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

Why would someone think that funds in a Schwab money market fund would be at risk? Those funds are not invested in anything having to do with Schwab. If the underlying assets were at risk that risk would quite possibly stretch over many other prime money market funds offered by other broker/dealers. What's more, if a Schwab MMF were to be on the verge of "breaking the buck" what might Schwab do? In view of the fact that that could be the death knell for the brokerage business I know what I'd do: I'd take advantage of all my credit and borrow enough to fill any gap in that $1.00/share price. That goes for any major brokerage firm, not just Schwab.

@Crash: Yeah, really!
Relatedly --- hey look, it's 1230PM ... again!

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.

+1 Great funny quote.

Twitter is good for a few things!
My favorites
"Just as there are no atheists in Fox Holes, there are also no Libertarians during a financial crisis..."
~Barry @Ritholtz,
https://twitter.com/sruhle/status/1634703830032998400?s=12

Anybody buying the dip ?

No. But I’m considering selling the pip. Depends what you own and what time of day it is. :)
I watch a lot and can’t recall such unstable markets in a short time. Probably occurred a few times in ‘07-‘08. Leadership transitioning - but for how long? Non-dollar assets, stocks & especially metals, flying. At last look GNMA was +1% for the day. Good grief. And GDX +7.28% on the day at the moment.
I’m clueless …

@msf : +1 @MikeM is the rate for new or old T's ?

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.

@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."

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.

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.

Yes, my vast fortune :) It was a pretty conservative move. The 3 mo treasuries were paying a few 10ths more than the MM anyway. I did put a couple limits orders in to buy more IAU. I've been adding to gold in dribs and drabs anyway in preparation for the deficit fight, so not really a knee jerk reaction.

+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?

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

The rate on the BTFP 1-yr collateralized loans (for PAR value, NOT current value) is "1-yr overnight swap rate + 10 bps". The sweetener is not the rate, but that banks can get PAR value for their underwater securities, but after 1 year, those underwater securities go back to banks' balance sheets.
While no buyer has emerged yet for the US SVB Bank, there is news this morning that HSBC bought the UK SVB Bank for a song. News is pending for its other branches in 13 countries.
A dramatic reversal in the US futures from rally last evening to selloff this morning. Things may not be as rosy as they appeared first.
BTFP Term Sheet https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20230312a1.pdf
Swap Rates https://www.chathamfinancial.com/technology/us-market-rates

@Observant1 hit the nail on the head - moral hazard. If the Treasury implicitly backs up every bank that botches things so badly that they create "systemic risk", then not only do we have the "normal" moral hazard created by insurance (indifference to risk) but aggravated moral hazard. One gets coverage only if one takes outsized risks with tons of money. (In essence, the TBTF problem.)
FDIC insurance is more than adequate for retail investors; they should not be standing in line to pull their money out - though many people still do that. Startups should not need fast access to all their cash. They need to meet payroll and other operating expenses. But they don't need fast access to all their cash from an investing round or a loan.
If they really do need tons of cash at a moment's notice, let them pay the banks for the service. Banks can shovel the cash into their vaults or do whatever the electronic equivalent is without putting a dime at risk.
I have sympathy for the employees of companies that tied up their money in SVB, but little for the companies themselves. Small depositors cannot be expected to investigate the soundness of their banks, so their deposits are insured. Businesses are different, and this gets us back to moral hazard.

@hank With a lot of threads today, tis like reading a short book here.
I'll add this back from a previous post regarding the 2008 TARP program.
Note: these 'loans' did carry interest and was expected to be repaid to the Treasury. The Treasury did have a profit when all was settled and done from the various loans.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was instituted by the U.S. Treasury following the 2008 financial crisis. TARP stabilized the financial system by having the government buy mortgage-backed securities and bank stocks. From 2008 to 2010, TARP invested $426.4 billion in firms and recouped $441.7 billion in return.
---Perhaps the Treasury will have some profit for the efforts. :) I don't know the terms of the 'bail' monies.
Flashback: During the GFC, Bloomberg and CNBC became all-nighters. No info-mercials, etc. 24 hours of everything! SO, if what started Friday could have become systemic; then the actions taken were intended to deliver a full punch here and now. One can only imagine the meetings, phone calls and data crunching of banking records/data. Although, I watched Ms. Yellen this morning state that there would not be a bailout.
NOW, how about a full audit (any organization that is involved with the any form of banking in this country, plain and clear text without any of the cockeyed and perverted auditing standards that have taken place over the years) available to the public every month, online for free.
Overview: Still better than China, and that we have a 'form' of 'rule of law', as perverted as it may be.
Good evening.