@Old_Joe : Good post. Why do you think more people don't move their money ? When rates were .5% to 1% I can understand not moving your money, but at rates around 5% why not make the move ?
For the first time ever I received a personal note from bank thanking me for being a customer. It was kind of hard to believe as I had moved half of my cash out & only kept a higher amount to cover a new vehicle purchase.

5/22/23 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1450011/000119312523149609/d465321d497.htm
or 5/19/23 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1450011/000119312523149472/d485523d485bpos.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/357204/000158064223002855/sbhliquidationletter.htm
497 1 sbhliquidationletter.htm 497
CI Asset Management
SEGALL BRYANT & HAMILL TRUST
Segall Bryant & Hamill Fundamental International Small Cap Fund
Supplement dated May 23, 2023 to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated May 1, 2023
On May 18, 2023, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Segall Bryant & Hamill Trust (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Segall Bryant & Hamill, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Segall Bryant & Hamill Fundamental International Small Cap Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Trust, with an effective date on or about June 26, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution, and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on May 30, 2023. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after May 30, 2023, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. The Fund has declared a special distribution which will be paid prior to the liquidation. Please see the Fund’s website at www.sbhfunds.com for additional information regarding the special distribution.
Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of May 30, 2023, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after May 30, 2023, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets between June 1, 2023 and the Liquidation Date.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
All expenses incurred in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Plan, other than the brokerage commissions associated with the sale of portfolio securities, will be paid by the Adviser.
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/357204/000158064223002856/sbhworkplacesupplement.htm
497 1 sbhworkplacesupplement.htm 497
CI Asset Management
SEGALL BRYANT & HAMILL TRUST
Segall Bryant & Hamill Workplace Equality Fund
Supplement dated May 23, 2023 to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated May 1, 2023
On May 18, 2023, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Segall Bryant & Hamill Trust (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Segall Bryant & Hamill, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Segall Bryant & Hamill Workplace Equality Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Trust, with an effective date on or about June 26, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution, and Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on May 30, 2023. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after May 30, 2023, and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. The Fund has declared a special distribution which will be paid prior to the liquidation. Please see the Fund’s website at www.sbhfunds.com for additional information regarding the special distribution.
Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of May 30, 2023, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after May 30, 2023, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets between June 1, 2023 and the Liquidation Date.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
All expenses incurred in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Plan, other than the brokerage commissions associated with the sale of portfolio securities, will be paid by the Adviser.
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information.

I don’t know. Bloomberg’s Chris Anstey and Liz McCormick report:

Investment bank clients are peppering Wall Street with questions about what happens if the US Treasury in coming weeks runs out of cash and does the unthinkable — failing to make payments due on Treasury securities, the bedrock of the global financial system. …
One school of thought is that the impact might not be so damaging. After all, since the 2011 debt-limit crisis, market participants have worked out a process for dealing with the Treasury announcing that it couldn’t make an interest or principal payment.
But JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon warned earlier this month that even going to the brink is dangerous, with unpredictable consequences.
“The closer you get to it, you will have panic,” he said in a May 11 interview with Bloomberg Television. “The other thing about markets is that, always remember, panic is the one thing that scares people — they take irrational decisions.”
And even a key group that helped to compile the emergency procedures, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York-sponsored Treasury Market Practices Group, has issued its own caution.
“While the practices contemplated in this document might, at the margin, reduce some of the negative consequences of an untimely payment on Treasury debt for Treasury market functioning, the TMPG believes the consequences of delaying payments would nonetheless be severe,” it said in its December 2021 gameplan.

And:

“We are likely to see localized dislocations in the event of missed payment,” if that were to happen, JPMorgan rates strategists, co-led by Jay Barry, wrote Friday in a Q&A for clients on a technical default.
RBC Capital Markets strategists, also writing Friday, said they “doubt” a downgrade would trigger any forced reallocation by fund managers away from Treasuries.
At the same time, RBC’s Blake Gwinn and Izaac Brook cautioned that the “back-office issues” of delaying payments “could very easily bleed into the front-office, causing disruptions to liquidity and market functioning.”
The TMPG noted that firms holding Treasuries in custody for other financial institutions tend to advance payments scheduled for those securities, and would need to sort how to proceed if those payments weren’t received from the Treasury on time.
Firms that offer pricing on Treasuries could run into challenges, “such as setting the price of a Treasury subject to a delayed payment to $0,” the group said.
Some market participants “might not be able to implement” the contingency plans, “and others could do so only with substantial manual intervention in their trading and settlement processes, which itself would pose significant operational risk,” the TMPG said.

