Schwab has always used cash accounts as, well, cash cows. It lards its "Intelligent" Portfolios (robo accounts) with cash, and it offers little in the way of interest for its core/transaction accounts.
Those are the accounts being addressed here. No broker (at least that I know of) offers prime MMFs for use in core accounts because of their potential illiquidity. Vanguard switched from offering VMMXX to VMFXX when the new MMF regulations kicked in. So we do need to be fair here. That said, VMFXX is yielding 1.24% (Jan 11, 2018). I'd mentioned FDRXX for Fidelity IRAs (0.95%) in another thread. Both way ahead of Schwab.
If you want the higher yields (and slightly higher risk) of prime MMFs, wherever you invest, you'll need to explicitly buy them. As Schwab writes in the disclosure statement: "You should also consider higher-return options for funds that are not needed immediately, as yields on any of our Cash Features [core account options] may be lower than those of similar investments or deposit accounts"
Schwab appears to be making mostly minor changes to its core account offerings. As I read it, Schwab is phasing out one option, while increasing insurance on its FDIC bank sweep option and adding higher interest tiers (rates not disclosed) on its bank sweep and "Schwab One® Interest" options. (Schwab One® Interest is where your cash is held by Schwab as a general obligation of the company, like "Fidelity Cash".) The option that's getting phased out would let you use one of Schwab's MMFs (sweep share class) as your core account. So all that remains to use for a core account is cash (no MMF) - cash in a bank, or cash held by Schwab.
Schwab is adding more tiers to the interest rate schedule for these two options. The highest tier is now at $1M, for all the good that does. The tiers will be at:

• Balances of $0 to $24,999.99
• Balances of $25,000.00 to $99,999.99
• Balances of $100,000.00 to $249,999.99
• Balances of $250,000.00 to $499,999.99
• Balances of $500,000.00 to $999,999.99
• Balances of $1,000,000.00 or more

Schwab had been using one bank for the bank sweep. So your cash was FDIC-insured "only" up to $250k, or $500K if it was a joint account. It will begin using two banks, so your money (if owned jointly) could be insured up to $1M (2 x $500K), getting you close to that $1M tier - a point that Schwab makes in its disclosure.
Much of the rest is boilerplate about bank insurance, which type of Schwab accounts can use which sweep features, etc.
The only negative I see in the change is the phasing out of a Schwab Sweep Money Fund as a core account option. For example, one will not be able to open an account using SWGXX, the "Sweep Class" shares of its Government Money Fund. That class is currently yielding 0.65% according to Schwab. To show how even here Schwab milks these core accounts, the fund's Investor class shares SNVXX currently yield 0.91%.

Love the concept. But PRPFX has really stagnated since gold topped in 2011.

@PBKCM,
It’s quite easy for me to check the fund’s recent performance, since I converted 100% of my holdings to a Roth on 1/04/16. As of today’s close (1/11/18) the fund has generated a 25% gain in just over 2 years. Coming right after a conversion, I couldn’t be happier. I often noted my trades / activities in the buying and selling threads in the past. If anybody cares to check the January 2016 pages they should come across that conversion date.
You are correct that the fund dropped off a cliff for a while. It was bound to happen. Hot money had poured in for several years as the fund’s (rather modest) gold and silver holdings propelled it higher than most other allocation funds. Folks seemed to feel they’d discovered a low risk way to make a lot of money fast. Of course, there is no such animal. When metals started backsliding (entirely predictable) these fly-by-night investors bailed enmass and moved on. It was at that time, with the price depressed, that I opened a small position in the fund and than averaged in over the next 2-3 years.
-
@LLJB - The Hierarchy of Disagreement
- Friendly (No sweat)
- Mild (Let’s agree to disagree)
- Considerable (You must be off your rocker!)
- Serious (Take a long walk on a short pier why don’t you?)
- Nasty (unprintable)
So with only a “mild disagreement” there’s no cause for concern.
:)
Regards

I believe Schwab's MM is at 1.2 or 1.25 now. I met with my Schwab guy yesterday and we talked about setting up a "safe-bucket" of 4 years needed withdrawal income when I start retirement. We both agreed setting up that bucket (still as an IRA) at an on-line bank like Ally or Synchrone would give slightly higher rates, maybe in the 1.3 range, and also have the CD option available. In any case, that is what I will be doing.

