True, I moved some of my savings to a 4.9% 19-month CD at Synchrony this AM. They had one still at 5%, the 14-month one.

I see 1-year Treasuries at 4.9% currently, and six month ones at 5.2%: https://ustreasuryyieldcurve.com/
But that assumes you are buying Treasuries directly I imagine.

Looking at Schwab just now, short-term (1 yr) Treasuries are running around 4.5%, but bank CDs are still around 5.25%.

Looking at Schwab just now, bank CDs are still over 5%.

"when the #*&# hits the fan the government will step in and cover everyone."
@hank- It's important to be clear when we use "verbal shorthand". Yes, the FDIC is a government agency. No, the FDIC does not use "government money" to make depositors whole. The monetary resources of the FDIC are generated by surcharges on the FDIC covered banks.
My suggestion for special coverage over 250k would not in any way involve using "government money" to replace money lost by private banking institutions. It would simply provide safety for large deposits by spreading them over the entire FDIC system so that the banking stupidity of a few banks could not materially affect those deposits.
This was denigrated in one response as a "government takeover/nationalization", which is ridiculous, when for all practical purposes that is exactly what the government is now forced to do in any case, to save the rest of the system from self-destruction.

The current yield on SWVXX is 4.48% while the current yield on SNSXX is 4.33%. Is it advisable to trade off the 15 basis points and be in SNSXX?

@sfnative ... I'm moving funds out of the MMF at Schwab because I want to have the FDIC insurance. For now, I'm putting the funds into a Schwab bank account. I might move it to a savings account at Goldman that is also FDIC insured and pays 3.75%. I'm doing this because I have no idea how safe a Schwab MMF fund is.... Maybe its fine but I'm not real comfortable with maybe. At any rate, I imagine this will all work out as the Fed is aware of the situation and will likely take the right steps.

Thanks @LewisBraham - Didn’t intend to sound critical of anyone. I read Grantham quite a bit 12-18 months ago and learned a great deal from him. Helped prepare me for the onslaught later on in mid ‘22. It’s just that watching all the different global & domestic assets move around today highlights the value of a broad perspective.
To your later remark - I actually considered attaching a proviso to the S&P remark along the lines of what you mention. Will we be a democracy in 35 years? Will workers still have the means to invest in the S&P or anything else? Will the atmosphere be fit to breath?

Actually, Grantham's models generally include other kinds of stocks besides the S&P 500 and other asset classes in general, although he doesn't always talk about them in more macro interviews. So, I wouldn't call his view of investing narrow.
That said, I'm not sure how anyone can say with absolute confidence that "over the next 35 years an S&P index fund should do just fine." That assumes market, economic and political history just repeats. I wonder if someone asked you, "Do you think over the next 35 years the U.S. will remain the dominant global economic superpower?" if your answer would be as confident. And the two questions regarding future market performance and national performance are connected.

@MikeM, buying at auction may get your a tad higher yield than those from secondary market. Monday is messy. We bought 3 and 6 months T last week and 6 months yield 5.2%. Things are changing rapidly since last Friday.
I think your sweep MM should be safe and remains liquid. Your gold position is working and moving up +2% today. This board has been so useful to stay informed.

I think in Grantham's case, given the models he uses, it's safe to assume he is referring to U.S. large caps, i.e., something akin to the S&P 500 or Russell 1000.

And pity those with such a narrow view of investing. Unless you’re 25 and DCA’ng into a 401K every couple weeks. Over the next 35 years an S&P index fund should do just fine.

3-mo T-Bill Auction today 4.75%/4.88%, not bad.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2023/R_20230313_2.pdf

I think in Grantham's case, given the models he uses, it's safe to assume he is referring to U.S. large caps, i.e., something akin to the S&P 500 or Russell 1000.