Yesterday FT Alphaville published much of that JPMorgan rates strategy Q&A, which I would say is broadly sanguine about market plumbing. The first point is that, if the US government does default, that will probably cause the prices of Treasury bonds to go up, since a government debt default is a crisis and crises cause a flight to safety and the safest assets are, still, Treasuries:

This is certainly not our modal view, but in the unlikely event of a technical default, we think Treasury yields would decline and the curve would steepen. This seems unusual in the context of a default, but Treasuries have rallied into the latter stages of other serious debt ceiling debates in 2011 and 2013.

From first principles, if a US debt default does not reduce the value of Treasuries, then Treasuries should remain pretty useful for plumbing and collateral purposes. Of course very little about financial plumbing is derived directly from first principles, and if your computer has a switch that is like “IF bond is defaulted THEN don’t accept it as collateral,” then there are problems. But people have had years of debt-ceiling warnings to adjust their switches and one hopes they have things kind of right:

Treasury can, in principle, delay coupon or principal payment dates. If Treasury announces its intention to postpone a payment date in advance (the day before the payment is due), the security will remain in Fedwire, and would therefore still be transferable. …
If Treasury fails to notify investors of its intent to delay a principal payment due the following day by approximately 10:00 PM, the security in question will drop out of Fedwire, and such defaulted security will not be transferable. If (only) a coupon payment is missed, however, the underlying security is still in the system and remains transferable. ...
The status of Treasury collateral depends on the timing of Treasury’s notification of any delays in payments. If done in the timeframe discussed earlier, the security remains in Fedwire and is still transferable. As a result, it could in principal be used as collateral for repo and derivatives transactions, although possibly with higher haircuts.
If notification deadlines are not met, particularly for principal payments, that particular security is dropped out of the system and is no longer transferable, and as a result, cannot be used as collateral. It is possible that an OTC market may develop for securities that drop out of the system, but the likelihood of such an outcome is unclear at the present time.
Since Treasury securities do not have cross-default provisions, other Treasury securities that have not had a delayed/missed payment will remain transferable on Fedwire and can therefore continue to be used as collateral. ...
Under the US non-cleared margin requirements (NCMR) finalized by CFTC and prudential regulators, Treasury securities are considered eligible collateral even in the case of a missed payment. However, this is not the case under the UK and EU NCMR regimes. Thus, for any transactions facing counterparties in those regions, defaulted Treasury securities would be assigned zero collateral value, requiring the swap counterparty to substitute or post additional collateral. …
We believe the Federal Reserve will accept defaulted Treasuries as collateral at the discount window.

And so on. Money market funds, for instance, hold about $1 trillion of short-term Treasuries; “ultimately,” say JPMorgan, “we believe these funds would not be forced to liquidate Treasury securities in a technical default.”
I want to make a couple of points here:

• 1) I assume that they are basically correct not to be too worried about the plumbing. We have been having debt-ceiling crises every few years for ages now, and surely everyone has war-gamed this out over and over again. Financial markets are not full of idiots, and it would be annoying if this extremely predictable and predicted event brings down the global financial system through some technicality.
• 2) That said, I assume that with, like, 85% confidence. There is a lot of stuff out there. Surely the biggest global banks and asset managers have gamed out how they will keep markets going in the event of a US default, but is there some smaller firm whose computers will say “Treasury price = $0” and cause chaos? Maybe!
• 3) If you work in some corner of financial plumbing that you think won’t work in the event of a default, please do let me know! Send me an email. Also, though, fix it? You still have a little bit of time, and you’ve had plenty of warning.
• 4) Wouldn’t it be so tiresome to work in financial plumbing at some big bank and have to go to all the meetings about this stuff? To have to build all the systems to deal with a US government default, just because the US government can never get its act together to get rid of the debt ceiling, and because debt-ceiling negotiations always have to go to the last second? Like imagine pulling the all-nighters at JPMorgan to prepare for this, scrambling to save the US government from the consequences of its own incompetence and malice, and meanwhile the Securities and Exchange Commission is fining because sometimes you text your colleagues about work. Just pay your debts, come on.