I bought DBCMX.

It amazes me how so many people able to buy institutional shares of funds. How???

You can buy any DoubleLine fund's inst shares in an IRA for $5k initial minimum. Since that's Dbl's thing, I'd assume it'd be the same at brokerages - except possibly for a TF tacked on, which is the case at Fidelity.

Gundlach has been making this bullish commodity call for a while, yet he and every Doubleline trustee had $0 invested in the Doubleline Strategic Commodity Fund according to the most recent SEC filing with holdings info as of March 31, 2017. See pages 103-104 here: quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/SAI/2017/9/22/t.aspx?t=DBCMX&ft=497&d=cea519dc595b9580834096bebcbaa1dd
Only the fund's manager Jeffrey Sherman had any money invested and that was less than $100,000. Meanwhile, I believe Gundlach has been bullish on commodities since early 2016 as he said they hit a "massive double bottom" then:
https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2017/01/11/gundlach-s-forecast-for-2017

50-50

FYHTX shows closed to new investors on Fidelity website. Buying FFGCX seems to be like buying any other natural resources fund. Will do some research.
Need to figure out if any of my existing fund managers are leaning this way first. Might as well simply send them more money. Would prefer not to buy another fund if possible.
AQR really ticked me off previously in how they treated shareholders in their commodity fund.

Here’s how PRPFX invests:
Gold 20%
Silver 5%
Swiss franc assets 10%
Real estate / natural resource stocks 15%
Aggressive growth stocks 15%
Dollar assets 35%*
Total 100%
* Includes U.S. Treasury Bonds
I’ve had a mild (long running) disagreement with @LLJB who believes one should buy the assets, originally promoted by author Harry Brown, directly rather than paying Michael Cuggino a higher fee to do that for you. I agree - except that I’m not aware of a single poster ever who claimed to be doing that. I’m lazy. The thought of having to buy, transport, store and insure physical bullion, buy and sell stock ETFs, play in the international currency arena and do the regular record keeping (including taxes related to international currency trades) is daunting. Saying the fees are high in no way addresses the issue of diversifying across asset classes, which is what the fund’s about.

@hank, thank you for saying "mild" :), especially since I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think and because I far prefer sharing my opinion and letting everyone else decide what's best for them than attacking the choices people make because I think my opinion would somehow suit them better.
Anyway, I wouldn't suggest buying the assets that PRPFX holds in any way. It would be a pain as you highlighted and you'd always be months behind since they only have to be transparent once each quarter. My suggestion would simply be to allocate 25% each to equities (VTI), long-term Treasury Bonds (TLT), gold (I prefer IAU) and cash. Someone could certainly choose different etfs in order to have some foreign and/or emerging markets equities or to have shorter duration bonds if they have opinions about the direction of interest rates but that's a question of personal preference, confidence, goals and willingness to keep records. Speaking of record keeping, I think for years now brokers are required to report the cost basis of your transactions so the only real need to keep records is if you prefer to verify the accuracy of your 1099, which I do. I would rebalance once each year because the mutual fund must rebalance at least that often and your expense ratio using the etfs I mentioned would be 0.11% compared to the current 0.82% for PRPFX.
Just as a what if I also tried to duplicate the PRPFX allocations and back test the performance. I used IAU for gold, SIVR for silver, EWL for the Swiss stock market, IYR and IGE (7.5% each) for real estate and natural resources, RPG for aggressive growth stocks, TLT at 25% for long term treasuries and VTI at 10% for the remainder of dollar assets. The physical silver etf only became available in Aug 2009, I couldn't find anything else older and I didn't want miners, but my attempt returned 9.83% annually with a max drawdown of 8.79% and a worst calendar year of -4.49% while PRPFX returned 5.76% annually with a max drawdown of 12.52% and a worst year of -6.58%. I only rebalanced once per year which I'm sure made some of the difference and my expense ratio was 0.28%, which also helped. My use of IGE for natural resources probably isn't how they do things either, its sort of like buying physical gold vs. the gold miners, but it was simple.
Hindsight is always 20/20 so I'm certainly not trying to suggest my options are somehow better or that they will be better in the future, but if someone's interested in a risk parity approach then I think its worth considering the options. In fact, if someone wanted life made easy, people have created motifs at Motif Investing where you can follow the Permanent Portfolio or Ray Dalio's All Seasons Portfolio as a basket of stocks, something like a mutual fund without all the compliance requirements I guess. I've never used Motif so I can't say anything good or bad about it, just that I'm aware it exists and how it basically works.

