what product selling financial institutions feed us. (loop back to YBB's post re ratings and securitization). No disrespect specific to VanEck intended (I use their products.)

I agree with @yogibearbull’s explanation of how CLOs work. If he meant to ascribe blame for the Great Financial Crisis to CLOs I must have missed it. Do your own research. No need to trust VanEck.
Here’s an article from Wharton
Here’s one from the Financial Times
From JP Morgan
Yes, Investment grade rated CLOs entail more risk than highly rated corporate bonds. No. They did not cause or contribute to the GFC. No. You should not own them unless you understand the risk / reward trade-off and think they in some small way complement your overall investment portfolio. Just don’t conflate them with CDOs. No one benefits from such inaccurate unfounded inferences.

It is better to understand the basics and contemplate than to eat what product selling financial institutions feed us. (loop back to YBB's post re ratings and securitization).
No disrespect specific to VanEck intended (I use their products.)

Human beings need reminding the same thing every few years to protect them from themselves. By now, in the minds of many, GFC is just an acronym devoid of the depth of its true meaning.

All the more reason to understand the difference between CDOs which caused the 2007-2009 financial crisis and CLOs which did not.
If you were invested to a significant degree when the GFC began (late 2007) it’s pretty hard to forget. I recall a chance meeting on the street in early ‘08 with an aquantence from my high school years, then retired, who recounted the pain he and his wife were going through having lost about half their life savings in a matter of months, (Some “high-yielding” mutual fund as I recall.)

Regarding annuities, I had a bad experience in the 1980s, when my company retirement program was negatively impacted by bankruptcy of a major annuity provider--the Baldwin Company.
Ah, the piano company. They were making loans to buyers (good pianos are really expensive) and so branched out into insurance. When it comes to insurance, better to stick with "professionals". Not that your employer gave you a choice.

The Baldwin-United Corporation, the Cincinnati piano company that borrowed heavily to move into the insurance business, filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws yesterday [Sept 26, 1983] in one of the largest financial collapses in American history.
The company was a casualty of overexpansion, built on complex financial maneuvers.

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/27/business/baldwin-a-casualty-of-fast-expansion-files-for-bankruptcy.html

The problems came ... when companies like Baldwin began using SPDA assets to prop up nonrelated ventures. Partly for this reason, brokers and financial planners are learing to be more skeptical about insurance company ratings provided by A. M Best's ...
In an interview, [Mary Malgoire, a financial planner] and her partner, David Drucker, agreed that the SPDA is basically a good product - provided it is sold by a company with experience in annuities (preferably an insurance company) and provided SPDA assets are totally ''segregated,'' or kept separate from the rest of the company's business. This requires the investor to look into the company occasionally, look at annual reports, and find out how and where SPDA assets are invested.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/1010/101040.html
FWIW, Fidelity's SPDA offerings are generally from top tier insurance companies. (The only company not with a AA rating from either Best or S&P is Fidelity's.) Consequently these SPDAs don't pay the highest rates in the industry but provide more peace of mind.

Our CD/Treasury ladder is only out to three years, but I'm 85 and don't want to go too far out. Our Schwab SUTXX MMKT is currently at 4.35% and falling, the CD/Treasury ladder is at 4.81%. I'm replacing CDs and Treasurys as they mature, which will gradually move out the ladder.
At the moment the allocation is CD/Treasury ladder 43% and MMKT 57%. The main difference that I consider between CD/Treasury ladder and MMKT allocations is the possible need for "instant cash" due to future major medical issues. If it weren't for that I'd put almost everything into the CD/Treasury ladder. When we were younger we never kept this kind of money in either CDs or MMKTs.

Old_Joe, I have a very similar position on my Fixed Income positions. I have kept my CD Ladder at no more than 2 years, as I want my CD ladder to have ongoing CDs maturing pretty frequently, and have some liquidity issues better addressed with frequently maturing, short term CDs. I also have a wife who has very strong wish to have shorter term CDs in case she needs it "for a facelift"! Her way of saying that she may want a new car, a facelift, or surgery/treatment for one of the many "health related" issues we are monitoring closely! We also are dealing with a couple of Adult children and their families, who are continually needing financial support for health issues, losing jobs, needing money for an array of creative and surprising needs that crop up. In short, the shorter term CD ladder works fine for my situation, but may not be what others need, with their personal and financial situation.

