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.

Preferred proxy PFF down 4.31% and the normally staid bank loan fund proxy BKLN down 1.55%.

.
Thanks for heads up. Have a great hike.

If companies hold over 250K cash in banks to meet payroll, and other expenses, what is to be gained by evaporating that money, beyond the temporary pleasure of sticking it to the big boys?
If companies can't make payroll, or pay the other companies they do business with, we won't be talking about Fed rates. We will be talking about business failures, and unemployment.

OK it is very early in the trading day but at as post this First Republic is down 74%, Zion Bank down 31%, and Schwab down 20% to name just a few. Preferred proxy PFF down 4.31% and the normally staid bank loan fund proxy BKLN down 1.55%. I am going hiking this morning so hope things improve by the time I get back. I am all in cash (SNAXX) but must admit a tad concerned about Schwab where I apparently have my monies being a TD Ameritrade account holder.
Edit: Should add junk bonds hanging in there. I would think these massive declines in anything bank related offer huge opportunities. But I will let others capitalize as catching falling knives is not my idea of enjoying life in old age.

The 5% T rates are gone like the wind, for now anyhow.

@hank
Taking periodic looks at the ETF link in this thread to watch which sectors are moving which way.
Schwab was down about 20% for a bit this morning, and ballpark about -35% for the past 5 days.
Staying put with our stuff, at 50% equity (mostly healthcare, some robotics), 25% IG bonds and 25% MMKT.
NOTE: Bloomberg just noted, if I heard properly; that the FED will not have a rate increase in March. Mike McKee quipped that he is surprised they didn't wait until the CPI was announced this week. I do believe CPI and other numbers are way down on the 'consequence' chart right now.

+1 @MikeM
First day in a while I’m not tempted to do anything. Can you believe the 10-year is under 3.5% after having topped 4% only a week ago? If I heard correctly a few minutes ago, trading in Schwab temporarily halted due to volatility. Definitely Mike’s fault for moving his fortune out of their money market fund.

Well, Monday morning the word “Stategery” comes to mind. WTF should an investor do? At bedtime the Dow futures were + 450. Just before the open today they are - 250. Yields on 2 year notes have plummeted overnight. So have yields on the 10-year, but to a lesser extent. Precious metals have gone wild. Silver leading the way up 3-4% this morning. The dollar’s getting slammed. Looks to me like many foreign denominated holdings will soar.
Anybody have a strategy for playing this mess?

Wow... logged in to Schwab and the 3, 6, and 9 month Treasuries are well below 5%, like 40-50bps lower than they were Friday. Yikes.

Yes, I noticed the same @rforno. I don't want to over react, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, so I'm moving most of my Schwab MM $ into a 3 month treasury this morning, 4.64%.

Depositors with big cash holdings are – reasonably – expected to be aware of the risks and spread their cash around several institutions. Businesses backed by venture capital, such as the customers of SVB, ought to have been advised how to manage their liquid holdings.
... the sight of depositors being made whole ... provides a disincentive for both depositors and banks to be prudent. There’s no reward here for SVB customers who banked more carefully.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/13/svb-crisis-backstop-revives-the-specter-of-moral-hazard/bb2731c6-c188-11ed-82a7-6a87555c1878_story.html
As I wrote above, I take a darker view. It's not just the presence of reward (higher returns) but the absence of punishment that's a problem with risky deposits. There's no penalty (loss) for large depositors to be reckless with their savings.
However, it's not every bank failure that gets protection. It's not automatic. It's just the banks that take the most outrageous risks and lose that are directly protected by the government. On infrequent occasions, uninsured depositors lose money. That happens when a failed bank is not TBTF, but the the FDIC can't find a buyer that will assume all of the bank's deposit liabilities.
https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/
This unequal treatment has its own problems, as discussed in this 1990 paper (near the end of the quoted section):

A good first step... would be to cease the present practice of fully paying out uninsured depositors when bank failures occur. This practice, of course, is de facto insurance [emphasis in original] ... Paul Duke, Jr. reports that "many [bankers] support proposals to give depositors a 'haircut' a 10% of 15% loss on deposits above the [FDIC insurance limit] — when a bank fails. Two of banking's biggest guns, Citicorp Chairman John Reed and Chase Manhattan President Thomas Lebrecque, support variations of this proposal (WSJ, Aug 3, 'S9, A16). ... Such a shift in policy should not encounter insuperable opposition since it falls far short of enforcing the insurance limitations which legally already exist.
Since the Continental Illinois bankruptcy the federal banking and S&L authorities have adopted a too—big—to-fail policy. The policy is closely related to the unwritten policy of rescuing any faltering American corporation if it is large enough. The most notable cases so far have been Continental Illinois and Chrysler.
...In the beginning this de facto extension of coverage only applied to the banks and S&Ls which were large enough to have a wide financial influence. ... only the eleven largest banks were originally covered, hence the designation "too-big—t o—fail". The government however was rightfully criticized for this policy on the grounds that it put smaller banks at a competitive disadvantage, so, to correct this inequity the government has for several years made it a general policy to pay off all depositors in both large and small failed banks.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10130&context=etd

Wow... logged in to Schwab and the 3, 6, and 9 month Treasuries are well below 5%, like 40-50bps lower than they were Friday. Yikes.