The basic question about this year’s US regional banking crisis is “why weren’t the banks prepared for the very predictable problems that they faced when interest rates went up,” and the basic answer is “because they thought rates going up would be good for them.”
We have talked about this a few times around here, and I have described two theories of banking. In Theory 1, banks have short-term deposits and invest them in long-term assets, so when interest rates go up, their costs go up (they have to pay more on their deposits) while the value of their assets goes down (those assets continue to pay fixed rates, and now are worth less). Rising rates are bad. In Theory 2, bank deposits are actually long-term, because the banks have enduring relationships with their customers and their customers are unlikely to leave, or demand higher rates, as interest rates go up. And so banks can use those long-term-ish deposits to fund long-term assets, and as interest rates go up, the banks can earn higher rates, don’t have to pay higher rates, and so make more money. Rising rates are good. Theory 2 is the traditional theory of banking, and it is why many banks were not adequately prepared for rising rates.
At the Wall Street Journal today, Jonathan Weil and Peter Rudegeair report on Theory 2:

The recent spate of bank failures is upending a long-held theory among banking executives and regulators—that the value of a lender’s deposit business goes up when interest rates move higher.
The theory rests on an assumption: That banks don’t have to pay depositors much to keep their money around, even as rates rise. The deposits would be a stable source of low-cost funding while the bank earned more money lending at higher rates.
The more rates rose, the bigger the franchise value of those deposits would become—a natural hedge against the declining market values of a portfolio of fixed-rate loans and bonds.
But if rising rates or plunging asset values cause a bank’s depositors to flee en masse, the franchise value is zero—and, worse, it could beget other bank runs. That is what happened with Silicon Valley Bank. …
The Federal Reserve, which both regulates banks and sets interest-rate policy, in a November report pointed to large unrealized losses on banks’ bondholdings due to rising rates. Things weren’t so bad, the Fed said, because “the value of banks’ deposit franchise increases and provides a buffer against these unrealized losses.”

Not really! And yet Theory 2 has some truth to it, just not so much for regional banks:

JPMorgan Chase lifted its outlook for how much it expects to earn this year from its lending business following the recent purchase of First Republic, bucking a broader trend among US banks of shrinking profits owing to deposit withdrawals.
In a presentation for its investor day on Monday, JPMorgan lifted its 2023 target for net interest income (NII), excluding its trading division, to about $84bn from $81bn previously, because of its deal for First Republic. NII is the difference between what banks pay on deposits and what they earn from loans and other assets. …
Large lenders such as JPMorgan have benefited from the US Federal Reserve lifting interest rates last year, which enabled them to charge borrowers more for loans without passing on significantly higher rates to savers.
The bank said its deposits, which totalled $2.3tn at the end of March, were “down slightly” year on year. Chief financial officer Jeremy Barnum said the expectation was that system-wide deposits at US banks would continue to decline as the Fed tightened monetary policy and customers chased better yields on their cash.
“We will fight to keep primary banking relationships but we are not going to chase every dollar of deposit balances,” Barnum added.
JPMorgan is paying 1.21 per cent on average to depositors, lower than the 1.75 per cent average of its peers, according to data from industry tracker BankReg.

See, that’s a deposit franchise. Having a valuable deposit franchise means that you don’t have to chase every dollar of deposits, because they don’t go anywhere.

Pimco already has a lineup of multisector OEF & CEF funds. Now comes its active multisector ETF.
https://twitter.com/ETFhearsay/status/1661115242468745263?t=-vAgfbXrbhcW-UXl6z2YiQ&s=19

Vanguard is testing out two different cash programs. One is a bank sweep option for brokerage settlement accounts (Vanguard Cash Deposit). The other (Vanguard Cash Plus Account) provides enables bill payment but only via ACH pull (no checkwriting, no bill pay, no debit/ATM card).
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/cash-investments
These programs are more or less by invitation:

You must be an existing Vanguard client to be considered. Not all Vanguard clients will be eligible to open a Cash Plus Account.
You must be an existing Vanguard client to be considered. Not all Vanguard clients will be eligible for Vanguard Cash Deposit.

Every time I've tried, I've received the message:

Enrollment is closed for now, but we’ll be in touch
We’re sorry you weren’t included in the pilot phase of Vanguard Cash Deposit. We’re in the process of adding clients and will let you know as soon as it’s ready for you.
We're sorry you weren't included in the pilot phase of the Vanguard Cash Plus Account. We're in the process of adding clients and will let you know as soon as it's ready for you.

