@hank @Junkster et al
UST yields..... 1, 3 and 6 month; as well as 1, 5, 10, and 30 year. The chart starts at October 25, 2022. This was the start reference for the BONDS thread. Call it intuition or whatever, but the pricing/yields caused me to look more closely. I don't know that the chart will help 'see' anything; but it is one I've used for some time, and is real time, if you choose to save the site. KEEP in mind, this is a 'yield', nor NAV/pricing chart.
The Ukrainian war and the inflation pressures everywhere had started to pull the FEDS chain, although they can't do much about many aspects of inflation. And as been noted previous, how far are they going to go with rate increases to 'fix' what they don't like, NOT break the economy and have a 2% inflation rate. Glad I'm not piloting that ship.
@Junkster noted too about the MMKT and CD rates. One may look at MMKT charts and see the steps in yield increases following the Fed Funds rates, at least with a chart view inside Fido for FZDXX. The chart from left to right looks like a side view of stair steps.
I agree with @Junkster about 'clear mud'. There are so many moving parts that the FED and the private sectors are focusing upon, that the best I can do is try to do at this time is be close enough to seeing a meaningful change to cause a change in the portfolio. NOT a fun time, right now; although I'm not a short term trader, I still want to have most of the gains between the high or low of an investment.
IG bonds had their 'protective' place today, yields down/prices up amidst the equity burn.
Perhaps something of consequence from some of the words. In a funk today, so I'm out of thinking gas.

@sma - this is supposedly a free link

If you are a baseball fan you know the term small ball. If not, it means trying to score runs without hitting a home run. I have been tracking money market and brokered CD’s at Schwab. In the last month the steady rise of MM fund rates has ground to a halt while brokered CD rates have moved up,,,even moving out from the shortest terms.
MM SWVXX. FEB 8. 4.41%. Today 4.48%
12 month CD. 4.75%. 5.25%
24 month CD. 4.55%. 5.25%
36 month CD. 4.25%. 5.00%
My question for those with greater insights than I. Does this relative increase in intermediate term and a flattening of the shortest term(Money Market) rates have any meaning going forward?

The flattening in money market funds is normal because they are limited by the Fed funds rate. There was a 25 basis point increase in Fed fund on February 1. At that time your fund was yielding 4.27. So you would expect a rise close to 25 basis points after the Fed funds increase and that is pretty much what we have had - a 21 basis point rise to 4.48. It could still rise to around 4.49 to 4.50 before the next Fed funds rate increase in two weeks. Then, like before there will be a rapid one week to 10 day increase of close to 25 points or 50 points in your money market depending on which of those two rates increases the Fed decides upon.
As for why the CD rates have risen further that is based on what has transpired since the shocking January employment report on February 3 which came two days after the last Fed meeting and rate increase, Expectations of even more and longer Fed rate hikes. Hence longer rates have soared since February 3 resulting in higher CD rates. You can bet if tomorrow’s monthly employment report is the reverse, longer rates will fall and those high CD rates will no longer be available. Or if it is again another upside shock in employment even higher CD rates in the future and more talk of a terminal 6%+ Fed fund rates down the road.
Clear as mud right?

Putting @Larry aside … :)
I’d like to chime in that we’re living through a very abnormal period of interest rates. And (not unlike black holes in space) this abnormality tends to distort everything else associated with it.
In a “normal” healthy economy, longer term interest rates would be higher than short term rates. That’s because investors are taking a lot more risk locking up money in a 10, 20 or 30-year bond than they are in buying a 1-year CD. Think about the last time you took out a mortgage. Weren’t the rates for a 30 year mortgage higher than those for a 10 or 15 year one? That’s how it’s supposed to work. However, due to some very unusual circumstances, rates across the curve are highly distorted now with 1-year notes paying a higher rate than a 10-year treasury bond. I think we can be fairly certain that this “upside down” rate structure won’t last indefinitely.
As alluded to, I’m probably unusual in my approach - especially at an advanced age - because I don’t carry much cash. The bond funds I own are intended more to balance out a portfolio than to yield anything. @catch22 studies this a lot and may want to weigh in. Maybe he could give a short snap-shot of the current highly inverted yield curve as it affects bonds at different maturities … But you can be certain this can’t go on forever. And so much depends on things like stock valuations, inflation, recession, Fed policies - and even other global currencies and central banks that it’s a real puzzle. The “experts” I think are as confounded as any of us!