50-50

Correct me if I am wrong, but Fidelity has several higher minimum requirement money market funds with yields over 1.40% to as high as 1.52%. I talked to a branch manager who didn’t seem too up to speed on these funds other than to say they aren’t very liquid. I think he meant the money is not readily available if you suddenly want to buy another fund. Apparently the managers of these higher yielding funds don’t want you to continually move in and out and can possibly ban you for future purchases if they feel you are too active. If we get three raises in the Fed funds this year these money market funds will be in the 2.25% range. That could be a positive change in the dynamics of some retirees’ retirement.

Here are Fidelity's prime MMFs:
http://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/category-performance-daily-pricing-yields/GPMM
There are a couple of things I can think of that the branch manager might have meant. One is that these higher yielding MMFs are prime funds, meaning that they're not government only funds. These days, that means that they could impose a redemption fee or freeze your money for a week if the fund gets too close to breaking a buck. (Institutional prime funds also have floating NAVs, but mere mortals are only going to be looking at retail prime funds.)
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/SEC-releases-new-rules-for-money-market-mutual-5647983.php
The other thing the branch manager may have meant is that these are "position" funds - they can't be used as the settlement/core account. So whenever you want to move money into them, you have to place a buy order. (Fidelity will automatically pull from them if you don't have enough money in your core account for a withdrawal or purchase, so at least that's not painful.)
The highest yielding MMF at Fidelity that seems to be within reach is FZDXX. $100K min in taxable accounts (though you don't need to keep that balance), but just $10K in IRAs. It's currently yielding 1.35%. (There's a more accessible share class of this fund, SPRXX, with a $2.5K min, and a yield of 1.23%.)
I'd look into Vanguard muni MMFs. Right now they're also yielding 1.35% or so. In addition, they're federally tax exempt, and for some states, locally exempt as well. That state exemption is even more valuable now that state income taxes are harder to deduct than before.

@msf. Correct me if I am wrong, but Fidelity has several higher minimum requirement money market funds with yields over 1.40% to as high as 1.52%. I talked to a branch manager who didn’t seem too up to speed on these funds other than to say they aren’t very liquid. I think he meant the money is not readily available if you suddenly want to buy another fund. Apparently the managers of these higher yielding funds don’t want you to continually move in and out and can possibly ban you for future purchases if they feel you are too active. If we get three raises in the Fed funds this year these money market funds will be in the 2.25% range. That could be a positive change in the dynamics of some retirees’ retirement.