AI Overview:
Kelly Community Federal Credit Union (KCFCU) in Tyler, Texas has been described as one of the most financially sound credit unions in the United States. KCFCU offers monthly and annual financial reports that include financial performance summaries, goals, commitments, and questions from members.
Credit unions are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), which is similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures banks. Most credit unions and banks are insured for up to $250,000 per customer.
KCFCU was founded in 1963 by employees from the Kelly-Springfield Tire Plant to provide a safe place for workers to save and borrow money. The credit union's mission is to treat members like family and prioritize relationships over transactions.
=====================================
dt, KCFCU appears to be a worthy place to invest your money.
That isn't the issue I have been beating to death on these threads which is duration.
Let me try a different angle:
What position do you think you are going to be in with interest bearing investment options in the 6-12 months after the investment you buy now matures?
Given the current rates and current trend, do you think you are going to be able to find an interest bearing investment of any duration paying 4+% in 6-12 months?
=======================================
Aside FWIW: You don't seem to care too much for my input, but buddy, I've been playing the CD ladder game for 12-13 years and I've not lost yet. I'm sitting a 5-yr, CP CD ladder paying a wee bit over 5% that was there for taking a year or so ago. Today, a 5-yr, 4+% CP CD ladder is there for the taking, for anyone who can step away from the tree and see the forest.

Thanks msf! I have a CD in my IRA account maturing in a few days. I am tempted to reinvest it in 2 year callable CD, treating it like a 6 month noncallable CD. If it is called, I think I will still be able to get a 4% replacement callable CD, and if it is not called then I am fine with that callable rate for the length of the CD.
Regarding MMs, I am expecting all categories of MMs to fall below 4% in 2025--I will continue holding MMs but may reduce the amount I will keep in them.

@dtconroe. a very prudent decision for someone not into risk/drawdown and who is not a trader. Regarding CLOs, what is conveniently not mentioned is like most everything else in Bondland they melted down too during the Covid meltdown. Investment grade CLOs from AAA to BBB had drawdowns from 10% to 30% while below investment grade drawdowns were 40% to 45%. As recently as 2022, while investment grade CLOs eked out a small gain (JAAA) of under 1% below investment grade lost money. The longest tenured bond fund primarily into CLOs ( an interval fund) lost money 4 years since its 2014 inception. In 2020 had a multi week drawdown of 30%. 2023 and 2024 just happened to be “the right place right time” for CLOs. I hold slightly under 50% in CLOs but I am more than cognizant of the risks. A substitute for cash they certainly aren’t.

Thanks for your comment Junkster. These threads invite a wide array of responses, from posters with a wide array of investing preferences, and a wide array of personal financial circumstances that are the background to their financial decision making. I try to sort through the posted information, to see how much applicability it has to my personal investing criteria. This thread has led to a large variety of posters and posted information. I don't have any interest in CLOs, and I "currently" don't have any interest returning to the bond oef world of trading and momentum based decision making. I don't care for annuities and unique risks/rewards. CDs have been paying a very nice 5+% return for the last year, but that seems to be on the decline. I have never used callable CDs, but they do offer a better interest rate than noncallable CDs, for about 6 months and possibly longer. I am inclined to invest some maturing CD cash into a local Credit Union Share Certificate that pays about a half percent more than I can get at Schwab or my local bank. Different strokes for different folks, and their varied financial strategies and circumstances.

I accidentally snorted out whisky at reading half of these ... I was only trying to find the quote that no one has yet devised, concocted, imagined, or plausibly advocated a use case
https://www.cryptoaltruism.org/blog/15-quotes-about-the-potential-of-blockchain-and-crypto

Bitcoin was designed to be a currency that people could use for trustless transactions—transactions that could be carried out without need for a financial intermediary such as a bank. But transactions in which bitcoin is used to buy or sell goods and services make up only a tiny fraction of the currency’s total trading volume, most of which is made up of people buying or selling bitcoin itself.
...
[B]itcoin was designed to facilitate decentralized person-to-person transactions, but most bitcoin trading, at least in the West, now takes place on centralized exchanges. Again, in its liberatory promise, bitcoin was supposed to not just be independent of traditional financial institutions and government, but also enable alternatives to them. Yet the big engine of the price boom of the past two years has been bitcoin’s integration into the conventional investment industry (through such vehicles as exchange-traded funds, or ETFs), increased purchases by institutional investors and corporations, and now the prospect of legitimization by the government itself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/how-bitcoin-became-boring/681141/