@hank and @Old_Joe - but did you copy and paste the non-working link? Who does that? Anyway try this LINK and maybe....
FWIW in his original post the address shown was highlighted and a simple click should have taken one to the article. I don't know what he's done to it since because it is no longer highlighted. Maybe it's just my Mac messing with me.

It will be interesting to see over the next days and weeks. If I understood Mike Wilson, key resistance on the S&P 500 is at 4,150 and if the bear market rally is to continue, it will need a weaker dollar and lower yield on the 10-year Treasury.

BTW, fed fund rate is the overnight rate for banks to borrow from each other. Discount rate is the rate at which troubled banks may borrow from the Fed Discount Window (looks like it was shut for crypto-friendly Silvergate/SI that is shutting down and liquidating - probably a buyer couldn't be found either). Reserve rate is that paid by the Fed to banks just to park their excess reserves at the Fed.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/158/fomc-statements-6-7-weeks?page=2&scrollTo=918

For the week ending on 3/8/23, bearish remained the top sentiment (41.7%; high) & bullish remained the bottom sentiment (24.8%; very low); neutral remained the middle sentiment (33.4%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -16.9% (very low). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); economy; the Fed (tough talk by Powell); dollar; cryptos (Silverbank/SI to shutdown); market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (54+ weeks, 2/24/22- ); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were up, bonds up, oil down, gold down, dollar up. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/966

Not trying to change the topic. Treasury bill and notes are also competitive to broker CDs. They are good vehicles to build ladders.
As of 3/8/23, 6 months yield 5.34%,12 months yield 5.25% and 2 years yield 5.05%.
https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202303
Treasuries are highly liquid that can be sold in open market before reaching maturity.

A working link would be nice @Fd1000. Like flying blind here. But for you to conclude somebody’s opinion of where to best invest was “wrong” based on YTD return (in this case less than 2.5 months) is a bit rash. Hell, even here folks have longer investment horizons than that!
Please! I can’t tolerate CNBC. Geez - A bunch of old farts displaying cheap looking hair pieces. At least the women on Bloomberg look fine - even if the investment advice no more useful.

Well to be fair the survey was taken to assess how managers 'intend' to invest moving forward and not how they were positioned. The part FD left off from Yahoo:
"Defensiveness is in style among financial advisers, according to the BofA Securities annual Global Wealth & Investment Management Survey.
Equity allocation (NYSEARCA:SPY) (QQQ) (DIA) (IWM) fell to 57% from 62% in 2022, the lowest level in the short six-year history of the survey. This time around, 372 Merrill financial advisers from around the country responded.
Exposure to bonds (TBT) (TLT) (SHY) (IEI) (HYG) (LQD) rose 3 percentage points to 27%, the highest recorded.
"These shifts may continue: 39% said they are moving more into bonds, vs. 18% for equities, consistent with the average bond allocation from sell-side strategists hitting a 10-year high," strategist Savita Subramanian wrote in the survey note Wednesday. "We see long duration bonds (and long duration growth stocks) as risky given rate sensitivity."
Cash (VMFXX) (SPAXX) allocation rose to 10% from 7%.
"Just 26% plan to buy stocks with excess cash (v. 42% last year), while 29% plan to buy bonds," Subramanian said. "30% are happy to remain in cash. Cash return/dividend strategies are most frequently requested by clients (82%). We concur. We also prefer companies with self-funded growth (cash flow generators) to those that need to borrow to grow.""
FWIW.

All you got to do is listen to dozens of "experts' on CNBC and read many articles in the last 3 months where they said the same thing. No, it didn't start this week, it's been going on for awhile now.