Regarding the settlement sweep account, it's a nice option for people who don't feel comfortable using a government MMF (VMFXX) and would prefer a bank sweep. But it comes with a cost. Current 7 day yield on VMFXX is 5.02% (annual yield of 5.15%), while the bank sweep offers an APY of 3.5%.
The bank offering is more competitive. 4.5% though with very limited "banking" capabilities. Note that it is structured as a brokerage account with a bank sweep, as opposed to a pure bank account like a Schwab Bank account.
These two programs are all well and good, but not something I'd go out of my way for. Though 4.5% FDIC-insured is attractive at the moment. As a Vanguard client, I might use it (if Vanguard would deign to let me in).
I've seen at least a couple of the sweep program banks mentioned in articles of banks possibly at risk: Huntington National Bank (part of Huntington Bancshares) and Valley National Bank. There are also very solid banks on the list.

@davidrmoran: preserve us from the 70's and those interest rates!

not 51y ago

@fred495...question if you are comfortable answering...how much of a change meaning your 100% Treasury MMKT and FDIC CD portfolio from your past portfolio...were you very heavy in those investments prior and if so what % of your portfolio?
FWIW...I've been 85-90% for many years in those types of investments....now ~ 95%...."stop playing the game if you feel you've got enough...don't get greedy...get your portfolio where you can sleep well at night" I'm still working and do I guess you would say better than average out there...working for the "fun of the game, camraderie and challenge.."
...who the heck knows though right?
Good Luck to ALL,
Baseball Fan

I am a retired and fairly conservative investor who really doesn't need a lot more money - but I certainly don't want to lose a lot. In the current environment, preserving capital is more important to me than seeking return on capital. I prefer to err on the side of caution. As you said, "who the heck knows"?
I have been 100% in a Treasury only MM fund and in FDIC insured CDs from large national banks since the early spring of last year. Currently, the split between Treasury MM and CDs is approx. 40/60. This percentage will change as CDs mature and the proceeds are reinvested in the future.
Prior to that I was approx. 50% in allocation/options/macro trading funds with fairly low standard deviations, such as FMSDX, JHQAX, BLNDX, PVCMX, etc., and the other 50% in bond funds, such as NVHAX, OSTIX, RCTIX, TSIIX, etc.
Good luck,
Fred

I just spoke to Schwab a few minutes ago about uninvested cash just sitting. I was told that it is swept into Schwab Bank and pays .45%. I would not mention this normally but right now I am concerned about all MONEY market accounts. My adult kid sold off a major position in Swvxx and so far is too lazy to move it to her synch OLS.

@hank,
Japanese Companies = yes
Japanese Economy = not so sure
Buffet's 5 Japanese stocks:
japanese-stocks-that-warren-buffett-just-bought
Japanese Funds/ETFs i have followed:
HJPNX
HJPSX
FJPNX
DXJ - great returns over the last 5 years

***Also posted on Big-Bang
I currently hold FXAIX (FIDO) and PRILX (Parnassus), taxable and ROTH, respectively.
I am looking to compliment each of them with another fund (Mutual or ETF). I currently also have a small position in TDVG (PRDGX-TRP) but not sure if it's the best complimentary LCB option.
I am having a little difficulty narrowing down an ETF or Mutual fund; a consideration is JQUA (JPMorgan Quality Factor). One issue I am coming across is tax efficiency; most of my DD is leading me to higher than desired Tax Cost Ratio Mutual funds and some ETF's with .7 - .8 TCR.
Not that .7 - .8 is terrible, but if I am to invest in an ETF, I would prefer a more tax efficient one, if possible. Maybe it's not viable for this category?
EDIT: Just came across a 1-year old ETF from Capital Group "CGUS" (combining Growth and Income....can serve as a compliment to the S&P 500....). Any thoughts on this?
I'm looking to invest about 10% in this "complimentary" MF and/or ETF
Any suggestions, constructive criticisms, thoughts or idea's are very welcome!
Thank you in advance!
Matt