Fixed rate deferred annuities, if used as savings vehicles (and not annuitized) are very much like CDs. Like CDs, and unlike funds, stocks, etc., their value cannot go down.
https://www.blueprintincome.com/fixed-annuities-cd-comparison
There is the risk of the insurer issuing the annuity going under, just as there is the risk of a bank failing. In the case of a bank failure, a government agency (FDIC) steps in, tries to get another bank to assume your bank's liabilities. If it succeeds (almost all the time), you may be forced to choose between taking you money (including interest to date) and running, or accepting a lower return for the remainder of the time on your CD.
In the case of an insurer (the issuer of your annuity) failing, it is a state government agency that steps in. As with banks, states first try to "rehabilitate" insurers - either get them back on their feet or have another insurer take over their liabilities. Should they not succeed, the insurer is liquidated.
Here's Pennsylvania's general description (not state-specific) on how that proceeds. A state-created guaranty association pays for losses not to exceed state limits. Again, similar to what the FDIC does for banks. A key difference is that state guaranty associations are typically underfunded. So it is important to stick with better rated insurers. (Rehabilitation/liquidation is to be avoided in any case.)
Pennsylvania FAQ on insurance company liquidations
Single Premium Deferred (fixed) Annuities are rather simple vehicles if one does not annuitize (i.e. one uses them like CDs). The key numbers are:
- guarantee rate,
- number of years rate is guaranteed,
- floor for annual renewal rate after that (insurer might offer more depending on market),
- penalty each year for early withdrawal (e.g. 7% in year 1, 6% in year 2);
- amount/percentage that can be withdrawn annually without penalty
There should not be a penalty for withdrawing everything once the multiyear guarantee period is past.
Something that has been added in the past decade or two is MVA - market value adjustments. Suppose interest rates have gone up since you purchased your annuity. Then, like a bond, the value of your annuity has dropped. If you close out your annuity early (effectively "putting" your policy), you are forcing the insurer to overpay (i.e. pay 100% of face value minus any early redemption charges). MVA lets the insurer adjust the payout accordingly, so that it doesn't overpay.
Conversely, if interest rates drop, your annuity is worth more than face value (plus interest). MVA adjusts the payout upward, so you "win". Many annuities but not all these days come with MVA.
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/market-value-adjustment
MVA seems to enable insurers to issue policies that pay a bit more. But they're shifting market risk onto you, in case you redeem early.
Here are Mass Mutual's rate sheets for its 3-5 year Stable Voyage Policies (no MVA) and for its Premier Voyage Policies (with MVA). The latter have higher rates, e.g. 4.25% or 4.35% on policies under $100K, while the Stable Voyage Policies (no MVA) pay 4.2%.
Stable Voyage rate sheet (Dec 30th)
Premier Voyage rate sheet (Dec 30th)
Important: These rates are dated Dec 30th. They are less than the rates I found quoted today. So rates on these annuities are about to drop.

Another observation. Do Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard have their own Dow Jones funds? No, they don't. Do they have the SP500? YES.
Years ago, back when Vanguard was providing free financial plans, my mother had them work up a plan. Several years prior, Vanguard had introduced its own index funds (working with MSCI to develop more tax efficient indexes). Yet the plan used Vanguard 500 rather than its broader based, better performing (at that time) large cap index fund.
I asked the planner why. As near as I could decipher the response, it was because Vanguard 500 was better known/more popular. Financial decisions are often made by "popular demand" and not by objective analysis.
This is not to say I think the DJIA is especially representative of "the market". Just that looking at who is offering what is not the best way to validate that.
OTOH, which market index does Fidelity display by default on its home page? Clue: it's up 200 points today and it's not the NASDAQ.

What is The Dow Jones (DJIA)
"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), sometimes referred to as the Dow or Dow 30, is a stock market index that tracks the performance of 30 large, publicly traded companies in the United States. Created in 1896, it is the oldest continuous barometer of the U.S. stock market, and one of the most widely quoted indicators of the stock market’s overall health. The DJIA takes the weighted average of the stock prices of the 30 component companies."
Text emphasis is mine. Not to shabby for an index nobody follows. Allegedly. Draw your own conclusions.
Could it be that it's too concentrated (30 companies) to be included in 401k's?