I disavow any claim of “greater insight.” But as no one else has taken this up I’ll venture an opinion …
”Does this relative increase in intermediate term and a flattening of the shortest term(Money Market) rates have any meaning going forward?”
In short - No.
It might mean market forces are at work. Money has been piling into the shortest end of the curve - money market funds. No need for intermediaries like brokerages and banks to offer higher rates to attract / keep those very short term (possibly fleeting) deposits. But It’s the 1-3 year obligations that the institutions who re-lend the money at higher rates are most in need of. So they’re being forced by market forces to pay a higher rate of interest to secure those funds.
The Federal Reserve, for all the attention it receives, has direct control only at the very short end. As I understand it, the “Fed Funds Rate” (discount rate), which it sets, directly influences the “overnight lending rate” that banks charge one another for short term loans. Beyond that, market forces rule. I was surprised to receive an offer recently from my local credit union for a 13 month CD at a rate well over 5% and with as little as $1,000 on deposit. Were I into cash / short term tie-ups of money (I’m not), I might have taken them up on that. Obviously they’re in need of money to fund their lending requirements a year or more out. Probably having trouble competing with the returns on money market funds.
This is probably of little help as it provides no direction of where rates are heading next. In a sense it’s the “Wild West” in that we’re in uncharted waters. I don’t think even the Fed knows where this will end up.
To quote Larry Summers: ”The Fed understands that it doesn’t understand.”
Investopedia (Definition of Overnight Rate)

Well to be fair the survey was taken to assess how managers 'intend' to invest moving forward and not how they were positioned. The part FD left off from Yahoo:
"Defensiveness is in style among financial advisers, according to the BofA Securities annual Global Wealth & Investment Management Survey.
Equity allocation (NYSEARCA:SPY) (QQQ) (DIA) (IWM) fell to 57% from 62% in 2022, the lowest level in the short six-year history of the survey. This time around, 372 Merrill financial advisers from around the country responded.
Exposure to bonds (TBT) (TLT) (SHY) (IEI) (HYG) (LQD) rose 3 percentage points to 27%, the highest recorded.
"These shifts may continue: 39% said they are moving more into bonds, vs. 18% for equities, consistent with the average bond allocation from sell-side strategists hitting a 10-year high," strategist Savita Subramanian wrote in the survey note Wednesday. "We see long duration bonds (and long duration growth stocks) as risky given rate sensitivity."
Cash (VMFXX) (SPAXX) allocation rose to 10% from 7%.
"Just 26% plan to buy stocks with excess cash (v. 42% last year), while 29% plan to buy bonds," Subramanian said. "30% are happy to remain in cash. Cash return/dividend strategies are most frequently requested by clients (82%). We concur. We also prefer companies with self-funded growth (cash flow generators) to those that need to borrow to grow.""
FWIW.

Silvergate/SI to be shutdown.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silvergate-capital-will-liquidate-after-crypto-collapse-wipes-out-bank-220356639.html

(seekingalpha.com/news/3945500-advisers-love-bonds-cash-and-value-stocks-shun-growth-and-gold-bofa?mailingid=30772207&messageid=2900&serial=30772207.61340&utm_campaign=rta-stock-news&utm_content=link-1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=30772207.61340)
Among other highlights in the survey:
1) In stocks, 78% prefer Value (IWD) (VONV) vs. 12% who like Growth (IWF) (VONG).
2) Respondents are most bullish on Healthcare (XLV), 76% bullish, Energy (XLE), 73% bullish, and Financials (XLF), 67% bullish. They are most bearish on Consumer Discretionary (XLY), 51% bearish, Real Estate (XLRE), 44% bearish, and Info Tech (XLK), 37% bearish.
Let's test the experts YTD.
IWD(value) made 1.3%...IWF(growth) 8.4%
XLV -7%...XLE -2.9%...XLF 2.2% (the most 2 bullish by the experts lost the most)
XLY 10.7...XLRE 3.3...XLK 12.7%
The advisers="experts" were 100% wrong for the above. Pretty funny. I'm sure many believe in the above too.

