***** If you have a credible source for the actions within the bond markets this week, please share here; if you are willing.
ADD: There remains global warfare; and a few new adds this week. Perhaps there is some form of flight to safety.
NOTE:

My intention, at this time; is to present the data for the selected bond sectors, as listed; through the end of the year (2024). This 'end date' will take us through the U.S. elections period, pending actions/legislation dependent upon the election results, pending Federal Reserve actions and market movers trying to 'guess' future directions of the U.S. economy. As important during this period, are any number of global circumstances that may take a path that is not expected; and/or 'new' circumstances. In the 'cooking pot' we currently have the big ingredients of the middle east and also, how much damage Ukraine may inflict upon Russia and the response.

FIRST: NOTHING TO ADD/ALTER regarding 'Never-Never Land'. The pre-DC world shift of January, 2025 remains 'interesting' at this time! We're in a 'Never-Never Land' (events you never imagined) of potential large impacts upon various economic functions emanating from a central government in the coming months and years. What comes next for the investing world of bonds is not yet known or fully understood, except for those have a better guessing system than I. I can only watch and listen a little bit and let the numbers try to bring forth meaningful directions.
W/E November 29 , 2024..... Bond NAV's LARGE gains
--- 'Course, all the bond sectors in the list find their reasons for price movements, and we find 'most bond sectors 'UP BIG' for this week's pricing. Many bond sectors were very positive each day of the week. Long durations had the biggest gains. WHAT happened to the 'inflation scare' thing ??? So, depending on where you're 'hanging' your bond market monies, the pricing this week, was erratic . The MINT etf, to the best of my recall, has maintained a positive price for the year, each and every week; and this remains for this week.
A few numbers for your viewing pleasure.
NEXT:
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference. NOTE: take a peek at the right side of this graph to find the yield swings of the past week, and for the current yields for the last business day.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, November 25 - November 29, 2024
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MM yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates; and ended the week at 4.45% yield (Unchanged for the week). Fidelity's MM's continue to maintain decent yields, as is presumed with other vendors similar MM's. Theoretically, a new yield bottom is in place, until the next FED action. SO, one is still obtaining a decent MM yield. MOST MM's found a few hundreds basis drop in yield for the week. MM's yields were down SLIGHTLY at .02 basis points, more or less, for the week.................
--- AGG = +1.42% / +3.05% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.11% / +5.48% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.38% / +3.65 % (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +1.01% / +2.64% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +1.70% / +1.66% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.92% / +3.42% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.27% / +4.84% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.36% / +4.60% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +2.73% / +.84 % (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +3.96% / -1.80% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +5.65% / -4.40% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +6.23% / -6.60% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -7.24% / +11.56% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +11.36 % / -21.21% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 2x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = +1.47% / +3.63% Baird Aggregate Bond Fund (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- USFR = +.08% / +5.00% (WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury)
--- LQD = +1.98% / +3.63% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- MBB = +1.44% / +3.13% (I-Shares Mortgage Backed Bonds)
--- BKLN = +.09% / +7.79% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = +.69% / +8.81 % (I Shares High Yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = +.88%/+6.12% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = +.86% /+2.63% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = +1.43%/+7.94% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = +.91% / +15.06% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = +.76% / +11.20% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.45% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MM fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. (For reference to current date)
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

Again, all you got to do is try it. I just entered one and was able to edit or cancel(=Unenroll) it. If I could cancel it after 2 minutes, of course, you can cancel it after the first buy. case closed.
I left VG over 25 years ago after I entered a buy order for a VG index fund at 9 AM and wanted to change it at 10 AM and could not do it, even with a rep help. That was enough for me to transfer my money for a better customer experience and service.

All you got to do is try it. What is the chance you can't cancel anytime...about zero?

Vanguard explicitly states that in order to get its $3 fee for automatic investments, you must make at least two periodic investments. Though I have never tested this, experience has shown that Vanguard is fastidious in enforcing its rules. And it wasn't worth $6 for me to see for sure.

Dollar-cost-averaging purchases: $100 (minimum 2 transactions, $3 per transaction)

https://investor.vanguard.com/client-benefits/brokerage-fees-commissions
Like @Observant1, I don't have any existing positions in TF funds at Schwab that I could test adding shares to via automatic investment. I keep my TF funds at Fidelity because Fidelity has offered this feature for many years. It's been one of their selling points for OEF (as opposed to ETF) investors.
If Schwab allows one-time automatic investments (even at $10), that reduces Schwab's competitive disadvantage.
"Charles Schwab Pricing Guide for Individual Investors"
https://www.schwab.com/legal/schwab-pricing-guide-for-individual-investors

Successful investing rules from Benjamin Graham.