”stocks were in a speculative bubble and about to pop”
Statements like that tell you nothing. Which stocks? Where on the planet? A lot of time the general term “stocks” is applied to the U.S. S&P 500 Index. I’d have no problem believing Grantham (or at least giving the statement some credence) if that’s what he’s referencing.
“Pop” Great financial term. :)

I don't have a problem necessarily with the government providing a socialist tax-payer funded bailout to too-big-to-fail private sector businesses just so long as the executives running those businesses never complain about things like big government, socialism for poor people, taxes, regulations and the "moral hazard" of helping people again. The problem is some of the same people like venture capitalist David Sacks of the so-called "Paypal Mafia" who've complained about big government and regulation before are now the ones demanding the government bail out SVB: https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/1634300582008696833 It's sort of like people living in coastal Florida mansions complaining about their taxes being too high and "handouts" to the poor and how climate change is a myth suddenly having their hands out for FEMA money when their houses get washed away in a storm. It's an attempt to have it both ways. And if we have a recession because of the Fed raising rates too high, a lot more people than the wealthiest depositors at SVB will need help, yet I imagine the "moral hazard" criticism of helping will persist.

hope you added at 45 this AM
It is up to 50

@junkster enjoy the hike...I was just hiking myself in Western NC a few weeks ago...beautiful weather and hike.
You might move monies into SUTXX/SNSXX Schwab US Treasury MMF...100% Tbill, less than 1 year maturities, weighted ave maturity 38 days...
I can't see this one crumbling but for certain I am not an expert and with the social media hype/fear/human emotion who really knows how this plays out.
My take is this is going to lead into even higher inflation and this will blow over. I'll take my chances with Schwab over most any other bank/institution...but does trouble me that their stonk is getting clobbered AND they are still offering 5.4% 18 month CD this morning....(Full Disclosure: I tanked up and bought up to the FDIC limit today)
Sitting at my home office...keyboard tapper at the corp job...wishing I was out hiking...not really sure why I'm not...
Best Regards, Good Health and Good Luck to ALL,
Baseball Fan

Anybody buying? I just toe dipped into JPM but not brave enough for SCHW
Any opinion? CFO says they have plenty of liquidity
Charles Schwab Says It Has Access to 'Significant' Liquidity; Reports Decline in Total February Client Assets
9:59 AM ET, 03/13/2023 - MT Newswires
09:59 AM EDT, 03/13/2023 (MT Newswires) -- Charles Schwab (SCHW) on Monday assured investors that it has access to "significant" liquidity with "very little chance" it would need to sell its held-to-maturity securities prior to maturity.
Chief Financial Officer Peter Crawford said the company's business continues to perform "exceptionally well" and expects year-over-year growth of about 10% in Q1 revenue.
More than 80% of the company's total bank deposits fall within the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. limits, Crawford said, adding that cash outflows in February were about $5 billion lower than in January and March.
Total client assets were $7.38 trillion as of the end of February, down 4% from a year earlier and represents a sequential decline of 1%, the company said.
Charles Schwab shares were down more than 15% in early trading.
Barrons
https://www.barrons.com/articles/charles-schwab-stock-price-bank-selloff-4bb1ae5f?mod=md_stockoverview_news&mod=article_inline
"Last year, Schwab generated more than $10 billion of net interest revenue, which represented about half its total annual revenue, according to the company’s fourth-quarter earnings report. That revenue is the difference between the interest Schwab earns on bonds and loans and the interest it pays out to its funding sources, which are primarily uninvested client cash balances. Schwab’s net interest revenue looks increasingly at risk as interest rates rise."

The SIPC coverage is for account securities up to $500K (stocks, bonds, T-Bills, brokered CDs, m-mkt funds, etc) that can include brokerage cash up to $250K.
It looks to me that the brokerage cash coverage would vary as it can be crowded out by securities.
Note that FDIC coverage for bank failure is distinct from SIPC coverage for brokerage failure.
SIPC FAQs https://www.sipc.org/for-investors/investor-faqs
General Info https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/366/fdic-ncua-sipc-insurance

IIRC cash in a brokerage sweep account is protected up to 250K via FDIC or SIPC coverage, right?
That said I wouldn't fault people for moving large chunks of cash from a Schwab sweep or MMF into treasuries or treasury-ETFs at the moment.