Fund flows bother me a lot. They wreck havoc on a lot of funds. Look what happened to MFLDX as “investors” fled. And I’m aware PRPFX has suffered due to the fund’s huge investor exodus after gold cooled. Heck, management discussed the rapid decline in asset base in their fund reports about 3 years back and considered altering the fee structure (though I don’t recall in what manner) as a consequence.
Umm ... I’m a little sensitive on this point being a docile, long term, buy and hold type. And would prefer the “hot money” stay away from the funds I own. PRPFX is not a gold fund. Folks who want a gold fund should buy one.
Here’s how PRPFX invests:
Gold 20%
Silver 5%
Swiss franc assets 10%
Real estate / natural resource stocks 15%
Aggressive growth stocks 15%
Dollar assets 35%*
Total 100%
* Includes U.S. Treasury Bonds
Where I have a (I hope friendly) disagreement with @bee is in posting the fella with the seedy suit and bad hairpiece who’s using scare tactics to promote buying of gold and than somehow trying to link what he’s peddling to the Permanent Portfolio Fund. I see no connection whatsoever between his snake-oil pitch for gold and how PRPFX invests.
I’ve had a mild (long running) disagreement with @LLJB who believes one should buy the assets, originally promoted by author Harry Brown, directly rather than paying Michael Cuggino a higher fee to do that for you. I agree - except that I’m not aware of a single poster ever who claimed to be doing that. I’m lazy. The thought of having to buy, transport, store and insure physical bullion, buy and sell stock ETFs, play in the international currency arena and do the regular record keeping (including taxes related to international currency trades) is daunting. Saying the fees are high in no way addresses the issue of diversifying across asset classes, which is what the fund’s about.
Than there’s David Snowball’s very well documented commentary (roughly a decade ago) analyzing Cuggino’s returns across asset classes and finding the performance lacking. I can’t argue with that. I doubt Cuggino excels as a stock picker. If that’s what you want, invest in a proven equity growth fund. And his dismal results for his short term Treasury fund are easily retreivable. Again, if you want a top income manager, invest with one.
All this said, PRPFX does invest across multiple asset categories. If you like those categories as a diversification tool and don’t want to go through the trouble of investing individually in each asset class, than it’s a decent fund.

One of the things that might have caused some issues was I think they had an enormous inflow of assets, probably during the credit crisis, and then most of those assets left afterwards.
I also know the fund has its own somewhat more sophisticated take on what Harry Browne laid out as his Permanent Portfolio and unfortunately it hasn't helped them. If you compare the performance of Browne's 25% each equities, long term treasuries, gold and cash to PRPFX, Browne has beaten the fund by 100 basis points annually since inception even though cash has effectively been earning nothing for almost 10 years and Browne managed that excess return with a lot less volatility, a much lower max drawdown, a better worst calendar year and, of course, far better risk adjusted returns.
If I could get people to give me $20MM every year for a management fee I'm sure I could come up with a worse version of Ray Dalio's All Season's Portfolio and that's just what they make on the paltry $2.5BN they still have in the fund. Five years ago they had $17BN but they were charging less so they probably only got $119MM that year. I really chose the wrong career!

@Catch22

PRPFX apparently has been "bothered" by more than gold pricing. Too many internal holdings to look closer, as I don't get paid very much for this type of work.
@Catch22, The fund holds a significant amount in short term paper and treasury bonds. Both have yielded near nothing for many years. If you throw a lot of 2% yielding paper into a portfolio the net result will be lower than it might be with 100% in some riskier asset. No?
Gold is in my opinion very risky. In my own lifetime it’s varried in price between $35 and $1600. It’s currently around $1300. Doesn’t sound like something I’d throw 100% of my assets into - even if I believed it was going to go higher. Just too d*** risky.

Oops. Sorry @bee. I thought this was from Ted and initially blasted it. (He who giveth shall receiveth.)
Torpedo recalled.
Apologies @Ted also. I need to look before I leap.
@bee raises an interesting question re PRPFX. And I listened to all 15 minutes of the video expecting the gent would eventually get around to that fund. But I see no reference to PRPFX or its multi-asset investment approach in the linked video. Perhaps a different video was intended?
What this is is a lopsided pitch for gold using scare tactics. I won’t dispute that the gentleman injects some real financial issues into his pitch (excess liquidity, high valuations, high debt, etc.). If folks have takes on those issues I’d be most interested in hearing their thoughts. (And a lot of his pitch is taken from John Hussman’s playbook.) But the presentation seems very lopsided and designed mainly to spook people into owning gold.
Everybody has their own take on PRPFX. Depends on your temperament, philosophy, life experiences and a whole lot of other factors. Those who read my musings must note I’m pretty risk averse. So I look for every possible way to diversify. Having a small chunk of this fund (10-15% of total) is just one aspect of that diversification.
I’ve never viewed PRPFX as something you buy or sell depending on your outlook for the economy or the stock market. Actually, I’d tend to view it more as an all weather fund, suitable at anytime. A good fund for those who agree with the “TED” series speaker’s doomsday prophecy would be HSGFX. A better choice IMHO than loading up on gold.
Regards

