Many writers often over-simply complex subject matter as black and white. Then the absolute terms can mislead their audience. I think the probability of further rate hike is declining since inflation appears to be slowing. This morning the Feb’s PCE increased by 0.5% y-o-y, lower than that of January 2023. The next FOMC meeting is in May. We will see what the Fed would do at that point. Powell has a way to become hawkish and reaffirm their fight against inflation while this inflation remains sticky due to many complex factors such as tight labor market.
As for investment, short- and intermediate-term bond funds/ETFs make perfect sense in this environment. When the Fed announces the end of rate hike, it would be compelling to move to long duration bond.

Lewis is right, I"ve done this. The conversion is easy but a nuisance.
The TreasuryDirect instructions are here:
https://treasurydirect.gov/savings-bonds/manage-bonds/convert-paper-to-electronic/#id-how-do-i-convert-my-ee-or-i-bonds--508815
Basically, you create a separate (linked) account for converted bonds. You create a manifest (list) of bonds to convert, including their serial numbers and other info. You mail the savings bonds along with that manifest (printed out), and (these days) a few months later they'll show up in your account.
There's no rush because you can't cash them out for at least a year. And should they get lost in the mail (either coming to you as part of your refund or going back to Treasury Direct), you can request replacements.
The awkwardness is in having to handle the paper bonds and in having a different account number for the bonds at TD. Still a single login, so it's not too bad. And how often do you need to log in to look at these set-and-forget savings bonds?

Seeking alpha had a decent comparison of the business models of SCHW vs IBKR
Former 50% of revenues are investing clients cash balances
Latter revenues comes from fees and managing bid ask spread for clients who want trading efficiency so are willing to pay for it
I am getting adds comparing IBKR rates on their balances (4.5%) to SCHW and FIDO

I think the proposal to increase the FDIC limit (to say $1,000,000) and prorate the expense to the size of insurance you want makes the most sense
The costs of the insurance should all be borne by the beneficiaries with a reasonable surplus every year to allow for future payouts. The program could run with a 3 to 5 year look back provision, so very large payouts occasionally could be replaced by future payments into the fund
Most people and small businesses would only need one bank account but banks like SVB could continue to force some customers to keep larger accounts with them but pay for insurance. If you don't want to buy insurance, you are on your own.

Well said @LB. As an individual investor, cost of asset ownership is something I have absolute control. Thus, index funds and ETFs are preferred. So are those OEFs with lower expense ratio.
With regard to TIPS, I would only consider the shortest duration individual TIPs of 5 year, and hold it till maturity. The only TIPS funds that I am interested are the new short duration TIPS fund from Vanguard, VTIP, and Blackrock’s STIP. I have no interest in longer duration TIPS such as 30 years, since many changes can take place. Same goes for TIPS funds and their year-to-year performance speaks for themselves

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1261788/000089418923002318/bramshilltapinvestminimums.htm
497 1 bramshilltapinvestminimums.htm 497E
Trust for Advised Portfolios
Supplement dated March 30, 2023
to the Prospectus dated July 31, 2022
for the Bramshill Income Performance Fund
We are pleased to inform you that effective April 29, 2023, the initial investment minimum for the Institutional Class of the Bramshill Income Performance Fund (the “Fund”) will decrease from $100,000 to $1,000 and the subsequent investment minimum will decrease from $5,000 to $100.
Also effective April 29, 2023, the initial investment minimum for the Investor Class of the Fund will decrease from $1,000 to $100 and the subsequent investment minimum will decrease from $100 to no minimum.
Effective April 29, 2023, the following changes are made to the Fund’s Prospectus:
The table under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 7 of the Prospectus is replaced with the table below to reflect the new investment minimums:
Institutional Class Investor Class
Minimum Initial Investment
$1,000 $100
Minimum Subsequent Investment
$100 No Minimum
The first paragraph under “How to Buy Shares” on page 18 of the Prospectus is replaced with the paragraph below to reflect the new investment minimums:
The minimum initial investment amount for the Institutional Class shares is $1,000 and the minimum subsequent investment amount is $100. The minimum initial investment amount for the Investor Class shares is $100 and there is no minimum subsequent investment amount.