I am starting this thread because I have more questions than answer when it comes to money creation. Econ 101 explains that "money creation" is what banks do with excess reserves and how banks can create $9 of debt (loaned money...known as a liability) from a single $1 of revenue (known as an asset or as a bank deposit).
From Econ 101:
The Banking System and Money Creation
From this reading, I then found data on US income tax payments (deposits (taxes) made to the IRS).
Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
Let's consider the Federal Reserve and the IRS as one big bank. In 2019, the IRS collected $3.56 Trillion dollars in tax revenue. This was collected from earned and unearned income (taxes owed by US citizens). On the liability side of this bank, US citizens are running a debt (issued by the US government) of 31.8 Trillion dollars.
https://usdebtclock.org/
In the banking world (fraction reserve system),
Assets + Liabilities = Total Deposits
So,
US Tax revenue ($3.56T) + US Debt ($31.8T) = $35.36T
Using the same numbers we can determine that 10% reserves equals $3.536T which is slightly less than the $3.56T collected in tax revenue (IRS assets). This would make a bank's accountant department happy. ;)
If this Fractional Reserve system is how banks operate (10% bank deposits & 90% bank loans), it appears the US government (Bank of USA) operates in a similar manner, collecting about 10% in revenues (taxes) and loaning out 90% in debt (liabilities).
Now, if we all can agree that the US national debt is "loaned out" and that it will create new tax revenues for years to come and so long as we are collecting at least 10% of "total deposits" in tax revenue each year we should be as solvent as the banking system...
O.K., now I see the problem! :(

#5 @Sven did you happen to see 60 Minutes last night ? Over charging for tools that the armed forces use !! All at tax payer expense ! Armed services hurt to : 100 tanks ordered , can only buy 90 with their allotted dollars.

Good interview overall with many historical perspectives. He is quite bearish and the economy is entering a recession now.
1. He likes things that you need, i.e. consumer staples (food), utilities, and healthcare, not so much things you want.
2. Long and short tern treasury bonds as in a barbell
3. Gold, but they are near all time high
4. Farmland (impractical for most investors)
5. Defense industries as the budget goes up every year
6. His equity allocation is at all time low (recession)

@dtconroe what makes a banking account (checking and savings) more liquid than a money market fund at the likes of Schwab?

Hi Mona, I have a brick and mortar branch of my bank 10 minutes away. I literally can get whatever cash I need out of that bank within just a few minutes. If the bank is closed, I have a drive through ATM 5 minutes away where I can get cash. I can move money between my checking account and savings accout online, instantly. I have FDIC protections and I have tremendous trust in my bank as a result of many years of membership. I also have a large number of bills linked to my bank account online, for monthly drafting to pay the expenses. I also have a large number of ongoing deposits from social security, spouse pensions, etc. and if any of those are disrupted by Default problems, then I have other cash available in my bank savings account that I can quickly shift to my checking account for bill drafting coverage.
With my Schwab brokerage MM account, I have to put in a trade to sell a certain amount of the MM fund, and it goes to brokerage cash the next day. Then I have to transfer the brokerage cash electronically to my bank, and it takes a couple of days for the trade to settle and the transfer to be completed. Sometimes the weekend delays the process for a few more days. When the money finally arrives at my bank, then I can go through the withdrawal, bill paying process, that I already described.
From my perspective, everything is faster and more dependable by have adequate assets in my banking account, and quite frankly I trust my bank more than my Schwab brokerage to protect my cash.

I sold all of my bond funds in March of 2022. I have not bought any new bond funds since then, preferring Brokerage noncallable CDs and MMs. I have no plans on buying any new bond funds in the near future. For now, I prefer to reinvest CDs that are maturing, into new CDs at higher interest rates. I continue to hold a large number of watchlists of bond oefs, to see if there is an emerging performance pattern that interests me, but nothing I trust has emerged in 2023 so far. I continue to have interest in Bank Loans, Municipal Funds, and some HY, Multisector and Nontraditional funds, so I watch those most closely. With MMs and CDs paying aroung 5% or more, I have no sense of urgency to rush back into bond oefs.

At this time, and for lack of any better alternatives that meet my comfort level, I am keeping 100% of my portfolio in a Treasury Only MM fund and in FDIC insured CDs issued by the largest national banks until the proverbial dust settles.
Good luck,
Fred

Hi Fred, I am not sure what kind of portfolio you have. I have both a traditional taxable account, along with an IRA account. I am keeping my Brokerage IRA portion in MMs and CDs, but I am transferring "part" of my traditional brokerage taxable account to my Banking Account (checking and Savings) for liquidity reasons. Do you count your Banking Account as part of your portfolio?