The book is a good read, but the devil is in the details. How many Buffets do we have?
A lot of the wisdom was lost in the technology age.
Divvies don't matter as much; the biggest tech companies don't pay much or none and had the best performance.
Finding hidden gems isn't easy with the internet.
Just because something is overvalued, it doesn't mean it can't continue for years to come.

BB, as I said already it has been proven decades ago that the SP500 beats most mutual funds over long term.
This is how Vanguard got so big, but millions still trade, go figure.
Many times the investors who don't know much and do nothing, out perform the ones who know more and trade, including pro fund managers.
I also have been saying for years that investment sites encourage people to trade more.
The most revealing are small and often trades without impact.

These are challenging times for investment firms which focus on actively managed funds.
Index fund (Bogle’s Folly?) usage has increased significantly over the past couple decades.
Many investors have also shown a distinct preference for ETFs versus OEFs as Yogi's post illustrates.
As a result, multiple companies now offer actively managed ETFs.
Other companies are exploring this option in an attempt to gain additional AUM.
I believe there will be an investment firm "shake-out" in the coming years.
Firms like Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, Vanguard¹, and Dodge & Cox will do ok.
As will some specialized boutiques which offer differentiated investment products.
Conversely, many companies with active funds that have above average expenses
and middling performance will just disappear.
I say bring it on!
¹ manages more than $1.8 trillion in active assets as of August 31, 2024.

While the above is true, it missed an important fact. What is better, missing the 10 best days or the 10 best worst days? The answer is the worst days.
Read my link
Conclusions:
1. The stock market historically has gone up about two-thirds of the time.
2. All of the stock market return occurs when the market is already uptrending.
3. The volatility is much higher when the market is declining.
4. Most of the best and worst days occur when the market is already declining because markets are much riskier than models assuming normal distributions predict.
5. The reason markets are more volatile when declining is because investors use a different part of their brain making money than when losing money.
Timing is difficult but not impossible.
* Beating the SP500, especially when you have a large portfolio, is not always the goal. Since 2000, my goal has been to have the best risk/reward performance.
* When US LC doing well, it's usually the best risk/reward category. But, over long time, think 2-3 decades; it's definitely at the top or best. So why do most investors don't use the SP500 as their only stock choice? After all, Bogle and Buffett recommended it for decades.
* After years of tweaking, exploring and trading, I concluded that timing works very well with slower bond OEFs, and not great with higher volatility categories. Read (link).

I’ve done a full circle since moving from TRP’s in-house funds to a Fido brokerage. The freedom to own etfs, CEFs & stocks felt great for 2 or 3 years. But the gyrations during the day drove me crazy - though I realize you’re not supposed to look. So, except for one etf at Cambrea where they don’t offer OEFs and a small temporary slice of JAAA (mentioned in another thread) I’ve reverted back to all OEFs.
- You probably pay more for an OEF (a negative).
- There should be less money flowing in and out over shorter periods (a positive unless you like trading).
- Your manager has some discretion when to buy and sell during times of turmoil (a positive)
- Generally, I’d expect an OEF to have a more stable investor base (a positive).
- You’re probably less likely to get jerked around by emotions in an OEF - though it depends on its focus.
Not sure why firms are moving aggressively to etfs. I’d think it’s better for their bottom lines. Or, perhaps a way to attract more AUM in the race for assets? If held outside a tax deferred account they appear to have some tax benefits. The change doesn’t particularly sit well with myself and some older investors … It will be interesting to watch this development when the next 2000 “Tech Wreck” or 2008 “Financial Crisis” comes along. Possibly the rush for the exits and ease of so doing may exacerbate whatever crisis exists.
Did the SEC crackdown on frequent trading in the years following the Tech Wreck of 2000 contribute to the rise / popularity of etfs? Older ones here will recall that trading in OEFs had become excessive - often by organized participants in high quantity. The SEC determined this “skimming” of excess return by such parties by well timed frequent trading was harming smaller more stolid investors who hung on for the longer term. Ironically, one fund firm CEO (Richard Strong) became the center of attention, found to be gaming his own funds - though not the sole perpetrator. Strong was banned for life from the business. Afterward, fund management became much stricter in passing new regulations to prevent frequent trading, enforcing existing rules and blocking trades. Did this all serve to propel etfs to popularity which, of course, can be traded at any time?
A second contributing factor may have been the fhe slow and steady decline of the front-end load structure associated with many OEFs. In the early 70s that load was still very common across the OEF universe, adding to a firm’s bottom line. But investors wised up. With loss of this OEF profit motive, possibly the etf structure became easier or cheaper to operate.