There were minor decreases in stock allocations & increases in m-mkt allocations. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $30.07 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $300.7 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes. #Funds #OEFs #ETFs #ICI
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 58.38%, Hybrids 5.21%, Bonds 19.89%, M-Mkt 16.52%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/245/fund-allocations-cumulative-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=994

Honestly, I don’t get the feeling that we’re in a nasty bear market or that things will worsen a lot. Of course there will be a recession at some point. But I don’t think we’ll re-test the lows of 2022 - unless the economy really falls off a cliff. I get a better sense from watching the Dow which topped out around 37,000 in late ‘21 / early ‘22 and then fell to around 29,500 mid-year ‘22 as best I can determine. I think success going forward depends a lot on countries / geographic regions chosen. Some may get a boost (from currency) if dollar continues down. And also individual companies may be better bets than the total market if one is willing to take the risk of investing in individual stocks. (But it’s not a small risk.)
As the above demonstrates: “Any idiot can voice an opinion”. I’m not qualified to make such calls. Just saying how I try to position my own stuff.

T Rowe Price Article on the Secure Act 2.0:
troweprice.com/what-investors-need-to-know-about-secure-20-provisions

If there is any place where the vulnerabilities of the system to runs and fire sales have been clear-cut, it is money market funds.
...
Even without a fixed NAV, liquidity mismatch in other kinds of funds can still make them vulnerable to runs and fire sales.

Falling between the cracks here are floating NAV money market funds - neither fixed NAV nor other (non-MM) kind of fund. I suspect this was an unintended omission.
The alternative would be that she considers floating NAV MMFs to be relatively immune to runs and fire sales. That's not beyond the realm of possibility. The MMF runs she describes are due to funds breaking a buck and investors rushing for the gates (a la SVB, Reserve Fund) - first mover advantage.
Floating NAV MMFs by definition can't break a buck - they aren't fixed to a $1 nominal NAV. Redemption values vary continuously (fractions of a percent) rather than discretely (1%, a penny at a time).
FWIW, one can invest in floating NAV MMFs via Merrill. That's one of the very few advantages I can see in that brokerage, though one of which I'm not partaking.
Footnote 13 (in the OP) is a cite to https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-258
The proposed MMF rules she refers to would have removed redemption fees/gating, and imposed swing pricing on institutional funds. This 2021 proposal is still being worked on and seems to still be accepting comments (last one was Feb 2023).
Proposal: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/34-93784.pdf
Fact sheet: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441-fact-sheet.pdf
Comments: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-22-21/s72221.htm
Mutual fund managers responded to the redemption fee/gating rules by managing the funds more conservatively so that the rules would never be triggered. They were concerned that if a fund got close to that point, investors would stampede out - first mover advantage redux.
Or something else might spook investors. Say, a pandemic.

Evidence indicates that SEC's reforms did not prevent runs during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, prime MMFs—which can invest in all types of short-term debt instruments—held by institutional investors experienced net redemptions of about 30 percent of their total assets in a 2-week period in March 2020 (see figure). Some evidence also indicates SEC's reforms may have contributed to the runs. Some investors may have preemptively redeemed MMF shares to avoid incurring a liquidity fee or losing access to their funds under a redemption gate.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105535
Notable in that report and in the SEC's proposal is the focus on institutional investors. (Swing pricing for institutional investors, relaxed restrictions on retail investors.) As with SVB, institutional investors are apparently the elephants in the room stomping on everyone else.