It would be interesting to know his active share because for the last 10 years he's more or less hugged the S&P 500 the whole way. My guess is he has a reasonably high active share but his returns during the credit crisis were very similar and his upside since then has been the same. I guess we have to give him a decent amount of credit for only trailing the S&P by 24 basis points annually for those 10 years, and the big party he throws has to be worth something (if you're into that) but I think most of his outperformance was during the '90s. Since then I'm not sure he's been anything spectacular amid his ever growing stable of funds that have made him a billionaire.

estimates he has generated $23.5 billion in investment profits since then.
He expects to double that number in the next five or six years.

That depends on on a continuing bull market for the next 5-6 years. I don't think so.

( I need to learn how to cut and paste articles on my I Pad).
Simple!
1) Press down against screen at the beginning or end of the passage to be extracted. Works best with a soft-tipped stylus.
2) A light colored (probably blue) dot appears on your screen at the point you are pressing against and a menu above will appear listing several options. Tap “select.” You’ll see a marker (probably blue) appear.
3) Slide the marker left or right and words will begin to appear within a highlighted zone as you make it longer or shorter.
4) Lift stylus from screen.
5) Watch for the word “copy” or “cut” to appear nearby (usually above) after you lift the stylus. Tap on “copy” or “cut”. That saves the highlighted words to the device’s memory.
6) Now, press your stylus against the screen again at the point where you want to paste the saved words. This can be within the document you are working on or an entirely different document.
7) Lift stylus from screen and watch for the word “paste” to appear. Tap on “paste.” The saved words should appear right where you want them.
Longer passages can be cut or copied by sliding your stylus upwards or downward against the screen.

I've own the Schwab robo for about the same time as this guy. I can't disagree with him. I also believe the complexity of the robo does not, or has not as of yet added total return value. The biggest concern I've had, and he stated, is having gold in the portfolio. I personally think gold is a bad investment over time. Certainly it has been over the time of his comparison.
The other thing I noticed, especially early on when I bought, was the robo seemed to have high international and EM exposure when you summed up equity, bonds and currency. Up until the 2017 that was not the place to be, so at least my robo suffered early on. Currency (like gold) in my mind is another complexity that adds little to no value.
I think I would recommend the robo to those that want absolutely no interaction with their portfolio, though as the author also notes, this can be done with a simple 1-fund retirement fund. I've been 50:50 in the robo and a self-managed portfolio. My plan is not to give up on the robo altogether, but to reduce it's weight in my over-all. Not exactly sure what I want that ratio to be yet.

FYI: Ron Baron started his mutual-fund firm in the 1990s and estimates he has generated $23.5 billion in investment profits since then.
He expects to double that number in the next five or six years. That’s not a market call, because the 74-year-old investor doesn’t make them. He expects to do what he has always done, which has involved beating the market long term at a point when most investors have given up on active management.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Ron-Baron-Explains-His-Investing-Strategy--Company-Growth.HJXZ2rwx4G.html

FYI: (Thank God, the Linkster has Dan Ivascyn as his bond fund manager!)
While U.S. stocks are now in an “accelerating phase,” billionaire investor Jeffrey Gundlach is predicting that the S&P 500 will post a negative rate of return in 2018.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline/doublelines-gundlach-predicts-sp-will-post-negative-return-in-2018-idUSKBN1EY2R2
Gundlach Sees Commodities Outperforming In Late-Cycle Boom:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/gundlach-says-commodities-set-to-outperform-in-late-cycle-boom