I recently received the latest Fidelity Viewpoints newsletter.
One of the articles referenced in the newsletter is titled "6 reasons why you should consider investing right now."
According to this article, "a hypothetical investor who missed just the best 5 days in the market since 1988
could have reduced their long-term gains by 37%."
I've read many articles over the years which draw similar conclusions, but still find it amazing
that being out of the market for only a few days has such a detrimental effect on long-term returns.
This is just one reason why I don't try to time the market!
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/wealth-management-insights/reasons-to-invest-now

Their MMF competitors would be Treasury MMFs, both for security quality (Treasuries backed by the US government) and IMHO more importantly, for state income tax exemption.
If you can't find a very cheap Treasury only MMF (e.g. no low min cheap funds at Schwab or at Fidelity), then a 0-3 month Treasury ETF can fill that gap. While costs do matter, if I owned SGOV (0.09% ER), I don't think I would jump ship for Vanguard's new shorter term ETF (0.07% ER).
If I were still investing at Vanguard, I would carefully consider whether the added limited volatility of an ETF were worth at best a small increase in return over VUSXX.
Going longer, with Treasuries maturing in up to a full year, theory says one will get better returns in exchange for added volatility. I still buy that theory in the face of data that contradicts that - giving a whole new meaning to faith-based investing :-)
See Portfolio Visualizer comparing iShares (SHV), Invesco (TBLL), and Goldman Sachs (GBIL) with 3 mo Treasuries (proxy for cash). At least it does show that the cheapest ETF (TBILL, 0.08% ER) comes out best in this space where costs really should be paramount.
PV comparison
Something to keep in mind is whether the Vanguard ETFs will be 100% invested in Treasuries. You don't get a tax break for repurchase agreements (see, e.g. FZFXX). While VUSXX is now about 98% Treasuries, a couple of years ago it dipped as low as 50%+ (from memory). Previously it had always held 100% in Treasuries and suddenly changed. In light of that, it remains to be seen what percentage of these ETFs are really invested in true Treasuries.

If only I invested in Monster Beverage (MNST) ~20 years ago!

There is an argument that anything that the government cannot produce more of effortlessly, even Tulips, is better than Fiat currencies.
This presupposes you can get someone else to accept it as "money" and it is safe, not easily stolen and it will hold it's value.
A friend's son had some thousand (s?) of Bitcoin on a fob in his safe deposit box, years ago.
He may be a billionaire now, but I don't have enough knowledge of the technology to have any confidence I could liquidate it. He my.
ETFs are easier to understand, but I do not see how to have any confidence that the value will be stable enough to manage. Gold fluctuates but lot's of Central Banks own lots of it and the value has been plotted for centuries

Thanks for the thoughts (and the bump) @msf. You bring back memories of my days in Strong Funds. Long time ago. Yes, the Advantage fund (which I too owned) was popular for many years. But eventually suffered a “hit.”
If I remember correctly … Strong nearly “broke the buck” on one of their money market funds back then too. I recall the ol’ man (Dick Strong) bailed it out with the firm’s assets.
Yes - our own definition of “cash” as a part of our investment portfolio may vary depending on need & risk tolerance.

If you want to make more, forget about words like "safe" "investment grade" "risk" "in the past it did terrible". Success comes from an uptrend with lower volatility (in my case)...and good trading.
If you want to be safe with low risk and hold for years, you will miss opportunities. What I find funny that my so-called risky funds had lower volatility and great returns. Nothing is guaranteed, of course. Just compare DODIX to CLOZ
See one year return for the above 5 funds (https://schrts.co/PJYGjPTK)

Old draft - added a bit on Strong Advantage (historical ultra-short fund illustrating the need to look beyond monthly returns if one takes on a little risk). Other than that, text is as drafted. Too much to go back and reedit.
I was a bit surprised by the differences in worst Quarter vs best Quarter relative to the same IG corp credit. As the article says, do not put your short term cash needs into this fund. So, I was wrong in using JAAA as a cash substitute!
Different readers, different takeaways. What I read seemed to say the opposite, viz. that AAA CLO funds could serve as a cash substitute:

Some investors – not wanting to put their short-term cash reserves at risk – may feel uneasy with any volatility within their short-duration bucket. ... we believe many investors are too cautious in this regard and could handle more volatility in their short-duration bucket in exchange for higher potential returns. Historically, despite occasional drawdowns, AAA CLOs have still ended up comfortably ahead of cash over the long term.