Wish there was someone who never got anything wrong. Why is that so difficult?!

That's not the point. My main point is that Wilson got many things wrong. He is getting paid to make great forecasts, if he fails, he should be fired.
The SP500 was positive by over 80% since 1980, a smart analyst should realize that and be mostly positive. Making short-term forecasts is nuts and these experts should be challenged. The ones who interview them don't do it because they know they would not have a show.

I have used QUSIX and QUSOX since David wrote a nice article about it in 2015. It has beaten the index overall, although it is more volatile and is in about the top 1/3 of int small cap value funds per M*
MFO classifies it as "Int Small cap core" so it doesn't show up on a "int small/mid cap value screen"
It has been lagging a bit recently. I have not dug into the reasons why

Recent discussions on MFO on EM funds ex-China have set me on a search for a slightly different niche, namely small capitalization emerging market value stock funds. I have linked a SeekingAlpha article from 2020 on the subject as well as a page from LSV, the managers of several value MF’s. They have a SCV EM strategy, but no mutual fund.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4325359-case-for-emerging-markets-small-cap-value
https://www.lsvasset.com/emerging-markets-small-value/
The two funds I own that have considerable EM exposure are SFVLX and EYLD. The former is an all-cap fund, with a decided international value methodology, while the latter is the real McCoy. EYLD does not avoid China and it has an array of holdings not easily recognizable, at least to me. Those who are familiar with Meb Faber at Cambria will not be surprised to see that stock selection in EYLD follows his basic tenets regarding free cash flow and profitability. His largest fund is SYLD, a worthy rival to COWZ on the domestic front. His FYLD does a decent job with international stocks, as well.
MSCI runs an EM SCV index and I’m in search of funds that follow it, specifically the value orientation. EEMS and DGS come up on SC EM searches, but they aren’t quite what I hope to find. Grandeur Peak might fit the bill, but they seem like a growth shop to me. Please post any suggestions you have for this market segment.

If you are a baseball fan you know the term small ball. If not, it means trying to score runs without hitting a home run. I have been tracking money market and brokered CD’s at Schwab. In the last month the steady rise of MM fund rates has ground to a halt while brokered CD rates have moved up,,,even moving out from the shortest terms.
MM SWVXX. FEB 8. 4.41%. Today 4.48%
12 month CD. 4.75%. 5.25%
24 month CD. 4.55%. 5.25%
36 month CD. 4.25%. 5.00%
My question for those with greater insights than I. Does this relative increase in intermediate term and a flattening of the shortest term(Money Market) rates have any meaning going forward?

With possibly one exception, we're in vehement agreement.
I don't see this as a Santos level of deception
What Artisan wrote is obviously not at that level. I thought I made that clear in writing:"Artisan is embellishing; Santos was (and is) lying." Even if Artisan is lying, it's minor.
Therein lies the one possible difference in how we view this. You have carefully used the word "deception". I'm willing to opine that Artisan saying that Samra was an Oakmark manager is a lie.
As evidence of knowing falsehood I point to the Artisan legal filings where Artisan takes care to describe Samra as a former analyst for Oakmark. When someone says one thing to the public and another in legal documents (SEC filings, depositions, etc.), it's likely they know what is true and what is puffing.
Not a grand deception, but a deception nonetheless. What's the benefit? Which sounds more impressive to retail investors - that your manager came over to Artisan with previous management experience, or that he just has prior investment experience? I can turn your question around. If there's no benefit to this deception, if in fact it is nothing but a purely innocent mistake, then why hasn't Artisan corrected it?
It's not worth my time to check whether this, um, misstatement goes all the way back to 2002 when Samra jointed Artisan and it might have been more helpful to Artisan. However, supporting my speculation that mentioning Samra's history at Harris Associates (accurate or not) had more value before Samra developed a long track record with Artisan is the fact that his Harris history is included in earlier Artisan prospectuses (e.g. this 2006 prospectus), but not in the more recent ones (post 2011).