I saw that on Twitter. But +20% from the recent lows applies only to Nasdaq 100 QQQ/$NDX from the late-December lows, and not to Nasdaq Comp ONEQ/$COMPQ. Other major indexes had their lows in October and are still struggling.
Ed Yardeni, neither a perma-bull nor a perma-bear, now has 4,600 for SP500. I am watching 4,300-4,600 range myself to do some asset reallocations. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-stocks-could-end-14-110609639.html

AAII Sentiment Survey, 3/29/23
For the week ending on 3/29/23, bearish remained the top sentiment (45.6%; very high) & bullish remained the bottom sentiment (22.5%; very low); neutral remained the middle sentiment (31.9%; about average); Bull-Bear Spread was -23.1% (very low). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); economy; the Fed; dollar; cryptos; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (57+ weeks, 2/24/22- ); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were up, bonds down, oil up, gold up, dollar up. The US bank hearings provided insights into the crisis as the regulators watched. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=9&scrollTo=993

I watch this one as one gage of how conservative allocation funds are faring. For years it’s been regarded (ISTM) as the Cadillac of that group.
Surprised to see it down 0.30% YTD even after today’s +.45% gain. And last year it lost more than 9%. Never owned it. Just trying to figure out what’s causing its problem - likely some staple in its mix that isn’t performing as expected.

LOL - Funny. To be honest, I did a little “pruning” today (sold a bit). But by no means is that a bearish call.
Oh. I wouldn’t worry about Schwab’s survival. But financials / brokerages can be a bumpy ride. TRP nose-dived about 50% last year if I remember correctly.

Be careful what you ask about. You might get more than you bargained for :-)
There were a couple of exceptions to the "usual" step up rule in the past, there's one current exception (in timing), and potentially one in the future. Perhaps others that I'm not aware of.

Step-up in basis has been eliminated twice during the past 50 years, and each time, the change was short-lived.
Step-up in basis was first eliminated by the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and replaced with a carryover basis regime. The carryover basis rules were heavily criticized and repealed a few years later, before they had taken effect.
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 repealed the estate tax and adopted a carryover basis regime [no step up] for calendar year 2010 only ...
Congress eventually threw everyone a curveball. In mid-December [2010], Congress retroactively restored the estate tax and step-up in basis for 2010 decedents. However, for decedents who died in 2010, estate executors could opt out of the estate tax and into a carryover basis tax regime.

https://www.aperiogroup.com/blogs/repeal-of-basis-step-up-third-times-the-charm
The current estate tax law generally provides for a step up (or down) to current value as of date of death. However, for estates subject to the estate tax, an executor can elect to do an assessment of all assets in the estate (it's all or nothing) on the alternate valuation date six months after the date of death, assuming that would result in lower federal estate taxes.
The exception to this exception is if an asset is transferred (via sale, distribution, or other method) prior to the end of the six month period, the individual asset is valued as of the date of transfer.
Recent federal and state proposals are floating around to tax billionaires on unrealized capital gains annually based on mark-to-market valuations.
https://itep.org/president-bidens-proposed-billionaires-minimum-income-tax-would-ensure-the-wealthiest-pay-a-reasonable-amount-of-income-tax/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/17/wealth-taxes-state-level/
Under these proposals there would be no need for a step up because assets would already be valued at their last annual market price. Further, often these proposals are limited to easily priced securities. They might treat real estate and securities differently.

just put in stop loss on SCHW at $50

I would assume if they are audited the IRS will want receipts, ie that $5000 check for the fence!
Tell them to be glad their house value went up . We lost money on the sale of our house in CT over 30 years

Just bought 10k SCHW. Already ahead $4.57! A winner, at last !!!

Another possibility for a "safe harbor" option, if someone is etf savvy is the treasury floating rate ETF, USFR paying 4.79% now. It is all treasury bills with a duration 0f 0.02. In addition it is state tax free with 100% t-bills. This has worked well for me in this rising interest time but it can be bought and sold anytime without cost in most brokerages. I also own t-bills but USFR is hassle free if you do not wish to constantly roll over the t-bills on your own. I do not use the Fidelity rollover program because I prefer to be able to change each duration if appropriate when each matures and of course you do not pay the 0.15 ER of USFR in buying the t-bills themselves.

I'm not bothered at all by the extra coverage some uninsured depositors received at SVB. I'm just glad the FDIC agrees to guarantee deposits up to $250,000. Some libertarians want to go back to pre-1933 and eliminate FDIC guarantees for any amount. OH hell no !