You may be focusing on the "long term" above. That doesn't rule out reliable shorter term performance. Perhaps it is worth examining what one expects out of a cash substitute. If it's absolute stability, then no bond funds will do. Otherwise, the field is open.
Before the GFC, there were a bevy of what are broadly termed "enhanced cash" funds. They took tiny steps out from MMFs along the duration spectrum. iMoneyNet has a taxonomy I still like:

• Cash Plus: <180 day duration, includes some LT &ge:A-; good for investing 3-6 months
  
• Enhanced Cash: 0.5-1 year duration, includes some LT ≥BBB; expect to hold at least 6 months;
  
• Ultrashort: 0.5-2 year duration, includes some LT LT ≥BBB; expect to hold at least 6 months;

2006 piece on enhanced cash funds from Barclay's
AAA CLOs seem to fall somewhere in the Cash Plus to Enhanced Cash range. If you're expecting to draw large amounts of cash within, say, a month, this is not for you. But then neither is a six month CD.
I find I'm thinking about these AAA CLOs the way one should have thought about Strong Advantage (STADX) when it was still a Strong fund (1990s - 2005). Something that one could use to hold cash, but not short term cash. Here's how its 2001 prospectus read:

[The fund invests] primarily in very short-term, corporate, and mortgage- and asset-backed bonds. The fund invests primarily in higher- and medium-quality bonds. To enhance its return potential, the fund also invests a portion of its assets in bonds that have longer maturities or are of lower-quality (high-yield or junk bonds), though it may not invest in bonds rated below BB. The managers focus upon high-yield bonds rated BB with positive or improving credit fundamentals. To help limit changes in share price, the fund's average maturity is usually one year or less. To a limited extent, the fund may also invest in foreign securities.

Not exactly what one would look for in a cash-ish fund. Yet it outperformed MMFs in 8 of the 10 years between 1991 and 2000, by as much as 5.4% and never underperformed by more than 0.5% (all from prospectus).
In the early 2000s its risks became apparent, as it underperformed its peers by 1-2% in 2002 and even lost 0.73% in 1Q2002. But it still made 0.83% for the year. The point is that funds that are not good for day-to-day cash can still be good for cash investments. (FYI: Strong Advantage was renamed Strong Ultra-Short in this period.)
Talk about picture perfect. https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PAAA
@Junkster is being a little selective here. As this PGIM piece says in its title, Not All CLO ETFs are created equal. PGIM says that its fund holds all AAA tranche CLOs, while others may not. M* does show JAAA holding some AAs, which adds volatility. That's okay, it's not much (PV, over PAAA's short life gives 0.5 volatility vs. 0.6 for JAAA.)

Structured-CLOs ultra-ST ETFs such as inv-grade JAAA and junk JBBB will do better in strong credit markets.
Question is whether their extra returns are worth the extra risks vs regular ultra-ST ETFs (ICSH, JPST, USFR) ?
Many are new, but 2022 was a tough year for credit, so compare what happened then.
I would think of "cash" in this context as something to liquidate without hesitation to make other fund purchases or pay bills. (emphasis added)

I think of USFR for this. It holds two years worth of what would be RMD's if I was required to take RMD's
I own JAAA for now. I do not think of it as anything like cash. Would I be smart enough to get out ahead of 2008 type event? I sure hope so.