#1b (upstream giving) looks like a pretty big loophole for mass affluent/high net worth investors (with significant assets but under roughly half the estate tax exemption limit). This one never occurred to me.
As a loophole, it works with appreciated assets that you plan to hold for a few more years. Gift them to your 90 year old grandparent or parent, or for that matter any elderly person you trust with money. Have them bequeath that asset back to you in their will or via a TOD account.
Presto, in a few years the capital appreciation tax liability has vanished and you have your assets back intact. It doesn't seem all that proper to me, but it also doesn't seem to be illegal. As Schwab writes, the assets can be left to any "selected beneficiary". That means even you.
It's not quite as efficient as the way an ETF dumps appreciated assets onto authorized participants. But it is similar in spirit - use a straw man of sorts who has a way to make the tax liability disappear.

YBB,
I suggested both FIO and OFR be folded into the Treasury department. It seems both of them already report into the Treasury department and those directors are appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
That only leaves the following to screw around and i do not think any of them should be folded into the Treasury department, though I think each of them should be streamlined to eliminate overlapping functions, if any:
The Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);
The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB);
The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
The Chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC);
The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA);
Overtime, every department builds their own fiefdoms. That is what humans do. So, once in a while a fresh look at their functions is needed. Give them a good hair cut to resize.
Change is necessary and should not be confused with chaos but some people just love car crashes and many that claim to be in favor of disruption are disguised anarchists or opportunists looking for personal benefits. Human history is full of people who gained power and personal prosperity based on claims of change and the common man turned out to be worse off each time.
At the end of the day, everything boils down to quality of leadership. That is why I love companies with good CEO leadership - I do not care about Board of Directors if the CEO is good.

Federal Insurance Office (FIO) is already a newer smallish unit within the Treasury. As much of the insurance regulation in the US is under the states, the FIO has no separate regulatory authority. But FIO (i) keeps tabs on insurance business, (ii) deals with international issues on insurance (typically beyond the sate insurance regulators), and, critically, (iii) advises the Treasury Secretary if the FDIC should get involved in the rescue of a failed insurer too big to be handled by the states and when that insurance failure may also lead to bank failures or cause systemic financial issues. One cannot expect the Treasury Secretary to make those decisions out of the blue, so FIO was created under Dodd-Frank in 2010.
I don't see anything saved by trashing FIO under DOGE.
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/federal-insurance-office/about-fio
https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/federal-insurance-office

I did not know these two existed and may be should be folded into the Treasury Dept.
The Director of the Office of Financial Research;
The Director of the Federal Insurance Office;
Overlapping oversight / regulatory authority can be unproductive and businesses may be able to play one against the other, with no one taking responsibility when things go wrong. Think of Boeing.
If FDIC and OCC are folded in, they should be into the Federal Reserve system and not the Treasury but we know that is not what Trump team wants.

There is the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) now that is chaired by the Treasury Secretary and includes all of the important financial agencies that exist. Just folding everything into Treasury may make Treasury a super agency. That may or may not lead to cost savings or efficiencies.
Real motivation may be to get rid of separate laws that govern these multiple agencies. If all were part of the Treasury, then just the Treasury Secretary (and of course, the President) can hire/fire those agency heads at will. They all become Treasury staffers.
This may open a broader discussion of independent federal agencies - why they exist, should there be sunset laws for them, etc.
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/financial-stability-oversight-council/about-fsoc/council-members
"The Council’s voting members are:
The Secretary of the Treasury who serves as the Chairperson of the Council;
The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
The Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);
The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB);
The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
The Chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC);
The Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA);
The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); and
An independent member with insurance expertise who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a six-year term.
The Council’s nonvoting members, who serve in an advisory capacity, are:
The Director of the Office of Financial Research;
The Director of the Federal Insurance Office;
A state insurance commissioner designated by the state insurance commissioners;
A state banking supervisor designated by the state banking supervisors; and
A state securities commissioner (or officer performing like functions) designated by the state securities commissioners.
The state insurance commissioner, state banking supervisor, and state securities commissioner serve two-year terms"