"I do not currently have a single Agency bond as every one of them I bought got called."
"[A]gree, agency bonds never seem to get past the first call date for me . . ."
While that has been our collective experience, there is a non-zero probability that Agencies may not be called sometime in the future. I say this because some investors outside this forum have bet $Bs against long term bonds (or they are long interest rates).
I am asking myself, "if I would be OK if the bonds I am buying never get called?"
A corollary thought is, "Am I better off with an Agency that presumably gives me only a six month call protection than a corporate bond that might give me a longer period of call protection but of lower credit quality?"
Many factors go into answering these questions and every investor's situation is different from the next one.
In the few times I looked in the past couple of years, I have not seen a new issue Agency with a year or more call date. What is your experience? May be share when you see one.
Edit: Currently, there is a new issue single "A" corporate (Prudential Financial), non-callable, 5Yr, yielding 10 bps more than Treasuries. That is a scary spread.

Hi @Observant1
I've tried to help and push some folks over many years dealing with their bad habits, with their money . There have been a few success stories. I'm pleased about that.
The below book has been a gift, over the years, on several occasions, as part of a wedding gift. Written in 1996, the book is more of a guide for personal finance; and one has to forget about the money values noted at the time. The book is more of a money habits guide; both the good and the bad. The thoughts still apply today.
A snippet:

wealth is more likely the outcome of prudent spending and saving habits than high income or inherited wealth.

The Millionaire Next Door

***** CWB in the list, indicates a + 3.02% gain for the week. I can not find any data that relates to this large gain.
NOTE:

My intention, at this time; is to present the data for the selected bond sectors, as listed; through the end of the year (2024). This 'end date' will take us through the U.S. elections period, pending actions/legislation dependent upon the election results, pending Federal Reserve actions and market movers trying to 'guess' future directions of the U.S. economy. As important during this period, are any number of global circumstances that may take a path that is not expected; and/or 'new' circumstances. In the 'cooking pot' we currently have the big ingredients of the middle east and also, how much damage Ukraine may inflict upon Russia and the response.

FIRST: NOTHING TO ADD/ALTER regarding 'Never-Never Land'. The pre-DC world shift of January, 2025 remains 'interesting' at this time! We're in a 'Never-Never Land' (events you never imagined) of potential large impacts upon various economic functions emanating from a central government in the coming months and years. What comes next for the investing world of bonds is not yet known or fully understood, except for those have a better guessing system than I. I can only watch and listen a little bit and let the numbers try to bring forth meaningful directions.
W/E November 22 , 2024..... Bond NAV's had weekly positive numbers
--- 'Course, all the bond sectors in the list find their reasons for price movements, and we find 'slightly UP' for this week's pricing. Many bond sectors where 'every which way' for most of the week, with price recovery for most sectors on Friday, which helped the positive prices for the week. Short and long duration bonds took turns with up and down pricing on various days. So, depending on where you're 'hanging' your bond market monies, the pricing this week, was erratic . The MINT etf, to the best of my recall, has maintained a positive price for the year, each and every week; and this remains for this week.
A few numbers for your viewing pleasure.
NEXT:
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference. NOTE: take a peek at the right side of this graph to find the yield swings of the past week, and for the current yields for the last business day.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, November 18 - November 22, 2024
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MM yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates; and ended the week at 4.45% yield (Unchanged for the week). Fidelity's MM's continue to maintain decent yields, as is presumed with other vendors similar MM's. Theoretically, a new yield bottom is in place, until the next FED action. SO, one is still obtaining a decent MM yield. MOST MM's found a few hundreds basis drop in yield for the week. MM's yields were down SLIGHTLY at .03 - .04 basis points for the week.................
--- AGG = +.15% / +1.61% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.13% / +5.37% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = -.01% / +3.26 % (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +.08% / +1.61% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +.30% / -.04% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.30% / +2.48% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.14% / +4.57% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.13% / +4.23% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +.39% / -1.84 % (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +.34% / -5.54% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +.41% / -9.51% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +.50% / -12.08% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -.51% / +20.27% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +.74 % / -29.25% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 2x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = +.21% / +2.12% Baird Aggregate Bond Fund (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- USFR = +.12% / +4.92% (WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury)
--- LQD = +.13% / +1.61% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- MBB = +.46% / +1.67% (I-Shares Mortgage Backed Bonds)
--- BKLN = +.25% / +7.69% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = +.33% / +8.06 % (High Yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = +.15%/+5.19% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = +.17% /+1.75% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = +.53%/+6.41% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = +3.02% / +14.02% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = +.34% / +10.36% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.45% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MM fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. (For reference to current date)
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

@MikeM- not at all. Thanks much for all of your info. I'm familiar with the Schwab fixed income pages, but I never thought of looking for a call date of two years instead of a two-year maturity. Good thinking!